Pachyderm 38 - January - June 2005

Transcription

January – June 2005
Number 38
ISSN 1026 2881
IUCN
journal of the African Elephant, African Rhino
and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups
The World Conservation Union
January–June 2004
1
Chair reports / Rapports des Présidents
1
African Elephant Specialist Group / Groupe
Spécialiste des Eléphants d’Afrique
Holly T. Dublin
11
African Rhino Specialist Group / Groupe
Spécialiste des Rhinos d’Afrique
Martin Brooks
16
Asian Rhino Specialist Group / Groupe
Spécialiste des Rhinos d’Asie
Mohd Khan bin Momin Khan with/avec
Thomas J. Foose and/et Nico van Strien
19
19
Research
Changes in elephant numbers in major
savanna populations in eastern and
southern Africa
J. Julian Blanc, Richard F.W. Barnes, G.
Colin Craig, Iain Douglas-Hamilton, Holly T.
Dublin, John A. Hart and Chris R. Thouless
29
The value of systematic recording of
human–elephant conflict: a case study in
south-eastern Tanzania
Cyprian Malima, Richard Hoare and Julian
Blanc
39
Elephant crop damage in the Red Volta
Valley, north-eastern Ghana
Patrick Adjewodah, Paul Beier, Moses K.
Sam and John J. Mason
49
Nature and extent of human–elephant
conflict in Bia Conservation Area, Ghana
Moses Kofi Sam, Emmanuel Danquah,
Samuel K. Oppong and Enoch A. Ashie
SPECIES
SURVIVAL
COMMISSION
Editor
Helen van Houten
Assistant Editor
Dali Pam Mwagore
Editorial Board
Holly Dublin
Esmond Martin
Leo Niskanen
Robert Olivier
Nico van Strien
Lucy Vigne
Design and layout
Damary Odanga
Graphics
Phillip Miyare
Address all correspondence,
including enquiries about
subscription, to
The Editor, Pachyderm
PO Box 68200, 00200
Nairobi, Kenya
tel: +254 20 576461
fax: +254 20 570385
email:[email protected]
Web site: www.iucn.org/afesg
This document has been
produced with the financial
assistance of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The views expressed herein
are those of the authors and
can therefore in no way be
taken to reflect the official
opinion of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
No. 38
Cover: Elephant coming to water at Lake Banzena at the
height of the dry season 2004, Gourma, Mali. Photo: Carlton
Ward Jr. / www.LINC.us
journal of the African Elephant,
African Rhino and
January–June 2005
No. 38
Asian Rhino Specialist Groups
59
Population survey of elephants in Okwangwo Division, Cross
River National Park, Nigeria
Emmanuel Obot, Clement Edet, Gabriel Ogar and Joy Ayuk
64
Elephants in Cote d’Ivoire—a warning for West African
conservation
Frauke Fischer
76
Analyse biométrie des pointes d’éléphants saisies dans le cadre
de la lutte antibraconnage par les services de la conservation
dans le massif du sud-est Cameroun
Paul Noupa
82
Threats to the greater one-horned rhino and its habitat, Pabitora
Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India
Anwaruddin Choudhury
89
89
History
The royal hunt of tiger and rhinoceros in the Nepalese terai in
1911
Kees Rookmaaker, Barbara Nelson and Darrell Dorrington
98
Some observations on the presence of one-horned rhinos in the
bas reliefs of the Angkor Wat temple complex in Cambodia
Hans H. de Iongh, H.H.T. Prins, N. van Strien and L.G.
Rookmaaker
101 Opinion
101 Mineral prospecting in the Selous Game Reserve and its dangers
to rhino conservation
Rolf D. Baldus
106 Field note
106 Less room for a small population of elephants in severely
encroached Mikeno massif, southern Virunga National Park,
Democratic Republic of Congo
Leonard Mubalama and Déo Mbula
110 Guidelines to contributors
Views expressed in Pachyderm are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, the
Species Survival Commission or any of the three Specialist Groups responsible for producing Pachyderm (the African
Elephant Specialist Group, the African Rhino Specialist Group and the Asian Rhino Specialist Group).
African Elephant Specialist Group report
CHAIR REPORTS
RAPPORTS DES PRESIDENTS
Rapport du Groupe Spécialiste des Eléphants d’Afrique
Holly T. Dublin, Chair/Président
PO Box 68200, 00200 Nairobi, Kenya; email: [email protected]
The latest IUCN quadrennium officially came to a
close at the Third IUCN World Conservation Congress held in Bangkok in November 2004. There the
membership of all six IUCN Commissions including
the Chairs and members of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) Specialist Groups was dissolved and
new Chairs were elected to head the IUCN commissions. I am pleased to report that I was elected Chair
of the SSC. While my new duties obviously demand
an enormous amount of time, I have nevertheless
decided to stay on as Chair of AfESG when the appointments take place, and I intend to do so through
the current quadrennium. There are obviously some
new constraints to the level of day-to-day interaction
and supervision that I can provide to steer the group’s
work, but thanks to the efforts and talents of the
AfESG Secretariat staff, I am glad to note that the
core business of AfESG has continued unhindered
and at the same frenzied pace as ever.
African Elephant Database
This issue of Pachyderm includes a paper by AfESG’s
Data Review Working Group (DRWG) (p. 19) on the
first major analysis of changes in savanna elephant
populations in southern and eastern Africa in the period between the African Elephant Database 1998
(Barnes et al. 1999) and the African Elephant Status
Report 2002 (Blanc et al. 2003, the AESR. It took the
DRWG considerable time and effort to develop a suitable method of analysis. The analysis covers
populations of only the two subregions where sur-
Pachyderm No. 38 January–June 2005
Les quatre dernières années de l’UICN se sont
officiellement clôturées lors du Troisième Congrès
Mondial de la Conservation de l’UICN qui s’est tenu
à Bangkok en novembre 2004. Les six Commissions
de l’UICN furent dissoutes, y compris les Présidents
et membres des Groupes Spécialistes de la Commission de Sauvegarde des Espèces (CSS), et de
nouveaux Présidents furent élus pour les diriger. Je
suis heureuse de vous annoncer que j’ai été élue
Présidente de la CSS. Bien que mes nouvelles
responsabilités requièrent évidemment un temps
énorme, j’ai décidé de rester Présidente du GSEAf
lorsque survinrent les nominations, et j’ai l’intention
de poursuivre jusqu’à la fin des quatre années en
cours. Bien sûr, certaines contraintes nouvelles pèsent
sur le niveau des interactions et de la supervision
journalières que je pourrai fournir pour diriger le travail du groupe, mais grâce aux efforts et aux talents
du staff du Secrétariat du GSEAf, je suis heureuse de
pouvoir dire que le travail de base du GSEAf s’est
poursuivi sans encombre, au même niveau frénétique
que d’habitude.
La Base de Données sur l’Eléphant
africain
Ce numéro de Pachyderm contient un article du
Groupe de Travail chargé de la Révision des Données
(GTRD) du GSEAf (p. 79) sur la première analyse
majeure des changements dans les populations
d’éléphants de savane en Afrique australe et de
1
Dublin
veys were repeated using similar methods; it excludes
considerable portions of range in both subregions as
well as all elephant range in West and Central Africa.
However, the number of elephants covered in the
study does represent a high proportion of the continent’s elephants classified as definite and probable.
A meeting of the DRWG was held in Nairobi in
November 2004. As well as welcoming newly appointed member John Hart, who will be overseeing
the data updates and inputs from Central Africa, the
DRWG conducted a thorough review of the process
that led to the publication of the AESR 2002 and assessed the feedback received from readers, which has
so far been overwhelmingly positive. This review led
to agreement on many further improvements for the
next edition of the AESR, and the AED manager,
Julian Blanc, is currently working to implement them.
Data are now being collected for the AESR 2006.
In this update cycle, and due to cost considerations,
we are trying out an electronic version of the data
collection questionnaire. Many of you will have already been contacted by the AED manager and hopefully you will have sent the relevant updates. If you
have not done so yet, please point your browser to
http://iucn.org/afesg/aed/aedquest/, download the
questionnaire file for your country and, once you have
completed it, send it to the AED manager at
[email protected], together with any survey
reports, by 31 December 2005. It is only through the
contributions of AfESG members and other collaborators, including the readership of Pachyderm at large,
that we can continue to make the AED the most comprehensive and up-to-date single-species database in
the world. Your contributions will be duly acknowledged and much appreciated, and they will be integrated into the AESR 2006, which will, subject to
funding, appear in print and on the AfESG website
sometime in 2006.
Updates on subregional and
national elephant conservation and
management strategies
Central Africa
Thanks to funding from the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF’s) African Elephant Programme and the
Wildlife Conservation Society, in addition to a preexisting and generous contribution made by the Netherlands Committee of IUCN, we are finally in position
2
l’orientale durant la période comprise entre la Base
de Données sur l’Eléphant africain 1998 (Barnes et
al. 1999) et le Rapport 2002 sur le Statut de l’Eléphant
africain (Blanc et al. 2003, le RSEA). Le GTRD a
consacré un temps et des efforts considérables à la
mise au point d’une méthode d’analyse adéquate.
L’analyse ne concerne que les populations des deux
sous-régions où les reconnaissances furent répétées
en utilisant des méthodes similaires ; elle exclut des
portions considérables de l’aire de répartition dans
les deux sous-régions de même que toute l’aire de
répartition d’Afrique centrale et de l’Ouest.
Cependant, le nombre d’éléphants couverts par cette
étude représente une proportion élevée des éléphants
du continent classés comme certains et probables.
Une réunion du GTRD s’est tenue à Nairobi en
novembre 2004. En plus de l’accueil de notre nouveau
membre, John Hart, qui va superviser la mise à jour
des données et les contributions provenant d’Afrique
centrale, le GTRD a conduit une révision complète
du processus ayant mené à la publication du RSEA
2002 et a évalué le feedback obtenu des lecteurs, qui
est jusqu’ici tout à fait positif. Cette révision a mené
à un accord sur de nombreuses améliorations pour la
prochaine édition du RSEA et Julian Blanc, le
gestionnaire de la BDEA, travaille actuellement à les
mettre en œuvre.
Les données sont actuellement récoltées pour le
RSEA 2006. Pour ce cycle de mise à jour, et en raison
des coûts, nous testons pour le moment une version
électronique du questionnaire de collecte des données.
Beaucoup parmi vous auront été déjà contactés par le
gestionnaire de la BDEA et j’espère que vous lui avez
déjà envoyé les mises à jour en question. Si vous ne
l’avez pas encore fait, pointez votre navigateur web
sur http://iucn.org/afesg/aed/aedquest/, chargez le
document de questionnaire pour votre pays et, lorsque
vous l’aurez complété, envoyez-le au gestionnaire de
la BDEA à [email protected] avec tout autre
rapport de reconnaissance, pour le 31 décembre 2005.
Ce n’est que grâce aux contributions des membres
du GSEAf et d’autres collaborateurs, y compris
l’ensemble des lecteurs de Pachyderm, que nous
pouvons continuer à faire de la BDEA la base de
données la plus complète et la plus actualisée du
monde pour une seule espèce. Vos contributions seront
très appréciées et dûment reconnues, et elles seront
intégrées dans le RSEA 2006 qui sera publié, si les
finances le permettent, en version papier et sur le site
du GSEAf, dans le courant de 2006.
to move forward with developing the Central Africa
Elephant Conservation Strategy (CAECS). The
AfESG Secretariat is now busy working on the administrative and logistical preparations for a strategic planning workshop scheduled to take place in early
September 2005 in Cameroon. A comprehensive
background document on the status of elephants in
Central Africa and the main threats and opportunities
for their conservation is also being compiled. IUCN’s
Central Africa Programme Office will facilitate the
workshop, which will be attended by wildlife directors of all seven African elephant range states of Central Africa as well as key NGOs, donors and private
sector partners.
Illegal killing of elephants for ivory is one of the
issues expected to feature as a priority in the
subregional strategy. In particular, the role played by
unregulated domestic ivory markets has been singled
out as an issue requiring immediate attention. The
range states’ resolve to shut down these markets is
currently being tested by the CITES Action Plan for
the control of trade in African elephant ivory (CITES
Decision 13.26), which outlines a number of activities that all African elephant range states are required
to carry out to curb domestic ivory markets. Any country that fails to comply with the action plan could
face sanctions on all commercial trade in specimens
of CITES-listed species. Several countries in Central
Africa are directly implicated in the CITES decision.
Another major threat to elephants in Central Africa is the elephant meat trade, which is often exacerbated by infrastructure development, the growing
presence of extractive and exploitative industries and
easy access to weapons. In the absence of effective
law enforcement, elephants are often the first large
mammals to fall prey to poachers, as they yield a
higher amount of meat per bullet than any other species and provide the added bonus of ivory as a lucrative by-product. The CAECS discussions will provide
a useful platform from which to start building partnerships with private sector partners, such as the logging industry, whose activities can have a large
indirect effect on the elephant meat trade. In addition
the CAECS should strengthen its synergy with other
relevant subregional processes such as the Conference of Ministers in Charge of Forests in Central Africa (COMIFAC) and the Africa Forest Law
Enforcement and Governance forum.
On a national scale, AfESG was recently approached to advise on a strategic planning exercise
Nouvelles sur les stratégies sousrégionales et nationales de
conservation et de gestion des
éléphants
Afrique centrale
Grâce au financement du Programme des Eléphants
d’Afrique du Fonds Mondial pour la Nature (WWF)
et de la Wildlife Conservation Society, venant
s’ajouter à une contribution généreuse du Comité
néerlandais de l’UICN, nous sommes finalement prêts
à lancer le développement de la Stratégie de Conservation des Eléphants d’Afrique centrale. Le
Secrétariat du GSEAf s’occupe de la préparation administrative et logistique d’un atelier de planification
stratégique qui devrait avoir lieu début septembre
2005 au Cameroun. Un document d’information
complet sur le statut des éléphants en Afrique centrale,
sur les menaces principales et les opportunités pour
leur conservation est aussi en préparation. Le Bureau Régional de l’UICN pour l’Afrique centrale va
faciliter l’atelier auquel participeront les directeurs
de la faune des sept états de l’aire de répartition des
éléphants en Afrique centrale, ainsi que les ONG, les
bailleurs de fonds et les partenaires du secteur privé.
L’abattage illégal des éléphants pour l’ivoire est
un des sujets qui devrait être prioritaire dans la
stratégie sous-régionale. Le rôle joué par les marchés
domestiques non réglementés a été particulièrement
pointé du doigt comme exigeant une attention
immédiate. La détermination des états de l’aire de
répartition à fermer ces marchés est actuellement
testée par le Plan d’Action de la CITES pour le
contrôle du commerce d’ivoire de l’éléphant africain
(Décision CITES 13.26), qui décrit un certain nombre
d’activités que tous les Etats de l’aire de répartition
des éléphants d’Afrique sont tenus d’entreprendre
pour juguler les marchés domestiques d’ivoire. Tout
pays qui n’applique pas ce plan d’action pourrait se
voir infliger des sanctions sur tout le commerce de
spécimens d’espèces listées dans la CITES. Quelques
pays d’Afrique centrale sont directement concernés
par cette décision de la CITES.
Une autre menace majeure sur les éléphants
d’Afrique centrale est le commerce de viande
d’éléphant qui est souvent accru par le développement
d’infrastructures, par la présence croissante d’industries
extractives et d’exploitation et par la disponibilité aisée
d’armes. En absence d’une application effective des
3
Dublin
for elephant conservation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the internal political situation and
continuing insecurity are posing major challenges for
conservation of the country’s remaining elephants.
We are now awaiting further guidance from our colleagues in DRCongo on exactly when and how they
would like us to engage in this important initiative.
Southern Africa
At the request of the range state governments of southern Africa, AfESG continued to advise as a regional
elephant conservation strategy is being developed. A
three-day strategic planning workshop is to be held in
the near future to start fleshing out the strategy. At this
workshop AfESG will be presenting an overview on
the status of elephants in the region and help provide
technical input to the strategic planning.
Much of the discussion at the upcoming workshop is expected to focus on the growing challenges
of local overpopulation of elephants in southern Africa. While a number of options are available for dealing with this problem, ultimately the decision on
which is chosen will likely be complex, involving both
subjective and objective considerations. AfESG’s job
will be to help ensure that the range states are given
the technical advice they need to enable them to evaluate the pros and cons of the different options and to
provide technical advice when the selected strategies
are subsequently implemented.
West Africa
It is expected that the West African Elephant Conservation Strategy, which forms the central operational
component of a draft intergovernmental memorandum of understanding (MOU) between West African
states on conserving elephants in the region, will be
endorsed by the relevant ministers from the West
African range states at the Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on Migratory Species in November 2005 in Nairobi. This high-level recognition and
endorsement is gratifying after all the years of investment. It is our hope and belief that the signing of this
MOU will open a new chapter for conserving elephants in West Africa.
The largest and most important elephant
populations in West Africa use areas that straddle the
boundaries of two or more countries. This presents
special challenges for their conservation and requires
4
lois, les éléphants sont souvent les premiers grands
mammifères à être la proie des braconniers car ils
procurent une plus grande quantité de viande par munition que n’importe quelle autre espèce et fournissent
en prime de l’ivoire comme sous-produit lucratif. Les
discussions sur la Stratégie de Conservation des
Eléphants d’Afrique Centrale (SCEAC) fourniront une
plateforme utile en vue de bâtir des partenariats avec le
secteur privé, telle l’industrie forestière dont les activités
peuvent avoir un effet indirect considérable sur le commerce de viande d’éléphant. De plus, la SCEAC devrait
renforcer sa synergie avec d’autres processus sousrégionaux pertinents tels que la Conférence des
Ministres en charge des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale
(COMIFAC) et le forum sur l’Application de la
Législation Forestière et Gouvernance en Afrique.
A l’échelle nationale, le GSEAf fut récemment
approché pour fournir des conseils sur un exercice
de planification stratégique pour la conservation des
éléphants en République Démocratique du Congo où
la situation politique intérieure et l’insécurité
persistante posent des défis majeurs à la conservation des éléphants subsistant dans le pays. Nous
attendons à présent des instructions de nos collègues
en RDC pour savoir exactement quand et comment
ils souhaiteraient que nous nous engagions dans cette
importante initiative.
Afrique australe
A la demande des gouvernements des états de l’aire
de répartition, le GSEAf a continué de fournir des
conseils sur le développement d’une stratégie sousrégionale de conservation des éléphants pour
l’Afrique australe. Un atelier de planification
stratégique de trois jours doit se tenir très bientôt pour
élaborer cette stratégie. Lors cet atelier, le GSEAf va
présenter une revue du statut des éléphants dans la
sous-région et contribuera à fournir un appui technique à la planification stratégique.
Lors de cet atelier, on s’attend à ce qu’une grande
partie de la discussion se concentre sur les défis
croissants liés à la surpopulation locale des éléphants
en Afrique australe. S’il existe toute une variété
d’options pour faire face à ce problème, celle qui sera
finalement choisie sera probablement complexe et
impliquera des considérations tant subjectives
qu’objectives. Le tâche pour le GSEAf sera de
s’assurer que les états de l’aire de répartition disposent
des conseils techniques dont ils ont besoin pour
close cross-border collaboration between neighbouring range states. In an effort to encourage such collaboration, AfESG convened a workshop in June 2003
to develop action plans for five of the main crossborder elephant conservation areas in West Africa.
Subsequently, AfESG has assisted in coordinating and
implementing many of the activities in these action
plans. Most recently, funds were successfully raised
to carry out activities on both Burkina Faso and Ghanaian sides of the Kabore Tambi–Red Volta–Doung
elephant corridor. A proposal was also written to develop an action plan for the Ziama–Northeast Forest
Reserve area, which straddles the borders of Guinea
Conakry and Liberia. The Keidaren Nature Conservation Fund of Japan has recently agreed to contribute funds towards this initiative—the first contribution
from a Japanese NGO to AfESG!
With Benin as the latest country to have embarked
on developing a national strategy for elephant conservation, 10 of the 13 West African range states now
have national elephant conservation strategies—a significant feat considering that until a few years ago no
such strategy existed, and West African elephants
generally received little local or international attention. The Benin strategic planning workshop, which
took place in early April 2005, was attended by all
major stakeholders including Lamine Sebogo, the
AfESG programme officer for West Africa, who was
involved in this process from its inception.
Eastern Africa
The Kenya Wildlife Service has secured some funding from WWF’s Africa Elephant Programme for an
extensive, proposed participatory process to develop
a national elephant conservation strategy, and discussions are currently under way with other interested
donors. AfESG, which helped KWS draft the funding proposal, is ready to provide further technical
advice in developing the strategy and subsequently
implementing it if requested to do so.
Human–elephant conflict
Developing national systems for managing
human–elephant conflict
AfESG has recently embarked on an ambitious project
to help develop national models for managing human–elephant conflict (HEC). To be effective, such
évaluer les avantages et inconvénients des différentes
options, et de fournir des avis techniques lorsque les
stratégies sélectionnées seront mises en œuvre.
Afrique de l’Ouest
On s’attend à ce que la Stratégie de Conservation des
Eléphants d’Afrique de l’Ouest, qui constitue la
composante opérationnelle centrale d’un projet
d’Accord intergouvernemental entre les états d’Afrique
de l’Ouest sur la conservation des éléphants dans la
sous-région, soit entérinée par les ministres des états
de l’aire de répartition d’Afrique de l’Ouest, à la
Conférence des Parties à la Convention sur les Espèces
Migratrices, en novembre 2005, à Nairobi. Cette reconnaissance à haut niveau et cette adhésion sont très
satisfaisantes après toutes ces années d’investissement.
Nous espérons et nous croyons que la signature de cet
Accord ouvrira une nouvelle ère pour la conservation
des éléphants en Afrique de l’Ouest.
Les plus grandes et les plus importantes
populations d’éléphants d’Afrique de l’Ouest
parcourent des zones qui s’étendent de part et d’autres
de frontières internationales. Ceci constitue un défi
spécial pour leur conservation et exige une collaboration transfrontalière étroite entre états voisins. Afin
d’encourager une telle collaboration, le GSEAf a
organisé un atelier en juin 2003 pour développer un
plan d’action pour cinq des principales zones
transfrontalières de conservation des éléphants en
Afrique de l’Ouest. Après cela, le GSEAf a contribué
à la coordination et à la mise en œuvre de beaucoup
d’activités inscrites dans ces plans d’action. Tout
récemment, des fonds furent récoltés pour
entreprendre des activités dans le corridor Kabore
Tambi–Volta Rouge–Doung, tant du côté burkinabé
que du côté ghanéen. Nous avons aussi rédigé une
proposition visant à développer un plan d’action pour
la région de Ziama et la Réserve Forestière de Nordest, qui s’étend des deux côtés de la frontière entre la
Guinée Conakry et le Liberia. Le Keidaren Nature
Conservation Fund japonais a récemment accepté de
contribuer au financement de cette initiative–la
première contribution d’une ONG japonaise au
GSEAf !
Avec le Bénin qui est le dernier pays à s’être attelé
au développement d’une stratégie nationale pour la
conservation des éléphants, 10 des 13 états de l’aire de
répartition ouest-africains ont à présent une stratégie
nationale de conservation des éléphants—une réussite
5
Dublin
systems will need to take a holistic approach that involves a diverse set of actors at all levels, from the
affected community up to the relevant local, district
and national government policy-makers. AfESG will
be developing and testing appropriate actions at each
of these levels. This will of course require a significant amount of time and funding, and we are currently working on a detailed financing proposal for a
five-year medium-sized project under the Global
Environment Facility of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP GEF). If approved, it
would provide up to USD 1 million over five years,
or 50% of the proposed budget of USD 2 million.
The idea of piloting this approach received broad
support from the range states at the recent African
Elephant Range States Dialogue meeting that took
place in Bangkok, Thailand, in September 2004.
AfESG was invited to attend a workshop on human–wildlife conflict management (HWCM) in Namibia, which took place 16–17 May 2005, and was
funded by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) as part of the UNDP GEFsupported project Strengthening the Protected Areas
Network (SPAN). The objectives of this workshop
are as follows: to develop a framework for future
HWCM policy directions in Namibia; to initiate the
development of a standardized monitoring system for
HWCM; to discuss best-practice mitigation measures
in Namibia and throughout the region; and to launch
a survey on HWC situations in two areas. AfESG has
been requested to give presentations on the key lessons learned from our study of the nature and mitigation of human–elephant conflict across the continent
and to help facilitate some of the working group sessions.
Curriculum and training modules for HEC
management
We are in the final stages of negotiating funding for a
project to develop AfESG-certified curriculum and
training modules for HEC management. This project
will culminate in a training workshop, sometime in
2006, in which the new training modules will be used
to train HEC practitioners from different conflict sites
in at least two countries. The curriculum is expected to
give the trainees all the background and tools needed
to develop effective HEC-mitigation strategies, as well
as to help them train others to effectively manage a
variety of different conflict situations. The project will
6
remarquable si l’on pense qu’aucune stratégie de ce
genre n’existait seulement il y a quelques années, et
que les éléphants d’Afrique de l’Ouest ne recevaient
généralement que peu d’attention au niveau local ou
international. L’atelier de planification stratégique du
Bénin qui s’est déroulé en avril 2005, a vu la participation de tous les acteurs majeurs, y compris Lamine
Sebogo, le coordinateur du programme du GSEAf pour
l’Afrique de l’Ouest, qui est impliqué dans ce processus depuis son démarrage.
L’Afrique orientale
Le Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) a obtenu quelques
fonds du Programme des Eléphants d’Afrique du WWF
pour un vaste projet de processus participatif pour
développer une stratégie nationale de conservation des
éléphants, et des discussions sont en cours avec d’autres
donateurs. S’il y est invité, le GSEAf, qui a aidé KWS
à préparer la proposition de financement, est prêt à
fournir encore un appui technique pour développer, et
ensuite pour mettre en œuvre la stratégie.
Conflit homme–éléphant
Le développement de systèmes nationaux
pour gérer les conflits homme–éléphant
Le GSEAf s’est récemment embarqué dans un projet
ambitieux visant à développer des modèles nationaux
pour gérer les conflits homme–éléphant (CHE). Pour
être efficaces, de tels systèmes devront adopter une
approche holistique qui implique une palette diversifiée
d’acteurs à tous les niveaux, depuis la communauté
affectée jusqu’aux preneurs de décisions aux niveaux
locaux, régionaux et nationaux pertinents. Le GSEAf
va développer et tester les actions appropriées à chacun
de ces niveaux. Ceci va bien sûr requérir une quantité
considérable de temps et de fonds, et nous sommes en
train de travailler à une proposition de financement
détaillée pour un projet de taille moyenne de cinq ans à
soumettre au Fonds pour l’Environnement Mondial du
Programme des Nations unies pour le Développement
(PNUD-FEM). S’il était approuvé, il fournirait jusqu’à
un million de USD pour cinq ans, soit 50 % du budget
proposé qui est de 2 millions de USD. L’idée de piloter
une telle approche a reÁu un support massif des états
de l’aire de répartition au cours de la réunion de Dialogue entre Etats de l’aire de répartition des éléphants
africains qui eut lieu à Bangkok, en Thaïlande, en
septembre 2004.
be implemented in close collaboration with the
Elephant Pepper Development Trust, headed by
AfESG member Dr Loki Osborn, whose facility in
Zambia will also be used to hold the HEC training
course.
Forging closer links on human–elephant
conflict work with IUCN in Africa
AfESG has begun discussions with IUCN regional
and national offices in Africa about increasing the
synergy between AfESG’s activities and IUCN’s programmes. This is in line with new efforts to ensure
effective delivery by the commissions and the thematic and regional programmes towards the institutional goals and objectives of IUCN. One realm of
mutual interest is the need to manage HEC while
simultaneously conserving biodiversity and improving local livelihoods. Some IUCN projects where
AfESG’s technical expertise could be brought to bear
to deal with HEC problems have already been identified, and discussions are under way with relevant
IUCN staff about the practical aspects of AfESG involvement. Similar synergy may be possible with
other partner organizations.
Update on the CITES MIKE
programme
Like AfESG, the Central Coordinating Unit of the
CITES MIKE programme has recently been focusing all its energies on trying to find sufficient funding to be able to maintain its core operations. There
is now hope that a significant amount of funding may
be made available from the resources of the European Commission-administered European Development Fund (EDF) for the Africa, Caribbean and
Pacific (ACP) regions. In April MIKE’s financing
proposal for a five-year ACP/EDF project was assessed by an independent team, and the proposal is
now ready for final submission to the European Union. If this proposal is approved, hopefully the funds
will become available in early 2006. Until this longterm funding is secured, MIKE will have to find bridging funds to remain operational.
Collaborative activities in the proposal that would
directly involve AfESG include a study to determine
the impact of the elephant meat trade on elephant
populations in Central Africa, and closer MIKE-AED
Le GSEAf a été invité à participer à un atelier sur
la gestion des conflits homme–faune sauvage (CHFS)
en Namibie les 16–17 mai 2005, qui est financé par
l’Agence des Etats-Unis pour le Développement International (USAID), en tant que partie du projet
PNUD-FEM pour le Renforcement du Réseau des
Aires Protégées (SPAN). Les objectifs de cet atelier
sont les suivants : développer un cadre pour les futures directives politiques de CHFS en Namibie ;
initier le développement d’un système de monitoring standardisé pour les CHFS ; discuter les
meilleures mesures de mitigation en Namibie et dans
toute la région ; et lancer une reconnaissance des situations HFS dans eux zones. On a demandé au GSEAf
de présenter les leçons clés tirées de notre étude sur
la nature et la mitigation des conflits homme–éléphant
dans tout le continent et d’aider à faciliter certaines
des sessions des groupes de travail.
Curriculum et modules de formation pour
la gestion des CHE
Nous sommes au stade final de la négociation d’un
financement pour un projet visant à développer un curriculum certifié par le GSEAf sur la gestion des CHE.
Ce projet va se terminer au cours de 2006 par un atelier
de formation durant lequel les nouveaux modules de
formation seront utilisés pour former les praticiens des
CHE provenant de différents sites à conflits dans au
moins deux pays. Le curriculum devrait fournir aux
stagiaires tout le contexte et les outils nécessaires pour
développer des stratégies efficaces de mitigation des
CHE, et aussi les aider à en former d’autres à la gestion
de toute une variété de situations de conflit différentes.
Le projet sera mis en œuvre en collaboration étroite
avec Elephant Pepper Development Trust, qui est dirigé
par un membre du GSEAf, le Dr Loki Osborn, dont les
installations en Zambie serviront également à réaliser
la formation en CHE.
Tisser des liens plus étroits avec l’UICN en
Afrique pour le travail sur les conflits
homme–éléphant
Le GSEAf a entamé des discussions avec les bureaux
régionaux et nationaux de l’UICN en Afrique au sujet
du renforcement de la synergie entre les activités du
GSEAf et les programmes de l’UICN. Ceci répond aux
efforts nouveaux destinés à assurer une contribution
efficace des commissions et des programmes
7
Dublin
integration. In fact, seven elephant population censuses—six in Central Africa (Bangassou, Boumba
Bek, Dzanga-Sangha, Minkébé, Nouabalé-Ndoki,
Salonga) and one in Guinea Conakry in West Africa—
have just been completed under the aegis of the MIKE
programme. These surveys will contribute towards
fulfilling the CITES decision to establish a baseline
against which to determine trends in illegal killing
and to analyse the factors involved. These surveys
will also provide much-needed information, some of
it unprecedented, on the status of key elephant
populations in these subregions.
thématiques et régionaux aux buts et objectifs
institutionnels de l’UICN. Un domaine d’intérêt mutuel
est la nécessité de gérer les conflits homme–éléphant
tout en conservant simultanément la biodiversité et en
améliorant les moyens d’existence locaux. On a déjà
identifié quelques projets de l’UICN où l’expertise technique du GSEAf pourrait être utilisée pour s’occuper
de problèmes liés aux CHE, et des discussions avec les
responsables concernés de l’UICN sont en cours sur
les aspects pratiques de l’implication du GSEAf. Une
synergie similaire devrait être possible avec d’autres
organisations partenaires.
The Local Overpopulation Task
Force
Nouvelles du programme CITES
MIKE
Thanks to support from WWF-Switzerland and the
Toronto Zoo, AfESG now has enough funds to convene a workshop to help develop the technical guidelines on best practice for managing local
overpopulation problems. AfESG’s Local Overpopulation Task Force is already working on a first draft,
which will be edited by the AfESG Secretariat and
will form the basis of the discussion at the workshop.
Dates have not yet been finalized, but it is hoped that
the workshop will take place before the end of the
year.
Tout comme le GSEAf, l’Unité de Coordination
Centrale du programme CITES MIKE a concentré
récemment toute son énergie à la recherche d’un
financement suffisant pour permettre le maintien de
ses opérations de base. L’espoir existe à présent
qu’une part significative du financement soit rendue
disponible grâce aux ressources du Fonds Européen
de Développement (FED) pour les régions Afrique–
Caraïbes–Pacifique administré par la Commission
européenne. En avril, la proposition de financement
de MIKE pour un projet FED/ACP de cinq ans fut
évaluée par un team indépendant, et la proposition
est à présent prête pour sa soumission finale à l’Union
Européenne. Si cette proposition est approuvée, les
fonds devraient être disponibles début 2006. En attendant que ce financement à long terme soit sécurisé,
MIKE devra continuer à trouver des financements de
raccord afin de rester opérationnel.
Parmi les activités collaboratives de la proposition qui impliqueraient directement le GSEAf, il y a
une étude pour déterminer l’impact du commerce de
viande d’éléphant sur les populations d’éléphants en
Afrique centrale, ainsi qu’une intégration plus étroite
entre MIKE et la BDEA. En fait, sept recensements
de populations d’éléphants—six en Afrique centrale
(Bangassou, Boumba Bek, Dzanga-Sangha, Minkébé,
Nouabalé-Ndoki, Salonga) et un en Guinée Conakry,
en Afrique de l’Ouest—viennent d’être achevés sous
l’égide du programme MIKE. Ces reconnaissances
devraient répondre à la décision de la CITES d’établir
la base par rapport à laquelle seront déterminées les
tendances de l’abattage illicite et l’analyse des facteurs
impliqués. Ces reconnaissances fourniront également
The AfESG website
The AfESG website http://iucn.org/afesg has been
given a totally new look, loosely based on the current
IUCN and SSC websites. Other changes made include
adding links on every English page to the same page
in French, and vice versa, and including a ‘you are
here’ navigation bar along the top of each page. Cascading style sheets, which ensure a consistent format
throughout the site and make it easier to create consistent-looking web pages, were also developed. The
French version of the African Elephant Status Report
2002 and issue 37 of Pachyderm were added to the
ever-growing list of resources on this popular website.
That our continuing efforts to develop our website
into an effective tool to disseminate information on
African elephant conservation and management has
paid off is demonstrated by the fact that the site now
consistently receives over 2000 hits per day, almost
double the rate a year ago!
8
The African Elephant Library
During this period several additional documents were
collected for the African Elephant Library and stored
either electronically or in hard copy. Thanks to support from Save the Elephants, a new system has been
put in place to facilitate cataloguing and annotating.
The library now has over 4700 references and is growing by the day.
Prospects for the future
It had been my sincerest hope that this time round I
would be able to report some good news about the
long-term funding prospects for AfESG. Unfortunately, despite trying every avenue known to us, we
have still not been able to source the funds needed to
give us the stability and security to implement many
of the priority actions needed to fulfil AfESG mission and objectives. It is only thanks to the continuing support of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
the UK Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs to our core operating costs that AfESG
has been able to function at all these past six months,
and we are hoping for further support from these same
two donors to see us through to the end of 2005. The
only other ray of hope at present comes in the form
of a possible contribution by the French government
to help cover some of the core operating costs of the
AfESG programme office for West Africa.
As this update demonstrates, we have continued
to be very productive despite the ongoing uncertainties about future funding. The short-term nature of
our current bridging grants means that the pressure
on the AfESG Secretariat to continue fund raising is
likely to remain high into the foreseeable future. So,
stay tuned for our next update and wish us good luck
in our efforts!
References
Barnes RFW, Craig CG, Dublin HT, Overton G, Simon W,
Thouless CR. 1999. African Elephant Database 1998.
IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group, Gland,
Switzerland.
Blanc JJ, Thouless CR, Hart JA, Dublin HT, Douglas-Hamilton I, Craig CG, Barnes RFW. 2003. African elephant
status report 2002: an update from the African Elephant
Database. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist
Group, Gland, Switzerland.
une information indispensable, et dans certains cas
sans précédent, sur le statut des populations clés
d’éléphants dans ces sous-régions.
Groupe Spécial sur la surpopulation
locale
Grâce au support du WWF Suisse et du Zoo de Toronto, le GSEAf a maintenant assez de fonds pour
convoquer un atelier visant à soutenir le
développement de lignes directrices sur les meilleures
pratiques pour gérer les problèmes de surpopulation
locale. Le Groupe Spécial sur la Surpopulation locale du GSEAf travaille déjà sur un premier texte
qui sera publié par le Secrétariat du GSEAf et formera
la base de discussion lors de l’atelier. Les dates n’ont
pas encore été finalisées, mais on espère que l’atelier
aura lieu avant la fin de l’année.
Le site web du GSEAf
Nous avons donné au site web du GSEAf http://
iucn.org/afesg un look totalement neuf, vaguement
inspiré des sites web actuels de l’UICN et de la CSS.
D’autres changements réalisés comprennent
l’addition de liens entre chaque page en anglais vers
la même page en français, et vice versa, ainsi que
l’inclusion en tête de chaque page d’une barre de
navigation ‘vous êtes ici’. On a aussi développé des
pages de même style en cascade qui assurent un format cohérent à travers tout le site et permettent de
garder une cohésion générale au site. La version
française du Rapport 2002 sur le Statut de l’Eléphant
africain 2002 et le numéro 37 de Pachyderm ont été
ajoutés à la liste toujours plus longue des ressources
de ce site web populaire.
Nos efforts continuels pour faire du site Internet
un outil efficace pour disséminer l’information sur
la conservation et la gestion de l’éléphant africain se
sont révélés payants; on en veut pour preuve le fait
que ce site reçoit régulièrement plus de 2000 visites
par jour, soit près du double de l’an passé !
La bibliothèque sur l’éléphant africain
Nous avons collecté au cours de cette période
plusieurs documents supplémentaires que nous avons
classés en version électronique ou en version papier
dans la Bibliothèque sur l’éléphant africain. Grâce à
9
Dublin
l’appui de Save the Elephants, on a mis en place un
nouveau système pour les cataloguer et les annoter
plus facilement. La Bibliothèque compte aujourd’hui
plus de 4700 références, et la liste s’allonge chaque
jour.
Perspectives d’avenir
J’avais réellement espéré pouvoir apporter cette fois
quelque bonne nouvelle à propos des perspectives
d’avenir pour le financement du GSEAf. Malheureusement, après avoir exploré toutes les voies possibles
à notre connaissance, nous ne sommes toujours pas en
mesure d’identifier les financements nécessaires pour
nous assurer la stabilité et la sécurité nécessaires pour
mettre en œuvre les nombreuses activités prioritaires
requises pour remplir la mission et les objectifs du
GSEAf. Ce n’est que grâce au support continu du US
Fish and Wildlife Service et du Department for Food,
Environment and Rural Affairs de Grande Bretagne
pour nos coûts opérationnels de base, que le GSEAf a
été en mesure de fonctionner au cours des six mois
passés. Nous espérons un appui supplémentaire de ces
deux bailleurs pour arriver fin d’année 2005. La seule
autre lueur d’espoir actuelle est la perspective d’une
contribution possible du gouvernement français pour
contribuer à certains coûts opérationnels du bureau de
programme du GSEAf pour l’Afrique de l’Ouest.
Comme le montre cette mise à jour, nous avons
continué à être très productifs en dépit des incertitudes
présentes sur l’avenir de notre financement. Le caractère
de court terme de nos actuelles subventions de raccord
signifie que la pression qui pèse sur le Secrétariat du
GSEAf pour poursuivre la recherche de fonds va
probablement rester importante dans l’avenir immédiat.
Dès lors, restez à l’écoute de notre prochaine mise à
jour et souhaitez-nous bonne chance pour nos efforts !
Références
Barnes RFW, Craig GC, Dublin HT, Overton G, Simons
W, Thouless CR. 1999. African Elephant database
1998. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group,
Gland, Switzerland.
10
African Rhino Specialist Group report
Rapport du Groupe Spécialiste des Rhinos d’Afrique
Martin Brooks, Chair/Président
59 Silverdale Crescent, Chase Valley, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa
email: [email protected]
Rhinos remain Critically
Endangered
Les rhinos restent en danger
critique d’extinction
In my last Chair report I concentrated on reporting
on the seventh AfRSG meeting. Sadly, the status of
the Critically Endangered northern white rhino
Ceratotherium simum cottoni has continued to decline, and there are now probably fewer than 10 individuals of this subspecies in the wild, in Garamba
