West Africa

REGIONAL OVERVIEW

General Statistics

Total Area: 5,096,660 km2

Range area (% of region): 175,545 km2 (4%)

Protected area coverage (% of region): 7%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 56%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.44

Current Issues

The common challenges which have long been facing all West African Range States are linked to small and isolated populations surrounded by growing human populations. Human-elephant conflict and encroachment are pervasive problems throughout the region. These common challenges led to the development in 1999 of a regional strategy for the conservation of elephants in West Africa (AfESG, 1999), which has since become a reference tool for the development of elephant conservation projects and programmes throughout the region. Five action plans for the management of transfrontier elephant conservation and migration corridors in West Africa were developed in 2003 (Sebogo & Barnes, 2003).

An updated version of the strategy received governmental endorsement through the signing, in November 2005, of an interstate Memorandum of Understanding under the aegis of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Through the agreement, 12 ECOWAS member states agreed to work together to protect elephant habitats, boost numbers in fragile populations and set up elephant ‘conservation corridors’ in important transboundary areas. Senegal, which did not originally sign the memorandum, has recently expressed its commitment to doing so.

Many countries have continued to develop national elephant conservation strategies within the framework of the West Africa Elephant Conservation Strategy (AfESG, 1999). So far, five countries, namely, Ghana (Wildlife Division, 2000), Burkina Faso (Belemsobgo et al., 2003), Togo (Ministère de l'Environnement et des Ressources Forestières, 2003), Côte d'Ivoire (Ministère des Eaux et Forêts, 2004) and Niger (Direction de la Faune, de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 2004) have developed national strategies and are at various stages in their implementation; three countries (Guinea, Benin and Liberia) have successfully raised funds and organized strategic planning workshops; a further three countries (Mali, Nigeria and Sierra Leone) have embarked on the process but have yet to raise sufficient funds to hold workshops. No progress has been made in the remaining two countries (Guinea Bissau and Senegal).

Range Data

Elephant range in West Africa is found in small fragments scattered across the region, in forest, savanna and other habitats. It is the only region outside Central Africa where a sizeable proportion of elephant range occurs in tropical forests. While it was traditionally believed that both forest elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) and savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana africana) occurred in West Africa, recent genetic evidence suggests that a single form, whose taxonomic status remains to be ascertained, is found in the region (Eggert et al., 2002).

Elephant range is less extensive in West Africa than in any other region, covering approximately 175,500 km2, or 5% of the continental range estimate. This estimate is about 21% less than the estimated range area for the region in the AESR 2002. The difference is due to better information, and is mainly attributable to the categorization as doubtful range of several areas, mainly in Nigeria, Benin and Ghana, where human population density is estimated to exceed 15 persons per km2 (ORNL/GIST, 2002) and makes the continued presence of elephants unlikely (see Introduction section for details).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR WEST AFRICA

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 6,001 0 0 0
Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 947 375 375 0
Other Dung Counts 125 360 96 0
Informed Guesses 414 0 658 308
Other Guesses 0 0 0 2,631
TOTAL 2006 7,487 735 1,129 2,939
TOTALS 2002 5,458 1,188 3,039 3,498

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Repeat Survey +13 0 0 0
New Population +30 0 +9 +12
Different Technique +1,963 -453 -1,732 -485
New Guess +22 0 +13 -107
Population Lost 0 0 0 -159
Data Degraded 0 0 -200 +181
TOTAL CHANGE +2,029 -453 -1,910 -559

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 25,117 3,280 28,397
Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 5,123 0 5,123
Other Dung Counts 8,205 24 8,229
Informed Guesses 52,380 1,267 53,647
Other Guesses 8,075 13,017 21,093
Unassessed Range 26,499 32,557 59,056
TOTAL 125,399 50,146 175,545

WEST AFRICA: COUNTRY AND REGIONAL TOTALS & DATA QUALITY

COUNTRY ELEPHANT NUMBERS RANGE AREA (km2) % OF REGIONAL RANGE % OF RANGE ASSESSED IQI1 PFS2
DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Benin 1,223 0 0 0 13,673 8 51 0.51 3
Burkina Faso 4,154 320 520 0 19,872 11 72 0.64 2
Côte d'Ivoire 188 152 119 506 33,985 19 72 0.25 2
Ghana 789 387 241 12 23,301 13 42 0.35 2
Guinea 135 79 79 57 1,524 1 78 0.47 4
Guinea Bissau 0 0 7 13 1,346 1 100 0.00 3
Liberia 0 0 0 1,676 15,977 9 60 0.00 2
Mali 357 0 141 156 31,878 18 100 0.55 2
Niger 85 0 17 0 2,683 2 100 0.83 3
Nigeria 348 0 105 375 22,968 13 37 0.16 2
Senegal 1 0 0 9 1,090 1 100 0.10 4
Sierra Leone 0 0 80 135 1,804 1 59 0.00 3
Togo 4 0 61 0 5,444 3 69 0.04 3
TOTAL* 7,487 735 1,129 2,939 175,545 5 66 0.44 3

* Note that totals for the Definite, Probable and Possible categories are derived by pooling the variances of individual estimates, as described under the Data Types and Categorization section. As a result, totals do not necessarily match the simple sum of the entries within a given category.

1 IQI: Information Quality Index. This index quantifies overall data quality at the national and regional levels based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of assessed elephant range (i.e. range for which estimates are available). The IQI ranges from zero (no reliable information) to one (perfect information). See the Introduction section for a detailed explanation of how the IQI is calculated.

2 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the IQI and the proportion of continental range accounted for by the country in question, the PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys, particularly in areas of unassessed range and areas not surveyed in the last 10 years or more. See Introduction for a more detailed explanation of how the priority ranking is derived.

Although known range represents 71% of total regional range, the current occurrence of elephants in many areas, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone and small habitat fragments in Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire, remains uncertain. Virtually all of the possible range data for West Africa is more than 10 years old. Nearly three-quarters of the total range area is distributed among five countries, namely, Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Ghana, Nigeria and Burkina Faso.

West Africa is the only region where a higher proportion of elephant range (60%) is found inside designated protected areas than outside. Many of these protected areas, however, are forest reserves, which only afford limited protection.

Population Data

Many elephant populations in the region are probably not viable because they are genetically isolated, their numbers are small, and their sex ratios and age structures have been distorted by hunting. The single largest population is that of the “WAPOK” (“W”-Arly-Pendjari-Oti-Mandori-Kéran) complex, which straddles the borders between Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo. This population alone holds more than half of the region's known elephants and is covered by good quality systematic surveys.

Estimates of elephant abundance are available for 66% of elephant range in West Africa, making it the region with the largest proportion of range for which population estimates are available, although nearly two-thirds of that area is only covered by guesses. However, out of 32 post-2002 estimates included in this report, the majority (26) originate from systematic surveys, and include two previously unsurveyed areas.

Elephant numbers in the definite category have increased by over 2,000 compared with the previous report, largely due to the replacement of previous estimates by more reliable estimates from aerial total counts, particularly in the WAPOK complex. The associated increase in precision is the cause of the declines in the probable, possible and speculative categories.

The combined estimate from methodologically comparable surveys between the previous and this report (i.e. those labelled repeat survey or “RS” in the national tables of estimates) only accounts for 35% of the regional definite plus probable estimate. Consequently, a statistical comparison between these estimates, such as described by Blanc et al. (2005), would not be meaningful at a regional scale.

Cross-border Movements

Limited movements of elephants may take place between West and Central Africa, specifically between Nigeria, Cameroon and Chad.

BENIN

General Statistics

Country area: 112,620 km2

Range area (% of country): 13,673 km2 (15%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 24%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 71%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.51

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Human population pressure and encroachment into elephant habitats are the most important threats facing elephant conservation in Benin. A 2003 survey covering all of Benin's elephant habitats found high levels of human settlement within protected areas, largely by cotton farmers and traditional transhumant livestock herders. This is despite a wildlife law passed in 2000 regulating human settlement and establishing buffer zones around protected areas.