National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC). Its future hangs in the balance as the survival
strategy agreed with the DRC government has stalled
due to internal problems. The escalation of commercial poaching that precipitated the current crisis was
the catalyst for a stakeholders’ workshop, held by the
Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature
(ICCN) and partners in July 2004.This workshop recommended 1) an emergency programme of prioritized
support for Garamba, and concurrently 2) the capture and relocation of at least five rhinos to a more
secure area pending their later return. Subsequent site
evaluations identified Ol Pejeta Ranch in Kenya as the
preferred site. Then in January 2005, I received an invitation from the Administrateur Délégué Général of
ICCN to visit Kinshasa to lead a delegation of
stakeholders for meetings in mid-January to discuss the
strategy and seek approval from the highest level within
government. Apart from AfRSG, the delegation comprised the International Rhino Foundation, Fauna and
Flora International, UNESCO World Heritage, IUCN
Central Africa, the World Bank and the Garamba
Project. Meetings were held with, inter alia, the Minister of Environment and Vice Presidents Zaidi Ngoma
and Abdulaye Iherodia, and the latter advised us that
the Presidential Office supported and had approved the
strategy. Very unfortunately the situation deteriorated
after our departure, and despite several internal initiatives, the political climate, at least up to mid-April, had
not allowed either the formal signing of the agreement
or preparations for the translocation to take place.
Dans mon dernier Rapport du Président, je me suis
concentré sur le rapport de la 7ème Réunion du GSRAf.
Malheureusement, le statut du Rhinocéros blanc du
Nord (Cerathotherium simum cottoni), « en danger
critique d’extinction », a continué à se détériorer et il
reste probablement à ce jour moins de 10 individus
de cette sous-espèce dans la nature, au Parc National
de la Garamba, en République Démocratique du
Congo (RDC). Son futur est incertain étant donné
que la stratégie de survie qui avait obtenu l’accord
du Gouvernement congolais a été stoppée suite à des
problèmes internes. L’escalade du braconnage commercial qui a précipité la crise actuelle a été le
catalyseur d’un atelier des parties prenantes qui a
rassemblé l’Institut congolais pour la Conservation
de la Nature (ICCN) et ses partenaires en juillet 2004.
Cet atelier a recommandé 1) un programme d’urgence
de soutien prioritaire à la Garamba et en même temps
2) la capture et le transfert d’au moins cinq des
derniers rhinos dans une zone plus sûre en attendant
leur retour. Les évaluations de sites qui ont suivi ces
recommandations ont identifié Ol Pejeta Ranch, au
Kenya, comme l’endroit préférentiel. Puis, en janvier
2005, j’ai reçu une invitation de l’Administrateur
Délégué Général de l’ICCN pour me rendre à Kinshasa et conduire à la mi-janvier 2005 une délégation
des parties prenantes pour discuter de la stratégie et
solliciter l’accord au plus haut niveau du Gouvernement. En plus du GSRAf, la Délégation comprenait
l’International Rhino Foundation, Fauna and Flora
International, le Patrimoine Mondial de l’UNESCO,
UICN Afrique centrale, la Banque mondiale et le Projet
Garamba. Il y eut des réunions avec, entre autres, le
Ministre de l’Environnement et les Vice-Présidents
Zaidi Ngoma et Abdulaye Yerodia et ces derniers nous
ont appris que le Bureau du Président soutenait et
avait approuvé la stratégie. Malheureusement, la situ-
11
Brooks
The other African rhino taxon on the brink of extinction is the West African black rhino, Diceros
bicornis longipes.
No surveys have yet come up with tangible evidence of the presence of the absolute minimum of
five unrelated rhinos (at least three females and one
male) required for pursuing a strategy other than simply protecting them in the scattered locations where
they currently occur. A fresh initiative is needed that
involves all interested parties to determine the potential viability of the remaining population, and I have
contacted the Ministry of Environment and Forests
in Cameroon in this regard.
Moves are currently under way to reintroduce
white rhinos to the wild in Uganda. Four southern
white rhinos sourced from Kenya are shortly to be
introduced to Ziwa Ranch in Uganda. It is also hoped
that two other animals currently in Entebbe Zoo will
also be translocated to boost founder numbers in Ziwa.
During the reporting period a number of discussions were held, particularly through the auspices of
the Southern Africa Development Community
(SADC) Regional Programme for Rhino Conservation (RPRC), in an attempt to source additional
founder rhinos to boost the re-established population
of five animals in North Luangwa National Park,
Zambia. Encouragingly, it is likely that additional
black rhinos will be sourced to boost this population,
and I hope to be able to report positively on this matter in the next issue of Pachyderm. It is likely that
Botswana’s recently re-established black rhino population will also be boosted in the future.
Law enforcement database
software
Good progress has been made with enhancing the law
enforcement database software application ‘Wildlife
Investigator’. At a recent SADC Rhino and Elephant
Security Group meeting held in the Great Fish River
Reserve in Eastern Cape, South Africa, and with SADC
RPRC funding, the latest version of the software was
distributed to delegates and a hands-on course on its
use was given by the AfRSG Scientific Officer assisted
by SANPark’s Sandra Snelling and Ken Maggs. Delegates from 17 different agencies (including Interpol’s
subregional bureau) from seven countries attended the
course. With SADC RPRC funding, Scene of the Crime
training has continued with a course being held in Zam-
12
ation s’est détériorée après notre départ et malgré
plusieurs initiatives internes, le climat politique, en
tout cas jusqu’à mi-avril, n’avait encore permis ni la
signature officielle de l’accord ni la possibilité de
préparer le transfert des rhinos.
L’autre taxon de rhinos africains au bord de
l’extinction est le Rhino noir d’Afrique de l’Ouest
(Diceros bicornis longipes). Aucune recherche n’a pu
apporter la preuve de la présence de cinq rhinos non
apparentés (au moins trois femelles et un mâle),
nombre qui est le minimum absolu pour poursuivre
une stratégie autre que leur simple protection dans
les endroits isolés où ils vivent actuellement. Il est
nécessaire d’employer une autre stratégie qui implique
toutes les parties intéressées afin de déterminer la
viabilité potentielle de la population restante, et j’ai
contacté à ce sujet le Ministère de l’Environnement
et des Forêts au Cameroun.
Des démarches sont actuellement en cours pour
réintroduire des rhinos blancs dans la nature en
Ouganda. Quatre rhinos blancs du Sud provenant du
Kenya doivent être relâchés sous peu dans le Ziwa
Ranch en Ouganda. On espère que deux autres
animaux qui se trouvent aujourd’hui au Zoo
d’Entebbe seront aussi transférés pour augmenter le
nombre de reproducteurs à Ziwa.
Au cours de la période couverte par ce rapport, il
y eut de nombreuses discussions, spécialement du fait
du Programme Régional pour la Conservation des
rhinos (PRCR) de la Southern Africa Development
Community (SADC) afin de repérer des rhinos
reproducteurs supplémentaires pour renforcer la population de cinq individus que l’on a réintroduite dans
le Parc National de Luangwa-Nord, en Zambie. Il est
heureusement probable que de nouveaux rhinos noirs
seront découverts pour renforcer cette population et
j’espère pouvoir vous donner des nouvelles positives
à ce sujet dans le prochain numéro de Pachyderm.
Logiciel de la base de données sur
l’application des lois
L’application « Wildlife Investigator » du logiciel de la
base de données sur l’application des lois a fait de grands
progrès. Lors d’une réunion récente du Groupe chargé
de la Sécurité des Rhinos et des Eléphants de la SADC
qui s’est tenue dans la Great Fish River Reserve, au
Cap oriental, en Afrique du sud, avec un financement
du PRCR/SADC, la dernière version du logiciel a été
African
Rhino Specialist Group report
African
Elephant
bia, and courses were scheduled for both Tanzania and
South Africa in May 2005.
Kaziranga celebrates 100 years
The AfRSG Scientific Officer attended Kaziranga
National Park’s centenary celebrations in Assam, India. He gave an invited presentation at a workshop
on grassland management in the park, which was held
as part of its centenary celebrations. His presentation drew on experience in Africa to promote the desirability for active biological management of rhinos
to ensure a rapid growth in numbers, which is beneficial in terms of providing both genetic viability
and a greater buffer against poaching. This stimulated subsequent debate in plenary. His visit may
prove to be the start of increased sharing of knowledge and ideas between Africa and Asia for the benefit of rhino conservation in the years to come.
SADC Regional Programme for
Rhino Conservation
Unfortunately the initial phase of the Italian government’s support for the highly productive SADC Regional Programme for Rhino Conservation ends in
June this year. Plans are afoot to submit a funding
proposal to the Italian government for a follow-up
project that will build upon the results achieved during the initial phase of support.
Rhino status-reporting workshop
During the reporting period a successful status-reporting workshop was also held with AfRSG involvement at Kenya Wildlife Service’s training institute in
Naivasha. This workshop was part of a Kenyan rhino
conservation project sponsored by UK-funded Darwin’s Initiative. AfRSG’s Ben Okita presented the
results of his MSc study of the performance of six of
the main Kenyan black rhino populations, and this
was well received. Progress was made with delegates
from various parks in Kenya working on their individual population status reports at the workshop.
AfRSG members got an opportunity to look critically
at rhino identification master files from different rhino
areas and make constructive recommendations on
how these could be improved. AfSRG-accredited
Kenya Wildlife Service rhino-monitoring instructors
distribuée aux délégués et le responsable scientifique
du GSRAf a donné une formation rapide à son utilisation, assisté par Sandra Snelling et Ken Maggs, du Parc.
Des délégués des 17 agences différentes (y compris le
bureau sous-régional d’Interpol), venus de sept pays,
ont assisté au cours. Avec le financement du PRCR/
SADC, la formation « Sur les lieux du crime » s’est
poursuivie, avec un cours donné en Zambie et d’autres
qui sont prévus en Tanzanie et en en Afrique du Sud en
mai 2005.
Kaziranga fête ses 100 ans
Le responsable scientifique du GSRAf a assisté aux
célébrations du centenaire du Parc National de
Kaziranga en Assam, Inde. Il a donné une présentation
lors d’un atelier sur la gestion des prairies dans le parc,
atelier qui faisait partie des célébrations du centenaire.
Sa présentation s’inspirait de l’expérience africaine
pour promouvoir le bien-fondé de la gestion
biologique active pour assurer une croissance rapide
du nombre de rhinos, bénéfique pour une viabilité
accrue à long terme et aussi pour fournir une plus
grande et plus stratégique zone tampon contre le
braconnage. Ceci a entraîné les débats en séance
plénière. On espère que sa visite sera le point de départ
d’un partage accru des connaissances et des idées sur
la gestion biologique des rhinos entre l’Afrique et
l’Asie au bénéfice de la conservation des rhinos dans
le futur.
Programme régional de la SADC pour
la conservation des rhinos
Hélas, la première phase du support du Gouvernement
italien au très productif Programme régional pour la
Conservation des rhinos se termine en juin prochain.
On prépare des plans pour soumettre au Gouvernement
italien une proposition de financement pour un projet
de suivi qui sera basé sur les résultats obtenus au cours
de la première phase du support.
Atelier de rapport sur le statut des
rhinos
Durant cette période, il y eut aussi un atelier très
constructif sur le rapport du statut avec l’implication
du GSRAf, à l’Institut de formation du Kenya Wildlife
Service, à Naivasha. Cet atelier faisait partie d’un projet
13
Brooks
(trained using the acclaimed AfRSG monitoring training course based on individual identification) have
themselves trained staff in rhino-monitoring techniques in a newly restocked area. The encouraging
result was that staff created excellent master files
without the need for any outside assistance.
Browse-availability assessment
The rapid browse-availability assessment procedure
devised by AfRSG’s Keryn Adcock (as part of the
SADC Rhino Management Group’s black rhino carrying-capacity assessment project) was used during
the reporting period in assessing the carrying capacities and suitability of five potential black rhino introduction sites in the Serengeti ecosystem during
the reporting period, as well as in nine black rhino
areas in Kenya. The results of this work provided
useful background for a multistakeholder workshop
held in January 2005 to discuss future black rhino
conservation in the Serengeti ecosystem. Keryn
Adcock has also just recently presented a course to
selected Ezemvelo–KZN–Wildlife and private sector conservation staff on how to assess browse availability in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Positive review for AfRSG
AfRSG’s main sponsor over the last decade, the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), commissioned
an independent review of its support to AfRSG. The
reviewing consultant concluded that one of the most
important lessons to be learned was that supporting
the basic functions of an institution such as AfRSG
(provided it is conservation oriented and has good
leadership) and sustaining this support over a number
of years can prove to be an extremely cost-effective
conservation measure. This flies in the face of the
conventional wisdom that holds that core support for
an institution is invariably a less effective use of
money than direct field action. Despite these comments, raising sufficient funds to maintain a part-time
scientific officer and operate effectively remains a
challenge.
kenyan de conservation des rhinos sponsorisé par
l’Initiative de Darwin, financée par le Gouvernement
britannique. Ben Okita, du GSRAf, a présenté les
résultats du travail qu’il a réalisé pour son MSc sur la
performance de six des principales populations
kenyanes de rhinos noirs et ceci a été très apprécié. On
a fait des progrès avec les délégués venus de divers
parcs kenyans qui travaillaient sur leurs rapports
individuels sur le statut des populations de rhinos lors
de l’atelier. Les membres du GSRAf ont eu l’occasion
de jeter un œil critique sur les dossiers d’identification
des rhinos venus de différentes aires de rhinos et de
faire des recommandations constructives sur la manière
de les améliorer. Les instructeurs en surveillance des
rhinos du Kenya Wildlife Service accrédités par le
GSRAf (formés au moyen du cours de formation très
apprécié du GSRAf, basé sur l’identification
individuelle) ont eux-mêmes formé du personnel aux
techniques de surveillance des rhinos dans une zone
qui vient d’être repeuplée. Il est très encourageant de
constater que le staff local a créé d’excellents fichiers
sans avoir besoin d’aucune aide extérieure.
Evaluation de la disponibilité de
nourriture
La procédure rapide d’évaluation de la disponibilité de
nourriture conçue par Keryn Adcock du GSRAf (fait
partie du projet d’évaluation de la capacité de charge
en rhinos noirs du Groupe de gestion des rhinos de la
SADC) a servi pendant la période couverte par ce rapport pour évaluer la capacité de charge et les qualités et
les défauts de cinq sites où pourrait avoir lieu
l’introduction de cinq rhinos noirs, dans l’écosystème
du Serengeti, et dans neuf zones à rhinos noirs situées
au Kenya. Les résultats de ce travail ont fourni de très
utiles informations préalables à un atelier rassemblant
en janvier 2005 de nombreuses parties prenantes pour
discuter de la future conservation des rhinos noirs dans
l’écosystème du Serengeti. Keryn Adcock vient
justement de présenter un cours à un personnel de la
conservation choisi d’Ezemvelo-KZN-Wildlife et du
secteur privé, sur la façon d’évaluer la disponibilité en
nourriture au KwaZulu-Natal, en Afrique du Sud, en se
servant de sa méthode.
Transition
In closing, I sadly inform you of the deaths of two
people—Hans Hansen and AfRSG member Mike
14
African
African
Elephant
Hearn—who made significant contributions to rhino
conservation in Africa. Mike will be remembered for
his work with Namibia’s Save the Rhino Trust in conserving the desert black rhino in Kunene. Mike assisted with monitoring (especially managing the
database) while undertaking research, as well as
through his keen promotion of community-based conservation in this region. The massive effect that Mike
had as both a conservationist and a well-liked person
was reflected by the many and varied tributes to him
on the Save the Rhino International website. Hans
will be remembered for his fund raising for rhino conservation in his native Denmark, and in particular for
the individual-based photographic rhino monitoring
work he undertook in Pilanesberg National Park,
South Africa, over a long period, which contributed
significantly to this population being one of the best
understood in Africa, as well as for a survey he undertook of black rhinos in Aberdares National Park,
Kenya. Both will be sadly missed.
Révision positive pour le GSRAf
Le principal sponsor du GSRAf pour la dernière
décennie, le Fonds Mondial pour la Nature (WWF)
a demandé une révision indépendante de son support au GSRAf. Le consultant qui a fait ce bilan a
conclu que l’une des leçons les plus importantes à
retenir était que le fait de soutenir les fonctions de
base d’une institution telle que le GSRAf (pour
autant qu’elle soit orientée vers la conservation et
qu’elle soit bien dirigée) et de maintenir ce soutien
pendant des années peut se révéler une mesure de
conservation extrêmement rentable. Ceci bat en
brèche la sagesse populaire qui prétend que le soutien
de base d’une institution est invariablement moins
rentable que l’action sur le terrain. Malgré ces
commentaires, récolter assez de fonds pour conserver
un conseiller scientifique à temps partiel et
fonctionner efficacement reste un challenge.
Transition
Pour terminer, je dois hélas vous faire part du décès
de deux personnes–le membre du GSRAf, Mike
Hearn, et Hans Hansen—qui ont significativement
contribué à la conservation des rhinos en Afrique.
On se souviendra du travail de Mike pour le Save
the Rhino Trust Namibie, pour la conservation du
rhino noir du désert à Kunene. Mike a participé au
monitoring (et spécialement à la gestion de la base
de données) tout en entreprenant des recherches et il
a promu avec enthousiasme la conservation
communautaire dans cette région. L’effet considérable qu’il a eu en tant que défenseur de l’environnement et personne très appréciée, a été bien reflété
par les hommages nombreux et divers qui sont parvenus sur le site de Save the Rhino International. On
se souviendra de Hans pour la récolte de fonds qu’il
a menée dans son Danemark natal, et particulièrement pour le travail de surveillance continue des
rhinos basée sur des photos individuelles qu’il a
réalisé au Parc National de Pilanesberg, en Afrique
du Sud, pendant longtemps, et qui a significativement
contribué à ce que cette population soit l’une des
mieux comprises en Afrique. On se rappellera aussi
l’étude qu’il a entreprise sur les rhinos noirs du Parc
National des Aberdares, au Kenya. Tous deux nous
manqueront beaucoup.
15
Asian Rhino Specialist Group report
Rapport du Groupe Spécialiste des Rhinos d’Asie
Mohd Khan bin Momin Khan, Chair/Président, with/avec Thomas J. Foose and Nico van
Strien
Programme Officers/Responsables de Programme
Malaysian Rhino Foundation, Suite B-6-12, Megan Ave. II, 12 Jalan Yap Kwan Seng,
50450 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; email: [email protected]
Kaziranga celebrates 100 years
Kaziranga fête ses 100 ans
Kaziranga National Park celebrated its centenary, 14–
17 February 2005. Established in 1905 as a reserve
for the last 10–20 Indian rhinos, Rhinoceros unicornis,
believed to survive in Assam, Kaziranga became a
national park in 1974 after being gazetted as a number
of other types of protected areas during the intervening years. Whatever the official status, Kaziranga’s
success as a protected area has been spectacular. From
the low point of 10–20 rhinos in 1905, the population
under very strict protection from the Forest Department of Assam has grown to at least 1552 in the last
full census in 1999 and to an even higher number
today. A full census was scheduled for April 2005
(counts are conducted every 6 years) but a combination of early rains and problems with properly preparing the area with controlled burning forced the
census to be postponed to 2006. Nevertheless, the
rhinos are prospering, as are other megafauna—elephants, buffaloes, tigers, and barasingha or swamp
deer.
The anniversary celebration convened conservationists to develop a strategy for sustaining and extending Kaziranga’s success into this century. Despite
past success, many challenges confront the park and
its environs including the very important KarbiAnglong Hills, which provide important seasonal
habitat for much of the Kaziranga megafauna. An
expanding and developing human population continues to apply pressure on Kaziranga. Major concerns
include possible expansion of the trans-Assam highway (which forms the southern boundary of the park
and separates it from Karbi-Anglong Hills) and intensifying floods due to increased deforestation upstream. Moreover, poachers are still a threat, which
must constantly be counteracted with great diligence
and dedication by park rangers. A number of work-
Le Parc National de Kaziranga a célébré son
centenaire du 14 au 17 février 2005. Institué en réserve
en 1905 pour les 10 à 20 derniers Rhinos unicornes
(Rhinoceros unicornis) qui, pensait-on, survivaient
en Assam, Kaziranga est devenu un parc national en
1974 après avoir été enregistré comme un certain
nombre d’autres types d’aires protégées pendant les
années intermédiaires. Quel qu’en fût le statut officiel,
le succès de Kaziranga en tant qu’aire protégée fut
spectaculaire. Des 10 à 20 rhinos estimés en 1905, la
population, sous la très rigoureuse protection du
Département des Forêts d’Assam a crû jusqu’à un
nombre minimum de 1552, relevé lors du dernier
recensement complet en 1999 ; il est peut-être encore
supérieur aujourd’hui. Un recensement complet devait
avoir lieu début 2005 (les comptages se font tous les
six ans), mais la combinaison de pluies précoces et
de problèmes dans la préparation de la zone par des
feux contrôlés a reporté le recensement au début de
2006. Néanmoins, les rhinos prospèrent, comme le
reste de la grande faune – éléphants, buffles, tigres et
barasinghas ou cerfs des marais.
La célébration de cet anniversaire a rassemblé des
protecteurs de l’environnement pour qu’ils développent une stratégie afin de soutenir et de prolonger
la réussite de Kaziranga dans ce siècle-ci. Malgré ses
succès passés, le parc et ses environs font face à de
nombreux défis, comme celui que connaissent les très
importantes Collines de Karbi-Anglong qui
fournissent un habitat saisonnier vital pour une grande
partie de la grande faune de Kaziranga. Une population humaine continue à se développer et à s’étendre
en exerçant une pression sur le parc. On redoute
beaucoup l’extension possible de la grande route
trans-Assam (qui forme la limite sud du parc et le
sépare des Collines de Karbi-Anglong) et des
16
Asian
African
Elephant
shops were conducted, action plans formulated, a
Kaziranga Charter adopted and a Friends of
Kaziranga Forum established to ensure continued
participation by the many stakeholders interested and
involved in conserving this magnificent area.
Drs Nico van Strien and Tom Foose represented
the Asian Rhino Specialist Group. Also participating
was Dr Richard Emslie, Scientific Officer of the African Rhino Specialist Group, who was recruited by
AsRSG and the WWF AREAS Program to provide
perspective for future rhino management in Kaziranga
and Assam based on the similarly great success in
rhino conservation achieved in southern Africa for
the white rhino (Ceratotherium simum simum). A
major possibility under consideration is to translocate
rhinos from Kaziranga to other protected areas in
Assam in places where the species formerly occurred
(for example in Manas) but has been eliminated or
greatly reduced in numbers, as well as to some new
areas with appropriate rhino habitat.
Catastrophic decline of the rhino in
Nepal
While the rhino census in Kaziranga had to be postponed for a year, the Rhino Count 2005 did proceed
in April in Chitwan National Park, Nepal, with very
unsettling results. The number of Rhinoceros
unicornis in Chitwan has declined from the 544 observed in the last full census in 2000 to 372 in the
just-completed 2005 count. This catastrophic decline
is believed to be due mostly to increased poaching
related to political instability in Nepal. However, there
are habitat degradation issues as well. Government
agencies and NGOs active in rhino conservation in
Nepal are intensively reassessing the situation.
Global Management and Propagation
Board for the Sumatran rhino
At a workshop in Jakarta, Indonesia, 20–21 March
2005, various stakeholders from range and non-range
states for the Sumatran rhino, Dicerorhinus sumatrensis, convened to improve the management and
propagation of individuals of this species maintained
in captivity and semi-captivity. A Global Management and Propagation Board was formed, and a
number of recommendations were formulated to increase cooperation and coordination. These include
inondations croissantes du fait de la déforestation
accrue en amont. De plus, les braconniers constituent toujours une menace qui doit sans cesse être
contrée avec beaucoup de diligence et de dévouement
par les gardes du parc. Il y eut un certain nombre
d’ateliers, des plans d’action ont été rédigés, on a
adopté une Charte pour Kaziranga et on a créé un
Forum des Amis de Kaziranga pour assurer la participation suivie des nombreuses parties prenantes
intéressées et impliquées dans la conservation de cette
région magnifique.
Les Dr Nico van Strien et Tom Foose représentaient le Groupe Spécialiste des Rhinos d’Asie. Il y
avait aussi le Dr Richard Emslie, responsable
scientifique du Groupe Spécialiste des Rhinos
d’Afrique qui avait été recruté par le GSRAs et par le
Programme AREAS du WWF pour présenter les perspectives de la gestion future des rhinos à Kaziranga
et en Assam, en se basant sur la grande réussite, comparable, que connaît la conservation des rhinos blancs
(Ceratotherium simum simum) en Afrique australe.
On est en train de penser à transférer des rhinos de
Kaziranga vers d’autres aires protégées en Assam, là
où l’espèce a vécu auparavant (par exemple à Manas)
mais a été éliminée ou fortement réduite, ou encore
vers d’autres régions nouvelles qui conviendraient aux
rhinos.
Déclin catastrophique des rhinos au
Népal
Si le recensement de Kaziranga a dû être reporté d’un
an, le Comptage des Rhinos 2005 a eu lieu en avril
au Parc National de Chitwan, au Népal, avec des
résultats très inquiétants. Le nombre de Rhinoceros
unicornis a baissé à Chitwan des 544 observés lors
du dernier recensement complet, en 2000, à 372 lors
du comptage qui vient de se terminer. On croit que ce
déclin catastrophique est dû principalement au
braconnage accrû lié à l’instabilité politique du Népal.
On constate aussi, hélas, des problèmes de dégradation de l’habitat. Les organismes gouvernementaux
et les ONG actives dans la conservation des rhinos
au Népal s’occupent intensément de la réévaluation
de la situation.
17
Khan et al.
the possibility of relocating animals among existing
facilities and better dissemination to all facilities
maintaining this species under intensive management
of information on methods that have proven successful in reproducing it, especially those employed at
the Cincinnati Zoo.
18
Conseil pour la Gestion Globale et la
Propagation du Rhino de Sumatra
Lors d’un atelier à Jakarta, en Indonésie, les 20 et 21
mars 2005, diverses parties prenantes venues, ou non,
des états de l’aire de répartition du rhino de Sumatra
(Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) ont convenu d’améliorer
la gestion et la propagation des individus de cette
espèce qui sont gardés en captivité et en semicaptivité. Un Conseil pour la Gestion Globale et la
Propagation des Rhinos fut créé, et de nombreuses
recommandations furent émises pour améliorer la
coopération et la coordination. Elles incluent la
possibilité de déplacer des animaux entre les installations existantes, et une meilleure distribution vers
toutes les installations qui conservent cette espèce en
gestion intensive des informations sur les méthodes
qui ont permis la reproduction, et spécialement celles
utilisées au Zoo de Cincinnati.
Changes in elephant numbers in eastern and southern Africa
RESEARCH
Changes in elephant numbers in major savanna populations in
eastern and southern Africa
J. Julian Blanc,1* Richard F.W. Barnes,2 G. Colin Craig,3 Iain Douglas-Hamilton,4
Holly T. Dublin,1,5 John A. Hart 6 and Chris R. Thouless7
1
IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group, PO Box 68200, Nairobi 00200, Kenya;
email: [email protected]; *corresponding author
2
Division of Biological Sciences 0116, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0116, USA;
Environmental Sciences Research Centre, Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
3
PO Box 25476, Windhoek, Namibia
4
Save the Elephants, PO Box 54667, Nairobi 00200, Kenya
5
IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), c/o South African National Biodiversity Institute, Rhodes Drive,
Claremont, Cape Town 7735, South Africa
6
Wildlife Conservation Society, DRCongo Program, Kinshasa
7
PO Box 209, Timau, Kenya
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of changes in elephant population estimates selected from the two most recent
reports of the African Elephant Database (AED). Sites selected for analysis were restricted to surveyed areas in
which successive estimates had been made using comparable methods. The resulting selection consisted of surveys conducted in eastern and southern Africa between 1994 and 2002, which together cover a large percentage of
the total elephant population for which estimates are available in these two regions. The results suggest a significant overall increase (p < 0.0002) for the eastern and southern African sites combined. The overall increase in the
southern African estimate was significant (p < 0.0004), but the increase in eastern African estimates was not
statistically significant. It is concluded that savanna elephant populations in eastern and southern Africa are more
likely to have increased than to have declined in the years leading up to the African Elephant Status Report 2002;
important caveats become evident, however, when interpreting these findings.
Résumé
Cet article analyse les changements dans les estimations de populations d’éléphants selon les plus récents rapports
de la Base de Données de l’Eléphant africain (BDEA). Les sites choisis pour cette analyse ont été limités aux aires
étudiées dans lesquelles on a fait des estimations successives en utilisant des méthodes comparables. Les résultats
de la sélection reprennent des études menées en Afrique orientale et australe entre 1994 et 2002 qui, ensemble,
couvrent un grand pourcentage de la population d’éléphants pour laquelle des estimations existent dans ces deux
régions. Les résultats suggèrent une augmentation générale significative (p < 0,0002) pour les deux sites combinés.
L’augmentation globale pour les estimations en Afrique australe était significative (p < 0,0004), mais l’augmentation
des estimations en Afrique orientale n’était pas statistiquement significative. On en conclut que les populations
d’éléphants de savane en Afrique orientale et australe sont plus susceptibles d’avoir augmenté que diminué durant
les années qui ont précédé le Rapport 2002 sur le Statut de l’Eléphant africain ; il reste d’importantes mises en
garde, cependant, quant à l’interprétation de ces découvertes.
19
Blanc et al.
Introduction
A question of major interest to decision-makers involved
in the conservation and management of African elephants is whether the elephant population on the continent as a whole is increasing or decreasing. Since its
inception in 1986, the African Elephant Database
(AED), probably the most comprehensive effort to
monitor the distribution and abundance of any widely
distributed species of mammal in the wild, has been
periodically reporting on the status of African elephant
populations throughout the species’ range. Data for the
AED are obtained from a wide variety of sources ranging from systematic aerial counts to ad hoc guesses,
and the reliability of the estimates varies accordingly.
To characterize this variability, the AED separates elephant numbers into four categories of certainty—definite, probable, possible and speculative—according to
fixed rules (see Blanc et al. 2003 for details). In this
system, if all elephant populations were systematically
surveyed, giving unbiased estimates with measured precision, the sum of the definite and probable categories
would be an accurate statement of true elephant numbers.
The reported numbers under the definite and probable categories in the continental, all regional and
most national sections in the African Elephant Status
Report (AESR) 2002 (Blanc et al. 2003) are higher than
the corresponding numbers reported in the African
Elephant Database 1998 (Barnes et al. 1999). These
changes, however, do not necessarily reflect real overall increases in elephant numbers, and a casual comparison of these figures is likely to be misleading for
a number of reasons.
Many of the continent’s elephant populations have
never been systematically surveyed. Most elephant
surveys tend to concentrate in and around protected
areas, although up to 80% of elephant range may lie
outside them. Any changes reported are only derived
from a subset of all elephant populations and may
therefore not reflect overall changes in numbers. The
extent of unsurveyed range across the continent may
amount to as much as 50% of total elephant range in
Africa (Blanc et al. 2003), but even this estimate is
subject to considerable uncertainty. Elephant distribution data for the AED are obtained from questionnaire replies and other potentially unreliable sources,
which can quickly become outdated. To quantify this
uncertainty, the AED has recently begun to categorize elephant range into three categories of reliability: known range, possible range and doubtful range.
20
Many important populations are surveyed infrequently or have been surveyed only once. In consequence, any one report of the AED may repeat some
estimates from the previous report because these are
still the most up to date available. This makes using
total numbers invalid as a measure of change, as constancy of numbers at some sites reflects only the same
information carried forward from one status report to
the next. The totals in the definite and probable categories may decline where an out-of-date estimate has been
degraded to the speculative category and no more recent information is available. Conversely, where a population is surveyed for the first time, the resultant increase
in the total is due not to population increase but to the
inclusion of new information. False increases (or decreases) may also happen when the boundary of the
study area changes between surveys, although the site
name remains the same. When only parts of the ranges
of elephant populations are included in the surveyed
area, changes in estimates may be caused by elephant
movements rather than real changes in population size.
Even where two successive surveys of the same
area are available, misleading changes may be observed when different methods, liable to different levels of accuracy or bias, are used in the two consecutive
surveys. Variation in survey conditions—like the time
of the year or even the use of different survey crews—
may result in changes in numbers of elephants seen,
thus contributing to differences recorded over time.
In addition many estimates come from sample surveys and are therefore subject to statistical sampling
error. As a result, differences between successive estimates could be due purely to chance but still make a
large contribution to the differences between totals.
Despite these problems, it is possible to select those
sites where surveys have been repeated using comparable methods and to conduct a formal comparison of
elephant numbers over time restricted to a segment of
the continental population. As it turns out, a large proportion of the known elephant populations in eastern
and southern Africa can be included in such a sample.
This paper presents the results of such an analysis using data taken from the AED 1998 and the AESR 2002.
Methods
Site selection
Survey data were obtained from the two most recent
reports of the AED (Barnes et al. 1999; Blanc et al.
2003). Data from previous reports of the African
Elephant Database (such as Said et al. 1995) were
not used in this analysis, as there were few sites with
comparable data across all three reports. Surveys
were regarded as comparable if they met the following conditions:
• Similar survey methods or methods with similar
levels of accuracy were used in both time periods. All guesses were excluded.
• Approximately the same elephant range was covered in both surveys. However, where a discrete
population of elephants was censused in its entirety in both surveys, the estimates were regarded
as comparable even if the total areas were different. In some cases, adjacent input zones reported
in the AED 1998 were combined to match larger
input zones reported in the AESR 2002.
Although some total ground counts and individual
recognition studies met the above criteria, the majority of the sites in the sample were covered by aerial
surveys. Systematic aerial surveys fall into two broad
categories: sample counts and total counts. In the
former, a representative sample of the study area is
usually covered by counting animals along transects
of known width on either side of flight lines. The
overall density of elephants recorded in the transects
is used to calculate a population estimate with confidence limits for the entire study area. The width of
the confidence interval depends on the number and
distribution of animals in the study area as well as on
the sampling design and intensity (Norton-Griffiths
1978). Aerial total counts, on the other hand, aim to
record every elephant in a study area by flying closely
spaced flight lines to cover the entire area. Since it is
assumed that every animal is counted, aerial total
counts give no estimates of precision. However, as
some animals are always likely to be missed, total
counts tend to result in undercounts and as such represent a minimum estimate of the true number of animals present. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this
analysis, all total counts were treated as sample counts
with zero variance (Norton-Griffiths 1978).
Two important sites in eastern Africa were excluded from the analysis, as their inclusion would have
biased the overall results. The Ruaha–Rungwa ecosystem in Tanzania with an estimated 24,682 ± 6495
(estimate ± 1.96 H SE) elephants in 2002 was excluded
because the 1998 estimate (13,021 ± 4300) is believed
to have been an undercount (Conservation Information and Monitoring Unit 2002). Similarly, the dif-
ference between the 1998 and 2002 dung count survey estimates for Mount Kenya (4022 ± 1083 and
2911 ± 640 respectively), is not due to changes in
elephant density but rather to an improvement in the
estimate of the area available to elephants in the ecosystem (H. Vanleeuwe, pers. comm.)
One of the sites in eastern Africa, Samburu District
(Kenya), was included in the sample despite an increase
in precision due to a change in survey method between
the AED 1998 (aerial sample count) and the AESR 2002
(aerial total count). However, since total counts tend to
result in undercounts the inclusion of Samburu District
in the analysis is justified on the basis that the 2002
total count estimate is larger than the upper 95% confidence limit of the 1998 sample count.
The above criteria resulted in a selection of 51 sites
in eastern (13 sites; table 1) and southern Africa (38
sites; table 2). The geographical location of the selected
sites is shown in figure 1. A small number of comparable surveys also existed in Central and West Africa (1
site in Central Africa—Garamba National Park—and
7 sites in West Africa, 5 of which are part of the same
population in Burkina Faso). However, these sites were
excluded from the analysis as they represented very
small fractions of total known plus possible range in
eastern Africa (0.2%) and in southern Africa (2%).
The analysis reported here is, in consequence, restricted to sites in eastern and southern Africa.
The combined area covered by the selected surveys
represents 21% of total known plus possible for eastern
Africa and 23% for southern Africa, but only 11% of
the total current known and possible elephant range estimate for the continent. The sites include some of the
best-managed and best-studied parks on the continent
and cannot therefore be considered a representative sample of sites with elephants in Africa as a whole. However, the total number of elephants in these sites
(353,687) represents a high proportion (77%) of total
continental numbers under the definite and probable
categories reported in the AESR 2002 (461,091).
Differences and rates of change
Estimates were added separately for each dataset and
differences between the two datasets were calculated
at the levels of individual and combined regions. The
statistical significance of these differences was judged
by calculating the variance of the estimated difference
and constructing a 95% confidence interval for the true
difference. A difference was deemed significant if its
21
Blanc et al.
Ethiopia
Sudan
Cameroon
Somalia
regional boundary
2
selected sites
6
Uganda
3
Elephant Congo
range
5
Gabon
known
Kenya
4
12
Democratic
Republic
of Congo
possible
doubtful
1
7
Tanzania
13
8
9
Angola
44
46
i
Zambia
38
w
Mala
42
43
41
45 39
40
10
11
17
Mozambique
51 16
48
50
18
19
20
14
49
Zimbabwe
Namibia
47
15
Botswana
27
28
26
31
37
2436
34
29
22
32
23
South Africa
35
33
30
21
25
0
300
600
1200 km
Figure 1. Location of the sites included in the analysis and elephant range from Blanc et al. (2003). Numbers
refer to sites listed in tables 1 and 2.
22
Table 1. Eastern African sites used in this study and summary survey tween individual pairs is compared
results
against the pooled variance of the
Survey zone
Year of
survey
Kenya
1. Amboseli
1998
2002
2. Kerio Valley
1997
2002
3. Laikipia
1996
2002
4. Masai Mara
1998
2002
5. Meru and Bisanadi 1997
2002
6. Samburu District 1996
2002
7. Tsavo
1994
2002
Tanzania
8. Katavi–Rukwa
9. Kilombero
10. Mikumi
11. Selous
12. Serengeti
13. Ugalla River
1995
2002
1994
2002
1994
2002
1994
2002
1998
2000
1996
1999
Total eastern sites 1996*
2002*
Difference
Survey Estimate
method
95%
CL (±)
Area
(km2)
IR1
IR1
AT3
AT3
AT3
AT3
AT3
AT3
AT3
AT2
AS2
AT2
AT3
AT3
980
1,100
652
490
2,436
3,241
1,450
2,116
360
372
1,224
2,206
7,371
9,221
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
898
0
0
0
5,547
5,547
4,616
4,616
7,000
8,406
3,488
3,488
2,849
2,053
21,095
20,073
38,300
37,382
AS2
AS3
AS2
AS3
AS2
AS3
AS2
AS3
AT3
AT3
AS2
AS3
4,998
5,751
1,903
6,203
700
1,144
49,571
57,886
2,015
1,631
761
1,177
2,360
4,549
514
4,639
309
923
11,025
14,518
0
0
655
615
13,341
11,862
6,928
6,006
3,215
3,069
81,838
80,287
16,860
16,860
6,524
7,252
–
–
74,421
92,538
11,345
15,944
211,601
206,901
18,117
19,569
–4,700
6*
Survey method codes: IR – individual registration; GT – ground total count;
AT – aerial total count; AS – aerial sample count. The number that
accompanies the survey method code gives an indication of survey quality,
ranging from 1 to 3 (best to worst). For more details, see Blanc et al. (2003).
The 95% CL (±) column denotes the standard error of the estimate times 1.96.
* median value
95% confidence interval did not overlap zero. In particular, an increase was considered significant if the
lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater
than zero. To calculate p values, a
t-statistic was calculated as the ratio of the estimated difference to
its standard error. This approach is
similar to a matched-pairs t-test in
that the sum of the differences be-
dataset, but the measure of variation
used in this case originates from the sum
of the internal variances of sample
counts and not from the variance of differences across sites.
To express the difference as a rate
of change, the finite rate of the increase
λ (Caughley 1977) was estimated from
the ratio λt of the pooled estimates
from the AED 1998 ( ) and the
AESR 2002 ( ):
(Eq. 1)
where t is the time interval in years.
As the time interval between surveys
in the AED 1998 dataset and the AESR
2002 dataset varied from one site to
another (see under Results below), it
was adjusted by calculating t as the
average time interval between surveys
weighted by the number of elephants
in the AED 1998 dataset.
The finite rate of increase λ is
therefore estimated by
(Eq. 2)
From this the estimated mean an can be
nual per cent rate of increase calculated as
(Eq. 3)
To construct a 95% confidence interval around the estimated rates of
change, the variance of the ratio of
population estimates was approximated using a second-order Taylor series expansion (Schreuder et al.
2004):
(Eq. 4)
23
Blanc et al.
Table 2. Southern African sites used in this study and summary
survey results
Survey zone
Botswana
14. Northern Botswana
15. Tuli
Mozambique
16. Magoe South
17. Niassa
Namibia
18. Caprivi
19. Etosha
20. Kaudom/Nyae Nyae
South Africa
21. Addo Elephant
22. Atherstone
23. Itala
24. Klaserie
25. Knysna
26. Kruger
27. Madikwe
28. Makuya
29. Marakele
30. Mkuzi
31. Phalaborwa
32. Pilanesberg
33. Pongola
34. Sabie Sand
35. Tembe Elephant
24
Year of Survey Estimate
survey method
95%
CL (±)
where Var is the variance and Cov
the covariance. In this analysis, however, the errors in the estimates are
uncorrelated and the covariance can
therefore be taken to be zero.
Area
(km2)
1995
1999
1994
2001
AS3
AS2
AS1
AT2
89,227
120,604
831
1,262
13,406 122,922
21,237 146,050
456
885
0
885
1995
2001
1998
2002
AS2
AS2
AS2
AS2
137
1,264
8,707
13,061
187
1,359
1,937
2,433
2,824
2,824
42,349
42,341
1995
1998
1995
2000
1995
2000
AS2
AS2
AS1
AS2
AS2
AS2
4,883
4,576
1,189
2,100
1,085
1,966
1,247
1,223
410
774
545
973
19,290
18,259
22,270
19,269
15,020
12,107
1998
2002
1997
2002
1997
2002
1997
2002
1997
2002
1998
2002
1998
2002
1997
2002
1998
2002
1997
2002
1997
2002
1997
2002
1997
2002
1997
2002
1997
2002
AT1
AT1
AT3
AT3
GT1
GT1
AT3
AT2
IR1
IR1
AT3
AT2
AT3
AT3
AT3
AT2
IR1
IR1
IR1
IR1
AT3
AT2
AT3
AT3
IR1
IR1
AT3
AT2
AT3
AT3
272
337
24
32
45
61
303
467
3
4
8,869
10,459
282
318
8
27
48
91
25
28
42
23
87
142
20
33
311
757
115
140
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
513
513
136
136
297
297
628
628
300
300
19,624
19,624
700
700
165
165
380
380
380
380
41
41
553
553
119
119
572
572
300
300
Results
Table 3 presents a summary of
changes in elephant numbers, while
table 4 summarizes the rates of
change. Results are discussed in detail below, first for both regions combined and then for each region in
turn.
Southern and eastern African
sites combined
Surveys selected from the AED 1998
were conducted between 1994 and
1998; the median survey year was
1997. For surveys selected from the
AESR 2002, survey years ranged
from 1998 to 2002, the median year
being 2002. The time difference between surveys ranged from a minimum of 2 years to a maximum of 8,
with a median of 5 years (25% quartile: 4 years; 75% quartile: 5 years).
The weighted mean time between
surveys was 5.097 years. The total
area surveyed increased slightly
from the AED 1998 to the AESR
2002 by 37 km2, or 0.006%.
A significant proportion of the
selected sites (41 out of 51, or
80.4%) reported higher estimates in
the AESR 2002 dataset than in the
AED 1998 dataset (sign test, Z =
4.20, p < 0.0001). The estimated total number of elephants in the tabulated sites increased from 282,895
in the 1998 dataset to 353,687 in the
2002 dataset, a difference of 70,792
or 25%. The standard error of the difference was 14,464. Taking t to be
1.96, this gives a 95% confidence
interval of +35,863 to +141,584 for
the overall difference in the tabulated
Table 2. (continued)
Survey zone
36. Timbavati
Year of Survey Estimate 95%
survey method
CL (±)
Area
(km2)
1997
2002
1997
2002
AT3
AT2
AT3
AT2
322
372
134
88
0
0
0
0
784
494
144
144
1997
2001
39. Luambe and Lumimba 1996
1999
40. Lupande
1996
2002
41. Munyamadzi
1996
2000
42. Musalangu
1996
2001
43. North Luangwa
1996
2000
44. Sandwe and Chisomo 1996
1999
45 South Luangwa
1996
2002
46. West Petauke
1996
1999
AS2
AS3
AS3
AS2
AS2
AS2
AS2
AS3
AS3
AS3
AS3
AS3
AS2
AS2
AS2
AS2
AS3
AS2
4,482
2,194
763
1,053
892
975
102
1,108
305
1,121
3,033
3,750
818
128
7,942
4,459
2,435
897
3,222
5,590
811
551
1,394
587
210
500
690
898
2,252
1,076
1,597
155
2,930
1,519
2,773
1,399
22,400
16,929
4,462
4,462
4,840
4,959
3,300
3,292
17,350
17,350
4,636
4,636
4,920
750
9,050
8,448
4,140
905
37. Umbabat
Zambia
38. Kafue
To examine whether the significant difference was simply a consequence of increases in a few very large
populations, the analysis was repeated
excluding sites with very large increases in absolute numbers. The sites
excluded were northern Bo- tswana
(with a difference of +31,377), northwest Matabeleland (+13,030) and
Selous (+8,315). The results of the
analysis on this reduced dataset still
show a significant difference of between +5,137 and +31,003 elephants
(t = 2.74, p < 0.01). In view of this,
the three sites were included in subsequent analyses.
Eastern Africa
Surveys reported in the AED 1998
were conducted between 1994 and
1998, and all but one of the surveys
reported in the AESR 2002 were carried out in 2002. The time difference
between surveys in the selected sites
in eastern Africa ranged from 2 to 8
Zimbabwe
47. Gonarezhou, Malipati 1996 AS2
3,842
1,692
5,435 years, with a median time difference
and Mahenye
2001 AS2
4,992
1,577
5,346 of 6 years and a weighted mean time
48. Mavuradonha and
1997 AS1
120
120
617 difference of 7.45 years. The total reGreat Dyke
2001 AS2
13
26
617 ported surface area surveyed in the
49. NW Matabelelanda
1997 AS2
36,280
7,308
25,074 selected sites declined between the
2001 AS2
49,310
6,028
25,072 AED 1998 and the AESR 2002, by
50. Sebungweb
1997 AS2
13,386
1,241
15,597
4700 km2 (–2.22%), but all the sites
2001 AS2
13,989
2,098
15,622
that registered declines in area reported
51. Zambezi Valley
1995 AS2
17,105
2,580
14,842
2001 AS2
18,948
2,463
17,127 higher elephant estimates in the latter.
The AESR 2002 reports higher
Total southern sites
1997*
– 208,474 16,959 387,859
elephant
estimates for 11 of the 13
2002*
– 261,149 23,441 392,596
selected eastern African sites with an
Difference
5*
–
52,675 28,933
4,737
estimated difference of 18,117 elephants. While the 95% confidence inSee footnote to table 1 for survey method codes and additional details.
terval of the difference (–1452 to
a
Includes the following survey zones: Hwange, Matabeleland and Matetsi
b
+36,234) includes the value zero, and
Includes the following survey zones: Binga, Chete, Chirisa, Chizarira, Kariba,
Lusulu, Matusadona, North Gowke and Sijarira
the result is therefore not statistically
*median value
significant (t = 1.82, p > 0.05), the
range of probabilities lies mostly on
populations, a statistically significant difference (t = the positive side of zero. This is also true of the esti3.97; p < 0.0002). This translates to an annual rate of mated annual rate of increase (2.97%, range –0.59% to
increase of 4.48%, with a 95% confidence interval 5.87%), making an overall increase substantially more
ranging from +2.17% to +6.60%.
likely than a decline in numbers.
25
Blanc et al.
Table 3. Results of the analysis of differences in elephant populations in the selected sites
Difference
Variance
of estimate
Standard
error of
difference
t
Area (km2)
Median
survey
year
Estimate
Region
p
Eastern
Africa
211,601
206,901
1996
2002
74,421
92,538
18,117
33,505,371
66,174,523
9,984
1.815
>0.05
Southern
Africa
387,859
392,596
1997
2002
208,474
261,149
52,675
74,870,543
143,037,079
14,762
3.568
<0.001
Total
599,460
599,497
1997
2002
282,895
353,687
70,792
108,375,914
209,211,602
17,821
3.972
<0.0002
Source: AED 1998; AESR 2002
Table 4. Results of the analysis of rates of change in elephant populations in the selected sites
Region
Weighted time
difference
(years)
Annual rate
of change
(%)
Variance
of ratio
Lower 95%
CL of rate
(%)
Upper 95%
CL of rate
(%)
Eastern Africa
7.449
2.97
0.02137
–0.59
5.87
Southern Africa
4.257
5.43
0.00600
2.28
8.31
Total
5.097
4.48
0.00473
2.17
6.60
Source: AED 1998; AESR 2002
Southern Africa
The median time difference between the selected surveys in southern Africa was 5 years, with a minimum
difference of 3 years and a maximum of 7. The
weighted mean time difference between surveys was
4.26 years. The total surveyed area increased by 4737
km2 (+1.22%).
Out of 38 sites selected in southern Africa, 30 reported higher estimates in the AESR 2002 with increases ranging from a single elephant (Knysna, South
Africa) to over 30,000 (northern Botswana). The remaining 8 sites reported lower estimates in the AESR
2002, ranging from a decrease of 19 elephants in
Phalaborwa (South Africa) to 3483 in South Luangwa
(Zambia).
The total difference between estimates in the AED
1998 and the AESR 2002 for the southern African
sites amounts to 52,675 with a 95% confidence interval of +23,742 to +81,608, a highly significant difference (t = 3.57, p < 0.001). The estimated mean
annual rate of increase for the selected sites in this
region is 5.43% with lower and upper 95% confidence limits of +2.28% and +8.31% respectively. The
difference for southern Africa is of sufficient magni-
26
tude to make the combined results of eastern and
southern African sites highly significant despite the
lack of statistical significance for the eastern African sites alone.
Discussion
The results of this analysis strongly suggest an overall increase in the number of elephants in the tabulated sites in southern Africa as well as for the
combined eastern and southern African sites between
1994 and 2002. Only within-survey variance is accounted for in this analysis, as variance due to changes
in survey conditions and movement of elephants
across survey boundaries cannot be measured, given
only one pair of surveys per site. It is unlikely, however, that allowance for this could have reduced the
results to non-significance. It should be emphasized
that the results refer only to the relevant total numbers as there are insufficient data in most cases to
make meaningful comparisons at the site level. Nevertheless, populations are believed to be increasing
in many of the sites listed (see Barnes et al. 1999 and
Blanc et al. 2003 for details on individual populations).
The number of elephants included in the selected
sites from the AESR 2002 dataset represents a high
proportion (68%) of the definite plus probable elephants for eastern Africa and southern Africa (97%)
reported in Blanc et al. (2003), and accounts for virtually the entire elephant populations of some countries:
Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. The
analysis does, however, exclude most of Mozambique; substantial portions of elephant range in
Kenya and Tanzania; and the entire ranges of Angola,
Sudan and Uganda among others.
While the estimated annual rates of increase reported here are similar to those derived from detailed
demographic studies (for example, Moss 2001;
Wittemyer et al. 2005), and below the theoretical (7%)
and observed (10%) long-term maxima (Calef 1988;
Foley 2002), it is impossible to determine whether
these changes are due solely to natural population
growth, or the extent to which they may have been
influenced by immigration into survey zones. The
selection of sites for this analysis largely comprises
protected areas, some of them surrounded by large
areas of unsurveyed range. In view of increasing range
loss due to habitat conversion in much of the continent (Parker and Graham 1989), net immigration into
well-protected areas may be expected and the possibility that elephant movements may have contributed
to the observed increases cannot therefore be ruled
out. On the other hand, much of the excluded unsurveyed range is unlikely to contain high densities of
elephants, and in some southern African countries
elephants have expanded into new range in the past
few years (Blanc et al. 2003). A large unidirectional
bias is therefore unlikely.
Despite the limitations inherent in the data, this
analysis suggests an overall increase in the number
of elephants in southern African sites during the period covered by this comparative study. The likelihood is also high that the eastern African sites
experienced an overall increase in elephant numbers
during the period. This is a noteworthy finding, as
the vast majority of the savanna subspecies of the
African elephant are in southern and eastern Africa.
It must be reiterated, however, that this says nothing
about the situation in West or Central Africa, where
data are insufficient to draw any conclusions; more
extensive and regular survey work of consistent quality will be required to detect changes in elephant
populations in the continent as a whole. Similarly,
the results do not imply a uniform increase across all
sites but merely an increase on average; some sites may
have suffered a decline. Finally, it should not be assumed that elephant populations analysed in this study
are continuing to increase at present as the period of
the observed increase was centred around the late 1990s.
Doubts about the validity of the present results hinge
on elephant movements into surveyed areas, the absence of information about the status of elephants in
unsurveyed range, and in particular the extent to which
the observed increases result from reproduction instead
of immigration from unsurveyed areas. Coordinated
surveys of entire populations, across international borders where necessary, would remove much of this uncertainty. Clearly, the need continues to obtain reliable
estimates for all elephant range.
Acknowledgements
This paper was completed with financial assistance
from the European Union, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the UK Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs. The authors are grateful to
Ken Burnham and Bob Burn as well as two anonymous reviewers for invaluable advice and comments.
References
Barnes RFW, Craig GC, Dublin HT, Overton G, Simons
W, Thouless CR. 1999. African Elephant Database
1998. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group,
Gland, Switzerland.
Blanc JJ, Thouless CR, Hart JA, Dublin HT, Douglas-Hamilton I, Craig GC, Barnes RFW. 2003. African elephant
Database. IUCN/SSC/ African Elephant Specialist
Calef GW. 1988. Maximum rate of increase in the African
elephant. African Journal of Ecology 26:323–327.
Caughley G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. John
Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Conservation Information and Monitoring Unit. 2002.
Aerial census in the Ruaha–Rungwa ecosystem, dry
season, 2002. Unpublished report. Tanzania Wildlife
Research Institute, Arusha.
Foley C. 2002. High incidence of elephant twin births in
Tarangire National Park, Tanzania. Pachyderm 32:64–
66.
Moss CJ. 2001. The demography of an African elephant
(Loxodonta africana) population in Amboseli, Kenya.
Journal of Zoology (London) 255:145–156.
27
Blanc et al.
Norton-Griffiths M. 1978. Counting animals. Publication
no 1 in series: JJR Grimsdell, HT Russell, eds. Techniques currently used in African wildlife ecology.
AWLF/SEMP, Nairobi.
Parker ISC, Graham AD. 1989. Men, elephants and competition. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 61:241–252.
Said MY, Chunge RN, Craig GC, Thouless CR, Barnes
RFW, Dublin HT. 1995. African Elephant Database
1995. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
28
Schreuder HT, Ernst R, Ramirez-Maldonado H. 2004. Statistical techniques for sampling and monitoring natural resources. Forest Service, United States Department
of Agriculture. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/
rmrs_gtr126.pdf
Wittemyer G, Daballen D, Rasmussen H, Kahindi O, Douglas-Hamilton I. 2005. Demographic status of elephants
in the Samburu and Buffalo Springs National Reserves,
Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 43:44–47.
Systematic recording of human–elephant conflict, Tanzania
Systematic recording of human–elephant conflict: a case study
in south-eastern Tanzania
Cyprian Malima,1 Richard Hoare2* and J. Julian Blanc3
1
World Wide Fund for Nature, Tanzania Programme Office, PO Box 63117, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania;
2
TAWIRI Wildlife Veterinary Programme, PO Box 707, Arusha, Tanzania;
3
African Elephant Specialist Group, PO Box 68200, City Square 00200, Nairobi, Kenya;
Abstract
A standardized data collection system recommended by the African Elephant Specialist Group to record and
assess human–elephant conflict was used in subsistence agricultural areas to the east of the Selous Game
Reserve in Tanzania. Nine enumerators were recruited, trained and supervised to collect primary data on
elephant damage incidents in 38 rural villages widely spaced throughout an area of 30,000 km2. Losses were
suffered over a small total area of cultivation that covered only 1% of potential elephant habitat. In the first
year of recording 1239 incidents occurred, of which 973 were assessed as crop raids. Sixteen categories of
food crops were damaged, representing loss to both wet- and dry-season produce. Elephants killed two people and people killed 25 elephants. One year of a proposed three-year study already highlights the usefulness
and cost-effectiveness of simple, inexpensive recording schemes, operated principally by people within affected communities and producing rapid results relevant to local wildlife management and community-based
conservation. Further assessments of the economic value of losses, the selectivity of crops by elephants and
tests of causative factors in human–elephant conflict will be made once the data of the three years become
available.
Résumé
On a utilisé un système standardisé de récolte des données recommandé par le Groupe Spécialiste des
Eléphants d’Afrique pour rapporter et évaluer les conflits hommes–éléphants dans des zones d’agriculture
de subsistance à l’est de la Réserve de Faune de Selous, en Tanzanie. On a recruté neuf compteurs qui ont
été formés et supervisés, pour qu’ils récoltent les données de base sur des incidents de dégâts aux cultures
dans 38 villages ruraux distribués sur une superficie de 30.000 km2. Les pertes ont été constatées sur une
petite surface de culture dont le total ne couvrait que 1 % de l’habitat potentiel des éléphants. Au cours de la
première année, on a rapporté 1239 incidents et 973 d’entre eux ont été considérés comme des dégâts aux
cultures. 16 catégories de récoltes ont été endommagées, représentant des pertes de produits de saison sèche
et des pluies. Les éléphants ont tué deux personnes et les gens ont tué 25 éléphants. Une seule année de cette
étude qui devrait durer trois ans a déjà mis en évidence l’utilité et la rentabilité de programmes de rapport
simples et peu coûteux, réalisés principalement par des personnes des communautés affectées, qui donnent
des résultats rapides intéressant la gestion locale de la faune sauvage et la conservation communautaire.
Des évaluations plus poussées de la valeur économique des pertes, de la sélectivité exercée par les éléphants
et des tests de facteurs de causalité dans les conflits hommes–éléphants seront faites dès que les données
récoltées pendant ces trois ans seront disponibles.
29
Malima et al.
Introduction
Established during the colonial era, the Selous Game
Reserve (SGR) in south-eastern Tanzania is the largest
protected area (50,000 km2) south of the Sahara under
a single management unit. The primary purpose at the
time of gazetting the large tract of land was to conserve
elephants, which were thought to be fast disappearing
(Matzke 1976). In the 1940s some of the sparse human
settlements in the area were abandoned due to severe
crop damage by elephants, and the vacated land was
annexed to SGR (Nicholson 1969).
After independence in 1961 the Tanzania government, realizing the earning potential of wildlife
populations within the reserve, initiated a programme
in which hunting safaris by tourists were given access to the reserve under strictly controlled conditions (Nicholson 1969). In Tanzania, national parks
are fully protected, allowing only non-consumptive
tourism, but in game reserves limited offtake of trophy animals is permitted through annual quotas.
When figures were first produced in 1976 the
Selous elephant population was estimated at
110,000—one of the largest on the African continent.
Rampant poaching in the 1970s and 1980s, however,
reduced the population to about 30,000 by 1989. Today the elephant population in the greater Selous ecosystem (105,000 km2 of surveyed elephant range) is
recovering strongly and is estimated to have reached
around 70,000 (Blanc et al. 2003). Of these, about
25% are thought to be found outside the various protected areas, but the number fluctuates depending on
season and the intensity of the expanding human activity in that area encroaching on elephant habitats
and movement routes—agriculture, settlement, hunting, fishing, uncontrolled fires, etc. (Mpanduji et al.
2002). Conflict between humans and wildlife, particularly elephant, hippopotamus, bush pig and wild
carnivores, is a continuing serious issue in areas surrounding the SGR.
Previous efforts to mitigate elephant damage to
crops in the area have largely depended on centralized problem animal control (PAC) units of government-employed wildlife personnel. Due to logistical
constraints similar to those experienced elsewhere in
Africa (Osborn and Parker 2002) and the recurring
nature of the problem, these units have had little lasting effect. Reliance on PAC units has recently diminished due to cutbacks in government spending under
the country’s economic adjustment programme. Thus
30
the problem of managing elephants, as is increasingly
the case in many African countries, is now de facto
largely in the hands of rural communities that interface with elephant range. But local communities and
farmers lack the capacity to deal with the problem
effectively, so their support for any conservation initiative is jeopardized.
In response to the need to evaluate and compare
vastly differing human–elephant conflict (HEC) situations across Africa (Dublin and Hoare 2004), some years
ago the African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG)
developed a standardized data collection and analysis
protocol for HEC situations (Hoare 1999a). This protocol and its associate, a training package for enumerators of elephant damage (Hoare 1999b), were adopted
and tested in this study. The project was designed to
generate baseline information on HEC levels as such
information is an essential first step towards more local
management of the conflict problem. This paper describes the performance of the first year of the standardized reporting scheme and discusses benefits of using
such a model elsewhere in the African elephant range.
Study area
The study was carried out around villages in Rufiji,
Kilwa and Liwale Districts in south-eastern Tanzania, situated in nine administrative wards: three in
each district. These wards border SGR’s eastern zone
with the exception of Kikole Ward of Kilwa District,
which was chosen because elephants occur locally
the year round (fig. 1). The total area covered by the
incident-reporting scheme was 30,000 km2, containing 38 villages with an estimated human population
of 52,880 people (Tanzania Census 2002).
The vegetation is predominantly miombo-dominated (Brachystegia spp.) woodland with undulating
topography. The area receives rainfall biannually with
an average annual total of 800 mm. ‘Short rains’ fall
in November and December and ‘long rains’ may last
from February to May.
Human communities are primarily artisanal peasants and hunters. Most local people continue to carry
out shifting cultivation. A wide variety of crops is
cultivated: in the wet season the staples maize, rice
and millet are grown, while in the dry season people
also rely on various fruits and vegetables. Communities that live adjacent to oxbow lakes or large rivers
such as the Rufiji, Mbwemkuru, Kilombero or Ruaha
practise fishing. Livestock keeping has never been
Mloka
Mibuyusaba
Mwaseni Nyaminywili Ndundunyikanza
Msona
Mtanza Kipo Ngorongo
Kilimani
8°S
R ufiji D istrict
Tapika
Namakono
Kinjeketile
Ngarambe
Kipugira
Kindunda
Mtumbei
Namatewa
Kandawale
Selous Game Reserve
Njinjo Kikole Ruhatwe
Miguruwe
Mtepera
9°S
De mocra tic R e public of C
Chimbuko
Barikiwa
Kikulyungu
Mkutano
Uganda
Kenya
Soma lia
K ilwa D istrict
Rwanda
Burundi
Tanzania
ongo
i
Ma la w
Liwa le D istrict
Ndunyungu
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Mozambique
Kinondoni
0
25
50
100 km
Wailesi
10°S
38°E
39°E
Figure 1. Human–elephant conflict study area between the Selous Game Reserve and the Indian Ocean.
successfully carried out in the area because of the
high prevalence of trypanosomiasis. Ethical taboos
and religion have historically had an influence on
controlling the consumptive use of some wildlife including elephants.
Methods
A standardized HEC data-collection protocol was followed to collect baseline data (Hoare 1999a). This
protocol was developed and is endorsed by AfESG
31
Malima et al.
and has been successfully used in several other HEC
situations in Africa (Hoare 1999c; Parker and Osborn
2001; Sitati et al. 2003). Its aim is to quantify the
distribution, frequency and severity of HEC incidents
over large areas, do so reasonably cheaply, and
achieve data of quality sufficient for local management of the problem. In this study, nine local enumerators were recruited and trained to capture primary
data from conflict zones around the remote villages.
Their training was carried out by the supervisor (C.
Malima) in accordance with an AfESG-endorsed
training package (Hoare 1999b) that is closely associated with the data protocol.
When elephant damage occurs, the local HEC enumerator is informed through existing local communication networks. To maximize acceptance of the
scheme among local communities, enumerators were
assigned to collect HEC data only from the ward of
their origin. The enumerator visits the incident site
as soon as possible after the occurrence, travelling
on foot or by bicycle. Enumerators discuss particulars of the incident with the affected people and quantify the property damage using standardized
procedures. To avoid the problems associated with
the use of paper maps, each enumerator was trained
to use a GPS unit to record incident locations accurately.
Apart from necessary particulars of date, location,
farmers’ names and so on, the primary quantitative
data captured from each incident are what crops the
elephants damaged, how badly they damaged them,
and if possible the group composition (age and sex)
of problem elephants involved. The scheme began in
July 2003 and the data presented here are those collected for one year, up to June 2004. Data collection
in both wet and dry seasons monitored elephant damage to both seasonal and perennial crops.
The seriousness of each crop-damage incident was
subsequently further quantified by the supervisor, using a simple secondary data analysis based on the age,
quality and damage level to the crop (Hoare 1999a).
Crop damage by elephants was assigned to three levels—low, medium and high—by combining scores
for the age of the crop and the quality and extent of
the damage. Age categories for crops were given 1, 2
and 3 points for seedling, intermediate and mature
growth stages. Quality categories of crops were given
1, 2 and 3 points for poor, medium and good. Damage was assigned to six categories (1–6 points) based
32
on percentage of crop-growing area damaged as assessed by the enumerator (≤5%; 6–10%; 11–20%; 21–
50%; 51–80%; >80%). The supervisor regularly
checked a sample of incidents in situ, to minimize
assessment bias by enumerators.
The higher the score of combined points (age +
quality + damage) for an incident, the more serious
the damage suffered. All incident scores were then
assigned to low (≤5 points), medium (6–8 points) or
high (≥ 9 points) damage classes. Other categories of
serious incident like human death or injury, damage
to food stores or water sources and retaliatory killing
of problem elephants were also recorded. The annual
summary of many different conflict incidents gives a
picture of the distribution, frequency and severity of
the HEC problem in each ward and district.
To quantify the proportion of farms affected by
elephants, ideally all farms at risk should be mapped.
In the prevailing conditions, however, this was not
possible for a number of reasons: the very large
number of individually owned plots; the extensive
practice of shifting cultivation, and the limits of the
workforce employed. Instead, locations (GPS waypoints) on the periphery of arable farming areas were
recorded every 50 m and the total cultivated area used
by village (including some fallow) was calculated by
a computer program (ArcGIS 9.0 Desktop, ERSI 2004,
Redlands, CA, USA). This was done in 26 of the villages.
Results
Types of incident
In the 12-month period, 16 types of food crops were
raided by elephants in 973 separate incidents (table
1). Farms commonly have mixed crops and during a
raid elephants frequently damaged more than one crop
type. Other conflict types identified (no. of cases in
brackets) included:
• people killed (2) or injured (1) by elephants
• elephant damage to water sources (17)
• elephants shot dead (25) by both wildlife officers
and villagers
• interference with people’s daily travel schedules
such as obstructing children from attending school
or restricting farmers moving to and from their
fields (4)
Table 1. Elephant crop damage incidents in agricultural fields, July 2003–June 2004
Dry season
Maize
Millet
Cashew nut
Mixed crops
Banana
Cassava
Rice
Mango trees
Peas
Sugar cane
Coconut trees
Vegetables
Sweet potato
Orange trees
Pawpaw
Simsim
Totals
Wet season
Rank
Rufiji
Kilwa
Liwale
Rufiji
Kilwa
Liwale
Totals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
5
21
34
46
0
—
7
3
9
—
9
0
0
2
—
4
0
24
23
30
4
—
45
23
16
18
0
6
5
2
—
0
2
89
15
2
70
—
1
5
3
—
1
1
0
0
—
122
36
—
17
10
—
44
—
—
2
—
2
—
—
—
1
4
45
3
3
1
—
5
—
3
—
2
—
—
1
—
2
25
51
—
26
1
8
12
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
175
139
137
118
90
82
61
53
36
30
20
12
7
6
4
3
156
200
189
234
69
125
973
The discrepancy in totals with tables 2 and 3 is due to multiple farms being damaged in some raids, non-assessment of
some incidents, and counting of incidents other than crop raiding.
Destruction of food stores by elephants, sometimes commonly encountered in other HEC zones in
Africa, was not recorded during the reporting period.
Seasonality of crop destruction by elephants
Elephants seldom raided fields with crops at seedling stage. Raiding intensified in regularity and severity towards an annual peak as the harvest period
approached for rainfed crops (June and July). Wetseason crop raiding damaged more annual crops like
maize and rice, especially in the wetter Rufiji District. Faster-growing, more drought-resistant crops
such as millet were damaged in the drier farming conditions of Kilwa and Liwale Districts.
In the Rufiji Valley basin and to a lesser extent in
Kilwa District, farmers carry out valley-bottom farming, growing mixed crops composed of maize, vegetables and peas on isolated farms. These areas were
prone to dry-season elephant raids. In the dry season,
farms with fruiting trees—cashew nut, mango, coconut and banana—were vulnerable to elephant invasion. Elephants debarked trees, broke branches to eat
leaves or shook trees to dislodge fruit (especially
cashew nut, mango and coconut). Perennial cassava,
grown mostly in Liwale District, suffered dry-season
damage.
Level of elephant damage
The year’s data were summarized by frequency (tables 1, 2) and severity (fig. 2) of incidents. Overall
elephants caused relatively few cases of heavy losses
in the three districts (5.8% wet season and 23.3% dry
season). These high-level damage incidents often
occurred in small and isolated agricultural fields, especially when they were raided by large groups of
elephants. Most of the damage was in the mediumloss category (64.7% wet season and 56.3% dry season). Low-loss cases ranked intermediate (29.5% wet
season and 20.4% dry season).
Raiding group composition
Raiding group size usually ranged from 3 to 10 but occasionally bigger groups of up to 40 animals were involved. Elephant mixed herds (bulls, cows and calves
together) were the group type responsible for most of
the crop raiding (table 3). Male groups (usually two to
three animals) and lone bulls also caused considerable
amounts of damage. In very few cases were cow–calf
groups involved. These results should be interpreted
with some caution, however, as data on the sexing of
nocturnally active (and therefore mostly unseen) groups
of raiders from their footprints are subject to error.
33
Malima et al.
300
Rufiji
242
Number of incidents
250
Kilwa
Liwale
200
193
115
150
110
100
95
68
50
42
38
27
0
Low
Medium
High
Elephant damage assessment
Figure 2. Elephant crop damage levels assessed in the three districts, July 2003–June 2004.
Variation between areas affected by
elephants
Elephant raids occurred in all nine wards and all but
one out of 37 village areas (table 2). The worst crop
damage was concentrated in Kikulyungu, Mloka,
Chimbuko, Ngarambe and Miguruwe villages. These
villages either border the SGR or are located in
densely vegetated riverine habitats where elephants
can easily take refuge.
In Ngorongo Ward of Rufiji the relatively high
level of elephant raiding in Kipo, Kipugira, Nyamnywili and Ndundunyikanza was possibly related to
abandonment of fields following 32 human deaths
caused by lions between October 2002 and April
2004—probably the most intense human–carnivore
conflict in Africa (G. Packer, pers. comm. 2005). Wetand dry-season raids in Kikole village showed little
difference. This village does not border the SGR but
areas nearby harbour resident elephants year round.
The low level of raiding in Kandawale Ward villages,
which are also near the SGR, appears to coincide with
elephant avoidance of the area as yet unexplained.
Variation in the severity of elephant crop raiding
can be judged by ranking villages. The simplest index is the number of incidents (table 2). But as many
34
incidents may not be serious, a more meaningful ranking for management priority is the number of raids in
the high (or high and medium) damage categories.
No meaningful relationship existed between size of
area cultivated around villages (range 0.7–35 km2)
and the number of elephant raids therein (range 0–
137) (table 2; fig. 3, R2 = 0.2112). Therefore a better
ranking index to compare raiding intensity between
villages could be: the size of the village area cultivated / number of raids (that is, raids per km2 of cultivation per year (Hoare 1999a). The range for raiding
intensity in villages was also very wide at 0–25 incidents/km2 per year (table 2). In all villages combined,
the overall raid intensity (1239 elephant ‘problem incidents’ in about 300 km2) was 4.1 incidents per km2
per year.
Discussion
The data presented here are from the first year of a
study that is scheduled for three years, to capture between-year variation of this conflict. But even this
first year’s results have successfully tested the principle and logistics of collecting primary data through
an independent third party (the village-level enumerator), rather than from affected people’s verbal accounts
Table 2. Incident totals and ranking of elephant raids per village, July 2003–June 2004
District
and ward
Rufiji
Ngorongo
Mwaseni
Utete
Kilwa
Kandawale
Kikole
Zinga-Miguruwe
Liwale
Barikiwa
Kikulyungu
Mpigamiti
Totals: 9 wards
Village
Dry-season
incidents
Wet-season
incidents
Total
incidents
Ranking by
no. incidentsa
Ranking
indexb
Ngorongo
Nyaminywili
Kilimani 1
Kipo
Kipugira
Ndundunyikanza
Kilimani 2
Mloka
Mwaseni
Mibuyusaba
Mtanza
Msona
Ngarambe
Tapika
Nyamakono
25
23
23
0
0
0
0
73
8
21
11
6
31
11
0
21
14
24
9
4
8
24
62
21
13
7
16
49
0
1
46
37
47
9
4
8
24
135
29
34
18
22
80
11
1
10
12
9
24
28
22
16
2
14
13
18
17
4
22
29
8.2
4.9
4.9
2.6
—
5.0
22.4
12.7
5.3
25.2
—
3.8
21.4
8.3
1.4
Kandawale
Kindunda
Kinjeketile
Mtumbei
Namatewa
Kikole
Mbunga
Nanyati
Ruhatwe
Migelgele
Miguruwe
Mtepera
Naking’ombe
Njinjo
Zinga-Kibaoni
0
2
0
4
0
42
7
15
3
0
69
37
28
39
4
0
7
7
3
4
12
5
10
5
1
5
16
19
1
7
0
9
7
7
4
54
12
25
8
1
74
53
47
40
11
30
24
26
26
28
6
19
15
25
29
5
7
9
11
22
0
—
1.5
—
—
1.6
—
—
1.1
—
5.6
4.3
—
4.8
—
Barikiwa
Chimbuko
Ndunyungu
Kikulyungu
Mkutano
Kinondoni
Wailesi
26
75
8
56
5
10
28
27
36
2
81
8
4
17
52
111
10
137
13
14
45
8
3
23
1
21
20
11
2.0
—
1.0
6.8
1.4
0.6
2.0
37 villages
692
547
1239
The discrepancy in totals with tables 1 and 2 is due to multiple farms being damaged in some raids, non-assessment of
some incidents, and counting incidents other than crop raiding.
a
no. of raids
b
no. of raids per km2 of cultivated area
— area not measured; therefore not ranked
35
Malima et al.
damage can be devastating to an individual farmer
but its actual impact up the spatial scale through village and ward decreases progressively, until at disGroup type
Wet season
Dry season
trict level its material impact is minor. Further
no.
%
no.
%
assessments involving the economic value of losses
(Tchamba 1996) at these scales, the seasonal selecMixed herd
271
56
435
63
tion of crops by elephants, and hypotheses tests of
Lone bulls
108
22
94
13
causative factors in HEC will be done once the data
Bull group
84
18
150
22
Cow–calf
21
4
12
2
of three years are available.
Totals
484
691
Eastern Selous showed differences when compared with other areas where HEC has been systemThe discrepancy in totals with tables 1 and 2 is due to
atically recorded (Parker and Osborn 2001; Sitati et
multiple farms being damaged in some raids, nonal. 2003). Here the highest number of incidents was
assessment of some incidents, and counting incidents
other than crop raiding.
caused by mixed herds as opposed to the more usual
bull-only groups in fairly similar
southern African woodland ecosys160
tems (Hoare 1999c, 2001b; Osborn
2003). Also, the medium category
120
of elephant damage was highest,
R2 = 0.2112
rather than the low category—usu80
ally found most numerous elsewhere (Hoare 1999c; Parker and
40
Osborn 2001). High-category damage incidents were relatively few,
0
40
which agrees with findings else30
10
20
where (Hoare 1999c; Parker and
2
Area of cultivation in village (km )
Osborn 2001; Sitati et al. 2003).
Figure 3. Elephant raids in the different size cultivated areas around
The number of elephant raids
26 villages, July 2003–June 2004.
per village showed a very weak
positive relationship to the area of
cultivation around villages, and the
or from employees of a national wildlife authority. area-based index of raiding intensity varied widely.
With both the latter, data are often inconsistent or bi- One such significantly positive relationship has been
ased (Hoare 2001a).
shown in very different land use in Kenya (Sitati et al.
This study operated over probably the largest area 2003). But generally, quantitative associations with
ever covered by a wildlife conflict reporting scheme of raid intensity are hard to find in the study of HEC,
its kind (30,000 km2). Villages are widely spaced and suggesting alternative hypotheses that other spatial
the proportion very small of the area actually occupied factors like habitat or crop type (Parker and Osborn
and cultivated (1%)—and therefore in which HEC ac- 2001), farmers’ defences (Osborn and Parker 2002),
tually occurred. Situations where small, scattered pock- and individual elephant behaviour (Hoare 1999c;
ets of human habitation exist in a large matrix of natural 2001b) are more likely determinants of conflict levels.
habitat containing elephants are fast disappearing in
With only one year’s data, specific factors sigAfrica (Hoare and du Toit 1999), so this conflict assess- nificant in the damage pattern in the study villages
ment gives a possible first-time indication of the HEC are speculative but may include the isolation of many
scenario in historic times, for which only anecdotal ac- of the agricultural fields, the common practice of shiftcounts exist.
ing cultivation, the severe damage to fruit trees and
Despite what appear to be high raiding figures, vegetable plots, cultivation in the riverine habitats that
actual economic losses were probably quite small and, elephants favour, and elephants moving in relatively
in keeping with the pattern of this problem elsewhere large groups, which in turn may be due to human harin Africa, showed a gradient of seriousness. Elephant assment.
No. of elephant raids
Table 3. Elephant group type damaging crops, July
2003–June 2004
36
A valuable finding was the relatively large number
of elephants (25) that were killed in the conflict zone
during the year. There is suspicion that HEC is sometimes being used as a pretext for illegal killings as
some elephants were hunted by people from outside
the area and meat was taken away to other parts of the
country. Without the activities of an organized scheme
systematically gathering data, it is doubtful that these
killings would have been fully recorded in this large
and remote area. This has important implications for
other elephant ranges, especially sites involved in the
CITES MIKE programme (www.citesmike.org),
where collecting information exclusively on illegal
activity may prove difficult; any activity that is perceived as helping people in conflict with wildlife has
few opponents.
The recording scheme proved cost efficient: it cost
the equivalent of a little over USD 1000 to employ
one enumerator for the year (USD 9180 to employ
the nine enumerators for one year). Additional project
costs were a small workshop to train enumerators and
vehicle transport for regular field visits by the supervisor. The latter was outside the project budget but
was met by the World Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF-International), who employed the supervisor, also responsible for other conservation work
in the SGR. Most recording schemes using this model
in smaller conflict zones can be run with six enumerators or fewer, and may cost less in other countries. The
total area each enumerator can cover is dependent on
terrain and land use, but in the past in the more common subsistence farming systems with scattered agriculture, 150–200 km2 per enumerator has been achieved
(Hoare 1999c; Parker and Osborn 2001; Sitati et al.
2003).
As the management of problem elephants is increasingly becoming de facto the responsibility of
communities affected by them, it is especially important to quantify a conflict situation as much as
possible, so as to be able to place it in a local conservation context (Hoare 2001a). The common research
practice of using attitudinal questionnaire surveys
(Kaltenborn et al. 2003; Holmern et al. 2004) is insufficient to understand wildlife conflict situations,
as a clear disjunction has been shown to exist between
perceived and actual problems (Languy 1996;
Gillingham and Lee 2003). The scheme described
here quantifies actual conflict incidents rapidly, impartially, cheaply and sufficiently accurately in rural
African situations to be useful for local-scale wild-
life management and land-use planning. For effective mitigation measures to be planned in any HEC
situation (Hoare 2001a), initial collection of baseline
information similar to that recorded in this study
should be attempted.
Acknowledgements
We would very much like to thank Dr PJ Stephenson
of WWF-International for encouragement and for soliciting funds for this study. WWF-Tanzania Programme Office Country Representative Dr Hermann
Mwageni and Conservation Director Mr Stephen
Mariki are sincerely thanked for their advice and support. Mr Leo Niskanen is thanked for his competent
administrative support through the AfESG. We also
appreciate the contribution and advice given by Mr
Charles Mdoe, Assistant Director, Development, of
the Wildlife Division. Enumerators who collected the
field data were Messrs Abdallah Nnungu (Mpigamiti
Ward), Adinani Rajabu (Zinga-Miguruwe Ward), Idd
Ngajaja (Mkutano Ward), Juma Mpule (Barikiwa
Ward), Mussa Maimbanya (Kikole Ward), Rajabu
Lipanjanga (Kandawale Ward), Ramadhan Mneka
(Ngorongo Ward), Said Kagoma (Utete Ward) and
Saidina Malenda (Mwaseni Ward). We also thank the
Wildlife Division district game officers, Messrs Eniyoye
J. John (Rufiji District), Chande M. Ligibu (Kilwa District) and Said Kabanda (Liwale District) for working
very closely with the enumerators. Three anonymous
reviewers made useful comments on the manuscript
and Mr Simon Mwansasu assisted with data for the
map.
The corresponding author thanks his employer,
the Messerli Foundation of Switzerland, for the use
of their facilities while writing the paper.
References
Dublin HT, Hoare RE. 2004. Searching for solutions: an
integrated approach to understanding and mitigating human–elephant conflict in Africa. Human Dimensions
of Wildlife 9:271–278.
Gillingham S, Lee PC. 2003. People and protected areas: a
study of local perceptions of wildlife crop damage con-
37
Malima et al.
flict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve,
Tanzania. Oryx 37(3):316–325.
Hoare RE. 1999a. Data collection and analysis protocol for
human–elephant conflict situations in Africa. IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya, and
www. iucn.org/afesg. 37 p. Also in French.
Hoare RE. 1999b. Training package for enumerators of
elephant damage. IUCN African Elephant Specialist
Group, Nairobi, Kenya, and www. iucn.org/afesg. 17
p. Also in French.
Hoare RE. 1999c. Determinants of human–elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology
36:689–700.
Hoare RE. 2001a. A decision-support system for managing
human–elephant conflict situations in Africa. African
Elephant Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya, and www.
iucn.org/afesg. 104 p. Also in French and Portuguese.
Hoare RE. 2001b. Management implications of new research on problem elephants. Pachyderm 30:44–48.
Hoare RE, du Toit JT. 1999. Coexistence between people
and elephants in African savannas. Conservation Biology 13(3):633–639.
Holmern T, Johannesen AB, Mbaruka J, Mkama S, Muya
J, Roskaft E. 2004. Human–wildlife conflicts and hunting in the western Serengeti, Tanzania. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Project Report No.
26. Tungasletta 2, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway, and