In an attempt to reduce encroachment pressure in protected areas, Benin is promoting the involvement of local communities in the management of protected areas, through the creation of Village Associations for the Management of Wildlife Reserves (AVIGREF). Seventy eight of these associations participate in the management of the “W” National Park and its periphery, and receive 30% of the revenues generated by the park and adjacent hunting zones. In addition, the AVIGREF co-manage eco-tourism and hunting activities, and undertake the maintenance of trails and watering holes in the park. Revenues are then invested in communal projects or distributed in the form of work contracts to local communities (El Hadj Issa & Novelli, 2004).

Funding for the development of a national strategy for the conservation of elephants in Benin was secured in 2004, and a workshop was held in the same year. In addition, Benin is one of the countries involved in a regional action plan for the conservation of transfrontier elephant conservation corridors in West Africa.

Range Data

Elephants are restricted to the north of Benin, but much of the range is only used seasonally by elephants. A number of areas in northeastern Benin have been categorized as doubtful range, based on Landscan 2002 human population density data (ORNL/GIST, 2002; see Introduction section for details on rationale). The western part of the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve has also been categorized as doubtful (P. Bouché, pers. comm., 2005). This was corroborated by the results of a 2003 ecosystem-wide survey (Bouché et al., 2004b).

Population Data

Much of Benin's elephant range was systematically surveyed in a transboundary aerial total count, extending across to Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo, conducted in 2003 by the CITES MIKE Programme (Bouché et al., 2004b). Estimates from this survey replace aerial sample counts conducted by Ecosystèmes Protégés en Afrique Sahélienne (ECOPAS) in 2002 (Rouamba & Hien, 2002; Rouamba et al., 2002). In April 2006 an aerial survey was conducted in the Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, which estimated 1,808 ± 213 elephants (Sinsin et al., 2006), but the results of the aforementioned ecosystem-wide survey have been used despite their being slightly more dated.

Changes in the definite, probable and possible estimates for Benin between the AESR 2002 and this report are a result of an increase in precision caused by the use of more reliable survey techniques. Little can therefore be said about actual changes in elephant numbers in Benin, which, in any case, are likely to fluctuate through transboundary movements. Although nearly half of the range estimate for the country remains unsurveyed, most of this range is likely to be only seasonal and most of the elephants that use it are likely to have been counted in surveyed areas.

Cross-border Movements

Benin's elephants are part of West Africa's largest elephant population, which spans the borders of Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo.

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR BENIN

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 1,223 0 0 0
TOTALS2006 1,223 0 0 0
TOTALS 2002 1,101 504 504 0

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
New Population 0 0 0 0
Different Technique +122 -504 -504 0
TOTAL CHANGE +122 -504 -504 0

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 7,005 0 7,005
Unassessed Range 6,073 595 6,668
TOTAL 13,078 595 13,673

BENIN: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Atakora Hunting Zones DT AT2 A 2003 343 Bouché et al., 2004b 2 1,356 2.0 E 11.2 N
Djona Hunting Zone DT AT2 A 2003 36 Bouché et al., 2004b 2 1,216 3.0 E 11.6 N
Goungoun Classified Forest NP AT2 A 2003 0 Bouché et al., 2004b 806 3.2 E 11.5 N
Pendjari Biosphere Reserve DT AT2 A 2003 788 Bouché et al., 2004b 1 2,827 1.4 E 11.1 N
W du Benin National Park DT AT2 A 2003 56 Bouché et al., 2004b 1 5,872 2.6 E 11.9 N

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

BURKINA FASO

General Statistics

Country area: 274,200 km2

Range area (% of country): 19,872 km2 (7%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 15%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 73%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.64

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

In 2003, Burkina Faso finalized a strategy and plan for the sustainable management of elephants (Belemsobgo et al., 2003). The strategy identifies pressure on land and elephant habitats, prompted by human demographic growth and the consequent expansion of agricultural land, poaching and institutional weakness as the main threats to elephant populations in the country. The strategy takes a participative approach and recognizes the necessity to integrate elephant management at various geographical scales, from the site to the regional level.

Two projects to secure transfrontier elephant migration corridors that include Burkina Faso have begun recently. These initiatives, spearheaded and coordinated by IUCN, are being implemented in Burkina Faso by the Partenariat pour l'Amélioration de la Gestion des Ecosystèmes Naturels (PAGEN). In the north of the country, PAGEN is working to secure the areas used by the Gourma elephants when they cross the border from Mali. Similarly, PAGEN works on Burkina Faso's southern border to secure transfrontier migration corridors with Ghana.

The ongoing political instability in neighbouring Côte d'Ivoire is reported to be causing elephants to move to neighbouring countries, including Burkina Faso, and this is said to have aggravated human-elephant conflict in the southwest.

Range Data

Elephant populations in Burkina Faso are distributed in six areas, mainly in the south.

The information displayed on the range map is virtually unchanged from the AESR 2002, except for the addition of a number of crosses based on data from Bouché (2004; P. Bouché, pers. comm., 2005). An aerial survey conducted in 2005 revealed the presence of elephants in the Mare aux Hippopotames Biosphere Reserve. It is not clear, however, whether this is a resident population or whether it originates from the nearby Mohoun complex (Bouché, 2005). Until this is conclusively determined, the presence of elephants there has also been entered as a point sighting in the AED.

Population Data

Arly and “W” National Parks and their surrounding hunting areas (Aires de l'Est) were surveyed in 2003 as part of an ecosystem-wide aerial total count extending to parts of Benin, Niger and Togo conducted under the auspices of the CITES MIKE Programme (Bouché et al., 2004b). Estimates from this survey replace aerial sample count estimates for Arly and “W” National Parks, Koakrana and Konkombouri Hunting Zones, and Kourtiagou, Ouamou, Pagou-Tandougou, Pama and Singou Partial Faunal Reserves (Bouché et al., 2000).

Aerial total counts have also been recently conducted in a number of areas in the south and west. Total counts of the previously unsurveyed Mare aux Hippopotames Biosphere Reserve and the Comoé-Leraba Forest were conducted in 2005 (Bouché, 2005). The estimate of three from the latter replaces an informed guess of 26 (Traore, 1998) for the smaller area referred to as Diefoula Classified Forest in the AESR 2002. Finally, a census conducted in the Po-Nazinga-Sissili ecosystem (Bouché et al., 2004a) covered a larger area than the survey which it replaces, namely an aerial sample count of Nazinga Game Ranch and Sissili Classified Forest (Cornelis, 2000).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR BURKINA FASO

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 3,933 0 0 0
Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 221 320 320 0
Informed Guesses 0 0 200 0
TOTALS2006 4,154 320 520 0
TOTALS 2002 2,031 833 1,059 0

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
New Population +41 0 0 0
Different Technique +2,082 -513 -539 0
TOTAL CHANGE +2,123 -513 -539 0

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 11,110 0 11,110
Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 2,283 0 2,283
Informed Guesses 600 264 863
Unassessed Range 4,474 1,141 5,615
TOTAL 18,468 1,405 19,872