www.nina.no
Kaltenborn BP, Nyahongo JW, Mayengo M. 2003. People
and wildlife interactions around Serengeti National
Park, Tanzania. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Project Report No. 22. Tungasletta 2,
NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway, and www.nina.no
38
Languy M. 1996. Suivi et attenuation de l’impact des
éléphants et autres mammifères sauvage sur
l’agriculture au Gabon. Rapport final, WWF Programme pour le Gabon.
Matzke G. 1976. The development of the Selous Game
Reserve. Tanzania Notes and Records No. 79 and 80.
Mpanduji DG, Hofer H, Hildebrandt TB, Goeritz F, East ML.
2002. Movement of elephants in the Selous–Niassa wildlife corridor, southern Tanzania. Pachyderm 33:18–31.
Nicholson BD. 1969. The Selous Game Reserve. Unpublished mimeograph copy of a speech to 2nd annual
meeting of Game Conservation International, San
Antonio, Texas, USA.
Osborn FV, Parker GE. 2002. Community-based methods
to reduce crop losses to elephants: experiments in the
communal lands of Zimbabwe. Pachyderm 33:32–38.
Osborn FV. 2003. Seasonal influence of rainfall and crops
on home-range expansion by bull elephants. Pachyderm
35:53–59.
Parker GE, Osborn FV. 2001. Dual-season crop damage by
elephants in the eastern Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe.
Pachyderm 30:49–56.
Sitati NW, Walpole J, Smith RJ, Leader-Williams N. 2003.
Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict.
Journal of Applied Ecology 40:667– 677.
Tanzania Census. 2002. Population and housing census
general report. Central Census Office, National Bureau of Statistics, Dar es Salaam.
Tchamba MN. 1996. History and present status of the human–elephant conflict in the Waza–Logone region,
Cameroon. Biological Conservation 75:34–41.
Elephant crop damage in the Red Volta Valley, Ghana
Elephant crop damage in the Red Volta Valley,
north-eastern Ghana
Patrick Adjewodah,1* Paul Beier,2 Moses K. Sam3 and John J. Mason1
1
Nature Conservation Research Centre, PO Box KN 925 Kaneshie, Accra, Ghana;
email: [email protected] and [email protected]; *corresponding author
2
School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5018, USA;
3
Resource Management Support Centre, Forestry Commission, PO Box 1457, Kumasi, Ghana;
Abstract
We monitored the crop-raiding behaviour of elephants that seasonally migrate into the Red Volta Valley as
part of a project to mitigate conflict. During 1999–2003 we organized farmers in the project area into associations, recorded the size of each raided farm, crops affected, area of farm damaged, date of damage and farm
location. The percentage of registered farmers affected by elephant crop raiding ranged from 2 to 3% per year.
Mean area damaged per raided farm averaged 0.98 ha in 2002. Damage varied considerably among affected
farms with < 1% to 100% of the cultivated area destroyed. Most raiding incidents occurred between August
and November, before and during crop harvest, which is also the period elephants migrate from Burkina Faso
into the study area. Seasonal migration produced a strong geographic pattern of sequential raiding in chiefdoms
bordering the Red Volta forest reserves that serve as the main elephant corridor. Chiefdoms farthest from the
Ghana–Burkina Faso border were the last to experience crop raiding each year. Within affected chiefdoms,
proximity to the forest boundary and the Red Volta River probably increases the risk of crop raiding. Human–
elephant conflict can be reduced by planting crops that mature early to advance harvest time to occur before
elephants arrive, and by locating farms away from forest reserves.
Additional key words: farm monitoring, elephant corridor
Résumé
Nous avons surveillé le comportement des éléphants qui ravagent les cultures et qui migrent de façon saisonnière
dans la Vallée de la Volta rouge, dans le cadre d’un projet destiné à tempérer les conflits. De 1999 à 2003, nous
avons rassemblé les fermiers de la zone du projet en associations, nous avons enregistré la taille de chaque
ferme attaquée, les cultures ravagés, la surface de ferme touché, la date des dommages et l’emplacement de la
ferme. Le pourcentage des fermiers enregistrés affectés par les dégâts d’éléphants allait de 2 à 3% par an. La
surface moyenne touchée par attaque d’éléphant était de 0,98 ha en 2002. Les dégâts variaient considérablement
selon les fermes, allant de < 1 à 100 % de la surface cultivée. La plupart des incidents se passaient entre août
et novembre, avant et pendant les récoltes, ce qui correspond au moment où les éléphants migrent du Burkina
Faso vers la région étudiée. La migration saisonnière a produit un pattern géographique très marqué de raids
séquentiels dans les chefferies qui bordent les réserves forestières de la Volta Rouge qui servent de corridor
principal pour les éléphants. Les chefferies les plus éloignées de la frontière Ghana–Burkina Faso sont chaque
année les dernières à subir les raids des éléphants. A l’intérieur des chefferies, la proximité de la limite forestière
et du fleuve augmente probablement les risques de dommages. On pourrait réduire les conflits hommes–
éléphants en plantant des semences qui mûrissent tôt, pour avancer le moment des récoltes avant l’arrivée des
éléphants, et en installant les fermes plus loin des réserves forestières.
Mots clé supplémentaires : surveillance pour les fermes, corridor d’éléphants
39
Adjewodah et al.
Introduction
Loss of habitat, illegal trade in ivory, and human intolerance to crop raiding are the major obstacles to conserving both African and Asian elephants (Sukumar
2003). Crop raiding occurs throughout elephant ranges
and probably began with the advent of agriculture
10,000 years ago. It has intensified as agriculture has
spread throughout the elephants’ range. The scientific
study of crop damage by elephants began only in the
1970s in Asia and in the 1980s in Africa. Since then, a
number of deterrent methods have been developed, including disturbance shooting and electric fencing
(Kangwana 1995; Thouless and Sakwa 1995). In the
1970s, electric fencing was considered the best way to
stop crop-raiding elephants, but not all fences have
worked (Thouless and Sakwa 1995). The high cost of
constructing and maintaining electric fences is unrealistic for many elephant-conflict sites in Africa. Disturbance shooting has been widely applied since the
colonial era despite suggestions that it also is only minimally successful in mitigating crop raiding (Ayigsi 1997;
Osborn and Parker 2002).
In 1970 the Ghana Wildlife Division (a unit of
Ghana’s Forestry Commission), under pressure from
complaints of crop raiding in the Red Volta Valley,
undertook a severe culling operation with the aim of
eliminating the elephant problem from the area (B.
Jamieson, consultant, 2000, pers. comm.). The cull
reportedly continued until no evidence of elephants
remained in the river valley. But by the mid-1990s
elephants were back and the Wildlife Division used
disturbance shooting to scare them away from farms.
However, the Wildlife Division did not have permanent presence in the valley and instead dispatched
deterrent teams from distant locations in response to
complaints from farmers and local politicians. These
ad hoc interventions were limited by budgetary constraints and had little impact on the conflict (Ayigsi
1997; NCRC 1999). In 1999 a community-based approach that empowered local people to implement
low-cost deterrent measures was initiated and has
since been increasingly effective in mitigating the
problem (Adjewodah et al. 2003).
Causes of crop raiding
Several factors affect the number and location of human–elephant conflicts. In Africa seasonal movements of elephants bring them into contact with
40
farmlands, which have encroached and fragmented
on their traditional range (Hoare 1999). In India seasonal elephant movement, competition for water,
reduction and degradation of natural habitat, and the
higher nutritive value of cultivated crops as compared
with uncultivated food are associated with increased
crop raiding (Sukumar 1990). In Zimbabwe rainfall
and plant moisture may influence the movement of
elephants into communal land from a protected area
(Osborn 2003). Insufficient habitat in protected
areas and modification of the landscape by humans
contribute to elephant crop raiding in the Upper
Guinean forest zone of West Africa (Barnes 2002). In
this same landscape Sam et al. (2003) has suggested
that elephant migratory movements affect crop raiding. Sam et al. (1998) found that a growing human population and the need for new farmland has increased
human–elephant conflict in the Red Volta Valley.
Others (Lowry and Donahue 1994; Okoumassou et
al. 1998) attributed a surge in the incidence of elephant
crop raiding in the Red Volta Valley in the early to
mid-1990s to the displacement of elephants in northern Togo during political instability in that country.
History of crop raiding
In the mid-1990s, crop raiding by elephants was an
important problem for farmers in the Red Volta Valley (NCRC 1999). Okoumassou et al. (1998) reported
farmers were intolerant to the risk of losing crops to
elephants and suggested that local people’s hostility
was the most critical short-term threat facing elephants
there. Farmers’ intolerance to crop damage encouraged elephant hunters employed to protect communal farm enclaves to poach (NCRC 1999, 2000;
Adjewodah et al. 2003). The Red Volta Valley Conservation Project, which was initiated in 1999 to mitigate the conflict that ensued, involved the
collaboration of the Nature Conservation Research
Centre (NCRC—a Ghanaian conservation NGO), the
communities and traditional authorities in the project
area, the Wildlife Division, and the Bolgatanga and
Bawku West district assemblies among others.
In this paper, we report on patterns of crop damage during 1999–2003. Our objectives are to describe
the patterns of crop raiding by an elephant herd that
is only seasonally present in the region, and determine whether crop damage is related to geographic
location, stage of crop maturity and type of crops.
Research area
The Red Volta Valley comprises the Red Volta East,
Red Volta West, Gambaga Scarp East, Gambaga Scarp
West, Morago East and Morago West Forest Reserves
and adjacent woodlands and fallow lands off the reserve (latitude 10°3’2 to 11°00’2 N, longitude 0°45’2
to 0°00’2 W) in the Bolgatanga, Bawku West and
Bongo Districts of the Upper East Region (fig. 1).
The area experiences two climatic seasons: dry
and wet. The wet season extends from May to November, and the dry season from December to April.
The mean annual rainfall is about 900 mm with an
annual peak between July and September. The dry
period is characterized by desiccating north-east
winds known as harmattan, which bring dust and haze
from the Sahara Desert, and by bushfires between December and February affecting over 90% of the area
annually. The vegetation is fire pro-climax and is locally influenced by human activities such as farming, charcoal burning, small-scale mining, cattle
grazing, and harvesting of firewood and building poles
(Wheelan 1950).
BURKINA
FASO
R
Widnaba
E
ta
Vol
Red
Bongo
The Red Volta, White Volta and Morago Rivers
and their tributaries drain the area. Both the Red Volta
(called River Nazinon in Burkina Faso) and the White
Volta flow south from Burkina Faso. The Morago
takes its source from northern Togo near Fosse aux
Lions National Park as River Koulagouna, and flows
into the White Volta River in Ghana (fig. 1). The gallery of forest reserves along these rivers and the adjoining community lands are the major areas with
natural vegetation, which is predominantly Guinean
savanna woodland (Taylor 1952) that constitutes a
network of habitat linking the Red Volta Valley to
elephant ranges in northern Togo and southern
Burkina Faso. The Red Volta area has been further
discussed elsewhere (Sam et al. 1998).
Okoumassou et al. (1998) reported the movement
of elephants between Ghana and Togo along the
Morago–Koulagouna Rivers. Elephants were seen
most frequently in the Red Volta Valley during the
wet season, especially as harvest time approached.
Okoumassou et al. (1998) noted that elephants seem
to move northwards from the Red Volta into Burkina
Faso for the dry season, and southwards again in the
Zebiila
Natinga
D
bo
Tam
V O
Tilli
Garu Natinga
L
Nangodi
T
a
olt
eV
hit
W
A
W
T
E S
Sakote
Bulpielisa
ta
Vol
ed
R
T
F O R E S
Datoko
R V E
S E
R E
Tongo
Kusanaba
RED VOLTA EAST
FOREST RESERVE
ta
Vol
ite
Wh
a
olt
dV
Re
e
hit
W
lta
Vo
GAMBAGA SCARP WEST
FOREST RESERVE
MORAGO EAST
FOREST RESERVE
MORAGO WEST
FOREST RESERVE
Zongoiri
Biungu/Degari
RED VOLTA WEST
FOREST RESERVE
lta
White Vo
Shiego
Bugwia
ta
Vol
ite
Wh
GAMBAGA SCARP EAST
FOREST RESERVE
Gambaga
Nakpanduri
Bimbago
Sakogu
Nalerigo
o
rag
Mo
TOGO
er
Riv
LEGEND
road
river
international boundary
town/village
forest
raided farms
Figure 1. Map of villages and chiefdoms showing their position relative to the Ghana border and to the Red
Volta River and forest reserves.
41
Adjewodah et al.
early wet season. In the early 1990s elephants were common and resident in northern Togo, but political unrest
during 1990–1992 in that country encouraged encroachment of protected areas and displaced elephants into
neighbouring Benin, Ghana and Burkina Faso (Lowry
and Donahue 1994; Okoumassou et al. 1998). The more
than 130 elephants inhabiting the Togo end of the corridor are believed to have disappeared (Okoumassou et
al. 1998), and the seasonal migration of elephants across
the border between Red Volta Valley and northern Togo
appears to have halted (Adjewodah 2004).
Farming practices
Farming in the study area involved seasonal rain-fed
subsistence agriculture. Farming activities started with
land preparation beginning in the late dry season
(March–April), followed by planting in May and June.
Farm sizes in four chiefdoms in 2003 ranged from 0.1
ha to 7.3 ha (mean 0.7 ha, n = 104). Farm size as estimated and reported by farmers in seven chiefdoms averaged 1.3 ha (n = 814). Crops grown, in order of
decreasing area cultivated, include millet, maize,
groundnut, bean, guinea corn, rice and yam (table 1).
In 2003 monocultures of millet comprised 33%, maize
30% and groundnut 12% (n = 104 farms) of the area of
crops grown. A variety of early-maturing millet usually grown in June (in the courtyard of the farmer) takes
about two months to mature. A second variety of millet, known as late millet, is sown after June on bush
farms (farms closer to the forest reserves than to settle-
ments). This variety is harvested between September
and November.
Methods
To survey crop damage in farms throughout the
project area we organized farmers into associations
called farm-monitoring groups, within traditional
authority constituencies or chiefdoms. An average of
8 (range 7–9) chiefdoms participated each year; here
we report on 7 chiefdoms for which consistent records
were available. Each constituency or chiefdom consisted of 4 to 12 villages, which shared a common
farm enclave and a local chief. The communal farm
enclaves were adjacent to the forest reserves and consisted of islands of cultivation within fallows. We did
not register farmers cultivating enclaves where crop
raiding was not an issue or farms inside the reserves.
We registered 996 farmers in 1999, the first year
of the project. The number of participating farmers
increased to 1500 in 2000 following a perceived drastic reduction in crop-raiding incidents (NCRC 2000;
Adjewodah et al. 2003). In 2003, 1030 farmers were
registered (table 1). Although we did not enumerate
the entire farming population, we believe over 80%
of farmers cultivating farmlands with raiding history
participated in the project each year. In some areas,
the improved confidence of farmers resulted in the
return to abandoned farms, some of which were on
the edge of the forest reserves.
Table 1. Area of farms (in ha) reported by registered farmers in 2003 (total for all crops exceeds total area
because some crops were grown together)
Chiefdom
Biungu
Kusanaba
Nangodi
Sakote
Tilli
Widnaba
Zongoiri
Total
Farmers
Area
registered cultivateda
Millet
Maize
Groundnut
Crop
Bean
Guinea
corn
Rice
Yam
74
160
142
246
94
127
187
498
114
–b
158
56
91
607
498
0
–b
1
1
74
468
498
70
–b
14
54
4
125
119
8
–b
106
1
22
27
219
0
–b
5
0
7
0
20
105
–b
17
14
8
0
56
0
–b
20
0
1
0
62
0
–b
0
0
0
0
1030
1524
1042
765
283
231
164
77
62
a
Area cultivated by registered farmers only. The chiefdom’s farm enclave was about 3600 ha in each of Biungu, Kusanaba,
and Zongoiri, about 1600 ha in each of Nangodi and Sakote, 2600 ha in Tilli, and 2000 ha in Widnaba. We did not
encourage farmers to register where crop raiding was not an issue or if they were inside the reserves.
b
Data not recorded
42
We held a series of meetings to introduce farmers
to the monitoring programme and a companion programme to reduce crop damage. Registration was
voluntary. Each of the 33 groups participating in the
programme in 1999 elected two representatives: a
leader and an enumerator. Members of the farm
groups and associations registered their farms with
their respective enumerators during the planting seasons (May/June) of 1999 to 2003. We supervised these
exercises and made sure the following farm variables
as reported by the farmer were recorded: name of
farmer, sex, general location of farm, size of farm,
crops planted and date of sowing.
The farm groups cooperated to implement a set
of measures against crop raiding by elephants
(Adjewodah et al. 2003). Group members shared information on elephant damage and movement among
themselves and with the project team, and they formed
cooperatives to enable them to harvest crops in a
timely manner. The project team held periodic meetings with the groups to prepare them for the cropraiding season. The effectiveness of these measures
was gauged by a monitoring exercise, which required
the registered farmers to record the crop damage they
reported. Affected farmers reported crop-raiding incidents to their leader or enumerator. The enumerator then visited the affected farm to assess and record
the damage using a standardized format developed
by the IUCN Human Elephant Working Group of the
African Elephant Specialist Group (Hoare 1999). The
enumerator estimated the area damaged by pacing it
off; categorized crop stage as seedling, intermediate,
or mature; and graded the quality of crops affected as
poor, medium or good. This assessment was subjective because it relied on the judgement of the enumerator and opportunistic because it relied on farmers
to report incidents. These weaknesses were, however,
outweighed by affording large coverage of the elephant range, low cost and sustainability of approach.
We collected data forms for analysis from the
group leaders at the end of the crop-raiding season in
November. Because records for 1999 were incomplete, 1999 data were not used in some analyses. We
used an index of damage developed by Hoare (1999).
The damage score is the sum of the age score of crop
(1 = seedling, 2 = intermediate, 3 = mature), the quality score (1 = poor, 2 = medium, and 3 = good) and
the damage category (1 = ≤5% of farm area damaged, 2 = 6–10%, 3 = 11–20%, 4 = 21–50%, 5 = 51–
80%, and 6 = >80%). We interpreted damage scores
as low (1–5), medium (6–8), or high (9–12).
We recorded the geographical coordinates of some
villages and raided farms with a hand-held geographical positioning system. We used a GIS to calculate
the distance of settlements and raided farms from the
nearest forest reserve boundary and from the Red
Volta River. In 2003 only, we randomly selected and
measured 20% of the registered farms in the two
chiefdoms most affected (Kusanaba and Sakote) and
the two least affected (Tilli and Widnaba). For each
of the 104 farms, we recorded GPS coordinates, measured the cultivated area (by pacing) and recorded the
crops raised.
Results
Elephant damage
Each year less than 4% of registered farmers were
affected and the mean damaged area per raided farm
was less than 1.5 ha (table 2). Damage varied considerably among farms and ranged from less than 1% to
100%, with about 56% of raided farms experiencing
damage to less than 21% of the farm and about 27%
of raided farms experiencing damage to over 50% of
the farm (fig. 2).
During 1999–2002 elephants raided 111 registered
farms affecting 2.3% of the farms registered during
this period (table 2). The percentage of farmers affected ranged from 2 to 3% per year with little change
among years until 2003, when elephants were absent
in the Red Volta during harvest. The mean damage
score of affected farms was low (table 2).
Between 2000 and 2002 millet was the most affected crop followed by guinea corn, groundnut and
rice (table 3). The affected crops were usually raided
during mature stages when they were ready for harvest. Most raiding affected crops of medium to good
quality with considerable variation among crops (table 3).
Temporal and geographic pattern of crop
raiding
Crop raiding by elephants usually occurred from June
to November. October was the peak crop-raiding month
in each year (fig. 3) with about 72% of the raiding cases
during 2000 to 2002 being recorded. The peak period
43
Adjewodah et al.
Table 2. Number of farmers registered and affected by elephant crop raiding, and mean annual damage
score for 1999–2003
Number
affected
Year
Number of
registered
farmers
Percentage
of farmers
affected
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
996
1500
1500
859
1030
30
32
24
25
0
3
2
2
3
0
Average number of
Mean damage score
hectares damaged per per raided farm (on
raided farm
scale of 1–12)
not available
1.29
0.53
0.98
–
not available
1.39
1.31
1.25
–
40
Percentage of farms
chiefdoms further south (fig.
1).
In 2000 the first cropraiding incident was at
30
Kusanaba on 2 September,
followed by raids in Sakote
later in the same month. It
was not until 2 October that
Biungu, the chiefdom far20
thest from the Ghana–
Burkina Faso border,
experienced its first raid that
year. In 2001 the first raided
10
chiefdoms were Nangodi and
Sakote. Zongoiri, the chiefdom farthest from the border,
experienced its first raid on
0
15 November, about two
<1
11–20
31–40
51–60
81–90
months after the first reported
1–10
21–30
41–50
71–80
91–100
cases at Sakote and Nangodi.
A similar pattern occurred in
Percentage of farms damaged
2002. This pattern is consistFigure 2. Frequency distribution of percentage of farm damage for 87 farms
ent with an annual movement
raided during 2000–2002.
from Burkina Faso into the
Red Volta Valley (fig. 1).
All crops the elephants raided were on bushfarms
coincided with the time when farm crops were mature,
ripe or ready for harvest. However, in 2002 raiding about 2–8 km from the nearest village. Compared with
started as early as June (28%) and ended in November the main village in each chief-dom, farms damaged
by elephants were relatively close to the Red Volta
(4%).
Crop raiding was localized, with elephants return- West and Red Volta East Reserves (fig. 1). Because
ing to the same communities over the years. The Sakote only farmers historically affected by elephants were
chiefdom recorded 45 of the 90 raids between 2000 likely to register, we could not further quantify proxand 2002; next were 18 raiding incidents in Kusanaba, imity to forest reserves as a risk factor. Overall, there
9 in Nangodi and 9 in Biungu (table 4). The annual was no correlation between the percentage of regisincidents per chiefdom were low near Ghana’s border tered farms in a chiefdom that was raided by elephants
with Burkina Faso, where the elephants are assumed to and the distance from the main village in the chiefdom
spend most of the year, peaked further south along the to the Red Volta River (r = –0.28, p > 0.50, n = 7).
Red Volta at Sakote and Kusanaba, and decreased in For the two most heavily raided chiefdoms (Sakote
44
Table 3. Composition of damaged area for 105 farms raided by elephants during 2000–2002
Crop
Percentage
of crop area
damaged
Millet
Guinea corn
Groundnut
Rice
Maize
Bean
31
27
17
16
8
1
Percentage of crop in
mature
intermediate seedling
stage
stage
stage
71
42
100
16
68
100
29
58
0
79
32
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
Percentage of crop of
good
medium
poor
quality
quality
quality
38
56
94
32
43
100
44
40
0
37
43
0
18
4
6
31
14
0
have been reported). Furthermore, most raided farms suffered < 20% crop loss.
Apparently, crop damage in the
60
2000
Red Volta region of Ghana has
2001
remained low since 1999 (see
2002
below), and is no longer important in the regional economy as
40
a whole. However, farms are
small, the cultivated field is the
farmer’s investment for the
20
whole year, and the impact on
individual farmers can be considerable. Even a small area
raided is catastrophic to the
0
farmer and the farm family.
June
August
September
October
November
Farmers identify with the plight
of their neighbours, and crop
Month
raiding affecting one family
Figure 3. Percentage of annual crop-raiding incidents occurring in each
may generate animosity towards
month by year during 2000–2002.
elephants in many. Thus continual efforts should be made to
and Kusanaba), we calculated distances of a random maintain the current low level of raiding incidents
sample of registered farms from forest reserves. For and harmony between farmers and elephants. DiverSakote, the mean distance of farms raided during sifying economic activities in communities along the
2000–2002 (0.58 km) was less than the mean dis- corridor could make a significant difference in how
tance of registered farms from forest reserves (1.27 farmers perceive elephants.
Unlike most human–elephant conflict zones in
km). However, these distances did not differ at
Kusanaba with 2.23 km for random farms and 2.33 Africa, crop raiding in the Red Volta is predictable
because of the seasonal migration. Raiding incidents
km for raided farms.
are concentrated in a few months close to the time
crops are harvested. Thus, simple measures such as
Discussion
planting crops that can be harvested early helped reIn most years about 2–3% of registered farms were duce crop raiding to the low levels reported here (2–
raided by elephants. Because our programme attracted 3% of registered farmers) from higher levels in the
only farmers at risk of elephant crop raiding, the over- early 1990s (Adjewodah et al. 2003). Although there
all incidence of crop raiding in the chiefdoms is prob- were no reliable baseline data for assessing crop damably lower than this (although some raids may not age before the project intervention, NCRC (2000)
Percentage
80
45
Adjewodah et al.
Table 4. Frequency and extent of crop raiding in relation to distance of chiefdoms from the nearest forest
reserve boundary and the Red Volta River
Main
village in
chiefdom
Biungu
Kusanaba
Nangodi
Sakote
Tilli
Widnaba
Zongoiri
Total
Distance from Distance to
main village to Red Volta
forest reserve
(km)
(km)
4.36
7.10a
1.28
1.58b
2.62c
2.16d
4.24
7.99
8.26
5.24
4.81
5.33
6.78
14.45
Number of incidents
Mean area damaged per affected farm
(ha)
2000
2001
2002
Total
2000
2001
2002
Total
8
2
0
28
0
0
0
0
12
2
5
1
0
6
1
4
7
12
2
0
0
9
18
9
45
3
0
6
0.09
1.04
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.15
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.01
0.75
0.11
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.09
1.14
0.90
0.29
0.07
0.00
0.21
38
26
26
90
1.29
0.52
0.89
2.70
a
Compared with the main village in each chiefdom, most registered farms were located closer to the river and to forest
reserves. For a random sample of 32 registered farms in this chiefdom in 2003, distances to forest reserve ranged from
0.63 to 3.83 km (mean 2.23).
b
For a random sample of 34 registered farms in this chiefdom in 2003, distances to forest reserve ranged from 0.49 to
1.88 km (mean 1.27).
c
5.48 km (mean 2.65).
d
2.16 km (mean 1.01).
estimated from farmer interviews that about 400 ha
of farm were destroyed by elephants over a two-year
period (1995–1996) compared with a documented
total of 18 ha during 2000–2002. However, we caution that crop-damage data collected through interviews are most likely an exaggeration and may not
provide a reliable basis for comparison with our quantitative data. But as many as 133 farms were damaged in 1996 (Sam et al. 1997), compared with an
average of 22.2 farms affected from 1999 to 2003
(table 2).
On the other hand, it is possible the decline in
crop raiding is a reflection of declining numbers of
elephants migrating from Burkina Faso. The lack of
incidents in 2003 is likely because elephants apparently that year did not enter Ghana when crops were
at the preferred stage of growth (Adjewodah 2004).
However, migratory elephants were recorded within
7 km of the Ghana border in 2003 (Sawadogo 2003)
and NCRC staff have recorded their return in 2004.
Location of chiefdoms or farm enclaves with respect to the Ghana–Burkina Faso border (on a north–
south axis) and to the forest reserves (on an east–west
axis) are among factors that determine timing and frequency of elephant crop raiding within chiefdoms.
Each year, the annual events of crop damage start with
elephant raids in chiefdoms close to the border in-
46
cluding Sakote, Tilli and Kusanaba. This pattern probably reflects the cross-border migration and movement of elephants from south-central Burkina Faso
to the Red Volta Valley. However, Widnaba, the
chiefdom nearest to the border, experienced no crop
raiding from 2000 to 2002, indicating that distance
from the border is not the only factor. Sam et al. (2002)
found that an increasing number of cattle reduces the
probability of finding elephants outside the Red Volta
forest reserves. Elephants may also avoid areas with
increased human presence and disturbance (Barnes et
al. 1991; Mpanduji et al. 2002), high poaching or
prevalence of physical barriers. However, we have
no evidence that Widnaba differs from other communities with respect to these factors.
Within chiefdoms, farms closest to forest reserves
and the major rivers are at increased risk of crop damage by elephants. Our observation is consistent with
results from elsewhere in Africa. Bell (1984) mentions animals using rivers as channels for crop damage. Naughton-Treves (1997) mentions heavier crop
damage in fields at the edge of forests. Parker and
Osborn (2001) note increased crop damage at the edge
of protected areas and increased crop raiding along
river systems in the dry season. Although we lacked
the data (that is, locations of a large sample of farms)
needed to quantify how risk varies with distance from
forest, the very fact that only farmers near forest reserves registered for the programme indicates the
importance of such proximity. This almost certainly
reflects elephant preference for these rivers and forests as a migratory corridor (Sam et al. 1997) and
underscores the importance of maintaining natural
vegetation in these areas against farm encroachment
and unnaturally frequent bush fires. We recommend
moving some farms away from the reserve boundary
to further reduce elephant raiding in the Red Volta
Valley. However, crop raiding will continue to remain
an issue as long as elephants remain in the valley because they prefer cultivated grasses, such as finger
millet, to wild grass, as they seek more nutritious
foods in line with the optimum forage theory
(Sukumar 1990, 1994). Again in line with the optimum forage theory, our results indicate elephant preference for mature and good-quality crops, which are
likely to be more nutritious than immature crops. Bell
(1984) and Parker and Osborn (2001) also found that
elephants select mature crops over seedlings or immature crops. Thus it will remain important to organize farmers at risk into groups that can share
knowledge and quickly haze elephants or harvest
crops in response to approaching elephants.
Conclusion
The results from our survey also underscore the urgent need for measures to conserve the Red Volta
Valley. This area holds a small and vulnerable population of elephants that seasonally migrate between
Ghana and Burkina Faso (and to Togo in the recent
past). The key to successful management of the valley and the elephants within it lies in a collaborative
effort by stakeholders both in-country and across the
borders. A collaborative community reserve approach
that will make local communities decision-makers not
onlookers, that will make them benefactors from elephants not victims of their activities, holds a promising future for elephants.
We support efforts by IUCN/AfESG to facilitate
international collaboration among Ghana, Burkina
Faso and Togo to create the Nazinga–Kabore Tambi–
Red Volta–Doung elephant corridor to formally link
the Red Volta Valley with elephant ranges in southcentral Burkina Faso and northern Togo. In this regard, we have developed a concept paper for the
Ghana component of this corridor, which will be validated with a broad group of stakeholders and then
developed into an implementation plan. The Earthwatch
Institute, a charitable international institution supporting field research, is also working with us on a longterm ecological research project in the Red Volta
starting from 2005, which will advance Ghana’s effort to develop the elephant corridor.
Acknowledgements
The 2003 crop-raiding data collection was supported
by the European Commission through the Small Grants
Programme of the African Elephant Specialist Group
(AfESG) of the Species Survival Commission (SSC),
World Conservation Union (IUCN). The kind support
of the above institutions is deeply appreciated. The Red
Volta Conservation Project is also indebted to USAID
and the Canada Fund for the seed funding of this project.
We are grateful to Drs R. Sukumar and R.F.W.
Barnes for providing insight and technical papers to
Mr P. Adjewodah during project planning. We are grateful to Messrs G. Agbango, the project field assistant,
and A.J. Murphy for playing their various roles. Finally
we especially thank the project communities for their
cooperation and hospitality. We hope that this paper will
encourage ongoing efforts and draw new partners in
supporting efforts towards coexistence of farmers and
elephants in the Red Volta Valley.
References
Adjewodah P. 2004. Habitat status, population and distribution of the African savanna elephant (Loxodonta
africana) in north-eastern Ghana. Unpublished report.
IUCN/AfESG project SG0203, Nairobi.
Adjewodah P, Mason JJ, Murphy AJ. 2003. Mitigating
elephant crop raiding: the Red Volta Valley experience.
Unpublished report. IUCN/AfESG, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ayigsi J. 1997. Volta–Morago community elephant reserve
project: summary of field report. Unpublished project
report. Nature Conservation Research Centre, Accra.
Barnes RFW. 2002. Treating crop-raiding elephants with
aspirin. Pachyderm 33:96–99.
Barnes RFW, Barnes KL, Alers MPT, Blom A. 1991. Man
determines the distribution of elephants in the rainforest of northern Gabon. African Journal of Ecology
29:54–63.
Bell RHV. 1984. The man–animal interface: an assessment
of crop damage and wildlife control. In: Bell RHV and
Mcshane-Caluzi, eds., Conservation and wildlife management in Africa. US Peace Corps seminar, Malawi.
47
Adjewodah et al.
Hoare R. 1999. Data collection and analysis protocol for
human–elephant conflict situation in Africa. A document prepared for the IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group’s Human–Elephant Conflict Taskforce.
AfESG, Nairobi.
Kangwana K. 1995. Human–elephant conflict: the challenge
ahead. Pachyderm 19:11–14.
Lowry A, Donahue TP. 1994. Parks, politics and pluralism:
the demise of national parks in Togo. Society and Natural Resources 7:321–329.
Mpanduji DG, Hofer H, Hilderbrandt TB, Goeritz F, East
ML. 2002. Movement of elephants in the Selous–Niassa
wildlife corridor, southern Tanzania. Pachyderm
33:8–31.
Naughton-Treves L. 1997. Farming the forest edge: vulnerable places and people around Kibale National Park,
Uganda. Geographical Review 57(1):27–46.
[NCRC] Nature Conservation Research Centre. 1999. The
micro-best practices project: report of the ecological
baseline survey in the Red Volta River Valley of the
Upper East Region. Unpublished report. NCRC/
TechnoServe Inc., Accra.
[NCRC] Nature Conservation Research Centre. 2000. The
micro-best practices project: monitoring report on the
ecological impact of the project for the second period.
Unpublished project report. TechnoServe Inc., Accra.
Okoumassou K, Barnes RFW, Sam M. 1998. The distribution of elephants in north-eastern Ghana and northern
Togo. Pachyderm 26:52–60.
Osborn FV. 2003. Seasonal influence of rainfall and crops
on home-range expansion by bull elephants. Pachyderm
35:53–59.
to reduce crop loss to elephants: experiments in the
Parker GE, Osborn FV. 2001. Dual-season crop damage by
elephants in northern Zimbabwe. Pachyderm 30:49–56.
Sam MK. 1994. A preliminary survey of elephants in northern Ghana. Unpublished report. Ghana Wildlife Depart-
48
ment, Accra.
Sam MK, Ayensu S, Agbenu V, Kumordzi BB, Wilson S.
2003. Reconnaissance survey of human–elephant conflict in the Dadieso area, western Ghana. Pachyderm
35:132–135.
Sam MK, RFW Barnes, Okoumassou K. 1998. Elephants,
human ecology and environmental degradation in north
eastern Ghana and northern Togo. Pachyderm 26:61–
68.
Sam MK, Haizel C, Barnes RFW. 1997. Crop-raiding by
elephants during the 1996 harvest season in the Red
Volta Valley (Upper East Region Ghana). Unpublished
report. Ghana Wildlife Department, Accra.
Sam MK, Haizel CAK, Barnes RFW. 2002. Do cattle determine elephant distribution in the Red Volta Valley
of northern Ghana? Pachyderm 33:39–42.
Sawadogo B. 2003. Etude et cartographie des mouvements
et des zones de conflicts des éléphants entre le Parc
Nationale de Po dit Kabore Tambi et la frontière du
Ghana le long de la Volta rouge. Unpublished report.
IUCN/AfESG, Nairobi.
Sukumar R. 1990. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. 2. Feeding habits and raiding patterns. Journal of Tropical Ecology 6:33–53.
Sukumar R. 1994. Wildlife–human conflict in India: an
ecological and social perspective. In: Guha H, ed., Social ecology. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. p.
303–317.
Sukumar R. 2003. Living elephants: evolutionary ecology,
behavior and conservation. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Taylor CJ. 1952. The vegetation zone of Gold Coast. Bulletin of the Gold Cost Forestry Department 4:1– 2.
Thouless CR, Sakwa J. 1995. Shocking elephants: fencing
and crop raiders in Laikipia District, Kenya. Biological Conservation 72:99–107.
Wheelan JH. 1950. Red Volta West Reserve working plan.
Unpublished report. Forestry Services Division,
Bolgatanga, Ghana.
Nature and extent of human–elephant conflict in Bia Conservation Area, Ghana
Nature and extent of human–elephant conflict in Bia
Conservation Area, Ghana
Moses Kofi Sam,1* Emmanuel Danquah,2 Samuel K. Oppong3 and Enoch A. Ashie4
1
Resource Management Support Centre, Forestry Commission, PO Box 1457, Kumasi, Ghana;
email: [email protected], *corresponding author
2
A Rocha Ghana, PO Box KN, Kaneshie, Accra, Ghana; email: [email protected]
3
Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi, Ghana; email: [email protected]
4
Bia National Park, Wildlife Division of Forestry Commission, Sefwi-Asempanaye, Sefwi-Wiawso, Ghana
Abstract
An investigation into the nature and extent of human–elephant conflicts in and around Bia Conservation Area was
carried out during the 2004 rainy season. This exercise was done by administering questionnaires to wildlife staff
and local communities as well as by actual field measurement of damaged farms. There were 49 elephant cropdamage incidents involving 44 farms belonging to 36 farmers. Elephant crop damage was a serious problem in
the conservation area, with farmers around the southern portions being the most affected. The number of raids
increased with the proximity of a cluster of farms to the park boundary, and the number of crop types. The area
under cultivation could influence the number of raids. There was almost 50% probability that if one’s farm was
raided, about half of the crop would be destroyed. This was exacerbated by the fact that raiding targeted mature
and good-quality crops. The high damage levels have resulted in continuous friction between farmers and conservationists since most farmers do not see any advantage in conserving elephants.
Résumé
On a mené une enquête sur la nature et l’étendue des conflits hommes–éléphants dans et autour de la Zone de
Conservation de Bia pendant la saison des pluies de 2004. Cet exercice a été réalisé au moyen de questionnaires remis au personnel de la faune et aux communautés locales ainsi que par des mesures directes, sur le
terrain des dégâts causés aux fermes. Il y a eu 49 incidents où des éléphants ont dévasté des récoltes, impliquant
44 fermes appartenant à 36 fermiers. Les dégâts causés par les éléphants aux récoltes sont un problème
sérieux dans l’aire de conservation, les fermiers se trouvant aux environs des parties sud étant les plus affectés.
Le nombre de raids augmentait avec la proximité du groupe de fermes par rapport au parc et avec le nombre
de types de cultures. La zone cultivée pouvait influencer le nombre de raids. Il y avait presque 50 % de
risques que, si une ferme était attaquée, près de la moitié des récoltes soit détruite. Ceci était aggravé du fait
que les attaques visaient surtout des cultures arrivées à maturité et de bonne qualité. Le taux élevé de destruction a entraîné des frictions continues entre les fermiers et les protecteurs de l’environnement étant donné que
la plupart des fermiers ne voient aucun avantage à la conservation des éléphants.
Introduction
Human–elephant conflict (HEC) is a problem that
many parks and reserves across Africa experience.
This problem is especially severe in West Africa,
where isolated populations of elephants often live
adjacent to areas of dense agriculture (Sukumar 1990;
AfESG 1999). As human populations increase and
elephant populations become more concentrated in
isolated protected areas and remnant forest habitats,
these conflicts are almost certain to escalate (Barnes
et al. 1995), making this problem one of Africa’s most
49
Sam et al.
challenging conservation issues (Hoare and du Toit
1999).
Crop damage by elephants around Bia Conservation Area (BCA) is a serious multifaceted management problem that authorities of the Wildlife Division
of Ghana face (Sam 2000). While the problem has
been investigated extensively (Barnes et al. 2003) to
identify the underlying causes, there have not been
many systematic data-gathering attempts on this issue in the area for park management to understand
and appreciate habitat requirements and the crop-raiding behaviour of BCA elephants. To study the nature
and extent of the HEC situation and to help park management tackle the problem effectively, we conducted
a social survey in some of the affected communities
and took measurements on affected farms.
Study area
The Bia Conservation Area comprises Bia National
Park (NP) in the north and its adjoining Bia Resource
Reserve (RR) in the south. The two forests form a
block of 306 km2 located in the moist evergreen and
moist semi-deciduous forest zones of western Ghana.
BCA lies between latitude 6°20′ to 6º40′ N and longitude 3º00′ to 3º10′ W, sandwiched between the Bia
River and the border with Cote d’Ivoire (fig. 1).
The area has an annual precipitation of between
1500 and 1750 mm (Hall and Swaine 1976) with two
peaks, in June and October. Average monthly temperature in the area falls between 28 and 24°C with
extremes of 34 and 18°C. The farming system is rain
fed, with farming activities being undertaken throughout the year, resulting in year-round crop raids.
Methods
To understand the human–elephant situation around
BCA, both the historical and the current crop-raiding
situations were determined. This was done through
questionnaires and conducting interviews with 42
randomly selected members of 11 randomly picked
N 6° 40´
Bia
National
Park
N 6° 35´
N 6° 25´
Bia Rive
r
Bia
Resource
Reserve
N 6° 30´
COTE
D'IVOIRE
Ghana
N 6° 20´
W 3° 10´
W 3° 05´
W 3° 00´
0
5
10 km
Figure 1. Bia Conservation Area, Ghana.
50
fringe communities out of a total of 20 major com- of subjectivity in determining the quality scoring by
munities within 7 km of BCA. We tried to determine defining the quality of various crops grown in the area
the types of conflicts that occurred, how long each as poor, medium, or good and by ensuring that the
had been going on, the frequency, spatial extent and same set of enumerators was used throughout the
so on, through a questionnaire specifically developed study.
for this study. With this approach, we gathered some
We recorded the geographical coordinates of raided
qualitative historical and current information on the farms with a GPS. By plotting relative positions on a
distribution and frequency of crop raids around the map of the study area, we determined the distance of
study area (Sam et al. 2003).
raided farms from the nearest forest boundary.
Information on current crop-damage incidents
(usually gathered within 48 hours), crops raided, Results
growth stage at which crops were raided, crops spared,
and time of year raids occurred was gathered using Crop raiding in the study area is a serious problem,
an elephant damage report form developed by the and it occurs throughout the year. Forty-two farmers,
IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) aged 21 to 50 years, were arbitrarily drawn from the
(Hoare 1999). The area in square metres of a raided 11 randomly selected communities (fig. 2) around
farm was estimated by roughly subdividing the farm BCA and interviewed. Immigrants formed the mainto measurable shapes (squares, rectangles, triangles, jority (72%), while natives constituted the remaining