BURKINA FASO: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Aires de l'Est Hunting Areas DT AT2 A 2003 2,119 Bouché et al., 2004b 1 6,077 1.0 E 11.6 N
Arly National Park DT AT2 A 2003 422 Bouché et al., 2004b 2 1,224 1.4 E 11.5 N
Bontioli Partial & Total Faunal Reserve IG3 D 1998 50 Chardonnet, quest. reply, 1998 2 420 3.1 W 10.8 N
Comoé-Leraba Classified Forests DT AT2 A 2005 3 Bouché, 2005 2 1,204 4.6 W 9.9 N
Koakrana Hunting Zone DT AT2 A 2003 0 Bouché et al., 2004b 229 1.8 E 11.5 N
Kourtiagou Partial Faunal Reserve DT AT2 A 2003 0 Bouché et al., 2004b 485 2.0 E 11.5 N
Mare aux Hippopotames Biosphere Reserve NP AT2 A 2005 46 Bouché, 2005 3 192 4.2 W 11.6 N
Mohoun Protected Area Complex AS1 B 2002 541 320 Belemsobgo, 2002 1 3,296 3.3 W 11.6 N
Po - Nazinga -Sissili Ecosystem DT AT2 A 2003 603 Bouché et al., 2004a 1 6,093 1.5 W 11.3 N
W du Burkina National Park DT AT2 A 2003 740 Bouché et al., 2004b 2 2,412 2.2 E 11.9 N
Zabré Department IG3 D 1998 150 Chardonnet, quest. reply, 1998 2 600 0.6 W 11.1 N

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

Estimates for Bontioli, Mohoun and Zabré have been retained from the previous report. The number of elephants under the definite category has increased by over 2,100 since the AESR 2002. This increase is partly matched by decreases in the probable and possible categories, as would be expected given the use of more precise aerial survey techniques (aerial total counts) than was the case in the past. The change in the definite category may also be partly explained by the movement of elephants across international borders. It is nevertheless widely believed that elephant numbers are indeed increasing in parts of the country.

Reliable estimates of elephant abundance currently cover over 72% of the range estimate for Burkina Faso, and although this percentage has increased since the previous report, the number of elephants in newly surveyed areas only makes a minimal contribution to the change in the definite category.

Cross-border Movements

Most of Burkina Faso's elephants are likely to be part of important transboundary populations. Elephants are known to migrate between Gourma in Mali and the Sahel Partial Faunal Reserve in northern Burkina Faso (Blake et al., 2003). There are also wet season movements between Nazinga Game Ranch, northern Ghana and Togo, as well as between Zabré and the Red Volta - White Volta - Morago ecosystem in Ghana (Chardonnet & Koalo, quest. reply, 1998; Okoumassou et al., 1998). Movement from Côte d'Ivoire's Comoé National Park into the Comoé-Leraba Forest is believed to have increased in recent years as a result of insecurity in that country (Bouché, 2005).

CÔTE D'IVOIRE

General Statistics

Country area: 322,460 km2

Range area (% of country): 33,985 km2 (11%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 10%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 69%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.25

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Ongoing instability in Côte d'Ivoire, particularly in the north and west, continues to make conservation and monitoring work difficult. Nevertheless, a national elephant management strategy was drafted following a workshop in December 2003, and endorsed by the Minister for Water and Forests in August 2004 (Ministère des Eaux et Forêts, 2004). The strategy sets out to protect remaining elephant populations by improving habitats, reducing poaching and human-elephant conflict, rationalizing legislation, investing in elephant population research, enhancing institutional capacity and fostering cross-border cooperation. The strategy presents a 10 year plan for its implementation, with a budget of 13 million CFA, much of which will have to be sourced from international donors.

However, with only one population likely to have over 100 individuals at present, the future for elephants in Côte d'Ivoire appears bleak, as small populations face an increased risk of extinction (Barnes, 1999).

Despite its small elephant populations, Côte d'Ivoire had one of the largest domestic ivory markets in West Africa before the conflict started (Courouble et al., 2003). The limited legislation which exists to regulate the market is not fully implemented and is generally ineffective. While it is believed that the conflict may have suppressed the domestic ivory market, it could re-emerge once political stability returns (Milliken, 2002).

Range Data

Elephants are found in small, isolated forest and savanna sites scattered throughout the country, largely in forest reserves and protected areas. Most of these have not been studied for many years, and elephant presence is only confirmed in seven sites (Fischer, 2005).

Population Data

Under the auspices of the CITES MIKE programme, samples for genetic dung counts were collected in Taï and Marahoué National Parks prior the outbreak of hostilities in 2002 (Eggert, 2004a,b; Nandjui et al., 2004). The results of these surveys were not available in time for the previous report of the AED, but are now featured in the table of estimates, replacing informed guesses of 75 (B. Hoppe-Dominik, pers. comm., 2003) and 50 (Alers, cited in Douglas-Hamilton et al., 1992) respectively.

The only other new estimate arising from a systematic survey is the result of a dung count conducted in Azagny National Park (Nandjui, 2003), which replaces a 1987 guess of 60 by Lauginie (cited in Douglas- Hamilton et al., 1992).

A guess of 60 for the Fresco Classified Forest (Ministère des Eaux et Forêts, 2004) replaces an earlier (1991) guess of 150 (Alers, cited in Douglas-Hamilton et al., 1992). The new figure may still be an overestimate, however, as Kouadio (cited in Fischer, 2005) believes there are “very few” elephants left in the area.

An aerial survey of Comoé, planned for 2002 by the CITES MIKE programme but cancelled due to the outbreak of hostilities, had still not been conducted by the end of 2005. Fischer (2005) believes the current elephant population in Comoé to stand at between 10 and 20 individuals. This estimate replaces a 1998 guess of 200 by the same author (F. Fischer, pers. comm., 1998). It is said that elephants from Comoé may have moved across the border to Burkina Faso to escape the conflict.

The only other changes to the table of estimates are a guess of 20 for the Haut Bandama Fauna and Flora Reserve (Bouché, 2002a) and the degradation of estimates for Beki-Bossematie and Songan-Tamin-Mabi-Yaya to the category of other guesses, as they are now more than 10 years old.

All other estimates remain unchanged from the previous report. Many of these estimates are now more than 15 years old and are very unreliable. No estimates are available for 28% of elephant range. A national survey of elephant populations was to be conducted in 2004–2005, but this was not possible due to ongoing political instability.

The numbers of elephants in the definite and probable categories have increased by 125 and 152 respectively as a result of improved estimates for Taï, Marahoué and Azagny. However, this is exceeded by decreases in the possible (-241) and speculative (-160) categories, which result from updated guesses and the degradation of old estimates to the speculative category.

Cross-border Movements

Côte d'Ivoire shares several elephant populations with neighbouring countries. There are cross-border movements between Comoé and southern Burkina Faso (Chardonnet & Koalo, quest. reply, 1998; Traore, 1998), between Djambamakrou and Bia in Ghana and possibly between Goin-Cavally and Grebo (Liberia) (A. Nandjui, pers. comm., 2006).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR CÔTE D'IVOIRE

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 11 0 0 0
Other Dung Counts 125 152 79 0
Informed Guesses 52 0 40 10
Other Guesses 0 0 0 496
TOTALS2006 188 152 119 506
TOTALS 2002 63 0 360 666

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Different Technique +125 +152 +4 -135
New Guess 0 0 -190 -80
Data Degraded 0 0 -55 +55
TOTAL CHANGE +125 +152 -241 -160

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 134 0 134
Other Dung Counts 5,501 0 5,501
Informed Guesses 12,849 0 12,849
Other Guesses 2,217 3,659 5,876
Unassessed Range 2,135 7,489 9,624
TOTAL 22,836 11,149 33,985