etc.) and summing up the calculated areas. The total 28%.
Forty-two farmers were interviewed, the majoraffected area of damaged crops was measured likeity of whom (57%) had not seen or had any physical
wise.
Extent of damage was
scored for raided crops
and farms based on an index of damage developed
Kwakudua
by Hoare (1999). Damage
Asuopri
N
6°40´
score was then scaled from
0 to >9 (integers only).
Bia
Kramokrom
Manukrom
Scores ≤5 were interpreted
National
Adjuofia
Park
as low and non-severe, N 6°35´
scores from 6–8 were
ranked medium damage,
Nkrumahkrom
Bia
and scores ≥9 were inter- N 6°30´
Resource
Reserve
preted as being high and
severe.
The damage score was N 6°25´
Sabin
Akatiso
the sum of the age score
of crops (1 = seedling, 2 =
Anwiafutu
intermediate, 3 = mature), N 6°20´
Anwiafutu jct
the quality score (1 = poor,
Alhajikrom
2 = medium, 3 = good) and
the damage category (1 =
≤5% of farm area damW 3°15´ W 3°10´ W 3°05´ W 3°00´ W 2°55´ W 2°50´
aged, 2 = 6–10 %, 3 = 11–
20%, 4 = 21–50%, 5 =
Legend
0
5 10 km
51–80%, and 6 = > 80%
= crop-raiding sites
of farm damaged). With
= communities interviewed
our experience regarding
the farming system in the Figure 2. Distribution of the study communities and crop-raiding incidents near
area, we reduced the level Bia Conservation Area.
51
Sam et al.
encounter with elephants within the past six years.
They also had no idea whether elephant numbers had
increased or not. Most of the farmers (90%) employed
different kinds of traditional deterrent methods for
driving elephants away from their farms: noise making by beating on metal objects, and firing guns and
carbide bombs were the most frequent. However,
noise making alone was not very effective unless combined with other methods like burning car tyres or
setting up fires during the night. It must be noted that
in the wake of all these traditional ways of deterring
elephants, most farmers would fear for their lives were
they to come face to face with elephants on their
farms, and hence they had always relied on the Wildlife Division guards to drive raiding elephants back
to the reserves.
Based on visual and track identification in eight
different settings or occasions, it can be said that at
least 24 males and 12 females were involved in the
raids. In terms of age, some 43 adults and 33 subadults
and infants had been seen on different occasions.
Some of these could be the same elephants showing
up in different places at different times. Severe crop
damage starts in June and increases steadily before
peaking in September and October. It declines in
November and by December has become minimal.
During the 2004 major farming season, 44 farms
belonging to 36 farmers from 18 villages experienced
49 raids around the conservation area (table 1). Farmers whose farms border the south and south-eastern
boundary line of Bia RR experienced the highest
number of raids (fig. 2).
There was no significant (NS) relationship between the number of raids and the size of individual
farms raided (r2 = 0.057, NS) or the nearest distances
of individual farms to the reserve boundary line (r2 =
0.102, NS). Hence the data were further analysed at
two levels by regression. First, we examined cropraiding incidents for a particular area, that is, at the
village level. For this level of analysis, the data for
all raids within a common village were combined and
related to the total cultivated (farmed) area of the village (table 1). The number of raids that a raided farm
suffered was evaluated in relation to the area of land
under cultivation in that area. Secondly, the data were
analysed by relating the total number of raids in a
particular village to the mean distance of raided farms
in the village from the nearest reserve boundary.
The number of raids registered in an area was inversely influenced (r2 = 0.857, p < 0.05) by the mean
of their distances to the nearest reserve boundary line
(fig. 3).
For farms that were raided, the risk of a farm suffering damage increased with the total area cultivated
Table 1. Crop-raiding incidences in relation to proportion of farm area destroyed around affected villages
Villages
Akosua Aden Krom
Alhaji Nkwanta
Anwiefutu Nkwanta
Asiri
Bio Krom
Boampong Krom
Camp 4
Camp 10
Eye Nyame Krom
Iron Boy
Kofiko Krom
Kofi Kyere (Camp10)
Kojo Donkor Camp
Kwaku Boakye (Camp10)
Kwasi Donkor Camp
Kwasi Donkor Krom
Nyamebekyere
Yamediagoro
Total
52
Mean
Farmers
distance to affected
reserve (m)
2.5
3
1
3
2.5
4
3
3
2
2
3.5
4
1.5
3.5
2
1.5
2
0.8
Farms
raided
Total area
Total area
of farms in
destroyed
(m2)
a village (m2)
Raids
registered
2
1
5
1
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
4
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
7
1
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
5
1
1
3
3
6
4,880
1,620
16,500
3,575
11,720
3,360
1,240
1,560
3,460
5,200
2,570
2,750
13,600
1,430
2,200
6,430
5,800
13,300
1,890
1,460
11,050
920
3,600
480
980
960
1,650
3,220
1,220
640
4,200
520
1,760
2,860
2,800
6,250
3
1
8
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
5
1
2
4
4
6
36
44
101,195
46,460
49
in a village farm enclave (r2 = 0.755, p < 0.05) (fig.
4).
The risk of crop raiding also increased with the
number of food crops on any individual raided farm
(r2 = 0.756, p < 0.05) (fig. 5), that is, the more the
In [number of raids +1]
In [number of raids +1]
different types of crops the higher the number of raiding incidents.
Thus a farmer who monocropped was at low risk
of elephant crop raiding. By planting two or more
crops the farmer increased the risk.
There was no significant relationship
between raids and acreage
2.4
of individual crops grown: cas2.2
sava, r2 = 0.160, NS; plantain, r2 =
0.604, NS; cocoa, r2 = 0.011, NS;
2
maize, r2 = 0.507, NS; yam, r2 =
1.8
0.044, NS; cocoyam, r2 = 0.541,
NS; banana, r2 = 0.063, NS and
1.6
vegetables, r2 = 0.063, NS. Never1.4
theless, for five of the eight crops
cultivated in the area, there seems
1.2
to be an unusual phenomenon (ta1
ble 2)—a U-shaped relationship
between number of crop-raiding
0.8
incidents and sizes of crops cultivated, suggesting that when crops
0.6
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
8.4 are grown in modest amounts they
are raided least or not at all.
In [distance to reserve (m) +1]
Farming in the study area
Y = 1.609 + .917 * X – .126 * X^2; R^2 = .857
involved seasonal, rain-fed subsistence agriculture. Cassava was
Figure 3. Relationship between number of raids registered in an area
the most raided crop (30% of crops
and the mean distance of farms in a village from the nearest reserve
raided), followed by plantain
boundary line.
(26%) (table 3). Raiding was
largely targeted at crops that were
2.4
mostly mature (71% of total fre2.2
quency of crops raided). Crop raiding was largely targeted at crops
2
that were of good quality (69% of
total frequency of crops raided) (ta1.8
ble 3). Table 4 also indicates that
1.6
most crops other than cocoyam suffered an appreciable level of dam1.4
age.
1.2
Damage on half the raided
farms amounted to about 46% with
1
about 5% suffering more than 80%
0.8
damage (fig. 6).
0.6
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
In [area cultivated (sq m) +1]
Y = 10.651 – 2.758 * X + .193 * X^2; R^2 = .755
Figure 4. Relationship between number of raids registered in an area
and the area of land under cultivation (farm).
Discussion
Elephant crop raiding in BCA is a
serious problem that occurs throughout the year. It dates back into the
1970s when immigrant farmers
53
Sam et al.
2.4
In [raids registered +1]
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
In [number of crop species +1]
Y = 1.114 * X + .957 * X^2; R^2 = .756
Figure 5. Relationship between number of crop species grown and
number of raids registered in that area.
started cultivating between reserves
(pers. comm. Phillip Mensah, Camp
9 leader, February 2004). Although
there are no data to show the trend
in crop-raiding frequency over the
last two or three decades, there is
much anecdotal evidence supporting an increasing trend with a growing influx of migrant farmers.
Consequently, the problem has developed into a big issue, and the
Wildlife Division is constantly under pressure from local communities to curb it. Wildlife guards are
blamed by irate farmers for their
inability to control the elephants.
Based on data gathered through
the questionnaire, it appears that
elephant behaviour has changed; according to farmers, in the past it was
primarily males that raided and then
Table 2. Frequency (f) and percentage of crop raiding in relation to the area of each species grown on each farm
Cultivated area
2
2
0m
Cassava
Plantain
Cocoa
Maize
Yam
Cocoyam
Banana
Vegetables
1000–1999 m2
1–999 m
2000–2999 m2
> 3000 m2
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
10
26
45
11
45
30
48
48
20
53
92
22
92
61
98
98
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
2
6
4
0
3
0
5
1
0
12
8
0
6
0
10
2
0
9
0
1
4
0
14
0
0
18
0
2
8
0
29
0
0
24
19
3
28
0
0
0
0
49
39
6
57
0
0
0
0
Table 3. Stage of growth of crops damaged on 44 farms raided by elephants, 2004
Crop
How many
times crops
were raided
Percentage of
raided crop
damaged
Crops in
mature
stage
(no.)
Crops in
intermediate
stage
(no.)
Crops of
good
quality
(no.)
Crops of
medium
quality
(no.)
Crops of
poor
quality
(no.)
Cassava
Plantain
Cocoa
Maize
Yam
Cocoyam
Banana
Vegetables
25
21
15
13
6
1
1
1
30
26
18
16
7
1
1
1
15
18
11
12
2
0
0
1
10
3
4
1
4
1
1
0
11
16
11
12
5
0
1
1
7
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
7
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
Total
83
59
24
57
14
12
No crops in the seedling stage were reported raided
54
Table 4. Damage score for crops raided by elephants
Crop
Cassava
Plantain
Cocoa
Maize
Yam
Cocoyam
Banana
Vegetables
Age score
Quality
score
Damage
category
Damage
score
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
5
4
2
5
4
1
4
1
10
10
8
11
9
5
9
7
Interpretation
high and severe
high and severe
medium
high and severe
high and severe
low and not severe
high and severe
medium
14
Number of farms
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0–10
11–20
21–39
31–40
41–50
51–60
61–70
71–80
81–90
91–100
Percentage of damage
Figure 6. Frequency distribution by percentage of area damaged on raided farms.
only at night. In recent times, however, family groups
consisting of adult females, males and especially
subadults are often the culprits. Elephants have also been
seen in the fields in broad daylight. This is also true at
the Kakum CA, and to help the Wildlife Division plan
a more effective crop-raiding deterrent method, a concerted investigation should be made into this change in
elephant behaviour at the two sites.
While damage may be restricted to the wettest part
of the year, this study recorded most damage in September and October coinciding with the minor rainy
season. In the Kakum CA, severe damage occurs in
June, coinciding with the major rainy season (Dudley
et al. 1992). Both Barnes et al. (2003) and Danquah
(2003) discuss crop raiding in relation to rainfall at
Kakum CA . Damage in the Red Volta area is severest in October, when the single rainy season would
be ending and most crops would be being harvested
(Sam 2000).
Elephants were originally found in both Bia NP
and Bia RR (Martin 1982; Short 1982). Since timber
companies started logging in Bia RR in the early 80s
(Parren et al. 2002) elephants have left Bia NP and
moved downwards into the south-eastern portions of
Bia RR. Thus it has been suggested that the absence
of elephants in Bia NP was temporarily a reaction to
the different and more palatable secondary vegetation conditions created by logging within Bia RR
(Short 1981; Martin 1982). Both Barnes (1996) and
de Leede (1994) observed a similar pattern where
more elephants were observed in the south-west of
BCA.
Occurrences of crop raids have been reported
mainly in the wet season, along the eastern borderline of Bia RR where elephants concentrated (Opoku
1988; de Leede 1994). Moreover, Martin (1982) has
indicated that the Bia population usually confined
movements to the same, often traditional, routes.
55
Sam et al.
However, present distribution is gradually changing;
records of elephant activities probably dating back to
the previous rainy season around the northern boundary lines of Bia RR indicate that elephant movements
and crop raiding, in addition to concentrating in the
south and south-eastern Bia RR boundary line, occasionally spread northwards. Similarly, reports from
wildlife staff and local communities indicate that
elephant crop raiding actually spreads periodically to
the northern sections including areas adjacent to Bia
NP. It is believed that this pattern occurs during the
late rainy crop-growing season when water sources
increase throughout both reserves, and food crops like
maize mature around the park boundaries. These two
factors may be the most important determinants of
elephant distribution in the wet season. However, a
section of the park staff still contends that the relative increase and spread in raiding activities is a result of elephants crossing over from neighbouring
Cote d’Ivoire during the wet season.
The strange U-shape relationship between raids
and abundance of certain raided crops is difficult to
explain—the incidence of raids ranged from low to
high when a farm had little or none of specific crops
in an area. In moderate amounts (1–2999 m2), crop
raiding fell to almost zero. Then the frequency of raids
rose again with larger amounts (> 3000 m2) of these
crops. A similar relationship was reported at Kakum
CA for cocoyam (Barnes et al. 2003). However, within
the limits of data gathered for raided areas, the most
consistent lesson here and advice to farmers is that
elephants may avoid a modest-size farm. At this stage
we cannot explain why this should be so. The pattern
of raiding suggests that elephants usually raid farms
clustered close to the park, and for those farms raided,
the area under cultivation and the number of different crop types were major predictors of raiding. The
mean distance from the boundary line was the strongest predictor of risk, and the same was true for Kakum
CA (Barnes et al. 2003) in Ghana and of Kibale NP in
Uganda (Naughton-Treves 1998). Given that people
must eat, and that the current policy of the government of Ghana is to conserve the country’s last remaining elephants, we need to search for a form of
agricultural practice that reduces the risks of attracting elephants. Cultivation of food crops should be
discouraged within the immediate environs of the
reserves. Hence, the most effective action a farmer
can take is to move away from the park boundary. If
a farmer is incapable of resettling and farming else-
56
where, then that farmer has to reduce the types of
crops grown or cultivate crops in modest amounts.
Barnes et al. (2003) made this recommendation for
Kakum CA as well.
Sam et al. (1997) recorded two types of food crop
damage. First is damage elephants cause by walking
across farmland without feeding extensively, referred
to as ‘collateral damage’, as in military parlance. The
second type is when elephants intentionally stop to feed
on crops. In this case, the percentage of crop damage is
high and can be of real economic consequence to the
farmer. While Sam et al. (1997) recorded damage of
less than 10% in most fields in the Red Volta area in
northern Ghana and only about 20% of the second type,
the situation at Bia CA was the far different; only 2%
of farms suffered collateral damage, and over 85% suffered between 21 and 70% of damage. Although Martin in 1982 said that damage caused by elephants to
farms might be completely negligible for communities
around Bia CA, Sam (2000) recorded the severest farm
damage around BCA as being 40%. The current range
of 14 to 93% suggests that crop raiding is becoming
more severe. Single bulls and bull groups as well as
family groups are involved.
Farmers should be encouraged to protect their
crops. Protection comes in two stages: detection and
repulsion (Osborn and Parker 2002; Barnes et al.
2003). Improving methods of detecting the approach
of elephants can considerably reduce the chance of
damage (Osborn and Parker 2002). But at present,
most farmers detect elephants only when they are already on the farm. For this reason farmers mostly concentrate their ability on repelling elephants, trying to
send them back into the park. Unfortunately, elephants
quickly habituate to any one method of repulsion;
hence to successfully drive elephants away a number
of methods in combination are necessary. Farmers interviewed confirmed that they must always combine
noise making with other scaring tactics to be successful in driving elephants away from their fields. Consequently, farmers spend much time, resources and
money to mitigate these conflicts. Under such conditions, villagers often resort to many forms of violence.
The fact that farmers take such risks, in addition to
the other problems of farming near the park (limited
road access, distance from the village), demonstrates
the intense demand for land in the area. It also means
that subsistence farming is not a suitable form of land
use around BCA, a situation also observed around
Kakum CA (Barnes et al. 2003).
This paper’s weakness is that we looked only at
farms that were raided. As we did not look at those
not raided we cannot calculate the percentage of farms
that were affected by this problem to show its gravity. Also we cannot calculate what proportion of the
farms growing cassava, plantain, and so on were
raided. Knowledge of the features of the farms that
were not raided, that is the successful farms, and why
they were successful, would have helped us realize
what raided farm owners need to do to move their
farms into the ‘undamaged’ category.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the African Elephant Specialist
Group through its EU-funded Small Grants Programme and A. Rocha Ghana for financing this study.
We also acknowledge the contributions of Eben Daryl
Bosu, Bright Kumordzi, Frank Tetteh Kumah, Aba
Odoi-Agyarko and Sakyibea Biney (the BP 2002
Award Winning Team from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology) for their untiring
support of the project. Our special thanks go to Dr
Richard Barnes for reading through the script. Lastly,
we are thankful to the entire staff of the Bia Conservation Area, especially the senior wildlife officer in
charge, his deputy, Senior Wildlife Protection Officer
Boamab, and Ranger Prince Charles Asante for providing staff and other facilities.
References
[AfESG] African Elephant Specialist Group. 1999. Strategy for the conservation of West African elephants.
Proceedings of a workshop held in Abidjan, 22–26 February 1999. AfESG, Ouagadougu. Unpublished.
Barnes RFW. 1996. Training course in elephant biology
for Ghanaian wildlife officers. Report to US Fish and
Wildlife Service. Unpublished.
Barnes RFW, Azika S, Asamoah-Boateng B. 1995. Timber, cocoa and crop-raiding elephants: a preliminary
study from southern Ghana. Pachyderm 19:33–38.
Barnes RFW, Barnes KL, Alers MPT, Bloom A. 1991. Man
determines the distribution of elephants in the rainforests of north-eastern Gabon. African Journal of Ecology 29:54–63.
Barnes RFW, Boafo Y, Nandjui A, Dubiure UF, Hema EM,
Danquah E, Manford M. 2003. An overview of crop
raiding by elephants around the Kakum Conservation
Area. Parts 1 and 2. Elephant Biology and Manage-
ment Project, Africa Program, Conservation International. Unpublished.
Danquah E. 2003. Feeding behaviour of the forest elephant
and logging impact on fruit production in the Kakum
Conservation Area. M. Phil. dissertation, Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi. Unpublished.
de Leede BM. 1994. Feasibility study on the establishment
of corridors for forest elephants (Loxodonta africana
cyclotis, Matschie) between forest reserves in western
Ghana and eastern Cote d’Ivoire. Ghana Wildlife Department, Accra, Ghana. Unpublished.
Dudley JP, Mensah-Ntiamoah AY, Kpelle DG. 1992. Forest elephants in a rainforest fragment: preliminary findings from a wildlife conservation project in southern
Ghana. African Journal of Ecology 30:116–126.
Hall JB, Swaine MD. 1976. Classification and ecology of
closed canopy forest in Ghana. Journal of Ecology
64:913–951.
Hoare RE. 1999. Data collection and analysis protocol for
human–elephant conflict situations in Africa. Document
prepared for the IUCN African Elephant Specialist
Group’s Human–Elephant Conflict Working Group,
Nairobi.
Hoare RE, du Toit JT. 1999. Coexistence between people
and elephants in African savannas. Conservation Biology 13(3):633–639.
Martin C. 1982. Management plan for the Bia Wildlife
Conservation Areas. General part (1) and final report.
IUCN/WWF project 1251. Unpublished.
Naughton-Treves l. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda.
Conservation Biology 12:156–168.
Opoku GK. 1988. The elephant (Loxodonta africana
cyclotis) farm raiding around the Bia National Park:
incidents, causes and solutions. BSc thesis. Institute of
Renewable Natural Resources, University of Science
and Technology, Kumasi. Unpublished.
to reduce crop loss to elephants: experiments in the
Parren MPE, de Leede BM, Bongers F. 2002. A proposal
for a translational forest network area for elephants in
Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana. Oryx 36(3):249–256.
Sam MK. 2000. The distribution of elephants in relation to
crop damage around Bia Conservation Area during the
1999 rainy season. Report for IUCN (World Conservation Union), Gland, Switzerland. Unpublished.
Sam MK, Haizel C, Barnes RFW. 1997. Crop raiding by
elephants during the 1996 harvest season in the Red
57
Sam et al.
Volta Valley (Upper East Region, Ghana). WWF Project
9F0062, Wildlife Department, Accra, and University
of California at San Diego. Unpublished.
Sam MK, Ayesu S, Agbenu V, Kumordzi BB, Wilson S.
2003. Reconnaissance survey of human–elephant conflict in the Dadieso area, western Ghana. Pachyderm
35:132–136.
Short JC. 1981. Diet and feeding behaviour of the forest
elephant. Mammalia 45:178–185.
58
Short JC. 1983. Density and seasonal movements of the
forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis, Matschie)
in the Bia National Park, Ghana. African Journal of
Ecology 21:175–184.
Sukumar R. 1990. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. 2: Feeding habits and crop-raiding patterns.
Journal of Tropical Ecology 6:33–53.
Population survey of elephants in Cross River National Park, Nigeria
Population survey of elephants in Okwangwo Division,
Cross River National Park, Nigeria
Emmanuel Obot,1* Clement Edet,2 Gabriel Ogar3 and Joy Ayuk2
1
Nigerian Conservation Foundation, Lekki Conservation Centre, PO Box 74638, Victoria lsland, Lagos,
Nigeria; email: [email protected]; *corresponding author
2
Cross River National Park, Okwangwo Division, PO Box 1028, Calabar, Nigeria
3
Living Earth Nigeria Foundation, PO Box 8060, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Abstract
Between March 1997 and May 1998, a census of elephant populations using dung counts was carried out
along five different trails constructed in Cross River National Park, Okwangwo Division, Nigeria. The survey covered 139 km of trails. Estimated elephant density was 0.3 elephants per km2 with a variation of 0.2–
0.5 elephants per km2. This study is the first record of elephant population densities since the area became a
national park in 1991. There appears to be a seasonal local migration of this population between Cross River
National Park and the neighbouring Takamanda Forest Reserve in Cameroon; the elephants spend most of the
rainy season in Cameroon and the dry season in Cross River National Park. Reasons to explain this migration
were not apparent during this survey. Protection of this population will depend on closer cooperation with
authorities in the Takamanda Forest Reserve.
Résumé
Entre mars 1997 et mai 1998, on a réalisé un recensement des populations d’éléphants en se servant du
comptage des crottes le long de cinq pistes différentes construites dans le Parc National de Cross River,
Division d’Okwangwo en Nigeria. L’étude se faisait sur 139 km de piste. La densité d’éléphants fut estimée
à 0,3 / km2, avec une variation comprise entre 0,2 et 0,5 éléphants au km2. Cette étude est le premier rapport
sur la densité des éléphants depuis que la région est devenue un parc national, en 1991. Il semble qu’il y ait
une migration saisonnière de la population entre le Parc National et la Réserve Forestière voisine de Takamanda,
au Cameroun. Les éléphants passent la plus grande partie de la saison des pluies au Cameroun et la saison
sèche dans le Parc National de Cross River. Les raisons de cette migration n’ont pas été perçues lors de cette
étude. La protection de cette population dépendra de la coopération plus étroite avec les autorités dans la
Réserve forestière de Takamanda.
Introduction
Nigeria has lost 96% of its original lowland rainforest
and consequently a considerable percentage of forestdwelling and -dependent fauna. In 1991 Cross River
National Park was created to protect the remaining 4%
of relatively undisturbed rainforest. This report presents
the results of the first attempt to estimate elephant
(Loxodonta africana cyclotis) populations in the park.
Study area
Cross River National Park is made up of two discontinuous sectors—the southern Oban Hills Division
and the northern Okwangwo Division. This study was
carried out in Okwangwo Division, which lies between 6°4' and 6°29' N and 9° and 9°27' E. Together
with the Mbe Mountains it covers 920 km2, lying
south-east of Obudu with the eastern boundary extending along the Cameroon border. It is part of the
Guinea–Congolia–Sudania Regional Transition Zone
with an afromontane archipelago-like centre of endemism in Obudu Plateau and the Sankwala Mountains (figs. 1, 2).
With the contiguous Afi River Forest Reserve to
the west and Takamanda Forest Reserve (Cameroon)
to the east, the Okwangwo Division of Cross River
National Park lies within the core of a continuous
59
Obot et al.
8º00' E
8º30' E
8º30' E
9º00' E
N
I
G
E
R
I
6º30' N
A
OKWANGWO
DIVISION
Cross River
National Park
AFI RIVER
Forest
Reserve
TAKAMANGA
Forest
Reserve
Cros
s Riv
er
6º00' N
Ikom
N
I
G
E
R
I
A
Mamfe
OBAN HILLS DIVISION
Cross River National Park
5º30' N
Cr
os
sR
ive
r
OBAN HILLS
DIVISION
Cross River
National Park
Nguti
KORUP
National Park
C
A
M
E
R O
O
N
5º00' N
Calabar
r
ive
sR
os
Cr
0
10
20
Mundemba
Kumba
6º30' N
30 km
Atlantic Ocean
roads
Figure 1. Location of Cross River National Park.
60
MB
EM
OU
NT
AIN
S
moist tropical rainforest system of more than 1800 the dense vegetation, rugged terrain, low density, and
km2 that is completely or partly protected.
rather patchy distribution of elephants. Okwangwo
Topography is generally rugged, with many disjunct Division is within the same lowland rainforest comand connected ridge systems, isolated peaks and rock plex with a similar vegetation structure. Moreover,
outcrops. Land, generally at elevations of 150 m, rises preliminary recognizance studies suggested a lowto around 1500 m in the Sankwala Mountains and to density, highly mobile population. In this study, thereodd peaks of up to 1700 m on the Obudu Plateau. Three fore, human trails were regarded as adequate transects
main rivers, Oyi, Bemi and Okon—all tributaries of because elephants in the study area seem to search
the Cross River—drain the park area (fig. 2).
out hunter and gatherer camps, where they eat fruit
The climate is tropical with a distinct rainy season of the bush mango (Irvingia sp.), gathered and procbetween March and November, and a dry season be- essed in such camps.
tween December and February. Rainfall is heavy: up to
All records of sightings of elephants and their ac4280 mm distributed unevenly within the nine-month tivities in the park area had occurred in the central
rainy season. Ambient temperatures are high but lower lowland area in Okwangwo in the north, Bamba in
temperatures (14–16°C daily minimums and 18–25°C the east and Bashu on the southern border of the park
daily maximums) are recorded on the highland areas (figs. 2, 3). This area, approximately 239 km2, was
of Obudu Plateau and the
Sankwala Mountains. A detailed account of the flora of
SANKWALA MOUNTAINS
Okwangwo Division is given in
Bakle
Obot (1996), who segregated
the vegetation into four major
types: lowland rainforest in
Ongwelua
Okwabang
low-lying areas, ridge and hill
Yangwape
forest on the slopes of the
Buobre
Mbe Mountains, submontane
Ochakwe1
Bulalang
forest on the Obudu Plateau,
Wula 1
and savanna woodland in the
Wula 2
Ikwete Hills. Soils in the lowOBUDU
land area are heavily leached,
Balegete CATTLE RANCH
extremely infertile and ferrallitic while in the highlands
Okwa 1
they are generally ferruginous
Okwangwo
and susceptible to erosion. For
Okwa 2
Bamba
specific accounts of the
Kanyang 2
Kanyang 1
Obudu Plateau and the
Sankwala Mountains see Hall
and Medler (1975), Medler
and Hall (1975) and Keay
0 3
15 km
(1979).
Scale 1 : 25,000
Method of study
Abo Mapang
Obanyi
Census
In an earlier survey of elephant
populations in the Oban Hills
sector of the park, Dickinson
(1995) found the line-transect
method impractical in view of
Bashu Okpambe
park boundary
main road
minor road
track
river
human settlement
Figure 2. Cross River National Park, Okwangwo Division, with the
proposed Mbe Mountains extension and the Obudu Cattle Ranch.
61
Obot et al.
determined by counting 1-km2 grids within which
elephants had been sighted or their activities recorded
since November 1994. Randomly placed transects were
started from known landmarks—such as village, river,
rock formation—and terminated at predetermined
landmarks such as known camps frequently used by
gatherers. These landmarks were georeferenced using a portable Garmin 40 Global Positioning System
(GPS) where possible. (The Garmin GPS 40 does not
operate properly under heavy tree canopy.) Several
GPS points for mapping were also taken along the
transect.
Elephant dung piles of all ages were counted
within a fixed width of 5 m on both sides along each
transect.
where D is dung density with a dung decay rate of
0.0462 (Dickinson 1995) and a defecation rate per
elephant of 20 dung piles per day (Tchamba 1992).
Results and discussion
Table 1 summarizes data collected during this survey. Within the park elephants occupied a home range
of approximately 239 km2 from Okwangwo in the
centre of the park through Bamba on the eastern park
boundary to Bashu in the south (figs. 2 and 3).
The distance covered in the five transects was 139
km. The mean length of transects was 27.8 km. Mean
dung density was 134.75 piles per km2. The extrapolated elephant density is therefore 0.3 elephants per
km2. This adds to 74 elephants for the home range of
approximately 239 km 2. The lowest individual
transect estimate was 47 animals in transect 4, the
highest 130 animals in transect 3. There are perhaps
anywhere between 50 and 130 animals. In Okwangwo
Division interviews with hunters and farmer-gatherers suggest that there are 10 groups of elephants with
15 individuals per group. These add up to 150 animals within the home range. This number compares
favourably with our estimate of a maximum of 130
elephants.
Albeit so, this is a very small population. Elephant
hunting for tusks and for meat was extremely intense
in the Okwangwo area before the national park was
created. This slaughter has been controlled by ongoing anti-poaching patrols, and these anti-poaching
activities must be sustained if this small population
is to survive.
Density
One method of estimating dung densities is by extrapolating from linear correlations between actual
dung density and the number of 0.5-km segments
along a transect in which dung was recorded (Fay
and Agnagna 1991). The relationship was:
D = 9.688 + 25.016p (r = 0.804)
where D is dung density and p is the number of 0.5km segments containing dung.
To extrapolate elephant density from dung density, a conversion factor of 0.00231 was used based
on a dung decay rate of 0.0462 estimated for the Oban
Hills sector of the park (Dickinson 1995) and a defecation rate per elephant of 20 dung piles per day,
estimated for Cameroon (Tchamba 1992). Thus,
elephant density E is given by
E = D(0.0462/20) elephants per km2
Table 1. Summary of dung count data along transects
Transect
no.
1
2
2
4
5
Totals
Mean
Significance
62
Length of
transect
(km)
58
15
43
14
9
139
27.8
21.51
Segments, Segments
Dung
0.5-km
with dung density
(no.)
0.5-km (no.) (km2)
116
30
86
28
18
278
5
4
9
3
4
25
Elephant
density
(km2)
134.8
109.7
234.8
84.7
109.7
0.31
0.25
0.54
0.20
0.25
134.75
58.67
0.311
0.136
Estimated Sampling period
no. of
elephants
74
61
130
47
61
rainy season
rainy season
dry season
dry season
dry season
74.39
32.39
Elephant distribution
Elephant distribution within the park, indicated with 1km2 blocks around GPS points where elephant activities were recorded, is shown in figure 3. The elephants
occupy the central lowland area of the park between
Okwangwo in the northern, Bamba in the eastern, and
Bashu on the southern borders of the park (figs. 2, 3).
There is a strong seasonal migration of the population between the park and Takamanda Forest Reserve, Cameroon (fig. 1) with elephants spending most
of the rainy season (March–August) in Cameroon and
the dry season in Okwangwo Division. The long-term
survival of this population depends on protection efforts complementary with Takamanda. At present,
however, Takamanda is managed as a forest reserve
where limited hunting is permitted. While anti-poaching activities are being intensified in Cross River
National Park, evidence exists showing that poachers wait in Takamanda for the elephants during the
seasonal migration. This emphasizes the great need
for cross-border cooperation between authorities in
Takamanda and conservation agencies in Nigeria.
Such cooperation will protect not only the elephant
populations but the entire fauna and flora of the
Okwangwo–Takamanda block of rainforest.
References
Dickinson B. 1995. A reconnaissance survey of elephant
population in Oban Division of Cross River National
Park, Nigeria. Cross River National Park, Akamkpa,
Nigeria.
Fay M, Agnagna M. 1991. A population survey of forest
elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) in northern
Congo. African Journal of Ecology 29:177–187.
Hall JB, Medler JA. 1975. Highland vegetation in southeastern Nigeria and its affinities. Vegetatio 29:191–198.
Keay RWJ. 1979. A botanical study of the Obudu Plateau
and Sankwala Mountains. Nigerian Field 44(314):106–
119.
Medler JA, Hall JB. 1975. The flora of the Obudu Plateau
and associated highlands: an annotated
species’ list. Herbarium Bulletin No. 9.
University of Ife, Ife, Nigeria.
Obot EA. 1996. Flora and vegetation of
Okwangwo Division, Cross River National Park. In: Essential partnership: the
forest and the people, Proceedings of a
workshop on the rainforest of south-eastern Nigeria and south-western Cameroon,
Obudu Cattle Ranch and Resort, 20–24
October 1996.
Tchamba MN. 1992. Defecation by the African forest elephant (Loxodonta africana
cyclotis) in the Sanchou Reserve,
Cameroon. Nature et Faune 7:27–31.
Acknowledgements
Figure 3. Elephant distribution, shown in 1-km2 blocks
around GPS points where elephant activities were recorded,
in Cross River National Park, Okwangwo Division.
Funds for this survey were provided by
the Cross River National Park Project
supported by the European Union, the
World Wide Fund for Nature-UK, the
Department for International Development of the UK, the Federal Government
of Nigeria, and the Nigerian Conservation Foundation.
63
Fischer
Elephants in Cote d’Ivoire—a warning for West African
conservation
Frauke Fischer
Zoology III, Dept. of Tropical Biology and Animal Ecology, Theodor Boveri Institute Biozentrum,
Am Hubland 97074, Würzburg, Germany; email: [email protected]
Abstract
Cote d’Ivoire once hosted probably one of the largest elephant populations in West Africa. Despite early
warnings, numbers have decreased rapidly within the last century, resulting in small, isolated patches of
populations. While savanna elephants suffered more during peak times of the ivory trade, forest elephant
numbers declined rapidly with the destruction of their habitat. It is most likely that elephant numbers in all
habitats and sites dropped significantly during the last decade, making the long-term survival of elephants in
Cote d’Ivoire questionable at the very least. Major elephant habitats in forest (Taï National Park) and savanna
(Comoé National Park) remain intact, but potential immigration from other sites or even re-introduction of
elephants would require a significant improvement in park management and nature conservation in Cote
d’Ivoire.
Additional key words: savanna elephants, forest elephants, population trends, elephant conservation
Résumé
La Cote d’Ivoire a probablement hébergé dans le passé une des plus grandes populations d’éléphants de
l’Afrique de l’Ouest. Malgré le fait que de nombreux signaux d’alarme aient été tirés, le nombre des éléphants
a rapidement diminué pendant le siècle dernier, ayant pour résultat actuel des populations isolées et réduites.
Les éléphants de savane ont beaucoup souffert lors des pics atteints par la commercialisation de l’ivoire tandis
que les éléphants de forêt ont été affectés par la destruction de leur habitat. Il est fort probable que le nombre
d’éléphants dans tous les habitats a diminué de manière significative durant les 10 dernières années ce qui
remet très sérieusement en question la survie de ces animaux en Cote d’Ivoire au long terme. De grandes
superficies de forêts (Parc National de Taï) et de grandes superficies de savanes (Parc National de Comoé) qui
pourraient servir d’habitat pour les éléphants sont encore intactes, mais de grandes migrations dans ces régionslà ou des réintroductions ne seront pas possible sans la mise en œuvre d’efforts importants concernant la
gestion des parcs nationaux et la protection de la nature en Cote d’Ivoire.
Mots clé supplémentaires : éléphants de savane, éléphants de forêt, tendances de population, la protection
des éléphants
Introduction
In pre-colonial times Cote d’Ivoire once hosted probably one of the largest elephant populations in West
Africa. Even though no estimates of the pre-colonial
elephant population exist, we can assume that due to
the area’s vegetation structure, rainfall pattern and low
human population density elephant numbers must have
been tremendous. Applying Parker’s model (1989) and
64
with an assumed forest cover of roughly half of the
country’s 322,460 km2, Cote d’Ivoire’s savanna elephant
population alone might once have been 165,000 to well
over 300,000 animals, depending on the human population density. However, pre-colonial empires existed,
and wars, ivory trade and habitat destruction due to cultivation might have had a greater impact on West Afri-
Elephants in Cote d’Ivoire
can elephant populations than on those in eastern and
southern Africa, even well before the arrival of the Europeans (Barnes 1999). Despite these early negative effects, elephant numbers remained high until colonial
structures were established in West Africa, resulting in
the name Ivory Coast—Cote d’Ivoire—given by the
colonial powers to the area in West Africa that was richest in elephants (or at least elephant tusks). Although
the name may reflect to a certain extent the importance
of Cote d’Ivoire’s harbours for the international ivory
trade, with part of the ivory coming from other areas, it
hints of large elephant populations prevalent at that time.
19th century
Between 1850 and 1875 ivory exports from Africa
increased fourfold (Barnes 1999); 1836 and 1908 were
peak years of ivory exports from French West Africa
(Roth and Douglas-Hamilton 1991) with most ivory
probably coming from the larger savanna elephants
north of the forest belt. This led to a rapid decrease in
savanna elephant populations with less effect on the
forest elephants at that time (Roth and Douglas-Hamilton 1991). The decline of forest elephants accelerated with the conversion of forest to agricultural land
and an ever-increasing destruction of forest habitats.
20th century
Ivory exports from Africa peaked in the early 20th
century, leading to a crash of the elephant population
before World War I. Despite rising prices, ivory exports remained low, clearly indicating that elephants
were being over-harvested as early as then (Roth and
Douglas-Hamilton 1991). Roth and Douglas Hamilton (1991) estimated that during their study period
between 1976 and 1984 elephants roamed over only
6–7% of their former range in West Africa, with savanna elephants suffering from greater range reduction than forest populations.
Roth et al. (1984) estimated the total elephant
population in Cote d’Ivoire to comprise not more than
1790 savanna and 3050 forest elephants scattered
throughout the country within 46 more or less isolated populations. The annual loss at that time was
approximately 300 poached and 90 legally killed forest elephants, resulting in an estimated annual decline
of 10%. Numbers declined further by the late 1980s
when Merz and Hoppe-Dominik (1989) presented
data on the remaining 20 isolated populations of for-
est elephants with a further 50% decline in numbers,
and even further by the early 90s when the total
number of both savanna and forest elephants had
reached an all-time low of 63 to 360 elephants (speculative 666) in the entire country, existing in 24
populations (Blanc et al. 2003).
Present situation
Today the situation is probably even worse, with only
seven elephant populations confirmed, comprising approximately 270 elephants (table 1). The outbreak of
civil war in Cote d’Ivoire in September 2002 negatively affected the management of certain protected
areas and conservation in general (Fischer 2004), and
although not quantified it can be assumed that the
effect on the small population of elephants was negative if not catastrophic.
Cote d’Ivoire has eight national parks and 298 classified forests with the latter being sustainably managed
(fig. 1). Within the last 50 years, however, large portions of classified forests have been clear-cut and converted to agricultural land. Very little intact forest habitat
remains; it is largely in the east of the country in the
Bossématié forest system and in Taï National Park (NP)
in the south-west, which is treated as a protected area in
this article. The forests are threatened by logging and
agricultural activities, which will probably increase due
to economic problems in Cote d’Ivoire, and the recent
cessation of a long-term management and conservation
programme funded by German development agencies.
Six of the eight national parks, Azagny, Comoé,
Marahoué, Mont Sangbé, Mont Péko and Taï, are
known to host elephants, some in extremely low numbers (see below). Elephants occurred both within and
outside protected areas until the 1980s (Roth et al.
1984) but are now more or less restricted to the larger
national parks and some forest reserves (see ‘Elephants within protected areas’ under Results). As earlier reports on elephants, shot or alive, gave imprecise
point locations it is not always clear whether the animals occurred inside or outside protected areas. For
example, elephants shot near Abidjan (Roth et al.
1984) might have lived either in Banco NP or outside
this protected area.
The aim of this article is to contribute to the knowledge of the status of elephants in Cote d’Ivoire, giving the most updated information about this
endangered, charismatic species in one of its former
strongholds. I also raise additional awareness on the
65
66
1994
1989
1994
1991
2004
1997
2003
150
20–30
150
very few
30
30
1988/99
1994
200
55
60–80
1979/80
250
1978
1987
2003
1979/80
1990
1996
1977
1979
1979/80
1995
2002
1979/80
1983
1991
2002
1979
1979/80
1982
1989
2000
Year
ground census (transects)
informed guess
informed guess
informed guess
informed guess
informed guess
informed guess
informed guess
no details given
aerial survey
aerial survey
line transects, dung counts
no details given
no details given
other guess
aerial survey
aerial survey
aerial survey
informed guess
informed guess
no details given
line transects from vehicle
informed guess
mark-recapture/faecal DNA
no details given
no details given
Method
20 in Sogan-Tamin-Mabi-Yaja,
5 in Béki, 30 Bossématié
Bossématié and Béki
(5–6 elephants)
CF Songan only (?)
CF Songan only
No elephants seen during
reconnaissance flight
Bossématié and Béki forests
MIKE census in 2002; results
not yet available
MIKE census in 2002
+ 500 in adjacent areas
Comment
NP – national park; GR – game reserve; CF – classified forest; MIKE – Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants
Haut Sassandra CF
Fresco CF
Bossématié and other
eastern CF
Haut Bandama GR
Azagny NP
Taï NP
60
60
65
60
40
20
1500
1000–1500
1000
200
10–20
150
75 ± 25
50
160
1800
1000
800
100
Comoé NP
Marahoué NP
Population
Site
Table 1. Population estimates for elephants in Cote d’Ivoire
Merz and Hoppe-Dominik 1991
Parren et al. 2002
Douglas-Hamilton et al. 1992
Kouadio in lit. 2004
Kobon in Blanc et al. 2003
Ouattara in lit. 2004
Parren et al. 2002
Caspary 1999
Roth et al. 1984
GTZ / FGU 1979
Douglas-Hamilton et al. 1992
Nandjui Awo in lit. 2004
Roth et al. 1984
Bouché 2002
Bouché 2002
Steinhauer-Burkhart 1984
GTZ/FGU 1979
GTZ/FGU 1979
personal observation
personal observation
Roth et al. 1984
Hoppe-Dominik 1989
Blanc et al. 2003
N. Hunter in lit.
World Heritage Centre
Roth et al. 1984
Merz 1982
Source
Fischer
Bontioli
Mali
Burkina Faso
Diefoula
Logoniegue CF
10º N
Warigue CF
ODIENNE
Boundiali CF
FERKESSEDOUGOU
Guinea
Comoé
Mont Gbande CF
9º N
Foumbou CF
Kinkene/Nyellepuo-Nzi CF
Haut Bandama
8º N
Mont Sangbe
COTE D'IVOIRE
Tiapleu
Keregbo
Haut Sassandra
Goaso
7º N
Mont Péko