CÔTE D'IVOIRE: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Abokouamékro Faunal Reserve GT1 A 2000 11 Kobon, quest. reply, 2002 3 135 5.1 W 6.9 N
Azagny National Park DT DC3 C 2003 65 52 Nandjui, 2003 3 218 4.9 W 5.2 N
Beki-Bossematie Classified Forest DD IG3 E 1993 35 Theuerkauf et al., 2001 2 389 3.5 W 6.6 N
Bolo Forest OG3 E 1989 5 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 3 88 5.8 W 5.2 N
Comoé National Park NG IG3 D 2002 10 10* Fischer, 2005 1 11,500 3.7 W 9.1 N
Davo Forest OG3 E 1989 20 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 3 126 6.1 W 5.8 N
Djambamakrou Forest OG3 E 1989 30 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 3 274 3.2 W 6.4 N
Duekoué Forest OG3 E 1997 6 Kobon, quest. reply, 2002 2 536 7.1 W 6.7 N
Fresco Classified Forest NG OG3 E 1998 60 Ministère des Eaux et Forêts, 2004 2 2,229 5.8 W 5.1 N
Go-Bodienou Forest OG3 E 1989 20 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 2 600 5.0 W 5.4 N
Goin-Cavally Classified Forest OG3 E 1989 70 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 2 1,890 7.8 W 6.2 N
Haut Bandama Fauna & Flora Reserve NG OG3 E 2002 20 Bouché, 2002a 2 1,300 5.7 W 8.5 N
Haut Sassandra Classified Forest IG3 D 1997 30 Kobon, quest. reply, 2002 2 1,024 7.0 W 7.2 N
Keregbo Forest OG3 E 1989 30 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 3 213 3.8 W 7.5 N
Marahoué National Park DT GD3 C 2002 159 54 Eggert, 2004b 2 1,010 6.0 W 7.1 N
Mont Péko National Park OG3 E 2000 40 Kobon, quest. reply, 2002 2 340 7.3 W 7.0 N
Mont Sangbé National Park IG3 D 2001 47 Lauginie et al., 2001 2 950 7.3 W 8.0 N
Niegré Classified Forest OG3 E 1989 50 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 2 1,056 6.2 W 5.4 N
Okromodou Forest OG3 E 1989 50 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 2 945 5.6 W 5.3 N
Scio Classified Forest OG3 E 1989 30 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 2 1,338 7.8 W 6.8 N
Songan-Tamin-Mabi-Yaya Classified Forest DD IG3 E 1993 20 Theuerkauf et al., 2001 2 1,698 3.4 W 5.9 N
Taï National Park DT GD3 C 2002 53 26 Eggert, 2004a 1 6,410 7.1 W 5.6 N
Tené Forest IG3 D 1998 5 Kobon, quest. reply, 2002 5 4 5.4 W 6.5 N
Tiapleu Forest OG3 E 1989 10 Merz & Hoppe-Dominik, 1991 2 380 8.2 W 7.5 N

* Range of informed guess

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

GHANA

General Statistics

Country area: 238,540 km2

Range area (% of country): 23,301 km2 (13%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 5%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 28%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.35

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Ghana was the first country in West Africa to develop a national strategy for the conservation of elephants (Wildlife Division, 2000), but limited resources seem to have slowed down its implementation. Nevertheless, recent reports indicate a renewed interest in Government circles to speed up its execution.

Meanwhile, elephants in Ghana continue to be under pressure from habitat fragmentation and high human population densities. Shifting cultivation up to the boundaries of protected areas exacerbates the problem of crop raiding by elephants, which is severe wherever elephants occur in Ghana (Barnes, 2002b).

Range Data

Elephant range in Ghana is entirely fragmented and largely confined to protected areas. In Mole National Park, elephants are largely restricted to the southern sector, which is shown as known range. The northern sector has been categorized as possible range, and areas around the park as doubtful range (Bouché, 2002b; Mackie, 2004). A recent survey sighted one group in the north (Bouché, 2006), and this is shown as a cross on the map.

Elephants have not been seen for several years in an area connecting the Dadieso Forest Reserve with the Bia and Goaso ranges (Ayesu, 2003; Sam et al., 2003), and this has been removed from the map. A recent survey of Digya National Park (Kumordzi & Danquah, 2006) found signs of elephant presence to be restricted to the southwestern corner of the park. This area has been categorized as known range, while the remainder of the park has been classified as doubtful range.

Nearly the half of the range information for Ghana currently falls under the possible category and nearly 40% is over 10 years old. Much of the remaining (known) range data was obtained between 1999 and 2002.

Population Data

Three aerial surveys have been conducted in Mole National Park since the last report. The first of these, a combined aerial total, aerial sample and ground sample count, was conducted in 2002 under the auspices of the CITES MIKE Programme. A total estimate for the aerial and ground surveys was never produced, and only a combined figure of 368 ± 495 for the two aerial survey methods was reported (Bouché, 2002b). In 2004 a stratified aerial sample survey was conducted in the park, giving an estimate of 259 ± 222 (Mackie, 2004), but the difference between this and the 2002 estimate is not statistically significant. Finally, an aerial total count conducted in March 2006 returned an estimate of 401 (Bouché, 2006), and this has been used to replace an estimate of 589 ± 218 from a 1993 aerial sample count (J. Grainger, pers. comm., 1994).

A dung count of Digya National Park conducted in 2006 returned an estimate of 357 ± 54 (Kumordzi & Danquah, 2006). This estimate replaces an informed guess of 200 (Sam, 1994a).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR GHANA

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 401 0 0 0
Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 388 179 179 0
Other Dung Counts 0 208 55 0
Informed Guesses 0 0 7 0
Other Guesses 0 0 0 12
TOTALS2006 789 387 241 12
TOTALS 2002 530 428 1,100 303

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
New Population 0 0 +7 0
Different Technique +259 -41 -854 -300
Data Degraded 0 0 -11 +9
TOTAL CHANGE +259 -41 -859 -291

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 2,628 1,710 4,338
Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 2,348 0 2,348
Other Dung Counts 2,704 24 2,728
Informed Guesses 140 0 140
Other Guesses 320 0 320
Unassessed Range 4,720 8,707 13,426
TOTAL 12,860 10,441 23,301

GHANA: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Ankasa Conservation Area DC3 C 2001 21 15 Danquah et al., 2001 2 509 2.6 W 5.3 N
Bia National Park & Resource DT DC2 C 2004 115 29 Sam et al., 2006 3 306 3.1 W 6.5 N
Reserve Chichibon Corridor DD IG3 E 1994 12 3* Sam & Wilson, 1994 2 290 0.7 W 7.3 N
Dadieso Forest Reserve NP IG3 D 2002 7 Ayesu, 2003 3 195 3.0 W 6.0 N
Digya National Park DT DC1 B 2006 357 54 Kumordzi & Danquah, 2006 2 3,478 0.3 W 7.4 N
Goaso Forest Reserves Complex DT DC3 C 2004 72 44 Sam, 2004 2 2,035 2.7 W 6.8 N
Kakum Conservation Area DT DC1 B 2004 164 36 Danquah, 2004 3 366 1.3 W 5.5 N
Mole National Park DT AT2 A 2006 401 Bouché, 2006 2 4,504 1.9 W 9.6 N
Red & White Volta -Morago Ecosystem DC3 B 1998 46 167 Sam, 1998 2 1,370 0.5 W 10.7 N

* Range of informed guess

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

A dung count of the Bia Conservation Area, conducted in 2004, used two different models to estimate elephant numbers, namely, a steady state model and a rainfall model. The steady state model gave an estimate of 146 ± 39, while the estimate from the rainfall model was 115 with an asymmetric confidence interval of 90 to 148 (Sam et al., 2006). The estimate used in this report is that of the more precise rainfall model, and it replaces a 1999 dung count figure of 108 (Sam, 2000), which was categorized in the previous report as an informed guess for lack of an estimate of precision.

The Goaso Forest Reserve Complex was also covered as part of the Bia survey. The survey only found sufficiently high dung densities to calculate an estimate of elephant numbers in the northwest of the reserve, but the surveyors assume that elephants use the entire complex as part of their habitat, and hence the estimate was applied over the entire area surveyed. As in the case of Bia, two different models were used to estimate elephant numbers. In this case, the steady state model, which gave an estimate of 72 ± 44, was used in preference to the rainfall model (57, 95% CL 33 to 100), as no coefficient of variation was provided for the latter (Sam, 2004). This estimate replaces a 1994 informed guess of 500 to 800 elephants (M.K. Sam, pers. comm., 1995).

A dung count of the previously unassessed Dadieso and Disue Forest Reserves failed to detect any elephant dung, but footprints of at least seven elephants were seen (Ayesu, 2003), and this figure appears as an informed guess in the table of estimates.

The number of definite elephants in the summary table has increased by 259 compared to the previous report, due to the new estimate from the Digya National Park survey. The higher precision of the Mole survey, together with lower dung count estimates for Kakum and Goaso, result in decreases of 41 and 859 in the probable and possible categories respectively. The replacement of estimates for Goaso and Digya with higher quality estimates, coupled with the degradation to the speculative category of the estimate for Chichibon, which is now more than 10 years old, result in a net decrease of 291 in this category.

Cross-border Movements

Ghana shares several elephant populations with neighbouring countries. Elephants move between Ghana and Burkina Faso, across the eastern border with Togo (Okoumassou et al., 1998), and possibly across the western border with Côte d'Ivoire. The corridor between Togo and Ghana is protected by forest reserves in Ghana, but is under threat from expanding agriculture on the Togolese side (Sam et al., 1998).

GUINEA

General Statistics

Country area: 245,860 km2

Range area (% of country): 1,524 km2 (1%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 6%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 36%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.47

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

The Ziama Forest Reserve is under pressure from growing human populations, habitat compression and increased cultivation up to the edges of the reserve. The imminent repatriation of refugees back to neighbouring Liberia may somewhat reduce this pressure in the short term (Barnes & Nandjui, 2005).

Crop raiding by elephants is a continuing problem in the area (Barnes & Nandjui, 2005). In 1996, conflict resolution committees were established to deal with the problem. Composed of representatives from the local population with arbitration from forest authorities, these committees monitor the frequency and severity of crop raids and propose solutions, which may include compensation, on a case-by-case basis.

Guinea is in the process of developing a national elephant conservation strategy. A workshop was held in 2004 and a strategy document was being drafted at the time of writing. In addition, an action plan to establish and secure a corridor between Ziama and Wenegisi Mountain in Liberia's North East Forest has been recently developed (Sebogo, 2006).

Range Data

The Ziama Massif, one of the last two remaining dense moist forests in Guinea, is home to what may be the country's only remaining viable elephant population. The shape of the Ziama range has been altered for this report based on the information from a 2004 survey (Barnes & Nandjui, 2005).

Three new small areas of known range have been added in the northwest, adjacent to the Corubal- Dulombi area of Guinea Bissau, based on recent data collected by Brugière et al. (2006). The same authors believe that elephants no longer occur in the Sansalé area, and range there has been categorized as doubtful.

It is not known whether elephants still occur in the Ouré Kaba area, on the border with Sierra Leone. In the absence of recent information, this area has been retained as possible range.

Population Data

A dung count of the Ziama Forest Reserve conducted in 2004 (Barnes & Nandjui, 2005) provided the first reliable estimate of elephant numbers in Ziama. The figure of 214 from this survey replaces a 1998 dung count estimate of 108 (Direction Nationale des Forêts et Faune, 1999). Although both estimates originate from dung counts, they should not be directly compared, as the survey techniques were sufficiently different to render any comparison meaningless. The higher and more precise 2004 estimate is responsible for the increases in the definite and probable categories, as well as for the decrease in the possible category shown in the summary table.

In the previous two reports, a combined estimate of 140 appeared for both the Ouré Kaba and Sansalé areas. As elephants are no longer thought to occur in the Sansalé area, the estimate has been split between the two sites in proportion to their area, and the Sansalé portion has been given an estimate of zero. This results in a decrease of 83 in the speculative category.

Cross-border Movements

Elephants had long been absent from Ziama until 1996, when it is thought they arrived from neighbouring Liberia (Direction Nationale des Forêts et Faune & Kreditanstandt für Wiederaufbau, 1997; Sagnah & Sagnah, 2000). It is expected that movement across the border will increase when the recently developed action plan to establish a corridor between Ziama and Wenegisi Mountain is implemented (Sebogo, 2006).

A recent study (Brugière et al., 2006) found indirect evidence of transboundary movement between northwest Guinea and southeast Guinea Bissau. Elephants from Niokolo-Koba in Senegal have not been seen on the Guinea side of the border since the early 1990s (Litoroh et al., 2002).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR GUINEA

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 135 79 79 0
Other Guesses 0 0 0 57
TOTALS2006 135 79 79 57
TOTALS 2002 0 0 108 140

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Different Technique +135 +79 -29 0
Population Lost 0 0 0 -83
TOTAL CHANGE +135 +79 -29 -83

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 491 0 491
Other Guesses 0 691 691
Unassessed Range 342 0 342
TOTAL 833 691 1,524

GUINEA: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Ouré Kaba OG3 E 1998 57 Sagnah, quest. reply, 1998 1 691 11.7 W 10.1 N
Sansalé PL OG3 E 1998 0 Sagnah, quest. reply, 1998 1,014 13.7 W 11.7 N
Ziama Strict Nature Reserve DT DC2 B 2004 214 79 Barnes & Nandjui, 2005 1 455 9.2 W 8.2 N

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

GUINEA BISSAU

General Statistics

Country area: 36,120 km2

Range area (% of country): 1,346 km2 (1%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 0%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 0%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.00

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

The small size of Guinea Bissau's elephant population makes its long term viability unlikely. Pressure for land remains intense and there are plans to build a road through the remaining elephant range (Brugière et al., 2006).

A plan to create a national park in the Corubal-Dulombi area was formulated in the 1990s, but was never completed due to civil unrest. Nevertheless, if a planned project to create a transboundary protected area between Guinea Bissau and Guinea is implemented, several core areas devoted to the conservation of biodiversity would be created to include parts of remaining elephant range (Brugière et al., 2006).

Range Data

A recent study of elephant distribution based on hunter interviews concluded that only a small elephant population remains in the southeast of Guinea Bissau (Brugière et al., 2006). An area of known range, based on point records from this study, has been added to the map. Two of the records, further to the north and separated from the main range area, appeared to belong to a transient animal and are shown as crosses on the map. The authors of the study believe that elephants are no longer found in the Binasse area, and this has been categorized as doubtful range.

Population Data

Brugière et al. (2006) believe that a minimum of seven elephants and no more than 20 remain in the Corubal-Dulombi area. This information has been entered as an informed guess. The estimate of 35 for the Binasse area featured in the previous report (Sournia, cited in Douglas-Hamilton et al., 1992) has been replaced by an estimate of zero, as elephants are no longer believed to occur there (Brugière et al., 2006).

Cross-border Movements

Recent evidence suggests that elephants from the Corubal-Dulombi area move seasonally across the border to Guinea (Brugière et al., 2006), corroborating previous observations by da Silva Naga (2001).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR GUINEA BISSAU

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Informed Guesses 0 0 7 13
Other Guesses 0 0 0 0
TOTALS2006 0 0 7 13
TOTALS 2002 0 0 0 35

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
New Population 0 0 +7 +13
Population Lost 0 0 0 -35
TOTAL CHANGE 0 0 +7 -22

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Total Range
Informed Guesses 1,346 1,346
TOTAL 1,346 1,346

GUINEA BISSAU: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Binasse Area PL OG3 E 2004 0 Brugière et al., in press 330 13.8 W 11.8 N
Corubal-Dulombi Area NP IG3 D 2004 7 13* Brugière et al., in press 1 1,342 14.7 W 11.6 N

* Range of informed guess

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

LIBERIA

General Statistics

Country area: 111,370 km2

Range area (% of country): 15,977 km2 (19%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 15%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 64%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.00

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Rapid assessment surveys of some of the most important forest areas in Liberia have been conducted in recent years. Several areas originally proposed for national park status in the early 1990s were found to be disturbed by extensive logging. While other areas visited appeared relatively intact, elephant was the most likely species to be absent out of six charismatic species monitored (buffalo, chimpanzee, elephant, leopard, pigmy hippopotamus and slender-snouted crocodile). Hunter interviews suggest disturbance caused by logging operations as the most common cause for the absence of elephants (Waitkuwait et al., 2003). Hunting for bushmeat and human resettlement in rural areas after the civil war are also believed to have contributed to the disappearance of elephants from these areas.