Scio
Marahoué
Abokoumekroa
Beki-Bossematie
Bia
Djambamakrou
Duekoué
Tené
Goin-Cavally
ABENGOUROU
YAMOUSSOUKRO
N'Zo PFR
6º N
Ghana
Songan-TaminMabi-Yaya
Davo
Taï
Sapo
Grebo
Go-Bodienou
Okromodou
ABIDJAN
Niegré
Ankasa
Liberia
Haut Dodo/Grah/Hana CF
Fresco
SAN PEDRO
5º N
Azagny
Barrobo
HARPER
8º W
Legend
7º W
Elephant range
known
towns
possible
rivers and lakes
sighting/sign
6º W
5º W
4º W
0
protected areas
input zones
62.5
3º W
125
250 km
Source:
African Elephant Database
Digital Chart of the World
CF – classified forest
PFR – partial faunal reserve
Figure 1. Some protected areas and elephant distribution in Cote d’Ivoire.
67
Fischer
desperate situation of elephants in parts of West Africa
and send out a plea for conservation action for elephant
populations in West Africa that are still healthy or at
least exist in viable population densities.
Materials and methods
I collected anecdotal information on the elephant
population in Comoé National Park during my scientific work there between 1993 and the outbreak of
civil war in September 2002.
Additionally I visited other elephant sites in Cote
d’Ivoire during that period—Taï NP, Abokouamékro
Game Reserve, Marahoué NP, the Bossématié forest
reserve system—and talked to researchers who conducted scientific or conservation work in these and
other areas. Data collection did not follow a standardized protocol but was rather informal. Information on present and former elephant densities in Cote
d’Ivoire was derived from the literature.
Results
Elephants outside protected areas
Elephant populations mentioned by Roth and Douglas-Hamilton (1991) that existed in Bouaké and
Dimbroko Districts as well as around Odienné and
Korhogo have been extinct for many years, as are elephants close to Abidjan (Roth et al. 1984; pers. obs.).
During my stays in Cote d’Ivoire (about 60 months
between 1993 and 2004) hardly anyone mentioned the
presence of elephants outside protected areas, and when
mentioned, the elephants were said to be adjacent to
protected areas. I assume that it is unlikely that any
elephant population still exists outside protected areas,
although it cannot be ruled out that the populations
mentioned here sometimes leave protected sites. However, I assume these incidents are rare.
Elephants within protected areas
COMOÉ NATIONAL PARK
Comoé NP, included in the World Heritage Site’s
Danger List in 2003, is West Africa’s largest savanna
park. The predominant vegetation type (wooded savanna with scattered forest islands and gallery forest), the annual rainfall (1000–1500 mm) and the
permanent water supply of its major rivers make this
park high-quality elephant habitat. There is no hu-
68
man encroachment, no livestock keeping, no illegal
logging and no plantations within the 11,500 km2 of
the park. However, poaching of all larger mammals
is severe and has had catastrophic effects on its mammal populations (Fischer and Linsenmair 2001;
Fischer et al. 2002).
Elephants must have been very common both before and after the park was established. Local assistants told me that elephants came to the village
frequently and drank from the well during the dry
season in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There were
no incidents of agricultural damage caused by elephants between 1993 and 2004 and hence no legal
killing of problem animals. Elephant poaching was
however common during that time. Elephants targeted
included juveniles with very small tusks, hunted for
ivory and meat.
Three elephant carcasses (fig. 2) and one of a
wounded calf (fig. 3) were found between 1993 and
1995, all animals that had obviously escaped poachers but died of severe wounds later. The real number
of elephants killed by poachers during this time was
probably much higher but could not be assessed accurately. Due to poaching, elephants were very shy
and fled as soon as they became aware of human presence. Nevertheless, sightings of up to 120 elephants
were made as late as 1997 (K.E. Linsenmair, pers.
comm.) and elephant tracks and traces frequently seen
(pers. obs.). From 1998 direct observation of elephants
was extremely rare with only reported sightings after
1999, made by villagers in the southern part of the
park close to the village of Gorowi. These sightings
consisted of 11–15 animals, and probably always the
same elephant group. Tracks and traces were hardly
ever seen in the study area of approximately 200 km2
by researchers from the University of Würzburg after 1999. Even at wallows, salt licks and drinking sites
in the gallery forest, which had been the major attraction points of elephants earlier (pers. obs.) no signs
of elephants were seen here after 2000.
The seasonal movements of elephants that are
supposed to have occurred earlier (GTZ/FGU 1979)
could not be determined by Steinhauer-Burkhart
(1984) and definitely had come to a complete stop
afterwards.
MARAHOUÉ NATIONAL PARK
Marahoué NP (1010 km2) is located in the transition
zone between savanna and evergreen forest. No recent
Figure 2. Elephant carcass in Comoé National Park, Cote d’Ivoire, in 1996.
elephant counts were made before the 2002 MIKE
(Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants) counts, but
during my visit to the park in 1997 local people reported several sightings of elephants, and tracks and
traces were easily found. Large parts of the park were
taken over by agriculturists with violent encounters
between game wardens and farmers in 2001. Increase
in human–elephant conflict is likely, in which case the
elephants are sure to lose. Lack of funds made it impossible to manage the park after civil war broke out in
2002. The elephant numbers that Roth et al. gave in
1984 were significantly more than in the count shortly
after that by Hoppe-Dominik (1989), and by 1991 the
numbers were even fewer (Blanc et al. 2003).
A MIKE team counted the remaining elephants
in the park in July 2002 and estimated the population
to be 160 in July 2002 with a confidence interval of
149–177 (N. Hunter 2005 in lit.).
TAÏ NATIONAL PARK
Taï NP is the last protected Haut-Guinean forest block
in Cote d’Ivoire, covering 3300 km2 plus a 200-km2
buffer zone. It is contiguous to the N’Zo faunal reserve (730 km2). Elephant numbers decreased steeply
in Taï NP despite the large amount of foreign aid pro-
vided for well over a decade by different non-governmental organizations and government sources
(Blanc et al. 2003). Logging, poaching, farming and
illegal gold mining threaten the future entity of the
park (World Heritage Centre 1989; pers. obs.). A big
problem is the influx of refugees from Liberia and
the back-and-forth movements since 2002 of Ivorian
refugees, caused by civil war in Cote d’Ivoire.
According to Roth et al. (1984) elephants in Taï
NP were hunted mainly for their ivory but hunting
for meat can also be assumed. Elephant poaching
declined or even stopped altogether for several years,
but the situation deteriorated recently given the desperate situation of the many refugees in the area. A
MIKE team conducted an elephant survey in Taï NP
in 2002 and results will be available soon.
AZAGNY NATIONAL PARK
Azagny NP in southern Cote d’Ivoire covers 190 km2.
The area was historically difficult to reach but it might
also have contained only relatively small areas of
suitable elephant habitat. A. Nandjui (2005 in lit.)
conducted an elephant survey in the park in 2003 and
estimated about 65 elephants lived in the park.
69
Fischer
BANCO NATIONAL PARK
HAUT BANDAMA GAME RESERVE
Close to the city of Abidjan is Banco NP, which measures 30 km2. Elephants are supposed to have been extinct here for almost a century (GTZ/FGU 1979) but
the two to nine elephants killed close to Abidjan every
year from 1975 to 1980 (Roth et al. 1984) might well
have come from this park and adjacent areas. Today
elephants are definitely extinct in the park and its surroundings.
The numbers given by Roth et al. (1984) and Bouché
(2002) show a steady decrease of elephants in the Haut
Bandama reserve. Although there have been no counts
recently it is unlikely that the number of elephants
has increased significantly since the last estimate in
2002.
BOSSÉMATIÉ FOREST SYSTEM
Figure 3. A juvenile elephant killed by poachers in the southern Comoé
National Park, Cote d’Ivoire, in 1993.
70
Close to the city of Abengourou, 1
to 22 problem elephants were killed
annually between 1975 and 1980.
An additional 30–60 elephants
were poached in that area every
year during the same period (local
former hunters, pers. comm. 2004)
leading to a steep decline in the
elephant population in that zone.
Today exact numbers do not exist,
but the reserve forests near Abengourou host fewer than 60 elephants. No incidents of poaching
have been observed during the last
10 years, but direct observations
during standardized monitoring
procedures became increasingly
rare after 1999 (Goor 2004). Elephants were still present in the forest reserves of Bossématié, Songan,
Tamin, Mabi and Yaya in late 2004
(pers. obs.). There were no reports
of crop-raiding elephants (Parren et
al. 2002) and Theuerkauf et al.
(2001) showed that elephants even
avoided villages and plantations.
To ensure the long-term survival of
this population of forest elephants
Parren et al. (2002) suggested creating corridors to connect elephant
populations in Cote d’Ivoire with
suitable habitat in Ghana to enhance interbreeding of the subpopulations living on both sides of
the border.
The remaining forest elephant
habitat in the Bossématié forest
system has been under great risk
ever since a long-term develop-
ment project financed by German aid agencies terminated in 2004. The lack of national funding and
the demand for tropical timber is likely to lead to intensive logging in the area to generate income in the
dwindling economy of Cote d’Ivoire. Long-term survival of the elephants is hence threatened by the potential destruction of their habitat in the near future.
HAUT SASSANDRA FOREST RESERVE
The elephant population in Haut Sassandra Forest
Reserve has been stable during the last seven years.
Updated information is not available for sites that
hosted elephants earlier and that were listed in 2003
by Blanc et al.
Discussion
Data quality and knowledge gaps
Data quality among sites differed substantially. The
best data came from the MIKE census in 2002 for
Marahoué NP and from A. Nandjui for Azagny NP in
2003 (A. Nandjui 2005 in lit.). Some good recent
guesses are probably those for Comoé NP. This emphasizes the need to perform comprehensive elephant
counts for all sites that still contain or recently contained elephant populations. We need data on population densities, sex and age ratios as well as reproduction
rates to complete the picture of the current situation of
the Ivorian elephants and properly evaluate the status
of each population. Elephant research between 1950
and the late 1990s showed a strong bias for work in
eastern Africa, followed by that in southern and Central Africa with only 5.2% of the published studies conducted in West Africa. An overall decrease of elephant
publications began in the late 1980s (Bossen 1998). This
again emphasizes the importance of elephant studies in
West Africa.
Estimation of elephant population densities
and trends
Elephant numbers in Cote d’Ivoire have decreased at
alarming rates since the first population surveys were
conducted, and warnings that this species might be
lost were put forward in 1984. Roth and DouglasHamilton (1991) referred to Comoé NP as one of the
most important elephant ranges in West Africa and
called for its improved management and protection
as vital for the long-term survival of savanna elephants
in the region. Despite this strong statement made by
Roth et al. as early as 1984 no efforts were made to
protect the park and its elephants, leading to a further
decrease with only 10–20 animals estimated to be
remaining in the park today.
The only population that seems to have increased
is in Marahoué NP. However, I believe that this is
due rather to the inaccuracy of earlier counts than to
a substantial increase in numbers. Elephant poaching
in the park was rare in the late 1990s (pers. obs.),
which might have allowed for a certain regeneration
of the population, but human encroachment was severe, with land being used in ways that are not compatible with elephant presence.
Although the size of a viable elephant population
is unknown (IUCN 2003a), Cote d’Ivoire might not
host even one population that would survive for long
or have the potential to increase significantly. While
Sukumar (1993) suggested that a viable population
of Asian elephants had to contain 100–200 animals,
depending on its structure, numbers given by Vucetich
and Waite (1998), independent of the species in question, are much higher. Despite this uncertainty, elephant populations in Cote d’Ivoire may be too small
and too isolated from each other to ensure their
regeneration. They are additionally threatened by a
complete lack of recolonization events and by synchronous trends towards decreasing numbers in all
subpopulations, which has been stated by Barnes
(1999) as a major negative effect for recovery of
elephant populations in West Africa. Even though the
size of the remaining populations is largely unknown,
the Marahoué NP population is probably the only one
containing more than 100 individuals.
Management implications
Small elephant populations in dense vegetation are
almost impossible to count precisely (Barnes 2002)
which makes trend detection in all Ivorian populations
largely impossible. Dung counts and genetic analysis of faeces are the most promising techniques to
apply (Barnes 2001). Even if effective conservation
measures are taken immediately, which is doubtful
due to the political situation in the country at the
moment, elephant numbers might be too small and
the population structure too imbalanced to allow for
population regeneration.
With the possibility that there are two African
elephant species (Roca et al. 2001), conservation fo-
71
Fischer
cus should be laid on the forest elephant Loxodonta
cyclotis. Although elephants are probably not essential for the future existence of the remaining West
African forests, they play an important ecological role
in the succession dynamics of these forests
(Hawthorne and Parren 2000). In general, little is
known about their ecological role in West Africa,
where they function as ‘landscape architects’ and seed
dispersers of economically and environmentally important plants. Given this lack of knowledge and taking into account the fact that many tree species are
long lived, the ecological disaster resulting from their
dying out might not emerge until well after their extinction.
The situation for savanna elephants looks even
worse. While restoring and improving habitat through
different management schemes as proposed by the
IUCN Conservation Strategy (2003a) is important for
many areas, doing so is of minor concern for the savanna habitat of the elephant (mainly Comoé NP).
The park’s single problem was and is poaching, with
the habitat not only for elephants but for all large
mammals being still intact. Because it is large, Comoé
NP could host a large and viable elephant population
provided it were truly efficiently protected and managed. The human footprint map of Cote d’Ivoire (http:/
/wcs-old.atlasworks.com/media/file/hf_IvoryCoast1.
pdf) shows that human impact in the north-east of
the country (except for poaching) is moderate to low.
Since there is so little genetic difference among African savanna elephants (Roca et al. 2001) and elephant
habitat is still intact, Comoé NP could one day become a site for reintroducing elephants from other
parts of Africa. Management and protection of the
park would need to be improved considerably and
genetic distinctiveness taken into account (see Eggert
et al. 2002 for details). Eggert et al. (2002) suggested
the existence of three elephant species in Africa with
western savanna elephants forming a distinctive
group. If this is true, protecting and conserving the
remaining West African savanna elephants becomes
a much higher priority.
Transborder protected areas between Cote d’Ivoire
and neighbouring countries were suggested by
Soulemane (2002) to reduce human–elephant conflict
and by Parren et al. (2002) to improve interbreeding
of subpopulations with neighbouring Ghana. Such
cooperative approaches are important to achieve
maximum benefit of pooled resources and secure
elephant ranges that span international borders (IUCN
72
2003a). Additionally they might be the only measure
that can prevent elephant extinction in Cote d’Ivoire
since local elephant populations are too small to ensure their own long-term survival without input from
other areas. Transborder protected areas can also ensure elephant survival during times of civil strife, as
happened in the 1990s when 300 elephants moved
from Togo to adjacent areas in Benin and Burkina
Faso (Ph. Bouché, pers. comm.).
A detailed action plan for two transborder protected areas in southern Cote d’Ivoire with Liberia
and with Ghana has been proposed by IUCN (2003b)
but not yet implemented, and similar proposals exist
for a transborder protected area between Comoé NP
and Forêt Classée et Réserve Partielle de la Faune de la
Comoé Léraba in Burkina Faso (Oliver Hamerlyck,
pers. comm.).
The establishment of bio-corridors with areas in
Burkina Faso and Ghana should be considered, not
only to enable elephants to repopulate Comoé NP but
also to connect metapopulations of other large mammals.
A national elephant conservation strategy for Cote
d’Ivoire was discussed during a workshop in Abidjan
in December 2003, but the results are not yet freely
available.
Legal situation
Although hunting female and young elephants became
illegal in 1965 and elephant hunting was completely
banned in 1974 in Cote d’Ivoire (Roth et al. 1984)
problem elephants could still be killed. Roth et al.
(1984) claimed that around 90 elephants were legally
killed every year between 1975 and 1980 despite the
very low frequency of crop damage they caused. Even
though agricultural damage by elephants was little as
they largely avoided cacao and coffee plantations
(Theuerkauf et al. 2001), farmers still complained
about rare incidents of crop damage by problem elephants to get hunting permits (Soulemane 2002).
Despite the legal ban on domestic ivory trade in
1997, raw and worked ivory products could be found
throughout the country even much later (TRAFFIC
2003; pers. obs.). Cote d’Ivoire not only exported
ivory but was a major importer of elephant tusks until 1980 (Roth and Douglas-Hamilton 1991).
Underlying forces
The human population in Cote d’Ivoire increased
about sixfold between 1950 and 2004; during the same
period almost 90% of the forest disappeared (Bryant
et al. 1997). And during the entire period, elephant
numbers decreased even faster than the available habitat shrank. While the increase in human population is
assumed to have slowed down (from over 3 to 2.1%)
due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic (CIA World Fact Book
2004) destruction of natural habitats is likely to increase due to heavy dependence of the local economy
on the production of cocoa and coffee, most of which
is produced on sensitive elephant habitat. Due to economic problems after the outbreak of civil war in
2002, nature conservation, which was weak and a low
priority even before the civil strife, will probably be
of even less importance in the near future. The negative effects that occurred in Comoé NP (Fischer 2004),
despite its low human population pressure, will most
likely be more severe in the southern parts of the country that contain higher human population densities.
Outlook
Elephants in Cote d’Ivoire occur more or less exclusively inside protected areas. However, a complete
lack of management in the largest legally protected
area—Comoé NP—and weak protection of other national parks in which elephants occur, means the survival of this species even inside protected areas in
Cote d’Ivoire is doubtful. National parks like
Marahoué and other sites such as the Bossématié forest system are threatened by human encroachment,
increasing agriculture and in Bossématié even logging of the entire elephant habitat.
Since the relatively large population (200 animals
estimated in 1997) in Comoé NP collapsed later, elephants are most likely at the brink of extinction all
over Cote d’Ivoire with little chance of survival due
to ongoing habitat destruction (for forest populations),
hunting (for savanna populations) and genetic effects
such as inbreeding and sex imbalance for both forest
and savanna populations.
Conclusions
Although the elephant is the national emblem of Cote
d’Ivoire, with a powerful political party using it as its
symbol and the national football team called Les
Eléphants de Cote d’Ivoire, no effort has been made
to protect the remaining elephants in the country at
any time. Elephants are depicted in the logos of many
Ivorian companies, and elephant sculptures and illustrations are found in plenty in handicraft markets,
yet most Ivorians are little aware or concerned that
elephants are about to vanish from their country. The
loss will be realized only after the species becomes
extinct. However, Cote d’Ivoire should not be blamed
alone; despite their permanent presence in the country no major international NGO has actively worked
to protect Ivorian elephants within the last decade
despite early warnings from several different sources.
Although pleas for action to save the elephants of
Cote d’Ivoire were made as early as 1984 (Roth et al.
1984), no measures have been taken, resulting in the
probable extinction of the species in one of its former
strongholds in the near future. One lesson learned is
that the time to act might be running out for other
sites as well and that immediate action should be taken
for those locations that contain viable elephant
populations in West Africa. The political situation in
Cote d’Ivoire went from stability to civil strive within
a very short time, which resulted in even further deterioration of the conservation situation in the country and its major national park (Fischer 2004). This
should be a warning example for other areas that
might be politically stable at the moment and still have
relatively high numbers of elephants.
The last strongholds for savanna elephants in West
Africa are the ‘W’–Arli–Pendjari–Oti Mandouri–Keran
(WAPOK) ecosystem in Benin, Burkina Faso, Togo and
Niger (Bouché et al. 2004a), the Nazinga Ranch in
Burkina Faso (Bouché et al. 2004b) and to a lesser extent Mali’s Gourma area and Mole NP in Ghana (Blanc
et al. 2003; Brice Sinsin, pers. comm.). The WAPOK
ecosystem hosted 4600 elephants in 2003 with 71.5%
of this population counted in Burkina Faso, 26.6% in
Benin and 2% in Niger (Bouché et al. 2004a). According to Ph. Bouché (pers. comm.) the 940-km2 Nazinga
Game Ranch contains the highest density of elephants
in West Africa with an estimated 550 animals and an
average annual increase of 3.8% between 1989 and
2003. The above-mentioned sites have to be of highest
conservation priority, with the poor example of Cote
d’Ivoire kept in mind. It is alarming to note that the
elephant population in Mole NP decreased between
1993 and 2004 (Ph. Bouché, pers. comm.).
Since future efforts will be concentrated on areas
that have populations of more than 100 elephants
73
Fischer
(IUCN 2003a), Cote d’Ivoire will no longer be a focus country for elephant conservation, with small
populations like the Comoé elephants most likely facing extinction soon.
To establish efficient conservation programmes
for forest elephants Blake and Hedges (2004) asked
for sound data collection to fill knowledge gaps and
for continued monitoring of existing populations to
ensure future existence. I support their request and
ask that it be expanded to include West African savanna elephants. Intensive data collection on population structures and trends should be carried out
before priorities are set and populations with the highest probability of long-term survival determined
(IUCN 2003). However, data collection should go
hand in hand with anti-poaching and other management measures as elephant populations can be depleted within a short time if left unattended (Merz
1982; pers. obs.). Any of these activities will probably have to focus on areas outside Cote d’Ivoire,
most likely the WAPOK, Gourma and Mole protectedarea systems. Remaining elephant populations must
be managed and protected across political and habitat borders, as has been suggested for the jaguar
(Panthera onca) by Sanderson and colleagues (2002).
I want to emphasize the importance of the remaining elephant populations in West Africa and plead for
combined efforts to prevent these populations from
undergoing the same fate as the elephants in Cote
d’Ivoire. Elephants are charismatic animals, and their
drastic decrease in numbers in West Africa should be
used to attract more scientific and conservation activities to this geographical area.
Acknowledgements
I thank the Ministère de l’Agriculture et des Ressources
Animals in Abidjan for a permit (1223/Miniagra/
CAB-1) to conduct research in Comoé NP. Thanks too
to Holly Dublin for suggesting this publication and to
Akoi Kouadio, Nandjui Awo and Nigel Hunter for sharing their data and information with me. I would like to
thank Richard Barnes, Philippe Bouché and two anonymous referees for critical comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References
Barnes RFW. 1999. Is there a future for elephants in West
Africa? Mammalian Review 29(3):175–199.
74
Barnes RFW. 2001. How reliable are dung counts for estimating elephant numbers? African Journal of Ecology
39:1–9.
Barnes RFW. 2002. The problem of precision and trend
detection posed by small elephant populations in West
Africa. African Journal of Ecology 40:179–185.
Blake S, Hedges S. 2004. Sinking the flagship: the case of
forest elephants in Asia and Africa. Conservation Biology 18(5):1191–1202.
status report 2002. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.
Bossen B. 1998. Research on African elephants Loxodonta
africana (Blumenbach, 1797): a bibliography. African
Journal of Ecology 36:371–376.
Bouché Ph. 2002. Elephant status and conservation in the
Upper Bandama Game Reserve, Ivory Coast. Pachyderm 32:72–73.
Bouché Ph., Lungren CG, Hien B, Omondi P. 2004a. Aerial
total count of the ‘W’–Arli–Pendjari–Oti Mandouri–
Keran (WAPOK) ecosystem in West Africa. http://
w w w. c i t e s . o r g / c o m m o n / p r o g / m i k e / s u r v e y /
WAPOK_survey03.pdf
Bouché Ph., Lungren CG, Hien B. 2004b. PONASI ecosystem survey. http://www.cites.org/common/prog/
mike/sub_reg/PONASI_survey.pdf
Bryant D, Nielsen D, Tangley L. 1997. The last frontier forests. World Resources Institute,Washington, DC.
Caspary HU. 1999. Wildife utilization in Cote d’Ivoire and
West Africa: potentials and constraints for developmental cooperation. GTZ, Eschborn.
CIA World Fact Book. 2004. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iv.html
Eggert LS, Rasner CA, Woodruff DS. 2002.The evolution
and phylogeology of the African elephant inferred from
mitochondrial DNA sequence and microsatellite markers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 269:1993–2006.
Fischer F. 2004. Status of the Comoé National Park, Cote
d’Ivoire, and the effects of war. Parks 14(1):17–25.
Fischer F, Linsenmair KE. 2001. Decreases in ungulate population densities. Examples from Comoé National Park,
Ivory Coast. Biological Conservation 101(2):131–135.
Fischer F, Gross M, Linsenmair KE. 2002. Updated list of
the larger mammals of Comoé National Park, Ivory
Coast. Mammalia 66(1):83–92.
Goor W van. 2004. Assessing the status of mammals in the
Forêt Classé de la Bossématié, Cote d’Ivoire with its influencing factors. BSc thesis. University of Larenstein.
GTZ/FGU. 1979. Gegenwärtiger Status der Como und TaïNationalparks sowie des Azagny-Reservats und
Vorschläge zu deren Erhaltung und Entwicklung zur
Förderung des Tourismus. PN 73.2085.6 Band II Teil
1 + 2. Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit,
Eschborn.
Hawthorne WD, Parren MPE. 2000. How important are
forest elephants to the survival of woody plant species
in Upper Guinean forests? Journal of Tropical Ecology 16:133–150.
Hoppe-Dominik B. 1989. Premier recensement des grandes
mammifères dans le Parc National de la Marahoué en
Cote d’Ivoire. African Journal of Zoology 103:21–27.
IUCN. 2003a. Strategy for the conservation of West African elephants. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 2003b. Action plan for the management of
transfrontier elephant conservation corridors in West
Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Merz G. 1982. Untersuchungen über Lebensraum und
Verhalten des afrikanischen Waldelefanten im Taï
Nationalpark der Republik Elfenbeinküste unter dem
Einfluss der regionalen Entwicklung. Dissertation,
University of Heidelberg.
Merz G, Hoppe-Dominik B. 1989. Distribution and status
of the forest elephant in the Ivory Coast, West Africa.
Parker ISC. 1989. Elephant decline, part 1: downward trends
in African elephant distribution and numbers. International Journal of Environmental Studies 34:287–305.
Parren MPE, de Leede BM, Bongers F. 2002. A proposal
for a transnational forest network area for elephants in
Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana. Oryx 36(3):249–256.
Roca AL, Georgiadis N, Pecon-Slattery J, O’Brian SJ. 2001.
Genetic evidence of two species of elephant in Africa.
Science 293(5534):1473–1477.
Roth HH, Merz G, Steinhauer B. 1984. Répartition et statut
des grandes espèces de mammifères en Cote d’Ivoire.
Mammalia 48(2):207–226.
Roth HH, Douglas-Hamilton I. 1991. Distribution and status of elephants in West Africa. 1. Mammalia 55(4):
489–527.
Sanderson EW, Redford KH, Chetkiewicz Ch-L, Medellin
RA, Rabinowitz AR, Robinson JG, Taber AB. 2002.
Planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model. Conservation Biology 16(1):58–72.
Soulemane O. 2002. Conflits homme–éléphant autour de
la Forêt classée du Haut-Sassandra, Cote d’Ivoire.
Steinauer-Burkhart B. 1984. Untersuchung zur Ökologie
von Großsäugern anhand von Flugzählungen im Comoé
National Park. Dissertation, University of Würzburg.
Sukumar R. 1993. Minimum viable populations for elephant
conservation. Gajah 11:48–52.
Theuerkauf J, Ellenberg H, Waitkuwait WE, Mhlenberg M.
2001. Forest elephant distribution and habitat use in
the Bossématié Forest Reserve, Ivory Coast. Pachyderm 30:37–43.
TRAFFIC. 2003. More ivory than elephants: domestic ivory
markets in three West African countries. TRAFFIC
Online Report Series No 8.
Vucetich JA, Waite Th. A. 1998. Number of censuses required for demographic estimation of effective population size. Conservation Biology 12(5):1023–1030.
World Heritage Centre. 1989. http://www.wcmc.org.uk/
protected_areas/data/wh/tai.html
75
Noupa
Analyse biométrie des pointes d’éléphants saisies dans le cadre
de la lutte antibraconnage par les services de la conservation
dans le massif du Sud-est Cameroun
Paul Noupa, Consultant/Senior Conservation Biologist
IUCN Regional Office for Central Africa, PO Box 5506, Yaoundé, Cameroon;
email : [email protected]
Résumé
La biométrie aide à l’analyse des variations biologiques à l’intérieur d’un groupe déterminé. Dans le cadre
des populations d’éléphant de la forêt du Sud-est Cameroun, elle contribuerait à l’amélioration de la
connaissance sur la dynamique de sa population, ce qui aiderait à l’aménagement de l’espèce. Pour le faire, la
présente étude s’est occupée à relever les mensurations sur les pièces dures de sujets morts (abattus par
braconnage) en vue d’établir une éventuelle relation dans la variabilité de divers paramètres biologiques (âge,
poids, sexe, …). A terme, l’établissement de cette relation entre les mesures des pièces dures et les paramètres
biologiques individuels permettent une caractérisation de la population en terme d’identification du pourcentage
des sujets jeunes, sub-adultes, adultes et vieux). La mensuration de la présente étude a porté sur 62 pointes
d’ivoire et révèle que 2 éléphants sur 3 abattus dans le Sud-est Cameroun sont de jeunes sujets. En effet, la
moyenne de poids des pointes d’ivoire pour les animaux abattus par les braconniers est de 4,44 kg contre une
moyenne dans la région de 15 kg. Ceci est un indicateur du type de prélèvement fortement préjudiciable à
l’espèce que font les braconniers sur l’éléphant.
Cette analyse a aussi permis de constater qu’un dimorphisme sexuel s’installe chez les jeunes éléphants
lorsque les pointes d’ivoire atteignent une longueur de 75 cm. Bien que faite sur un échantillon réduit, cette
étude pose les jalons de la confection des abaques pour les populations d’éléphant dans le région du Sud-est
si elle est complétée par une collecte patiente des données qui mette à contribution les guides chasse
professionnels travaillant dans la région.
Abstract
Biometrics analyses morphological variation within a given group. Within the context of forest elephant
populations in south-eastern Cameroon, biometrics can contribute to improving knowledge on population
dynamics, thus aiding in management of the species. This study uses measurements of body parts taken from
poached elephant specimens to investigate the relationships between biometric measurements and a number
of biological parameters (age, weight, sex...). The characterization of such relationships permits the investigation of population structure in terms of juveniles, subadults, adults and old adults.
Measurements of 62 tusks revealed that 2 out every 3 elephants poached in south-eastern Cameroon are
young individuals. The average tusk weight among the poached elephants examined was 4.44 kg, against an
average of 15 kg for the area. This provides an indicator of the type of offtake prevalent in the area and its
potential impact on the species. This analysis also provides evidence that sexual dimorphism becomes apparent in young elephants when the tusk length reaches 75 cm. Although conducted on a small sample, this study
sets the stage for detailed knowledge of elephant population structures in south-eastern Cameroon. This effort
should be supplemented with additional data collected by professional hunting guides working in the area.
76
Analyse biométrie des pointes d’élephant saisies au Cameroun
consiste à la création et l’aménagement de trois parcs
nationaux—Lobeke, Boumba-Bek et Nki (8000
km2)—et leur zone périphérique pour la conservation
de la biodiversité. Dans le cadre de la surveillance
dans le site, le programme conduit des opérations de
démantèlement des campements de braconniers qui
ont conduit à la saisie d’un stock de pointes d’ivoires
qui ont été utilisés dans la présente étude.
Introduction
La forêt du sud-est appartient à l’écosystème de la
forêt dense humide de basse altitude du nord-ouest
du bassin du Congo. Elle représente un bloc forestier
d’habitat peu perturbé de l’aire de répartition de
l’éléphant de forêt (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) au
Cameroun (fig. 1). C’est une forêt reconnue pour sa
richesse en essences commerciales et qui a favorisé
le développement d’une intense activité d’exploitation
depuis environs trois décennies avec environ 29 essences forestières de haute valeur commerciale
jusqu’ici prélevées (MINEF 2001). Elle est aussi
exceptionnellement riche en espèces fauniques parmi
les plus charismatiques et les plus menacées à savoir
le chimpanzé, le gorille, le drill et l’éléphant. La riche
biodiversité de la région a été internationalement
reconnue et sa préservation est connue comme
nécessitant l’effort conjugué des gouvernements, des
ONG et autres donateurs.
Dans ce massif, des initiatives de conservation
sont engagées par le programme de gestion durable
de la biodiversité du sud-est qui a bénéficié de l’appui
financier du GEF/Banque Mondiale, de la GTZ et des
fonds du Pays-Bas à travers le projet du WWF dans
la région. Cette initiative de conservation dans le site
Matériel et méthode
Chez les espèces animales, les pièces dures constituent des parties du corps qui résistent longtemps après
la mort du sujet. Ces parties dures sont diverses et
variées, mais généralement, en font partie les os et
les éléments dentaires. Par ailleurs, certaines de ces
pièces s’installent dans la vie de l’individu après la
naissance. Mais généralement, ces pièces subissent
un accroissement de taille, de grosseur, de hauteur,
de poids et même de forme avec le développement
physique du sujet. Dans certains cas, ces pièces
subissent des transformations marquées qui
permettent de déterminer les changements d’année,
ce qui a permis qu’on les utilise pour déterminer les
âges des sujets. Dans le cas de cette étude, les pointes
d’ivoires ont été utilisées pour essayer de caractériser
Gari-Gombo
N
Yokadouma
Mboy II
Moampack
Ngato
Cameroun
Bangué
Massea
Malea ancien
PN de
Libongo
BOUMBA BEK
Ngoila
Koumela
PN de
NKI
Mambélé
PN de
LOBEKE
Nguilili
Légende
Ndongo
Zone communautaire de PN de Lobeke
Moloundou
PK 27
PK 14
Djembé
Kika
routes
PN Parc national
40
0
40
80 km
Socambo
77
Noupa
Résultats
Répartition des saisies par station
Entre 1998 et 2000, 62 pointes d’ivoire ont été saisies
dans le sud-est, dans quatre stations et environ 80 %
provenaient de la station de Kika qui est la pointe sudest du Cameroun caracterisée par la présence des parcs
nationax de Boumba Bek, Nki et Lobeke (fig. 1). Cette
région constitue naturellement un refuge pour la population d’éléphants refoulée par les perturbations des
activités économiques et sociales des populations
Une répartition des pointes saisies par catégorie
de poids et par station est faite dans la figure 2.
Selon la réglementation en vigueur sur la faune
au Cameroun, les sujets ayant des pointes de moins
de 5 kg sont jeunes et par conséquent intégralement
protégés. Or il ressort des mensurations que 74 % des
78
saisies soit 45 pointes sur 62 (fig. 3) ont un poids
inférieur à 5 kg et, au sens de la disposition réglementaire, proviennent d’une catégorie de population
intégralement protégée.
L’abattage par les braconnier se faisant au hasard
sans aucun souci de sélection de sujet à abattre, il ressort
de cette information que les populations dont sont issues ces pointes sont majoritairement jeunes et ceci
concerne 2 éléphants sur 3 dans l’échantillon. Cette variation est aussi perçue à travers la moyenne de poids des
pointes qui est de 4,44 kg dans l’échantillon d’étude
contre 15 kg en moyenne pour les vieux sujets dans la
région et où le plus vieux sujet jamais enregistré a eu
une pointe de 35 kg (record national d’éléphant de forêt).
Les braconniers dans leur destruction aveugle, abattent
les sujets qui sont au tiers de leur longévité.
90
80
70
Pourcentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Kika
Ngato
Ancien
Koumela
Mboy II
Station
Figure 2. Répartition des saisies des pointes d’ivoire
dans la région du sud-est Cameroun entre 1998 et
2000. (Source : Action du Programme de
conservation et de gestion de la biodiversité dans le
Sud-est)
Nombre
les sujets porteurs et tenter de comprendre les
caractéristiques de la population dont ils sont issus.
Les pièces durs pourraient permettre des
mensurations qui, complétées par des données prélevées
sur les sujets entiers nouvellement abattus dans la région,
peuvent aider à produire des abaques relationnelles qui
caractérisent la population. A cause de l’insuffisance
des informations recueillies sur l’échantillon de pointe
qui était disponible pour cette étude, elle ne prétend
pas établir la variation biologique au sein de la population de laquelle sont issus les sujets échantillonnés.
Ainsi, l’étude ne peut pas répondre à la préoccupation
de la relation entre les mensurations prélevées sur les
pointes d’ivoire et les informations sur l’âge, le poids,
la taille, du sujet, toutes choses nécessaires pour
confectionner des abaques caractéristiques des
populations, mais elle permet de valoriser les informations souvent difficiles d’accès dans le contexte de
l’aménagement des éléphants de forêt dans cette région
qui est aussi un foyer de braconnage des éléphants.
L’étude a porté sur la mensuration de 62 pointes
d’ivoire issues des saisies lors des activités de lutte
anti-braconnage menées dans le site entre 1998 et
2000. Ces pointes d’ivoire ont été mesurées et pesées
et les informations suivantes ont été rassemblées sur
chaque pointe d’ivoire : origine, hauteur de la pointe,
courbure externe, diamètre au centre, aplatissement
au centre, poids en kg et aspect physique. Ces pointes
ont été saisies dans quatre stations : Kika, Ngato Ancien, Koumela et Mboy II (fig. 1). Les données de
mensuration ont été encodées avec le logiciel Excel.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pointe de moins de 5 kg
Pointe de plus de 5 kg
Kika
Ngato Koumela Mboy II
Ancien
Station de saisie
T
Total
Figure 3. Répartition des pointes d’ivoire saisies
par catégorie de poids et par station.
de forêt à prendre des mesures pour la protection de
la jeune population d’éléphants dans le massif du sudest Cameroun. La population d’élé-phants de cette
région est soumise à la pression de la chasse sportive, du braconnage et de la dégradation de l’habitat.
Il y a un besoin d’aména-gement et de stabilisation
de cette population au risque que le braconnage rampant continue à déprécier la population de cette espèce
avec à terme la dégradation du potentiel génétique
par une réduction de la population à un seuil non viable. Ceci interpelle principale-ment les initiatives en
cours dans la région pour l’éléphant, notamment : Le
programme de conservation et de gestion de la
biodiversité dans le sud-est Cameroun, les programmes spécifiques tels que MIKE/CITES (Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephant), le Groupe de travail
sous-régional sur la viande de brousse, le Groupe
Spécialiste des Eléphants d’Afrique (GSEAf).
L’étude a permis de distinguer deux phases dans
le processus de développement des pointes à savoir :
i) Une première phase qui englobe les pointes de
longueur comprise entre 32 et 75 cm et de poids
inférieur ou égale à 2 kg. Dans cette phase il existe
une relation proportionnée entre le poids de la
pointe d’ivoire et sa longueur indépendamment
de la station. Cette phase concerne la tranche des
individus « bébés ». Dans cette phase, il y a une
relation linéaire entre la croissance en longueur
et le poids de la pointe d’ivoire suivant la relation
y = 0,0536x + 0,3766
Croissance des sujets dans la population
échantillonnée
La figure 4 représente la relation de poids à la longueur
de chaque pointe pour les saisie des stations de Kika,
Ngato Ancien, Koumela et Mboy II. Il ressort de ce
graphique indépendemment des stations, une
distincton entre deux catégories de populations
d’éléphants : les populations jeunes (poids des pointes
inférieur à 5 kg et de longeur au plus égale à 85 cm)
qui représentent 70 % de l’échantillon étudié et les
populations plus âgées (poids des pointes supérieure
à 5 kg et longeur comprise ente 98 et 130 cm) qui
représentent 30 % d l’échantillon étudié).
Relation biométriques
La figure 5 représente la relation biométrique l’échantillon d’étude. Elle donne les tendance d’évolution
de la hauteur, de la courbure externe du diamètre
médian en fonction du poids de la pièce.
Discussion
137
130
126
117
99,5
96,8
89
92,5
84
75
72
62
65,5
56,5
53,8
48,7
43,9
Poids (kg)
Il ressort des résultats de cette étude que la station de
Kika qui se situe dans la zone où on trouve encore
une forte densité d’éléphants du fait de la presence
des trois parcs nationaux de Lobéké, Boumba-Bek et
Nki est aussi la région où on rencontre la plus fort
activitée de braconnage. En effet, les autres zones qui
connaissent une forte concen18
tration des structures et infrastructures humaines durables ou
16
permanentes (villages, champs)
14
et qui sont par conséquent
fortement pertubées abritent de
12
faibles populations d’éléphants
10
et les saisies y ont été moindres
8
avec moins de 5 % de saisies à
Koumela et Mboy II.
6
L’étude a aussi montré que
4
l’activité de braconnage dans la
région du sud-est Cameroun
2
réduit à moins du tiers
0
l’espérance de vie de la populations d’éléphants. Cette situation
doit
interpeller
Kika
Ngato Ancien
Koumela
l’administration du Cameroun
Longueur (cm)
et tous ceux qui sont intéressés
par la protection des éléphants
Figure 4. Relation poids–longueur par station.
Mboy ll
79
Noupa
180
y = -1,9309x + 148,08
R2 = 0,9112
160
Hauteur en cm
Courbure externe en cm
Diamètre au centre en cm
Courbe de tendance de la courbure externe
Coubre de tendance de la hauteur de la pointe
140
120
Valeur
100
80
y = -1,6041x + 128,26
R2 = 0,9008
60
40
0,38
0,55
0,71
0,86
1,1
1,2
1,35
1,5
1,7
1,85
1,9
2,6
3,2
4,3
5
7
8
10,5
12
14,5
0
17
20
Poids de la pointe (kg)
Figure 4. Relation biométrique des pointes d’ivoire.
où y représente la longeur de la pointe et x
représente son poids en kg. La coefficient de
corrélation de cette éqution de tendance est fort
de R2= 0,81. Dans cette phase de croissance, il
n’y aurait pas d’influence du sexe dans le
développement somatique de l’individu.
ii) Une deuxième phase survient où on note une forte
variation entre les poids des pointes d’ivoire de
même longueur et même une variabilité liée à la
station. Il s’agirait de la phase d’installation du
dimorphisme sexuel des sujets où la croissance des
sujets mâles diffère de celle des sujets femelles. Il
s’agirait aussi de la phase où l’influence de
l’environnement a un effet sur le développement
somatique des individus. Cette phase s’accompagnerait d’une différentiation dans la croissance
des pièces dures. L’équation linéaire décrivant cette
phase indépendamment de la station est
y = 0,424x + 2,8664
avec un coefficient de corrélation R2=0,5525.
L’influence de la différenciation sexuelle sur le
développement des pointes d’ivoire des éléphants