In 2005, up to 5,000 squatters and ex-combatants, who had occupied parts of Sapo National Park in search of gold, were peacefully evicted from the park. Another survey in late 2005 found small scale miners and prospecting activities for large scale mining in the Gola National Forest (Barrie et al., 2005).

A workshop was held in Monrovia in 2005 to develop a national elephant conservation strategy, with financial support from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and technical input from the AfESG. The drafting of the policy document was in progress at the time of writing. The AfESG has also assisted in the development of an action plan to establish an elephant corridor between Wenegisi Mountain in Liberia's North East Forest and the Ziama Reserve in neighbouring Guinea (Sebogo, 2006).

Range Data

The Liberia Forest Re-assessment Project found elephants to be absent from a number of areas where they had been present in the early 1990s (Waitkuwait et al., 2003). These areas, which include parts of the Krahn Bassa and Grebo forests, have now been categorized as non-range. Around two-thirds of the remaining range data is over 15 years old and remains speculative. A related assessment of the Gola, North Lorma and Grebo National Forests found evidence of continued elephant presence at all three sites (Barrie et al., 2005). These records are depicted as crosses on the map, as only small portions of these forests were visited. The map also shows a cross in the northwest, near the border with Sierra Leone and to the west of Gola, where crop raiding by elephants is reported to be a problem (Humanitarian Information Centres, 2005).

Population Data

No quantitative surveys have been conducted in Liberia since 1991, and all estimates have been retained from the previous report. These estimates remain highly speculative. A survey of Sapo National Park had been planned under the CITES MIKE Programme, but could not be conducted due to ongoing instability at the time.

Cross-border Movements

Little information is available on cross-border movements, although it is likely that elephants move between Grebo and Goin-Cavally in Côte d'Ivoire (A. Nandjui, pers. comm., 2006), and between the Gola National Forest and the Gola North Forest Reserve in Sierra Leone. Elephants in the Ziama Forest in Guinea are reported to have moved there from Liberia during the civil war.

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR LIBERIA

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Other Guesses 0 0 0 1,676
TOTALS2006 0 0 0 1,676
TOTALS 2002 0 0 0 1,676

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Other Guesses 1,368 8,169 9,537
Unassessed Range 85 6,355 6,440
TOTAL 1,453 14,524 15,977

LIBERIA: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Barrobo National Forest OG3 E 1990 100 Anstey & Dunn, 1991 2 640 8.0 W 4.9 N
Gola, Kpelle & Lorma National Forests OG3 E 1990 500 Anstey & Dunn, 1991 1 4,255 10.4 W 7.5 N
Grebo National Forest OG3 E 1990 230 Anstey & Dunn, 1991 1 2,510 7.6 W 5.5 N
Krahn Bassa National Forest OG3 E 1990 500 Anstey & Dunn, 1991 1 5,142 8.8 W 5.8 N
Sapo National Park DC3 E 1989 313 304 Barnes & Dunn, 2002 2 1,292 8.5 W 5.4 N
Wenegisi National Forest OG3 E 1990 33 Anstey & Dunn, 1991 3 130 9.5 W 8.1 N

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

MALI

General Statistics

Country area: 1,240,000 km2

Range area (% of country): 31,878 km2 (2%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 3%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 25%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.55

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

The expansion of agriculture onto elephant migration routes is a major threat facing Mali's elephants. As a result, human-elephant conflict continues to be an important threat to elephants in the Gourma region and beyond, affecting both pastoralists and agriculturalists (F. Dakouo, pers. comm., 2004; Nomba, 2000; Nomoko, 2006). It is feared that if the elephant migration route is blocked by expanding cultivation, elephants will be unable to obtain the resources they need and will eventually disappear from the area (Barnes et al., 2006).

The implementation of a five-year project named ‘Projet de Conservation et Valorisation de la Biodiversité du Gourma Malien’ commenced recently thanks to funding from the World Bank. Amongst other objectives, the project recognizes the Gourma elephants as a unique resource and intends to work with the local people to ensure their conservation. Mali is also planning to develop a national elephant strategy, and funding for a workshop is being sought.

Range Data

Elephants in Mali are largely confined to a single population in the Gourma, an arid area in the Sahel on the border with Burkina Faso. The Gourma elephants are the continent's most northerly population and, together with Namibia's Kunene elephants, the most adapted to arid conditions.

The area of known range has been further extended for this report through information from an ongoing radio-collaring and individual registration study (E.M. Hema et al., pers. comm., 2006). Two portions of this range are seldom or never visited by elephants, and they have been categorized as non-range. A small number of elephants may still be present in southwestern Mali, in the districts of Sikasso and Mopti. There have been recent sightings and reports of elephant damage in these areas (F. Dakouo, pers. comm., 2004; Nomoko, 2006). These are shown as crosses on the map.

Population Data

An individual registration study in the Gourma has identified a minimum of 357 elephants, with an estimated 141 calves and other family members not individually registered. Partial registration suggests there may be an additional 156 elephants in the population. An estimate of 498 to 654 has been entered as an informed guess, replacing a 2002 waterhole aerial count and an informed guess for the areas not covered in the flights (Blake et al., 2003).

The new estimate for Gourma has resulted in increases in the definite, possible and speculative categories. These increases are a result of more comprehensive information, rather than a recorded increase in the actual elephant population.

Cross-border Movements

The Gourma elephants move anticlockwise in search of water in a roughly circular migration that takes them into northern Burkina Faso (Blake et al., 2003; Jachmann, 1991; Spinage, 1985) and covers nearly 38,000 km2. Elephants seen in southwestern Mali in recent years are said to have come from Côte d'Ivoire or western Burkina Faso, but this has not been verified (F. Dakouo, pers. comm., 2004; Nomoko, 2006).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR MALI

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Informed Guesses 357 0 141 156
TOTALS2006 357 0 141 156
TOTALS 2002 322 0 28 25

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
New Guess +35 0 +113 +131
TOTAL CHANGE +35 0 +113 +131

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Total Range
Informed Guesses 31,878 31,878
TOTAL 31,878 31,878

MALI: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Gourma NG IG3 D 2006 498 156* E.M. Hema et al., pers. comm., 2006 1 37,991 1.9 W 15.5 N

* Range of informed guess

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

NIGER

General Statistics

Country area: 1,267,000 km2

Range area (% of country): 2,683 km2 (0%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 9%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 87%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.83

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Niger has recently developed a national elephant management strategy. The strategy document identifies poaching, human-elephant conflict and lack of institutional capacity as some of the key factors affecting elephant populations in the country. In addition to reducing the impact of these challenges, the strategy's objectives include the improvement of knowledge on the status of elephant populations and fostering cross-border cooperation in elephant management.

Range Data

Only two elephant populations are found in Niger, both in the south. The larger population is located in the southwest, within the boundary of the Parc “W”, a transfrontier park shared with Burkina Faso and Benin. The second, much smaller, population occurs in the Babban Rafi Forest, and is part of Nigeria's Rongou Forest population (Direction de la Faune, Pêche et Pisciculture, 1991). Although there is recent information indicating the continued presence of elephants in Babban Rafi, the area remains categorized as possible range for lack of detailed information on elephant distribution. The depiction of these ranges has not changed in the AED range map since the AED 1995 (Said et al., 1995).

Population Data

A 2003 aerial total count of the “W” complex returned an estimate of 85 for the Niger sector. Although this contrasts with the previous aerial sample count estimate of 743 ± 306 (Rouamba et al., 2002), the estimate for the entire park “W” has not changed considerably between the two surveys, highlighting the transboundary nature of its elephant population.

The population in Babban Rafi is currently believed to stand at 17 animals (A.M. Issa, pers. comm., 2005). This estimate has been categorized as an informed guess and replaces a 1992 estimate of 100 (Seydou, quest. reply, 1998).

As a result of the new estimates, numbers for Niger have declined in all four categories. Much of the difference, however, is likely to be the result of transboundary movements rather than to genuine changes in elephant numbers.

Cross-border Movements

The Park “W” population straddles the borders of Niger, Benin and Burkina Faso and, together with other adjacent protected areas, now represents the largest elephant range in West Africa, both in terms of extent and numbers of elephants (Bouché et al., 2004b).

Although the Babban Rafi population is believed to move between southern Niger and northern Nigeria, information on the movement patterns is contradictory. Some authors maintain that elephants spend most of their time in Niger (Seydou, 1997), whereas others suggest that they only visit Niger in the dry season, and only began doing so in 1986 (Direction de la Faune, Pêche et Pisciculture, 1991).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR NIGER

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 85 0 0 0
Informed Guesses 0 0 17 0
TOTALS2006 85 0 17 0
TOTALS 2002 136 214 214 100

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Different Technique -51 -214 -214 0
New Guess 0 0 +17 -100
TOTAL CHANGE -51 -214 -197 -100

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 2,333 0 2,333
Informed Guesses 0 350 350
TOTAL 2,333 350 2,683

NIGER: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Babban Rafi Forest NG IG3 D 2005 17 A.M. Issa, pers. comm., 2005 1 430 7.0 E 13.1 N
W du Niger National Park DT AT2 A 2003 85 Bouché et al., 2004b 1 2,294 2.4 E 12.3 N

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

NIGERIA

General Statistics

Country area: 923,770 km2

Range area (% of country): 22,968 km2 (5%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 3%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 70%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.16

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Most elephant populations are small, fragmented and probably not viable in the long term. Only the Yankari population in northern Nigeria has good prospects for survival, but encroachment and poaching continue to be a threat to elephants in the park (Omondi et al., 2006b).

Nigeria seems to have made little progress in regulating its large domestic ivory market. The size of the market appears to be increasing, and the country continues to be an important entrepôt in the international trade. Most of the ivory traded in Nigeria is believed to originate from Central Africa (Courouble et al., 2003; TRAFFIC, 2004).

Donors rejected a first proposal for the development of a national strategy for the conservation of Nigeria's elephants, but the search for funds continues.

Range Data

Nigeria's elephants live in small, relict populations, divided between forests in the south and savannas in the north. Nigeria is Africa's most populous country, and the fragmentation of elephant range is an inevitable consequence of increasing human density, agriculture and settlement.

Changes to the range map include the categorization of several areas as doubtful range in areas where human population density is estimated to exceed 15 persons per km2 (ORNL/GIST, 2002; see Introduction section for rationale). Such areas include the environs of Yankari and Cross River National Parks.

The last two aerial surveys conducted in Yankari suggest that elephants are concentrated in the southeast of the park, where there is least disturbance from human activity (Nicholas, 1999; Omondi et al., 2006b). This area has been categorized as known range, while the rest of Yankari has been reverted to possible range.

An aerial survey of Sambisa and Marguba Reserves found no elephants and heavy human settlement (Omondi et al., 2006a). Local informants indicated that elephants may no longer be found in their traditional range, save perhaps for a small group to the south of the area covered by the survey. The approximate location of this group is shown as a cross on the map, while the range area depicted in the previous report has been categorized as doubtful.

Population Data

An aerial total count of Yankari National Park conducted in July 2006 by the CITES MIKE programme gave an estimate of 348 (Omondi et al., 2006b). This replaces the aerial total count estimate of 328 featured in the previous report (Nicholas, 1999).

An aerial survey of the Sambisa and Marguba Reserves returned an estimate of zero (Omondi et al., 2006b). As elephants may no longer occur in these reserves, this figure replaces an informed guess of 150 to 250 that included a sighting of at least 130 elephants (Gawaisa, quest. reply, 1998). This replacement is primarily responsible for the net decline of 130 elephants in the definite category.

All other estimates have been retained from the previous report, but estimates for the Chingurmi-Duguma sector of the Chad Basin National Park, Kwiambana Game Reserve, Omo Forest Reserve and Taylor Creek have been degraded to the category of other guesses, as they are more than 10 years old. The degradation of these estimates has resulted in a decrease of 235 in the possible category and contributed to a net increase of 75 in the speculative category.

Cross-border Movements

A migratory population may still move between Chad Basin National Park and Waza National Park in Cameroon (Bita, 1997; Halla, 2002), but recent reliable information is lacking. Elephants may also move between Nigeria and the Baban Rafi Forest in Niger (Seydou, quest. reply, 1998), and between the Cross River National Park (Oban Division) and Korup National Park in Cameroon (Tooze, 1994).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR NIGERIA

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 348 0 0 0
Informed Guesses 0 0 105 100
Other Guesses 0 0 0 275
TOTALS2006 348 0 105 375
TOTALS 2002 478 0 340 300

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Repeat Survey +20 0 0 0
Different Technique -150 0 0 -100
Data Degraded 0 0 -235 +175
TOTAL CHANGE -130 0 -235 +75

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 495 1,570 2,065
Informed Guesses 1,801 653 2,454
Other Guesses 3,821 142 3,964
Unassessed Range 7,030 7,456 14,486
TOTAL 13,147 9,821 22,968

NIGERIA: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Andoni Island IG3 D 2002 6 4* Mshelbwala et al., 2002 3 215 7.5 E 4.5 N
Chad Basin (Chingurmi-Duguma) National Park Sector DD IG3 E 1994 100 Mshelbwala, 1998 2 2,160 14.4 E 11.7 N
Cross River (Okwangwo) National Park DC3 D 1998 74 56* Obot et al., 1998 2 239 9.2 E 6.3 N
Gashaka-Gumti National Park IG3 D 2002 20 30* R. Barnwell, pers. comm., 2002 1 5,860 11.7 E 7.5 N
Kambari IG3 D 1998 5 10* Gawaisa, quest. reply, 1998 2 2,000 10.6 E 8.8 N
Kwiambana Game Reserve DD IG3 E 1993 80 40* Hurst, quest. reply, 1994 2 1,715 6.6 E 11.3 N
Marguba Forest Reserve DT AT3 A 2006 0 Omondi et al., 2006a 710 12.7 E 11.5 N
Okomu Game Sanctuary OG3 E 1991 40 NRCC, 1991 2 1,082 5.1 E 6.3 N
Omo Forest Reserve DD IG3 E 1994 30 20* Mshelbwala, 1998 2 1,300 3.6 E 6.8 N
Sambisa DT AT3 A 2006 0 Omondi et al., 2006a 647 13.4 E 11.3 N
Taylor Creek DD IG3 E 1993 25 Thouless, 1993 3 145 6.4 E 5.2 N
Yankari National Park RS AT3 A 2006 348 Omondi et al., 2006b 2 3,224 10.5 E 9.8 N

* Range of informed guess

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

SENEGAL

General Statistics

Country area: 196,190 km2

Range area (% of country): 1,090 km2 (4%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 16%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 100%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.10

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Elephants appear to be on the brink of disappearing in Senegal. A recent survey found Niokolo-Koba National Park in a serious state of deterioration. Illegal activity was widespread, including cattle grazing, commercial timber exploitation and wildlife poaching. In addition, a planned road improvement project further threatens the integrity of the park. The World Heritage Committee requested the Senegalese authorities to produce a full report on the status of wildlife populations in Niokolo-Koba by the end of January 2007 (UNESCO, 2006). The African Parks Foundation is expected to take over the management of Niokolo-Koba National Park in the hopes of gaining some control over the situation and safeguarding what remains with a view to future recovery.