de la région du sud-est se met en place lorsque les
pointes pèsent encore environ 4 kg. Malheuresement, les sujets sont beaucoup plus vite victimes
de braconnage qu’on ne put apprécier l’évolution
80
de ce dimorphisme sur des sujets plus vieux. (Le
record national des pointes d’ivoire pour les
éléphants de forêt du Cameroun est un sujet dont
une pointe a pesé 36 kg avec 2,40 m de longueur,
abattu dans la région de Mintom).
Relations biométriques
Les résutats bimétriques de cette étude suggèrent qu’il
existerait une corrélation positive entre la hauteur de
la pointe, sa courbure externe et son poids. La relation entre la courbure externe de la pointe et le poids
pour l’échantillon de saisie est donnée par l’équation
y = –1,9309x + 148,08
où y représente la valeur de la courbure et x le poids
avec un coefficient de régression R2 = 0,9112.
De même, la relation entre la hauteur de la pointe
et le poids pour l’échantillon de saisie est donnée par
l’équation
y = –1,6041x + 128,26 avec un coefficient de
régression R2 = 0,9008.
Les deux paramètres biométriques « Courbure
externe et Hauteur de la pointe » sont corrélés au poids
de la pointe à plus de 90 % de probabilité. Par contre
la mesure du diamètre au centre de la pointe ne donne
pas une relation précise avec le poids de la pointe.
Même si la tendance générale est celle d’une corrélation positive entre le poids de la pointe et son diamètre
au centre, il reste que des observations donnent des
pointes de moindre poids présentant de grande
diamètres et inversement.
En réalisant ainsi qu’il y a une relation entre le
poids et les paramètres biométrique des pointes
d’ivoire, on est en présence d’un outil d’aménagement
des populations d’éléphants de forêt. En effet, pratiquement, il est très difficile de prélever les
paramètres caractéristiques (poids, âge, longueur,
hauteur au garrot…) sur les sujets vivants dans la
nature. Par contre, on rencontre très régulièrement
les pièces dures (pointe d’ivoire) d’éléphant en circulation. La mise en relation des paramètres des pièces
dures (poids, hauteur, courbure externe…) avec les
relevés des paramètres sur un échantillon des sujets
vivants donne une abaque relationnelle qui permet
de savoir pour une population donnée, lorsqu’on est
en présence de pièce dure, quel a été l’âge et le poids
de ce sujet. Un tel outil serait d’une importance
capitale pour la gestion de la chasse sportive et
l’aménagement des populations d’éléphant de forêt.
Conclusion
De l’analyse des saisies des pointes d’ivoire dans le
sud-est entre 1998 et 2000, il ressort que la population des éléphants de la région sont fortement
composée d’individus jeunes ayant les pointes
inférieures à 5 kg.
Les présentes mensurations sur les pointes saisies
dans le sud-est du Cameroun ont permis de vérifier
qu’il existe une corrélation positive entre la hauteur
des pointes d’ivoire, leur courbure externe et leur
poids. Les données disponibles ne permettent pas de
lier ces informations à l’âge de l’individu, son poids
et les autres paramètres quantitatifs (envergure)
caractéristiques des individus qui, mis ensemble
permettent aussi de caractériser les populations.
Toutefois, il est nécessaire de réaliser une étude
biométrique des pointes d’ivoire pour avoir des informations sur l’âge de ces populations et de construire
pour la région un abaque qui sera un outil important
pour l’aménagement de cette espèce et de son habitat.
La mise en place d’un protocole en vue de la
préparation d’un tel outil incombe certes au scientifique,
mais elle requiert la collaboration et la discipline des
services à charge de la gestion de la faune et des guideschasse travaillant dans les zones affermées.
Dédicace
Dr Paul Robinson Ngnengue, décédé le 21 août 2001,
pour sa contribution au développement du Projet de
conservation du WWF dans le sud-est Cameroun et
notamment la mise sur pied d’un système de suivi
écologique. A sa mort, Robinson était le responsable
du suivi-écologique du Jengi Southeast Forest Project.
Bibliographie de référence sur le
site d’étude
Barnes RFW, Jensen KL. 1987. How to count elephants in
forests. IUCN African Elephant and Rhino Specialist
Group Technical Bulletin No 1:1–16.
Gartlan S. 1989. La conservation des écosystèmes forestiers
du Cameroun. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland. 186 p.
Hall J, Nkwi P. 1993. Proposal for the south-eastern
Cameroon component of the Global Environment Facility Project for Cameroon. Lake Lobeke strategic planning mission summary report. (submitted by Jefferson
S. Hall et Bryan K. Curran, 8 March 1993 WCI).
Harrison M, Agland P. 1987. A draft proposal for the designation of three new national forest parks. Dja River
Films Ltd.
Letouzey R. 1985 Notice de la carte phytogéographique du
Cameroun au 1/500000è. Institut de la Carte International de la Végétation. UNEP, Toulouse, France.
[MINEF] Ministère de l’Environnemnt et Forêts. 2001. Le
Cameroun au sommet : sommet mondial pour le
développement durable. MINEF, Yaoundé. 15 p.
Nzouango D. 1994. Boumba-Bek. Etudes préliminaires.
World Conservation Society. Yaoundé, Cameroon. 28 p.
Simon NS, Adams RJ, Jenkins MD. 1989. Biodiversity in
sub-Saharan Africa and its islands: conservation, management and sustainable use. A contribution for the
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Programme. IUCN,
Gland. 242 p.
Stromayer KA, Ekobo A. 1991. Biological surveys of southeastern Cameroon. Wildlife Conservation International,
Bronx, New York.
Usongo L, Noupa P. 2001. The way forward: Boumba-Bek
and Nki proposed parks, Southeast Cameroon. Vision
paper. WWF Jengi SE Forest Project, Youndé, Cameroun. 6 p.
81
Choudhury
Threats to the greater one-horned rhino and its habitat, Pabitora
Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India
Anwaruddin Choudhury
The Rhino Foundation for Nature in NE India, c/o Assam Co. Ltd., Bamunimaidam,
Guwahati 781 021, Assam, India; email: [email protected]
Abstract
Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam, north-eastern India, has the highest density of the Indian one-horned or
greater one-horned rhinoceros, Rhinoceros unicornis, anywhere in its range. This area, dominated by moist
savanna grasslands, was designated a wildlife sanctuary in 1987. With around 80 rhinos, Pabitora is an important habitat for this endangered species. However, the area is facing serious threats such as encroachment,
road construction, overgrazing, poaching, high floods and increasingly heavy tourism. This paper discusses
these threats and issues and suggests solutions.
Additional key words: Rhinoceros unicornis, grassland, flooding, poaching, siltation
Résumé
Le Sanctuaire de la Faune de Pabitora en Assam, au nord-est de l’Inde, comprend la plus forte densité de
rhinocéros unicornes indiens (Rhinoceros unicornis) de toute son aire de répartition. Cette région, dominée
par une savane de prairies humides, a été désignée comme sanctuaire pour la faune sauvage en 1987. Avec
quelque 80 rhinos, Pabitora est un habitat important pour cette espèce en danger. Pourtant, la région fait face
à de graves menaces comme l’empiètement, la construction de routes, le surpâturage, le braconnage, les
inondations et un tourisme de plus en plus envahissant. Cet article discute ces menaces et problèmes et
suggère des solutions.
Mots clé supplémentaires : Rhinoceros unicornis, prairies, inondations, braconnage, sédimentation
Introduction
Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary (26°14N–16N N, 91°57N–
92°05N E) in Assam, north-eastern India, is a known
stronghold of the endangered Indian one-horned or
greater one-horned rhinoceros, Rhinoceros unicornis
(Vigne and Martin 1984, 1998; Choudhury 1985,
1991, 1997; Talukdar 2000; ). It also has the highest
density of R. unicornis anywhere in its range. Located in Morigaon District (with a small portion also
in Kamrup Metropolitan District) on the south of the
Brahmaputra River, it covers 38.8 km2 (fig. 1). The
habitat is dominated by moist savanna grassland with
patches of woodland and marshy pockets, and a large
hillock. Useful information on Pabitora, including the
now-shelved project of introducing the critically en-
82
dangered subspecies of the brow-antlered deer,
Cervus eldi eldi, is found in Choudhury (1987,
1989a,b,c,d, 2002), Rahmani et al. (1988) and Barua
(1994).
Pabitora has an interesting history; in the early
part of the last century it was neither a reserve forest
nor an identified habitat of rhinoceros. The area was
used for grazing domestic cattle and buffaloes and it
was recorded in the revenue department as ‘professional’ and ‘village’ grazing reserves. In the 1960s
the villagers of Raja Mayong, Lunmati and Burha
Mayong demanded that the area be declared a reserve forest to prevent migrants from encroaching in
it (Bengali Moslems and Hindus from the former eastern Bengal and East Pakistan, now Bangladesh) and
also to protect the rhinos. In 1961/62 the Nagaon For-
Threats to the greater one-horned rhino, Pabitora, India
A. Choudhury
est Division confirmed the presence of a few rhinos
in the area. The villagers extended their full support
and continued to urge the government to protect the
area. In 1971 it was declared a reserve forest; in 1987
it was designated a wildlife sanctuary. The de facto
area of the sanctuary was about 16 km2 of grassland
interspersed with wetland and a large patch of woodland. At the time of final notification in 1998, the sanctuary area was increased to 38.8 km2, which included
15.85 km2 of de facto sanctuary, 12 km2 of Raja
Mayong Reserve Forest (RF) and about 11 km2 of
other government land, called khas land by the revenue department (fig. 1). Inclusion of the additional
area was finalized after all the villagers’ claims and
rights over the land had been settled.
Rhinos in Pabitora do not share their habitat with
many other large mammal species. Those present include the wild pig (Sus scrofa), jackal (Canis aureus),
and feral water buffaloes, among which is probably
at least one pure wild bull of Bubalus arnee (=
bubalis) that came during high floods. The sanctuary
is known for its rich birdlife. In the Raja Mayong
hills, leopard (Panthera pardus), muntjac (Muntiacus
muntjak) and rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) are
found besides various other smaller species.
This article discusses serious problems faced by this
important rhino habitat and presents possible solutions.
Methods
Since the 1980s I have been visiting this wilderness,
which is only about 48 km by road from Guwahati. I
obtained data presented here at first hand as a researcher,
as an activist of The Rhino Foundation for Nature in
North-East India, and as an official of the Department
of Environment and Forests of the Assam government.
Census figures are departmental counts carried out by
direct counting from elephant back, in which I was also
involved either directly or indirectly.
The problems
The main objective of this work was to highlight the
serious problems that have threatened a globally important rhino habitat and their possible solutions.
Area of the sanctuary: Raja Mayong RF is actually a rocky hillock unsuitable for rhinos although a
few animals occasionally climb the slopes, sometimes
ending up dead among the rocks (see photo). Khas
land on the other hand is excellent for rhinos as it is
in the floodplain and consists of wetland and grassy
tracts. By the time formalities demarcating the sanctuary were finalized, much of the khas land was already under human occupation, both permanent and
temporary, by farmers in adjacent villages, who had
started wet paddy cultivation and intensive fishing.
As a result this area of 11 km2 cannot be used as a
sanctuary although it is
designated as such. Human occupation and intensive cultivation as
well as the jutting shape
near Mayong of the
Murkata part of the
sanctuary make it difficult to reclaim this area.
But the Kamarpur khas
land, the area that connects the original sanctuary with Raja
Mayong RF, should be
cleared of human activity (fig. 1).
Growing rhino
population: Table 1
shows the increase in
rhino population in
Pabitora. The rhino
This rhino got caught in the rocky terrain—and, unable to extricate itself, died.
83
Choudhury
habitat remains the original 15.85 km2 for around 80
rhinos. The increase in area has not helped the animals. The rhinos regularly stray out at night to nearby
fields, which include both khas land that is part of the
sanctuary and private land. While the growing number
of rhinos is certainly not a problem, as additional rhinos may be translocated, the lack of additional habitat and the failure to get hold of the added area of the
sanctuary are major issues.
Roads: An all-weather road (closed only during high
floods) passes through the western boundary of the de
facto sanctuary. An old, infrequently used road being
reconstructed will pass through the sanctuary at three
places, posing a threat to the sanctuary and its rhinos.
This road will not only disturb the animals but may
also cause a few accidents with them. It will, however,
be an important road, connecting Guwahati with
Morigaon and Nagaon through Chandrapur and
Mayong, and it will be shorter than the existing road.
The bridge over Kolong River is complete and once this
road is constructed visitors to Pabitora from Guwahati
will use it. Busy traffic is expected on this road.
Mortality: Even the slightest negligence can result in rhinos getting killed. For instance, a mother
2
Hiloikhunda
3
Hatimuria
Sanaka
Kajoli
Haduk
Tamuliduba
Jukdol
Garanga
Pagladuba
Duboritoli
1
Brahmaputa
Brahmaputa River
river
4
5
6
6
Murkata
MAYONG
RAJA MAYONG HILLS
Burha Mayong
Sildubi
1
To Guwahati
Tuplung
2
3
Kamarpur
To Morigaon
Haduk
Kholabhuyan
Jukdol
Kamarpur
4
5
Pabitora
Kukuwari
To Sonapur
Thengbhanga
Kukuwari
INDIA
N
0
2 km
Approx.
Assam
sanctuary boundary
Diprang
Nekera
main sanctuary
MANAS
KAZIRANGA
PABITORA
added areas
river
road
forest range office
anti-poaching camp
Main habitat types
grassland
woodland
waterbody
(including marsh and swamp)
Figure 1. Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary showing habitat types.
84
Table 1. Estimated number of rhinos in Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary according to census
Year
1961–62
1969–70
1993
1995
1999
2004
Adult
Subadult
Male
Female
Unidentified
Male
–
–
18
11
17
14
–
–
21
28
26
33
–
–
1
3
0
0
–
–
1
3
7
5
Calf
Total
Female Unidentified
–
–
2
2
5
4
–
–
2
13
0
2
–
–
11
9
19
21
a few
20
56
69
74
79
Source of 1961–62 and 1969–70 counts: P.C. Gogoi, Working Plan for Nagaon Division
– no detail is available
Table 2. Mortality of rhinoceros in and just outside
Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary
Year
Poaching
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 (to 25 Oct.)
2
3
4
2
1
3
4
4
2
5
3
4
6
2
0
3
2
0
Natural death
3
5
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
0
1
0
2
3
5
Total
5
8
7
4
2
5
5
6
3
7
5
6
6
3
0
5
5
5
Source: Department of Environment and Forest and The
Rhino Foundation for Nature in NE India
A. Choudhury
rhino with a calf were electrocuted in 2003 during a
few hours of slackness by staff. The authorities immediately punished the staff and later suspended the
ranger for his overall negligence. Although rhino
poaching has lessened in recent years, it still remains
a major problem (see photo). Poachers were also
nabbed carrying a horn. Table 2 shows the number of
rhinos that have died through poaching and other
causes (usually recorded as ‘natural’) between 1987
and 2004.
Flooding: Annual flooding is essential for the
survival of the alluvial grasslands of Pabitora, but
periodic high floods are detrimental. In the 1990s,
the worst flood was recorded in 1998; so far since the
turn of the century, it was in July–August 2004. During such high floods, the entire de facto sanctuary
reels from the effects of the floodwaters. Many rhino
calves perish and the grassland is damaged. Two rhinos drowned in 1998 and four in 2004. And when
animals move out of the sanctuary during this period
they provide poachers with the opportunity to strike.
Rhino poaching, although declining, still takes its toll.
85
Choudhury
Siltation: Although siltation is a natural phenomenon, due to the small size of the sanctuary a major
crisis could result during the drier winter months if
waterbodies filled up. In the early 1990s Tamuliduba
was a fine wetland, but it has now become a seasonal
marsh that virtually dries up in late winter. For rhinos,
the year-round presence of waterbodies is essential.
Vanishing grassland: Pabitora’s savanna grassland
is vanishing fast. Grazing by domestic cattle and buffalo is the main pressure on the grassland; next is villagers’ illegal collection of grass and reeds for building
material and for sale. Since the 1998 high floods, the
grassland has not recovered as prolonged waterlogging
caused much damage. Subsequent heavy grazing by
domestic stock, numbers of which are also increasing
yearly and now probably are 4000–5000 head, also has
not allowed it to regenerate. The situation has become
so precarious that during the pre-monsoon period rhinos take shelter in the woodland in the centre of the
sanctuary. The decay in grassland habitat has also resulted in a sharp decline in swamp francolin
(Francolinus gularis) population (Choudhury 2000).
Fast-growing tourism: Due to Pabitora’s closeness to the city of Guwahati, the capital of Assam
State with a population of almost 1 million people, a
large number of domestic day tourists throng the sanctuary every winter. Most of these visitors are picnickers who like to play loud music, causing noise
pollution, and who leave behind a heap of refuse including plastic materials. Up to a hundred buses were
counted on Sundays during winter.
Illegal fishing: While illegal fishing is a perennial
problem in Pabitora, a large wetland, Garanga, is used
by a commercial contractor who got the lease from the
Fisheries Department against the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 as amended in 2002.
Suggested solutions
Area of the sanctuary: Due to stringent provisions of
the Wildlife (Protection) Act, modifying the boundary
of the sanctuary will not be an easy task. Hence, the
authorities must take urgent steps to take full control of
the 11 km2 of khas land that was designated as part of
the wildlife sanctuary. The part of khas land that is intensively cultivated and inhabited should be treated as
an intensive tourism zone in the management plan and
some of the villagers then made stakeholders in tourism projects so that they do not lose what they have
invested but stand to profit from such projects. Privately
86
owned elephants may also be allowed to carry tourists
in the tourism zone. The small encroachment in the
Diprang area should be sorted out by vigorously pursuing the case that is now in the court.
Growing rhino population: A detailed ecological study is needed to determine the carrying capacity of Pabitora. The 16-km2 area of de facto sanctuary
cannot support the growing number of animals for an
indefinite period. Hence a comprehensive plan should
be mapped for translocating rhinos, such as to
Laokhowa and Burhachapori Wildlife Sanctuaries and
Manas National Park. The successful translocations
in Nepal may be taken as examples.
Roads: The all-weather road that passes through
the western boundary of the original sanctuary should
be realigned along the existing road through the southern and eastern boundary for vehicle traffic. The road
from Guwahati that will pass through the sanctuary
at three places should be redirected at the north-east
corner of the sanctuary so that it does not cut off the
small area on the other side of the road near
Kholabhuyan. For a small sanctuary like Pabitora,
even a tiny chunk is important. Little probably needs
to be done about where the road cuts across at Burha
Mayong and Murkata as the impact on the sanctuary
will not be much. Speed-breakers and checkgates
should be placed at suitable places on the road.
Law enforcement: Exemplary punishment of erring staff should be made as the need arises, as was
done in 2003 after the electrocution of two rhinos so
that there is no room for complacency. The anti-poaching network should be strengthened and provided with
better arms; personnel should be trained like the armed
forces in how to use arms. Non-governmental organizations such as The Rhino Foundation for Nature in
NE India and Aaranyak should continue to maintain
their network of informers to supplement government
efforts on anti-poaching.
Flooding: The high floods of 1998 and 2004
showed the important role a high platform of artificially raised ground plays in saving marooned animals. However, the present mounds were not properly
constructed and are not sufficiently high. There should
be strict monitoring of such vital works and new highlands should be constructed at least a metre higher
than the highest flood level. Responsibility should be
predetermined, in case of any negligence on such issues. No measures need to be taken to control floods
as the alluvial grasslands depend on them.
Siltation: Rhinos need a permanent waterbody as
well as marsh in winter when the seasonal wetlands
become dry. To save the perennial wetlands from drying out in winter, selected sites should be desilted
yearly. As Pabitora is a small area, such regular habitat manipulation is possible.
Vanishing grasslands: For the savanna grassland
to recover to its pre-1998 condition and for its longterm survival, electric fencing may be the only option. The Rhino Foundation for Nature in NE India
prepared a proposal a few years back, which also had
the endorsement of the Forest Department, but it was
not funded, mainly because it proposed only partial
fencing. But the reality is that fencing the entire area
is neither possible nor necessary. Cattle from a particular village enter from the boundary contiguous
with that village or through neighbouring areas only.
And the pressure is not equal from all sides. If the
main entry sides are fenced off, other areas such as
water areas where fencing is not feasible could be
guarded. The purpose of fencing should not be to
completely stop movement but to halt degradation of
the grassland through overgrazing.
Fast-growing tourism: Tourism should not be discouraged even where it causes some damage; areas
with negligible or no tourism become more vulnerable
to poaching, encroachment, illegal felling and illegal
fishing, and staff become inactive and complacent. Villagers living at the fringe of the sanctuary do not realize the importance of the area nor do they presently
benefit in any way. Tourism acts as a monitoring mechanism; the idea is to regulate it. Areas such as Murkata
should be developed as intensive tourism zones where
village families whose farms would be affected can
engage in economic activities such as providing tourists with elephant rides and decent accommodation, in
homes or tented camps. Stakeholders should include
the private sector, as wholly government-controlled
tourism projects may not include or encourage fringe
villagers. Sites for picnickers should be identified on
the edges of the tourism zone.
Illegal fishing: To curb illegal fishing in the sanctuary, surprise visits by senior officials are recommended. The problem of the illegal lease for
commercial fishing in Garanga should be sorted out
permanently in a court of law.
Discussion
Pabitora is the second most important rhino area in
India, after Kaziranga, and its problems must be
viewed seriously and addressed before it is too late.
Areas such as Murkata and Kamarpur khas land were
scarcely occupied in 1987 when Pabitora was made a
reserve, but delays in disposing of claims and rights
for a decade have resulted in encroachment and intensive human activity. Converting additional areas,
especially the khas land portion, into tourism zones
with villagers as stakeholders appear to be the only
likely option. The time has come for a comprehensive translocation plan to move a specified number
of rhinos every year. The roads should be realigned
for the greater long-term interest. Anti-poaching networks should be strengthened and NGO support
should continue. Since the mid-1990s, various NGOs
have supplemented government efforts, which have
improved anti-poaching activities. Plans to tackle high
floods by constructing areas of high ground should
be on management’s agenda.
For the long-term survival of the grasslands, select stretches should be fenced. In 1993–94, due to
stringent measures by sanctuary authorities, the
number of cattle grazing in the sanctuary was brought
down from 4000 to 300 a day (Barua 1994). Tourism
should be encouraged in a big way, and it should involve the private sector. Illegal fishing is often a bone
of contention between villagers and the authorities,
as the former feel they have been forced to give up
fishing rights, only to see others fish illegally. Hence
there is need for stringent monitoring. Pabitora is surrounded by at least 21 villages with more than 10,000
inhabitants, so the threat of encroachment is constant.
The Department of Environment and Forests recently prepared a five-year management plan (Bora
2003); although modifications may be required from
time to time, its implementation should be vigorously
pursued.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the following persons: the late Nagen
Sharma (Forest minister, 1996–2000), Pradyut
Bordoloi (Environment and Forest minister since
2001), Anne Wright for continued encouragement, L.
Rynjah and P.P. Varma (both principal secretaries of
the Forest Department), S. Doley and M.C. Malakar
(both chief wildlife wardens), S. Islam, C.K. Bora and
Sanjeeb Bora (all district forest officers), P. Barua,
Mrigen Barua, P. Deka and R. Das (all range officers),
Capt. T. Phukan of the Bhoreli Angler’s Association,
Moloy Barua of Early Birds, Aneisha Sharma, Ratul
87
Choudhury
Talukdar, Hakim, Montu Nath and the late Sakul Boro.
Many of the inputs given by the Rhino Foundation
were supported by the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Fauna and Flora International, and the Rhino Rescue
Trust, and all deserve mention.
References
Barua AK. 1994. The survey of the fringe villages of
Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary and its eco-development
management plan. Guwahati: Department of Forests,
Government of Assam.
Bora CK (comp). 2003. Management plan of Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary (2003–04 to 2007–08). Nagaon: Nagaon
Wildlife Division, Government of Assam.
Choudhury AU. 1985. Distribution of Indian one-horned
rhinoceros. Tigerpaper 12(2):25–30.
Choudhury AU. 1987. A day in Pobitora. The Sentinel
(Guwahati): 26 April 1987.
Choudhury AU. 1989a. Pobitara, Assam’s Rhino Reserve.
The India Magazine 9 (August):46–54.
Choudhury AU. 1989b. Deer challenges rhino in Pobitora.
The Sentinel (Guwahati): 12 November 1989.
88
Choudhury AU. 1989c. Rhino vs. deer in Pobitora. WWF–
India Quarterly 11(1):11.
Choudhury AU. 1989d. Conflict at Pabitora. Oryx 24:68.
Choudhury AU. 1991. Indian rhino, what’s that? Telegraph
Colour Magazine 27(October):6–10.
Choudhury AU. 1997. Checklist of the mammals of Assam.
rev. 2nd ed. Gibbon Books & Assam Science, Technical and Environment Council, Guwahati.
Choudhury AU. 2000. The birds of Assam. Gibbon Books
and WWF-India NERO, Guwahati.
Choudhury AU. 2002. Saved but not ‘safe’: the story of the
Indian rhino. Environ 8(3):39–47.
Rahmani AR, Narayan G, Rosalind L, Sankaran R, GanguliLachungpa U. 1988. Bengal florican Houbaropsis
bengalensis: status and ecology. Annual Report no. 3.
Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.
Talukdar BK. 2000. The current state of rhino in Assam
and threats in the 21st century. Pachyderm 29:39–47.
Vigne L, Martin EB. 1984. The greater one-horned rhino of
Assam threatened by poachers. Pachyderm 18:28–43.
Vigne L, Martin EB. 1998. Dedicated field staff continue to
combat rhino poaching in Assam. Pachyderm 26:25–39.
The royal hunt in the Nepalese terai in 1911
HISTORY
The royal hunt of tiger and rhinoceros in the Nepalese terai in 1911
Kees Rookmaaker,1* Barbara Nelson2 and Darrell Dorrington2
1
Rhino Resource Center, c/o IUCN Species Survival Programme, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3
0DL, UK; email: [email protected]; *corresponding author
2
Asia Pacific Collections, Menzies #2, Australian National University; Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
Abstract
King George V took part in a large organized hunt in the Chitwan area of Nepal from 18 to 28 December
1911. During these days, the king and his party killed 18 rhinos, 39 tigers and 4 sloth bears. A young live rhino
was presented to them by the prime minister of Nepal and transported to the London Zoo. The events were
captured in photographs found in three albums preserved in the library of the Royal Commonwealth Society
(University of Cambridge) and the Australian National University.
Résumé
Le roi George V prit part à une grande chasse organisée dans la région népalaise de Chitwan du 18 au 28 décembre
1911. Pendant ces 11 jours, le roi et sa suite ont tué 18 rhinos, 39 tigres et 4 ours lippus. Le Premier ministre du
Népal leur présenta aussi un jeune rhino vivant qui fut transporté au Zoo de Londres. Ces événements furent
immortalisés par des photographies qui sont rassemblées dans trois albums qui sont conservés à la bibliothèque de
la Royal Commonwealth Society (Université de Cambridge) et à l’Université Nationale Australienne.
Introduction
An earlier survey of historical sources about rhinos
in Nepal by Rookmaaker (2004) recorded shoots organized for British royalty in 1906 and 1921, but
rather glossed over a similar event in 1911. When
details about a photo album with pictures of this
shikar became available, a search was made for additional written sources. These were found to include
narratives of the royal visit to India and Nepal in
Fortescue (1912), anonymous (1914) and Day (1935,
largely copied from Fortescue). This enabled us to
provide a daily account of the 1911 shoot in Nepal,
which focuses on information about rhinos and tigers found in the Nepalese terai. It must be said that
this summary presents rather depressing reading, being a record of who shot and killed what and when.
Public opposition to such events was probably largely
confined to royal hunting in England (Taylor 2004).
We present the facts as found in contemporary
sources, give the total of the animals killed, and introduce two sets of photographs portraying this royal
excursion to southern Nepal.
The imperial visit to Nepal in 1911
George V (1865–1936), king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1910, went to India in 1911 to be crowned
Emperor of India in a great durbar in Delhi on 12
December 1911. After the ceremony, a visit to Nepal
89
Rookmaaker et al.
to participate in a hunt of tiger and rhinoceros was
organized for his pleasure. Although the king of Nepal, Maharajadhiraja Prithivi Bir Bikram Shah Deva
(1875–1911), suddenly died on 11 December 1911,
it was decided to proceed with the preparations.
Hence on 16 December 1911, King George and
Queen Mary took different routes from Selimgarh
station on the outskirts of Delhi. The king travelled
by train and boat via Patna and Bankipore to Bikna
Thori, where a temporary station was erected on the
Bengal and North-Western Railway (see fig. 1 for
localities mentioned in the text). Arriving on Monday, 18 December, at 10 a.m., the king was met by
the prime minister and actual ruler of Nepal, HH
Projwala-Nepala Taradisha Sri Tin Maharaja Sir
Chandra Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana (1863–1929),
together with his two sons and British Resident in
Nepal Lieutenant-Colonel John Manners-Smith
(1864–1920). Here the hunt started and we summarize the daily events from the three books mentioned
in the introduction.
Monday, 18 December 1911
From the station of Bikna Thori, the king proceeded
by car through the valley of the Rui River on a 13mile road constructed for the occasion. Here he was
met by General Maharajkumar Sir Baber Shumsher
Jung Bahadur Rana (1888–1960), the second son of
the prime minister. The king and his party went after
elephants in the jungle for about 1 mile (1.6 km). At
this time the king shot two tigers, which had been
secured within a ring formed by the howdah elephants.
After motoring for another 19 miles and taking a
short break for lunch, the royal party arrived at a second ring of elephants. Lord Durham shot a tiger, the
king dispatched a pair of rhinos, and Lord Durham
and Lord Annaly between them shot a third rhino.
At 5.30 p.m. they reached the camp at Sukhibar
(Sakhi Bar) on the south bank of the River Rapti. The
setting was wonderful: ‘with a glorious climate, wonderful scenery, and always to the north the incredible
panorama of the eternal snows towering into the sky’
(Smythies 1961). In the camp a bungalow fitted with
electric light had been built for the king, surrounded
by the tents of his party. To give an idea of the operation: ‘outside the fencing of the camp were various
smaller encampments for the Residency Escort, the
motor-cars, stables, taxidermists, hospital, laundry, the
post and telegraph offices, and other subsidiary services. The camp of the maharaja, who had with him
some members of his family as well as his staff and
senior officers, was situated also on the river bank a
little lower down and behind it, hidden in the jungle,
Maruwa Ghat
T
E
R
A
I
Belani
Narayangarh
Chilha
Tikoli
Meghauli
Nandpur
Tamaspur
Bharatpur
Narayani River
N E P A L
Bharatpur
R O Y A
L
C
Patlahara
Khargauli
Debichaur
Jhawani
r
Rive
KASRA
SUKHIBAR
pti
a
R
H I T W A N
N A T I O N
Tribeni Ghat
Bhaisalotan
Bhagaufa
A
L
P A
R
K
Harta
Rui
Rive
r
I N D I A
Bikna Thori
Bikna Thori
Hamatanr
Gobardhana
Figure 1. The terai region in Nepal, showing places mentioned in the text.
90
was the large encampment of His Excellency’s followers, who numbered twelve thousand, besides six
hundred elephants with two thousand attendants’
(anonymous, 1914: 231).
Durham, Lord Charles Fitzmaurice, Sir Derek Keppel,
Sir Colin Keppel and Sir Henry McMahon among
them killed seven tigers and a Himalayan bear.
Saturday, 23 December 1911
Tuesday, 19 December 1911
Every night baits were put out for tigers over a large
area of the country. News of a tiger on a kill reached
the camp just after mid-day. A party went out and the
king shot the animal. In the afternoon, Sir Charles
Cust shot another tiger, while Sir Colin Keppel and
Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien each killed a rhino.
Wednesday, 20 December 1911
On this day three separate parties went out, two looking for tiger and one for rhinoceros. In the first ring, the
king soon shot a tigress. In the second ring, the hunters
disturbed a rhino cow and calf, which charged straight
at the elephants and broke out of the ring without being
hurt. After lunch it was found that the next ring contained no fewer than four tigers ‘roaring and snarling
in a blood-curdling chorus, the tigers charged madly
from side to side while the surrounding elephants trampled and trumpeted and the mahouts screamed and
shouted’ (Day 1935: 99). The king killed all four tigers.
On the way back to camp, a big bull rhino came
out of the bush and the king shot it with two shots.
The other parties were also successful: Captain
Godfrey Faussett and Sir Colin Keppel each shot one
tiger, Captain Godfrey Faussett and Sir Horace SmithDorrien each shot a bear, and the Duke of Teck shot a
rhino. Elsewhere, a rhino pursued the elephant on
which Major Wigram was riding, but abandoned the
chase after half a mile (0.8 km) and ran away.
This day was taken up by a move to a second shooting camp located at Kasra, 8 miles (12.8 km) further
up the River Rapti. It is likely that the size of the first
camp had disturbed the wildlife in the area so much
that most animals had fled to other areas of the terai.
Sunday, 24 December 1911
In the morning, there was a divine service led by Rev.
J. Godber, domestic chaplain to the bishop of Calcutta. In the afternoon, the king went with General
Kaisar Shumsher to inspect a collection of animals
from Nepal the maharaja had presented to him. There
were over 70 kinds of animals, including a young
elephant, a rhino calf, and a wild ass; these animals
were sent to the zoo in London. Various items of
Nepalese art were also presented, and they are now
in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. In the
evening, the king invested the Maharaja Sir Chandra
Shumsher Jung with the insignia of a Knight Grand
Commander of the Royal Victorian Order.
Monday, 25 December 1911
In the afternoon, after travelling 3 miles from camp (4.8
km) the king killed a tiger measuring 9 feet 6 inches
(290 cm). He then went after rhinos and first shot a
female, then a second animal after lunch. A party led
by the Duke of Teck shot three tigers and a rhino.
Tuesday, 26 December 1911
Thursday, 21 December 1911
In the morning, the king killed four tigers and a bear.
Captain Faussett was pursued by a bull rhino, which
he later killed.
The game in the area was already disturbed, obvious
because only one of the 60 baits put out the previous
evening had been touched by a tiger. Lord Durham
shot one tiger and after a long beat the king finally
managed to shoot a rhino.
Friday, 22 December 1911
Wednesday, 27 December 1911
On this day, the king shot three tigers. When a big
bull rhino suddenly ran out of the grass, shots by Sir
Charles Cust and the king missed it, but he was killed
by Captain Faussett. On separate occasions Lord
The king shot one tigress, said to be his 20th since
his arrival in Nepal.
91
Rookmaaker et al.
Thursday, 28 December 1911
valley of southern Nepal was 18 rhinos (Rhinoceros
unicornis), 39 tigers (Panthera tigris) and 4 sloth
bears (Melursus ursinus). Of these, King George V
shot 8 rhinos, 21 tigers and 1 bear. In the narratives
summarized above, only 13 rhinos and 31 tigers are
accounted for, but we assume that this is an oversight
and that the king killed none of the other animals.
The persons credited with the various animals are
listed in table 1, in alphabetical order after the king.
The dates in December when the animals were shot
are given followed by the number of that species on
that day.
On this last day of the hunt, the king and the Duke of
Teck simultaneously shot one tiger. After lunch, farewells were said and the party travelled 12 miles (19
km) by car to the train, which was waiting for them
at Bikna Thori. On the way, the king shot his last (21st)
tiger.
Animals obtained in 1911
According to Fortescue (1912) the total number of
animals shot during this 10-day hunt in the Chitwan
Table 1. The Great Hunt: 18–28 December 1911, Chitwan area, Nepal
The hunters and their titles
Rhinos shot
and dates
Tigers shot and
dates
Bears shot
and dates
King George V (1865–1936)
6: 2 on 18th; 1
on 20th; 2 on
25th; 1 on 26th
16: 1 on 19th; 5 on
20th; 4 on 21st; 3
on 22nd; 1 on 25th;
1 on 27th; 1 on 28th
1 on 21st
Lord Annaly: Sir Luke White, 3rd Baron Annaly of
Annaly and Rathcline (1857–1922), permanent
Lord-in-Waiting to George V from 1910 to 1921
1 on18th; shot
with Lord
Durham
—
—
Sir Charles Leopold Cust (1864–1939)
—
1 on 19th
—
Lord Durham: John George Lambton, 3rd Earl of
Durham (1855–1928)
—
4: 3 on 22nd; 1 on
26th
1 on 22nd
Captain Faussett: Captain Sir Bryan GodfreyFaussett (1863–1945), captain in the Royal Navy,
Equerry to George V
2:1 on 21st; 1
on 22nd
1 on 20th
1 on 20th
Lord Charles Fitzmaurice: Sir Henry Charles
Keith Petty-Fitzmaurice (1845–1927), 5th
Marquess of Lansdowne
—
1 on 22nd
—
Admiral Sir Colin Keppel (1862–1947): admiral in
the British navy (retired 1932). Commander of the
HMS Medina on the voyage to India with HM King
George V for the King Emperor’s durbar in 1911
1 on 19th
2: on 20th; 1
on 22nd
—
Sir Derek William George Keppel (1863–1944):
Deputy Master of the Household to HM King
George V between 1910 and 1912
—
1 on 22nd
—
Sir Henry McMahon (1862–1949): British High
Commissioner in Cairo
—
1 on 22nd
—
General Sir Horace Lockwood Smith-Dorrien
(1858–1930)
1 on 19th
—
1 on 20th
4: 3 on 25h; 1
on 28th
—
Duke of Teck (1868–1927): Adolphus Charles
2: 1 on 20th; 1
Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis
on 26th
Ladislaus, 2nd Duke and Prince of Teck (from
1900). In 1917 adopted the surname Cambridge.
Personal Aide-de-Camp to the Sovereign, 1910–1914
92
How the various trophies were distributed is unknown. The rhino presented to the king on 24 December 1911 was, with the rest of the collection, for some
time kept in the Alipore Zoological Gardens in Calcutta (Basu 1912). It left Calcutta on 1 April 1912 on
board the SS Afghanistan and lived in the Zoological
Gardens in London from 21 May 1912 to 2 November
1921 (Edwards 1996: 130; Rookmaaker 1998).
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
(http://images.anu.edu.au/tigers), associated with
King George’s hunt in Nepal in 1911. This led to the
discovery of two more albums of photographs in the
library of the Royal Commonwealth Society (RCS).
Details of these three albums are presented here. Finally, there is a coloured engraving showing George
V seated on an elephant hunting a rhino, published in
the 31 December 1911 issue of Le Petit Journal (no.
1102) issued in Paris, France (fig. 2).
Illustrations of the hunt
In 1950, Queen Mary presented a large and valuable collection of books, scrapbooks and 29 photoWhen Rookmaaker (2004) submitted his paper, he graphic albums relating to British India and the royal
found it almost impossible to find any historical il- family to the RCS in London, which the library of
lustrations of the rhinoceros in Nepal. He then saw a the University of Cambridge obtained in 1992.
number of relevant photographs on the website of the Handlists of the contents of the collection are available in the library. One of the photograph albums (QM 21) is a large, oblong
volume (52 x 37 cm), beautifully leather
bound, entitled ‘H.I.M. The King–Emperor of India’s Shooting in the Nepalese Terai, December, 1911’. It has 41
leaves with 278 black-and-white photographs, which are numbered but not
otherwise annotated. This appears to be
a chronological record of all events from
the arrival of King George V in Nepal
until his departure 10 days later. It appears that every tiger and rhino seen or
shot in this period is figured, as well as
the collection of live animals given to
the king. There are 10 photos of dead
rhinos (nos. 45, 92, 125–128, 206, 235,
242, 243), one of a rhino hidden in the
grass (no. 219), one of the captured
young rhino given to the king (no. 165),
and one of a collection of trophies including a mounted baby rhino (no. 177).
This album QM 21 represents the most
comprehensive record of the king’s
shoot in Nepal in 1911 that has come to
light.
The second photographic album in
the RCS (QM 20) is a large, oblong
volume (42 x 31 cm) entitled ‘Indian
Tour 1911–1912’. It has photographs
taken during the whole tour, with those
taken during the hunt in Nepal numbered 196 to 333; none are annotated.
Figure 2. Engraving (in colour) of the king’s hunt in Nepal, from Le
Petit Journal, 31 December 1911.
There are eight photographs of dead
93
Rookmaaker et al.
rhinos (nos. 244, 261, 294, 296, 299, 301, 304, 330)
and one of the captured young rhino (no. 165), mostly
different from those in QM21. For a number of reasons, these photographs cannot be reproduced at
present.
The photographic album in the Australian National University consists of 16 pages and 50 photographs (signature: MENZIES v.lge rare bk +
2108458; anonymous 1912). It appears incomplete
with the back cover missing. The front cover bears
the company name Herzog & Higgins, Mhow (Central India) and the title ‘His Imperial Majesty’s shoot
in Nepalese Terai, December 1911’. Inside the front
cover it is stated ‘Bound at the Caxton Works, Bombay’. Herzog & Higgins operated a photographic studio from the 1890s to the 1920s at Mhow, a British
military cantonment town 22 km from Indore,
Madhya Pradesh, India. The album was donated by
Dr U.N. Bhati. He had discovered it in Madhya
Pradesh, in the rural home of distant relatives, Mr
and Mrs Parbinder Singh, who had worked for the
former maharaja and maharani of Ratlamand, and who
gave him the album. Although it is unlikely that this
album is unique, no identical copies have been found
in the course of this research. There are five photographs with a rhino, all of which are also found in the
RCS album QM 21. One shows the animal running
in the grass; three were taken after the rhino was shot
(figs. 3–5), while the last one shows the young animal that was presented to the king and that was later
shipped to London (fig. 6). There are several photos
with tigers (fig. 7) and other scenes of the people involved. All photographs in the album are available
on the Internet on the website of the Australian National University (http://images.anu.edu.au/tigers).
Figure 3. Shikari flays a dead rhinoceros (His Imperial Majesty’s Shoot in Nepalese Terai, page 14,
photograph 4; also RCS QM 21, no. 243).
94
Figure 4. Hunting party inspects the head of a slain rhinoceros (His Imperial Majesty’s Shoot in Nepalese
Terai, page 14, photograph 3; also RCS QM 21, no. 128).
Figure 5. Hunters with slain rhino (His Imperial Majesty’s Shoot in Nepalese Terai, page 5, photograph 4;
also RCS QM 21, no. 235).
95
Rookmaaker et al.
Figure 6. Rhino presented to King George V by Maharaja Sir Chandra Shumsher Jung Bahadur Rana in
December 1911, later transported to the London Zoo (His Imperial Majesty’s Shoot in Nepalese Terai, page
7, photograph 2; also RCS QM 21, no. 165).
Figure 7. Four tigers and a deer shot during the hunt (His Imperial Majesty’s Shoot in Nepalese Terai, page
14, photograph 2).
96
Acknowledgements
The staff responsible for the collection of the Royal
Commonwealth Society in the library of the University of Cambridge have helped locate the photographs
relating to the Nepalese hunt. Comments by reviewers
have helped improve the contents of this paper. The
work of the Rhino Resource Center is supported by
the International Rhino Foundation and SOS Rhino.
References
Anonymous. 1912. His Imperial Majesty’s shoot in Nepalese Terai, December 1911. Herzog & Higgins, Mhow,
India.
Anonymous. 1914. The historical record of the imperial
visit to India, 1911, compiled from the official records
under the orders of the Viceroy and Governor-General
of India. John Murray, for the Government of India,
London.
Basu B. 1912. Report of the Honorary Committee for the
Management of the Zoological Garden, for the year
1911–12. Bengal Secretariat Depot, Calcutta.
Day JW. 1935. King George V as a sportsman: an informal
study of the first country gentleman in Europe. Cassell
and Company Ltd., London.
Edwards J. 1996. London Zoo from old photographs 1852–
1914. Edwards, London.
Fortescue J. 1912. Narrative of the visit to India of their
majesties King George V and Queen Mary and of the
Coronation Durbar held at Delhi 12th December 1911.
Macmillan and Co., London.
Rookmaaker LC. 1998. The rhinoceros in captivity: a list
of 2439 rhinoceroses kept from Roman times to 1994.
SPB Publishing, The Hague.
Rookmaaker LC. 2004. Fragments on the history of the
rhinoceros in Nepal. Pachyderm 37:73–79.
Smythies O. 1961. Ten thousand miles on elephants. Seeley
Service, London.
Taylor A. 2004. ‘Pig-sticking princes’: royal hunting, moral
outrage, and the republican opposition to animal abuse
in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Britain. History 89(293):30–48.
97
de Iongh et al.
Some observations on the presence of one-horned rhinos in the
bas reliefs of the Angkor Wat temple complex, Cambodia
H.H. de Iongh,1* H.H.T. Prins,2 N. van Strien3 and L.G. Rookmaaker4
1
Centre for Environmental Science, POB 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands;
2
Wageningen University, Tropical Nature Conservation and Vertebrate Ecology Group, Campo Ma’an
Project, Bornsesteeg 69, 6708 PD Wageningen, The Netherlands
3
S Asia Coordinator, International Rhino Foundation, Julianaweg 2, 3941 DM Doorn, The Netherlands;
4
Rhino Resource Center, c/o IUCN Species Survival Programme, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3
0DL, UK; email: [email protected]
During a visit to the Angkor Wat temple complex near
Siem Reap in central Cambodia, 2–6 December 2004,
the first two authors observed the presence of onehorned rhinos in the bas reliefs of the northern and
southern galleries of the temple. The Angkor Wat temple complex (fig. 1) was built under the reign of the
Khmer-Hindu ‘king god’ Suryavarman II, who reigned
from 1113 to 1150 C.E. (Common Era) (Roveda 2003).
In the North Gallery (west wing) in a bas relief
representing ‘the battle of Devas and Assuras’ we
identified a one-horned rhino mounted by one of the
gods (fig. 2).
In the North Gallery (east wing) in a bas relief
representing ‘the victory of Vishnu over Bana’ we
also identified a one-horned rhino in front of a war
chariot with one of the gods in the driving seat, bow
spanned, ready to shoot and with one foot on the
chariot the other on the rhino (fig. 3).
In the South Gallery (east wing) in the representation of ‘heavens and hell’ we identified another onehorned rhino, which is attacking the damned people
who are in hell (fig. 4).
We believe that all three of the one-horned rhinos
on these bas reliefs most probably represent Javan
Figure 1. The Angkor Wat temple.
98
Rhinos in bas relief of Angkor Wat
rhinos (Rhinoceros sondaicus) and not Indian rhinos
(R. unicornis).
Both rhino species have similar skinfolds and a
pattern of skin warts, although in the Javan rhino they
are less pronounced. A clear distinction between the
Indian and Javan rhino is the skinfold on the shoulder, which for the Javan rhino continues along the
back and gives the frontal part of the back and neck a
saddle-like appearance. This saddle is present in the
rhinos of the North Gallery (west wing) (fig. 2) and
the South Gallery (fig. 4). Also the shape of the Javan
rhino’s body and head is different from that of the
Indian rhino, the latter carrying its head higher, having a more concave back and forehead. Contrary to
our interpretation are the large round warts on the
rhino of the South Gallery and the skinfold on the
shoulder (fig. 4), which resemble those of an Indian
rhino. Also the skinfolds of the ‘Javan rhino’, particularly in the South Gallery (fig. 4) are not completely accurate, since the horizontal abdominal
skinfold continues on the belly, which is not the case
in R. sondaicus.
During our investigation in Angkor Wat, we did
not encounter any rhino resembling the two-horned
Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). This is
not surprising. Although there are records of rhinos
occurring in most parts of Cambodia except the northern regions, none of these refer to an animal with two
horns. Even though the posterior horn of the Sumatran
rhino is often small and difficult to notice when seen
in the jungle, it has been asserted that only the onehorned Javan rhino has ever been known in Cambodia (Rookmaaker 1980; Foose and Strien 1997).
It is remarkable that the rhinoceros, despite its
impressive size and power, has always played a relatively minor role in Hindu art and lore in India.
Although a large number of animals, even those
confined to a limited range in northern India, were
associated with the Hindu gods as vahanas or sacred
mounts, the rhinoceros never reached this status in
Hindu mythology and iconography (Bautze 1985).
In Nepal, the kings are obliged to perform the Tarpan
ceremony once in their lifetime, in which rhino blood
libations are offered to Hindu gods. Rhino hide plays
a role in the Shradda, an elaborate religious ceremony
performed by both Hindus and Buddhists in Nepal to
commemorate parents or grandparents on the anniversary of their deaths (Martin 1984:417; 1985).
It is unusual, and apparently confined to Khmer
art, to find the rhino employed as a vahana for one of
Figure 2. Detail of a bas relief in the North Gallery
(west wing) of Angkor Wat, showing a one-horned
mounted by the god Agni.
Figure 3. One-horned rhino shown in a bas relief in
the North Gallery (east wing) at Angkor Wat.
Figure 4. A rhinoceros without rider in the South
Gallery (east wing) of Angkor Wat.
99
de Iongh et al.
the gods in these reliefs. This explains why archaeologists have difficulty to decide which god is seen
riding on the rhino in this instance. Lohuizen-de
Leeuw (1955) suggested that it was Kartthikeya, the
god of war, partly because one of his attributes is a
sword, khadga in Sanskrit, which is also the name
for the rhinoceros. Moens (1948) explained that it may
have been Skanda, the god associated with forest fires.
But here we become entangled in the complicated
genealogies and hierarchies of the Hindu pantheon.
It is best, therefore, to follow the convincing argument
by Stönner (1925) that the presence of flames around
the representation of the god suggests that he was Agni,
the god of fire. In Hindu iconography, Agni is usually
depicted with two heads and sometimes four arms riding a goat. According to the Agni Purana his attributes
are the rosary, a jar of water, the javelin, and what looks
like a garland of flames. It is generally accepted at
present that the rhino here depicted is carrying the god
Agni (Brentjes 1978; Roveda 1997, 2003).
Although there is no evidence identifying the architects of the temple, Roveda (2003) states that it is
likely that Divakarapandita, the Brahman under service to Suryavarman, contributed to the concept and
planning. This Brahman priest, who came from India, was born in 1040 and died in 1120 (C.E.). One of
a long line of illustrious Brahmans who served the
Khmer kings, Divarkarapandita also served under
Suryavarman’s predecessors—kings Jayavarman VI
and Dharanindravarman I. He died 30 years before
the construction of Angkor Wat was completed, but
he was most likely the temple’s architect. We believe
that this Brahman architect was likely to have influenced aspects of the design of the one-horned rhinos
depicted on the bas reliefs, such as the larger Indian
rhino-like warts on the skin. The Brahman priests
however, used local Khmer artisans for final work on
the designs, and this may explain the predominant
similarities with one-horned Javan rhinos in the bas
reliefs of the Northern Gallery. The Javan rhino is
known to have occurred in Cambodia until recent
times (Rookmaker 1983). Therefore, it is likely that
100
local knowledge of the Javan rhino influenced the
design and execution of these particular bas reliefs.
References
Bautze J. 1985. The problem of the Khadga (Rhinoceros
unicornis) in the light of archaeological finds and art.
In: Schotsmans J and Taddei M, (eds.), South Asian
archaeology 1983: Papers from the Seventh International Conference of the Association of South Asian
Archaeologists in Western Europe, held in the Musées
Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Brussels, vol. 1. Instituto
Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici
(Series Minor 23), Naples. p 405–433.
Brentjes B. 1978. Die Nashörner in den alten orientalischen
und afrikanischen Kulturen. Säugetierkundliche
Mitteilungen 26:150–160.
Foose TJ, Strien N van. 1997. Asian rhinos: status survey
and conservation action plan, new edition. IUCN/SSC
Asian Rhino Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. 104
p.
Lohuizen-de Leeuw JE van. 1955. The Dikpalakas in ancient Java. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
111:356–384.
Martin EB. 1984. They’re killing off the rhino. National
Geographic 165(3):404–422, figs. 1–16.
Martin EB. 1985. Religion, royalty and rhino conservation
in Nepal. Oryx 19(1):11–16.
Moens JL. 1948. De eenhoorn van Skanda. Tijdschrift voor
Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 82:347–361.
Rookmaaker LC. 1980. The distribution of the rhinoceros
in eastern India, Bangladesh, China and the Indo-Chinese region. Zoologische Anzeiger 205:253–268.
Rookmaker LC. 1983. Bibliography of the rhinoceros: an
analysis of the literature on the recent rhinoceroses in
culture, history and biology. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Roveda V. 1997. Khmer mythology. Thames and Hudson,
London.
Roveda V. 2003. Sacred Angkor: the carved reliefs of
Angkor Wat. River Books, Bangkok. 290 p.
Stönner H. 1925. Erklärung des Nashornreiters auf den
Reliefs von Angkor-Vat. Artibus Asiae 1(2):12–130.
Mineral prospecting in the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania
OPINION
Mineral prospecting in the Selous Game Reserve and its
dangers to rhino conservation
Rolf D. Baldus
PO Box 1519, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; email: [email protected]
Abstract
The Tanzanian government has granted prospecting licences for precious stones within the black rhino range
of the Selous Game Reserve. There is an international agreement that there should be no mining in World
Heritage Sites like the Selous. Mining in other protected areas in Tanzania has resulted in an uncontrolled
influx of illegal miners, associated widespread lawlessness, and serious environmental destruction. Twenty
years ago oil prospecting and explorations for a hydropower scheme at Stiegler’s Gorge contributed to the
near extinction of rhinos in the Selous. Together with a large dam presently being planned across the Ruvu
River at the north-eastern tip of the Selous rhino range, the possibility of mining poses a major threat to the
recovering but still fragile rhino population.
Résumé
Le gouvernement tanzanien a accordé des licences de prospection de pierres précieuses dans l’aire de répartition
des rhinos noirs dans la Réserve de Faune de Selous. Il existe un accord international disant qu’il ne devrait y
avoir aucun forage dans des Sites du Patrimoine mondial tels que le Selous. Les forages dans d’autres aires
protégées tanzaniennes ont abouti à l’afflux non contrôlé de prospecteurs illégaux, à l’expansion de l’état de
non-droit qui leur est associé, et à de graves destructions environnementales. Il y a vingt ans, les prospections
pétrolières et les explorations pour un programme hydroélectrique dans la Gorge de Stiegler ont contribué à la
quasi-extinction des rhinos dans le Selous. S’ajoutant au vaste barrage qui est actuellement prévu en travers
de la rivière Ruvu, à la pointe nord-est de l’aire des rhinos au Selous, la possibilité de prospection minière
pose une menace majeure à cette population en voie de reconstitution, mais encore fragile.
Granting of prospecting licences for
precious stones
Mining has developed in recent years as an important economic sector in Tanzania, one of the world’s
poorest countries. Minerals now constitute a major
export, and economic and political pressures are increasing to extend prospecting and mining into the
vast network of protected areas.
Recently the Ministry of Energy and Minerals
granted licences to prospect for precious stones in
various parts of the Selous Game Reserve. The reserve is one of the largest (close to 50,000 km2) protected areas in the world, the oldest in Africa (started
in 1896) and it has been a World Heritage Site since
1982.
Thirteen prospecting licences were allocated to
three companies between 26 October 2002 and 5 June
2003 according to a letter of the Ministry of Energy
and Minerals of 17 February 2004 (Tanzania 2004).
The minister for Natural Resources and Tourism confirmed this in the press (Mbiro 2004) after the issue
101
Baldus
TANZANIA
Matambwe
Msolwa
Kingupira
Miguruwe
Ilonga
Liwale
0
20
40
60 km
Legend
sector office
Likuyu
Seka
TAZARA railway
river
Kalulu
photographic tourist block
hunting block
Figure 1. Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania.
102
was made public through an article in a local newspaper in Dar es Salaam (Baldus and Ngoti 2004).
Further applications for prospecting have subsequently been received. No environmental impact assessment of the planned prospecting activities has
been made.
Dangers for the Selous rhino
population
All 13 prospecting concession areas granted are within
the rhino range or close to it. Similar projects, deemed
to have been environmentally destructive, took place
in the 1980s. Efforts to build a dam and a hydroelectric scheme brought up to 2000 workers to Stiegler’s
Gorge at the Rufiji River in the north-west of the reserve. The many rhinos in that area disappeared at
the same time (Stephenson 1986). In the early 1980s
while the search for oil was ongoing, thousands of
kilometres of straight-cut lines were bulldozed
through the Selous. The lines opened up formerly
impenetrable thickets, providing access for poaching
gangs of up to 60 people. Both projects greatly contributed to the near-complete loss of the rhino population, which at the time was estimated to be around
3000 and also facilitated the poaching of more than
50,000 elephants (Stephenson 1986).
Alpers (2004) estimates that the rhino population
in the Selous is slowly increasing at present. The remnant population in the northern (tourist) sector in the
Selous has been under intensive protection and observation by a special project for several years, financed by the European Union and managed by the
Wildlife Division together with the Selous Rhino Trust
(Morgan-Davies 2001). The population is known to
be breeding, and 20 animals are individually known.
They are expanding their range and are increasingly
seen by tourists and scouts. Five additional separate
subpopulations south of the Rufiji River are also
known and receive protection through the anti-poaching units of the reserve. No signs of rhino poaching
have been found in the last 15 years though smallscale elephant poaching is going on within the rhino
range (pers. comm. with Game Reserve management).
Management in the Selous has greatly improved
wildlife security in recent years (Baldus et al. 2003),
but it would be difficult to cope with a large influx of
people and the activities connected with mining precious stones, in particular if they take place illegally.
Whereas mining by large companies is supervised,
their activities are normally followed by those of illegal diggers. Artisanal mining might contribute to
poverty reduction, but it is also related to a high degree of lawlessness, which is almost impossible to
control in large and remote protected areas. This is
illustrated by experiences of mining in the Eastern
Arc Mountains, in particular in the Amani Nature Reserve in northern Tanzania (Nyiti 2004; Burgess et
al. 2005). Similar environmental destruction has been
caused by illegal mining in the Kizigo Game Reserve
in north-western Tanzania (John Mbwiliza, pers.
comm.).. In recent years uranium deposits in the
Selous have been surveyed using a helicopter. There
is concern that such activity may be followed by more
environmentally damaging ground exploration and
thereafter possibly by exploitation.
But even if artisanal mining is prohibited in the
Selous, doubts remain whether companies that have
been granted prospecting licences will follow internationally agreed standards. They are not members of
the Tanzanian Chamber of Mining, which regards the
question of mining inside protected areas as sensitive but so far does not have a clear policy on the
matter.
Legal background
Tanzania is internationally respected for its wildlife
conservation policies. Its extensive network of protected areas covers approximately 25% of the total
land area and consists of 13 national parks, 31 game
reserves and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area.
Wildlife management areas are an additional category
of conservation range under community management.
Protected areas in Tanzania are set aside and managed under various authorities. Tanzania National
Parks (TANAPA) is the parastatal organization empowered to manage the national parks. The game reserves including the Selous are under the Wildlife
Division, which is part of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism. The Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority is a separate parastatal.
There are mineral deposits in many of these areas.
The Ministry of Energy and Minerals will issue prospecting and mining licences regardless of whether the
area is protected or not, but makes it quite clear that
the final responsibility for exploration and mining in
103
Spike Williamson/Beho Beho Lodge
Baldus
A Selous rhino, photographed in 2004 near one of the planned prospecting sites.
national parks and game reserves lies with the respective conservation authority.
The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 does not
contain any provisions on mining in game reserves or
other areas under the Wildlife Division’s jurisdiction.
However, the Act prohibits entrance without written
permission from the director of Wildlife. This indirectly controls mining in game reserves. National
Parks ordinances contain provisions that allow mining in national parks under certain conditions.
TANAPA must grant permission to enter any national
park and can thus control all activities on their estate.
According to TANAPA’ s director general (DG), its
Board of Trustees has ruled not to allow mining in
any of the national parks in the country (Gerald
Bigurube, TANAPA DG, pers. comm.)
But Selous is not a national park, and no such ruling exists for national reserves.
In the first meeting of the permanent subcommittee on wildlife conservation and management under
the East African Community Secretariat, the three
partner states agreed that the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in protected areas should
be prohibited (EACS 2004). For cases in which such
resources were critical to the national economies, restrictive conditions for mining were formulated.
104
The minister of Natural Resources and Tourism,
who has the responsibility for conservation areas in the
country, was quoted in the local press as defending the
granting of prospecting licences in the Selous since they
establish the existence of minerals but do not necessarily allow their subsequent extraction (Mbiro 2004).
Mining activity in World Heritage
Sites
IUCN, the World Conservation Union, through its
World Heritage Committee recently initiated a dialogue with the International Council on Mining and
Metals—a body representing 15 of the world’s largest mining and metal-producing companies. In August 2003 the council announced that its corporate
members committed themselves not to explore or
mine in any World Heritage Site and to take all possible steps to ensure that any mining operations present
are compatible with the outstanding universal values
of such sites (ICMM 2003).
After this announcement the IUCN director general commented that a new threshold for corporate
responsibility had been created and, notwithstanding
several outstanding issues, the decision was an important milestone (ICMM 2003).
Discussion
Disclaimer
The political responsibility for prospecting and mining in any protected area of Tanzania ultimately lies
with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
An anomalous situation now exists—one conservation agency of this ministry has banned mineral prospecting (in national parks only) while another appears
about to permit it. Based on past experience there is a
high probability that mining activities in the Selous
would have negative consequences for the area’s environment and its biodiversity, including endangering the recovering elephant and rhino populations.
It is difficult to understand why the Tanzanian
authorities should allow mineral prospecting in protected areas, as this would seem to imply permitting
future extraction, especially as leading players in the
world’s mining industry have agreed that World Heritage Sites must be strictly exempted from mining
activities of any kind.
There are still many unprotected areas in Tanzania containing minerals that are not yet mined. It might
make sense to prohibit mineral prospecting and mining in all conservation areas until mining can in future meet far more stringent and enforceable
environmental standards. It is of interest to note that
De Beers of South Africa prospected much of the
Selous for precious stones in the latter half of the
1950s; they found nothing worth following up (B.
Nicholson, email 19 March 2005).
Unfortunately mining is not the only imminent
danger for the Selous rhino population. The Tanzanian government plans to construct a large dam across
the Ruvu River at the north-eastern edge of the Selous
Game Reserve to supply Dar es Salaam with water.
The dam will not only destroy several hundred square
kilometres of dry-season grazing land that is indispensable for the wildlife of the northern Selous, but
will also flood parts of the rhino range. Like 25 years
ago, this project will once again introduce a large
workforce close to these specially protected rhinos.
This article expresses the views of the author only
and not necessarily those of Pachyderm or the organizations he works for.
References
Alpers F. 2004. Selous Black Rhinoceros Protection Project.
Internal paper. Wildlife Division, European Union and
Selous Rhino Trust, Dar es Salaam.
Baldus RD, Ngoti PM. 2004. Mining, conservation put
Selous on the cross road. Daily News 20 July 2004,
Dar es Salaam.
Baldus RD, Kibonde B, Siege L. 2003. Seeking conservation partnerships in the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Parks 13(1):50–61.
Burgess N, Kilahama F, Nderumaki M, Kahemela A, Sawe
C. 2005. Mining in the Eastern Arc Mountains: the situation in early October 2004. Oryx 39(1):13.
[EACS] East African Community Secretariat. 2004. Report of the 1st meeting of the Permanent Sub-committee on Wildlife Conservation and Management, Arusha.
Unpublished paper.
[ICMM] International Council on Mining and Metals. 2003.
Landmark ‘no-go’ pledge from leading mining companies. Press release, London, 20 August 2003.
Mbiro M. 2004. Government allows mining prospecting
in Selous. Daily News 22 July 2004, Dar es Salaam.
Tanzania. Ministry of Energy and Minerals. Allocation of
mining/prospecting plots inside the Selous Game Reserve. Letter. Ref. no. CAB.233/433/01/22 dated 1 July
2004 to Daily News, Dar es Salaam.
Morgan-Davies M. 2001. Survey and conservation status
of five black rhino (Diceros bicornis minor) populations
in the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania, 1997–1999.
Nyiti P. 2004. Gold rush threatens the ecosystem. Daily
News 9 April 2004, Dar es Salaam.
Stephenson I. 1986. The Selous Game Reserve in crisis.
Frankfurt Zoological Society. Unpublished paper.
105
Mubalama and Mbula
FIELD NOTE
Less room for a small population of elephants in severely
encroached Mikeno massif, southern Virunga National Park,
Democratic Republic of Congo
Leonard Mubalama1* and Déo Mbula2
1
Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE/CITES) Programme, PO Box 852, Bukavu, Democratic
Republic of Congo; email: [email protected]; *corresponding author
2
Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN/PNVi), BP 660, Goma, Democratic Republic of
Congo; email: [email protected]
Introduction
Expanding human activity and incursions in the Mikeno
forest zone in Virunga National Park (VNP) need to be
addressed with an elephant conservation strategy in
mind, even though poaching is the most urgent shortterm threat . The park recently experienced changes to
its natural habitat that have been unprecedented in historic times. Habitat fragmentation is widespread and
profound and has taken a heavy toll on wildlife, including a small population of elephants there. In a series of
anti-poaching operations, 128 weapons were seized, 522
snares dismantled, 4 people arrested, 2 locally made
arms recovered, and found was a mound of small mammal carcasses too numerous to count (ICCN 2004). The
region remains at high risk, and Mikeno’s extraordinary biodiversity will be lost if uncontrolled hunting,
deforestation and habitat degradation continue. War has
indeed opened up the Mikeno sector to unprecedented
exploitation of natural resources. Even when the conflict ends and security recovers, these threats will continue to grow. This paper recommends mechanisms to
protect the critically endangered habitat and wildlife of
Mikeno massif.
The rape of Mikeno
Reports of extensive habitat destruction and land conversion by pastoralists were received in Goma (fig. 1)
106
in June 2004 when approximately 6000 people accompanied by Rwandan military personnel were said to have
moved into the Mikeno sector of VNP, cutting down
and rapidly destroying large expanses of bamboo and
alpine forests (FZS et al. 2004). Large herds of livestock were reportedly introduced into the park. Sources
pointed to the presence of large numbers of armed,
uniformed personnel, apparently protecting livestock,
and of people chopping down trees (FZS et al. 2004).
In response to these reports, an aerial reconnaissance was undertaken on 12 June 2004, through the
European Commission’s Development Office
(ECDO) in Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRCongo). The area was flown over twice at an altitude of about 1000 m above ground level. The damage to the natural vegetation was extensive, all woody
vegetation having been cut and burned. The situation was desperate; habitat destruction occurred at
times at a rate of up to 2 km2 per day (the whole of
the gorilla sector is less than 250 km2). Approximately
15 km2 of the park’s habitat was destroyed between
28 May and 12 June 2004 (ECDO 2004).
The former local chief of Kibumba area (fig. 1)
benefited directly from this illegal land use, receiving Rwanda francs 5000 (USD 8) per hectare of park
land cleared while workers employed to carry out
this large-scale clearing received Rwanda francs 500
(USD 0.80) per person per day from the Rwandan
side (FZS et al. 2004).
Elephant population in Virunga National Park, DRCongo
Batoui
Kara II
Kalirangiri
Nyamulagira
VIRUNGA
NATIONAL PARK
(DR CONGO) Tongo
Rigo
Baringo
Akenge
Jomba
Rumangabo
Bukima
Sabinyo
Kakomero Batoui
Nyamulagira
Mikeno Visoke
RigoKibumba Karisimbi
Nyiragongo
VOLCANOES
NATIONAL PARK
(RWANDA)
Kilgi
Mugunga
Kibumba
MGAHINGA
NATIONAL PARK
(UGANDA)
Kalengera
Mishari
Mikeno
Legend
N
approximately 15 km2
Mwaro corridor area
Mikeno encroached area
international border
mountain summit
patrol post
road network
park limit (southern sector)
Goma
16
0
32
64 km
Figure 1. The Mikeno encroached area.
The sector of the forest cleared is important habitat that harbours a large variety of species. The loss
of 15 km2 in this part of the park was accompanied by
the loss of many valuable services that forests provide such as regulating hydrological flows and sequestering carbon, and by loss of the biodiversity they
contain including the mountain gorilla (Gorilla
beringei beringei), the endemic golden monkey (Cercopithecus mitis kandti), l’Hoest’s monkey (Cercopithecus l’hoesti), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), duiker
(Cephalophus spp.) and elephant (Loxodonta africana
ssp.).
Habitat destruction
On small open fires under the cooking pots of peasant families, thousands of tonnes of wood—a product of park encroachment—go up in smoke every day.
This encroachment marks the significant changes that
have occurred in the surrounding area of the recently
deforested wildlife conservation habitat.
Five factors are catalysing the destruction in
Mikeno sector: 1) clearing for cultivation; 2) grazing
and dry-season burning stimulating new growth of
grasses for grazing cattle at a time when other fodder
is scarce; 3) attempting to destroy the refuge of the
undesirable interahamwe and to improve visibility in
tall grass areas suspected to be their hide-out; 4) collecting firewood; and 5) increasing the supply of tall
thatching grass. Over the years, conservation in the
Mikeno sector has faced problems, most if not all of
which hinge on high population pressure and demand
for livelihood needs (Sikubwabo and Mushenzi 1996).
The loss of any amount of forest land to agricultural
encroachment, the illegal use of forest products, and
poachers and habitat destruction have left just a small
percentage of the originally abundant resources,
which must now be actively controlled to ensure their
continued existence.
Elephants and gorillas are dependent on forest
habitat, and once the forest is converted to agriculture it rarely reverts to natural vegetation, unless it is
left for hundreds of years. Deforestation means less
room for elephants (Barnes 1990), and degradation
of the forest is ongoing in an area where the carrying
capacity is estimated to be 120 elephants, calculating
an average of 0.5 elephant per km2 (based on Pfeffer
1989). Even where the forest is not destroyed, it may
be effectively lost as wildlife habitat if disturbance is
severe. The further spread of villages and agriculture
will inevitably increase competition between humans
and elephants for land in the Mikeno forest zone, now
well known as a hideout for heavily armed Rwandan
soldiers.
107
Mubalama and Mbula
Elephant corridor, genetic diversity
The sensitive forest corridor at Mwaro that joins
Mikeno’s vulnerable habitat with the rest of the park
has also been partially affected (fig. 1) by providing
spare land with water and wood in one of the most
densely populated regions in the country. The Mikeno
sector contains about 75 elephants (Blanc et al. 2003).
Evidence suggests that isolated and small populations
are less genetically diverse than contiguous large ones
(Sheppard 1975; Berry 1977). Although Mikeno habitat does not yet appear to be in such dire straits and
no factual basis for this statement is so far provided,
the question should be: ‘Is the lack of variation a danger to a small, isolated population?’ The answer
among conservationists seems to be ‘yes’.
Elephants and buffaloes in particular use this 800m corridor along their migration route, and its potential rapid disappearance presents a real threat to the
genetic diversity of local fauna by preventing gene
flow from the Mikeno sector to the other areas of the
park such as the Nyamulagira sector, and indeed to
other countries (fig. 1).
Recommendations
Genetic diversity
Conservationists should certainly be aware and make
others aware of the possible genetic dangers of small
population sizes in such isolated contexts. However,
considering the lack of evidence on the subject, some
have been, perhaps, too emphatic about these hazards.
Environmental and demographic factors, not genetic
ones, are, we suggest, the danger to such small and declining populations. Their conservation is necessary to
ensure that the genetic and behavioural diversity of species is preserved. Therefore, there is critical need to carry
out a further study on the pool of genetic diversity of
the remaining elephant population in Mikeno to find
out whether it can survive large-scale habitat destruction exceeding the limits of development plasticity.
Human population and encroachment
In the long term, human population growth and the expansion of settlement and agriculture will result in the
loss of habitat (Mubalama 1995). The human population around the Virunga volcanoes region is increasing
108
at 3% per annum (Nsabimana 1978), which means it
will double in just 24 years. Population distribution is
uneven, with peak densities found on the rich volcanic
soils around the Virunga volcanoes. With 95% of the
population living on agriculture (Nsabimana 1978)
immense demands are obviously placed on the land,
demands that will become ever more pressing as time
goes on. Somehow we must find a way between total
appropriation and total protection so that, to the benefit
of all, we can achieve some balance between humans
and wildlife instead of open conflict. If not well monitored and protected, this small population may soon be
engulfed by the ever-growing human population.
Poaching, law enforcement and political will
The park area, lying on the border between Rwanda
and DRCongo, is considered a high-security zone
used by poachers and militias. Although certain areas of the park are extremely dangerous, guards from
the Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature are patrolling the international borders to ensure
around-the-clock protection of key species. The
guards generally have much less sophisticated weapons than the well-equipped militias. In addition, ammunition is limited. If the donor community is rallied
to provide the guards with better equipment and to
top up their salaries, we hope they will be encouraged to control ivory poaching. However, to deter
poaching in the field, prevent the illicit transport of
ivory within concerned countries, and stop the smuggling of ivory within and outside the Virunga volcanoes region requires determined government action.
At the time of submitting this field note, we heard
from staff in Goma that 300 kg of ivory were going
in to business through the black market around the
park. To curb such trafficking, we urge cooperation
and coordination between national CITES authorities and wildlife law-enforcement agencies including customs. Lack of political support to improve
coordination of wildlife enforcement remains a persistent problem. It is a problem that can be dealt with
through the Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF),
yet only Uganda among the three concerned countries has so far ratified it. Therefore, we recommend
that DRCongo and Rwanda also ratify the LATF to
improve coordination of law enforcement.
Elephant population in Virunga National Park, DRCongo
Everybody’s problem
References
The effects of the recent encroachment upon conservation in the area are still fresh and continue to be a great
loss. The cost of the recovery programme will be enormous, and even so, not everything lost will be recovered. If the relevant authorities are made aware of the
capital based on natural resources that is being lost in
terms of individual wildlife species and related revenue,
it should be an eye-opener to them, and to prosper, they
should protect the region zealously. According to
MacKinnon et al. (1986), there is no foolproof management prescription to protect parks during war. However, public support is crucial and an international link
invaluable. If elephants and their habitat are to be protected, efforts must also aim at bringing all surrounding Mikeno local people into a clear-cut sensitization
programme. Even so, the international demand for illegal ivory traffic to Japan will still result in more forest
elephants being poached (Nishihara 2003). Wardens and
park guards alone cannot stop it. Other government
departments must be involved, such as the general police force, the criminal investigations department, the
judiciary, customs and excise, the intelligence services
and the general public (Mubalama and Mushenzi 2004).
The International Gorilla Conservation Programme
(IGCP) has given us a valuable message. Its programme
straddles the three countries in which Mikeno falls—
DRCongo, Rwanda and Uganda—and it works
closely with all the surrounding people. IGCP raised
the alarm when Rwandan military and pastoralists
invaded Mikeno, pointing out the detrimental effect
they were having on the habitat and the elephants.
And with help from EU and others action was taken
to remove the invaders.
International efforts must be made to protect this
relict and isolated population. To promote its long-term
viability, and by implication its habitat, remote sensing
can be used to monitor changes in the ecosystem and
the degree of fragmentation, from which to track the
changing extent and intensity of key threats. The degree of human disturbance should be monitored across
all areas of the forest, with a continual check on the
human effect on wildlife, to inform protection programmes as efficiently as possible.
Barnes RFW. 1990. Deforestation trends in tropical Africa.
African Journal of Ecology 28:161–173.
Berry RJ. 1977. Inheritance and natural selection. Collins,
London.
Blanc JJ, Thouless, CR, Hart JA, Dublin HT, Douglas-Hamilton I, Craig CG, Barnes RF W. 2003. African elephants
[ECDO] European Commission’s Development Office.
2004. Report of an aerial reconnaissance flight revealing the catastrophic destruction of Virunga National
Park’s Mikeno gorilla sector. Site report, 13 June 2004.
FZS, IGCP, WWF, WCS, ZSL. 2004. A preliminary report
following a meeting between Frankfurt Zoological Society, International Gorilla Conservation Programme,
World Wide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Conservation
Society and Zoological Society of London concerning
deforestation in the Mikeno sector. 3 p.
[ICCN] Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature. 2004. Rapport technique. UNF/UNESCO, Goma,
DRCongo.
MacKinnon J, MacKinnon K, Child G, Thorsell J. 1986.
Managing protected areas in the tropics. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Mubalama LK. 1995. The Virunga National Park grappling
with the problem of population pressure: a case study
of human ecology. Wildlife and Nature 11(2):52–56.
Mubalama L, Mushenzi N. 2004. Monitoring law enforcement and illegal activities in the northern sector of the
Parc National des Virunga, Democratic Republic of
Congo. Pachyderm 36:16–29.
Nishihara T. 2003. Elephant poaching and ivory trafficking in African tropical forests with special reference to
the Republic of Congo. Pachyderm 34:66–74.
Nsabimana D. 1978. La conservation de la nature au
Rwanda. Address to the IUCN General Assembly,
Ashkhabad, September 1978.
Pfeffer P. 1989. Vie et mort d’un géant : l’éléphant
d’Afrique. L’Odyssée/Flammarion, France.
Sheppard PM. 1975. Natural selection and heredity.
Hutchinson University Library, London.
Sikubwabo C, Mushenzi N. 1996. Mountain gorillas of
Mikeno, Zaïre: an explosive situation. Unpublished
report.
109
GUIDELINES TO CONTRIBUTORS
Aim and scope
Pachyderm publishes papers and notes concerning
all aspects of the African elephant, the African rhino
and the Asian rhino with a focus on the conservation
and management of these species in the wild. At the
same time, the journal is a platform for disseminating
information concerning the activities of the African
Elephant, the African Rhino, and the Asian Rhino
Specialist Groups of the IUCN Species Survival
Commission (SSC).
Submission of manuscripts
Submit manuscripts electronically by email.
Alternatively, submit a hard copy and floppy disk or
CD by mail.
Email contributions should be sent to:
[email protected]
with copy to: [email protected]
The Editor, Pachyderm
IUCN/SSC AfESG
PO Box 68200, GPO 00200
Nairobi, Kenya
tel: +254 20 576461; fax: +254 20 570385
Preparation of manuscripts
Manuscripts are accepted in both English and French
languages. Where possible, the abstract should be
provided in both languages.
Title and authors: The title should contain as many
of the key words as possible but should not be more
than 25 words long. Follow with the name(s) of the
author(s) with insitutional affiliation and full postal
and email address(es). Indicate the corresponding
author, to whom proofs and editorial comments will
be sent; give post, fax and email addresses for the
corresponding author.
110
Research papers: Should be not more than 5000
words and be structured as follows: 1) Title (as above),
2) Abstract of not more than 250 words (informative
type, outlining information from the Introduction,
Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, but not
detailed results), 3) additional key words (if any), not
appearing in the title, 4) Introduction, 5) Materials
and methods, 6) Results, 7) Discussion, 8) Conclusions if appropriate, 9) Acknowledgements (optional,
brief), 10) References, 11) Tables, 12) Figure and
photo captions, 13) Figures and photos.
Papers may be reports of original biology research or
they may focus more on the socio-economic aspects
of conservation, including market surveys.
Preferably provide figures and maps in their original
form, for example, Excel files, maps as eps or tif files
(17 x 15 cm, 600 dpi), when submitting in electronic
form. Indicate clearly the author or source of figures,
maps and photographs.
Field notes: The journal welcomes notes from the
field. They may contain figures and tables but should
be brief.
Book reviews: Pachyderm invites reviews of newly
published books, which should be no more than 1500
words long.
Letters to the editor: Letters are welcome that comment on articles published in Pachyderm or on any other
issue relating to elephant and rhino conservation in the
wild.
Journal conventions
Nomenclature
Use common names of animals and plants, giving scientific names in italics on first mention.
Guidelines
Use an ‘s’ for the plural form for animals: rhinos,
elephants.
In the reference list, cite publications as in the
following examples. List in alphabetical order. Write
out journal titles in full.
Spelling
Use British spelling, following the latest (10th) edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, using ‘z’ instead of ‘s’ in words like ‘recognize’, ‘organization’,
‘immobilized’; but ‘analyse’, ‘paralyse’.
Numbers
Use SI units for measurement (m, km, g, ha, h) with a
space between the numeral and the unit of measurement. Give measurements in figures, for example 12
mm, 1 km, 3 ha, except at the beginning of a sentence.
Spell out numbers under 10 if not a unit of measurement unless the number is part of a series containing
numbers 10 or over, for example: 14 adult males, 23
adult females and 3 juveniles.
In the text, write four-digit numbers without a comma;
use a comma as the separator for figures five digits
or more: 1750, 11,750. The separator will be a full
stop in French papers.
References
Use the author-year method of citing and listing references.
In the text, cite two authors: ‘(X and Y 1999)’ or ‘X
and Y (1999)’; cite more than two authors ‘(X et al.
1996)’ or ‘X et al. (1996)’. Note that there is no comma
between the author(s) and the year.
Adams JX. 1995b. Seizures and prosecutions. TRAFFIC
Bulletin 15(3):118.
Dobson AP, May RM. 1986. Disease and conservation. In:
ME Soulé, ed., Conservation biology: the science of
scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
MA. p. 123–142.
Struhsaker TT, Lwanga JS, Kasenene JM. 1996. Elephants,
selective logging and forest regeneration in the Kibale
Forest, Uganda. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12:45–64.
Sukumar R. 1989. The Asian elephant: ecology and management. Cambridge Studies in Applied Ecology and
Resource Management. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Cite unpublished reports as follows:
Tchamba MN. 1996. Elephants and their interactions with
people and vegetation in the Waza–Logone region,
Cameroon. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. 142 p. Unpublished.
Woodford MH. 2001. [Title]. [Journal or publisher]. Forthcoming. [if publication date is known]
Woodford MH. [Title]. [Journal or publisher]. In press. [if
publication date is not known]
Government reports, reports to wildlife departments, MSc
theses, PhD theses, etc. are to be noted as unpublished.
Not accepted as references are papers in preparation or submitted but not yet accepted.
‘Pers. comm.’ accompanied by the date and name of the person is cited in the text but not given in the reference list.
111

Pachyderm 38 - January - June 2005

Transcription

Documents pareils

ELEPHANT STORE

Le nouveau et deuxième restaurant atypique rive droite d`Enrico

manuel bienvenu / coupures de presse France 2004-2010

Fiche ÒelephantÓ (1,33)

en couverture les films arrêt sur image panoramique

L`éléphant de mer

L`usage d`une calculatrice est

bastelbogen cut-out-sheet feulle de bricolage

horaires - Open Club

Fiche d`accessibilité : Présidence de l`Université de Savoie