Despite its unviable elephant population, Senegal continues to harbour one of the key unregulated domestic ivory markets in Africa. Ivory originating largely from Central Africa is carved in Senegal and sold to foreign nationals with little or no interference from the authorities (Courouble et al., 2003).

Range Data

Niokolo-Koba National Park is the last place in Senegal where elephants may still be found. An extensive ground survey, conducted in 2006, found signs of elephant presence to be restricted to the south of the park (Renaud et al., 2006). The area where these signs were found is shown on the map as known range, while the rest of the park has been categorized as non-range.

Population Data

Aerial and ground surveys of the Niokolo-Koba National Park were jointly conducted by the African Parks Foundation and Senegal's Directorate of National Parks in 2006 (Renaud et al., 2006). No elephants were seen in the aerial survey, making it the fifth consecutive aerial survey of Niokolo-Koba in which no elephants were found (Mauvais, 2002). Six traces of elephant were seen during the ground survey, and surveyors believe there to be at least one, and at most 10, elephants left in the park. This has been entered as an informed guess, which replaces a guess of between 3 and 50 (Mauvais, 2002). As a result of this new guess, the number of elephants in the definite category has declined by one, while the number under the speculative category has dropped by 39.

Cross-border Movements

It is unlikely that elephants move between Niokolo-Koba and Guinea, as there have been no records of elephant presence on the Guinea side since the early 1990s (Litoroh et al., 2002). There has been some discussion on the possibility of establishing a transboundary park to include Niokolo-Koba and Badiar National Park in Guinea (UNESCO, 2006).

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR SENEGAL

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Informed Guesses 1 0 0 9
TOTALS2006 1 0 0 9
TOTALS 2002 2 0 0 48

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
New Guess -1 0 0 -39
TOTAL CHANGE -1 0 0 -39

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Total Range
Informed Guesses 1,090 1,090
TOTAL 1,090 1,090

SENEGAL: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Niokolo-Koba National Park NG IG3 D 2006 1 9* Renaud et al., 2006 1 8,282 13.0 W 13.0 N

* Range of informed guess

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

SIERRA LEONE

General Statistics

Country area: 71,740 km2

Range area (% of country): 1,804 km2 (4%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 3%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 56%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.00

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Although once widespread, firearms are now becoming increasingly rare, thanks to a vigorous firearm collection programme organized by the United Nations. This is likely to reduce hunting and poaching pressure on elephants.

The infrastructure in parks such as Outamba-Kilimi was severely impacted by the civil war, and little or no equipment is available for park staff to conduct their duties. A project to stop legal and illegal logging in the Gola Forest and to transform it into a community-managed national park recently received endorsement from the Government.

A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, released in 2003, calls for a nationwide census of large mammals, including elephants, to be conducted as a matter of priority. Sierra Leone is in the process of developing a national strategy for the conservation of elephants, and funding is being sought for a workshop.

Range Data

Recent and reliable information on elephant distribution is lacking, but elephants are known to remain in a number of forest fragments scattered throughout the eastern half of the country. A recent survey of Outamba-Kilimi National Park only found evidence of elephant presence in the southwestern half of the park (Danquah & Nandjui, quest. reply, 2006), and the area depicted as known range has been corrected accordingly.

Some areas in and around the Nimini South and Gola East Forest Reserves appear to be densely settled, according to the Landscan 2002 human population density database (ORNL/GIST, 2002), and have been categorized as doubtful range (see Introduction section for details on rationale). The presence of elephants in the Gola forests is supported by recent reports of elephant crop raiding and other forms of human-elephant conflict (Mansaray, 2004). These are shown as crosses on the map.

Population Data

A dung survey of Outamba-Kilimi National Park was conducted in 2005, but no estimate of elephant numbers was produced due to the low dung encounter rate and the lack of an estimate of dung decay (Karimu, 2005). Based on a pilot survey in Outamba-Kilimi between February and April 2006, Nandjui & Danquah (2006) estimate there to be 80 to 100 elephants in the park. This estimate has been categorized as an informed guess, and replaces a 1994 guess of 50 (Grubb et al., 1998).

The estimate of 5 – 45 for Bagbe River Forest featured in the previous report (A. Kortenhoven, pers. comm., 2002), has been degraded to the category of other guesses, as it is now more than 10 years old. All other estimates for Sierra Leone have been retained from the previous report.

Cross-border Movements

Elephants may move from Sierra Leone into Guinea and Liberia, but there is no information available.

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR SIERRA LEONE

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Informed Guesses 0 0 80 20
Other Guesses 0 0 0 115
TOTALS2006 0 0 80 135
TOTALS 2002 0 0 5 205

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
New Guess 0 0 +80 -30
Data Degraded 0 0 -5 -40
TOTAL CHANGE 0 0 +75 -70

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Informed Guesses 358 0 358
Other Guesses 349 356 705
Unassessed Range 265 476 742
TOTAL 972 832 1,804

SIERRA LEONE: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Bagbe River Forest DD IG3 E 1995 5 45* A. Kortenhoven, pers. comm., 2002 1 349 11.1 W 9.3 N
Gola East Forest Reserve OG3 E 1987 60 Grubb et al., 1998 1 287 11.1 W 7.4 N
Gola North Forest Reserve OG3 E 1987 50 Grubb et al., 1998 1 242 10.9 W 7.6 N
Outamba-Kilimi NG IG3 D 2006 80 20* A. Nandjui & E.K.A. Danquah, pers. comm., 2006 1 358 12.1 W 9.7 N

* Range of informed guess

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

TOGO

General Statistics

Country area: 56,790 km2

Range area (% of country): 5,444 km2 (10%)

Protected area coverage (% of country): 13%

Protected range (% of known and possible range in protected areas): 79%

Information Quality Index (IQI): 0.04

CITES Appendix: I

Listing Year: 1989

Current Issues

Elephant movements, coupled with Togo's high human population density and the decreased availability of natural habitat have brought the country's elephants into direct, and in places severe, conflict with humans (Kotchikpa & Durlot, 2002). Dense settlement may eventually eliminate transboundary elephant movement in and out of Togo.

In 2003 Togo published its newly developed national strategy for the conservation of its elephant populations. The strategy identifies human demographic pressure, habitat degradation, poaching, lack of means and capacity, as well as inadequate legislation, as the key threats to elephant populations (Ministère de l'Environnement et des Ressources Forestières, 2003). The strategic objectives include improving scientific information on elephant populations, improving institutional capacity and involving local populations in elephant management, mitigating human-elephant conflict, and reducing poaching. Funds for the implementation of the strategy have not been forthcoming so far.

Range Data

There are two main areas of elephant range, one in and around Kéran National Park and Outi-Mandouri Faunal Reserve in the north, and the other in the Fazao-Malfakassa massif in the centre of the country. In the drier, northern half, elephants migrate in search of water and visit the area only seasonally (Kotchikpa & Durlot, 2002). The only permanent ranges are currently Fazao-Malfakassa and Abdoulayé Faunal Reserves.

The only change to Togo's range map in this report consists in the reduction of known range in a densely settled area to the southeast of Kéran National Park. Based on the Landscan 2002 human population density data set (ORNL/GIST, 2002) and recent satellite imagery, this area has been categorized as doubtful range (see Introduction section for details on rationale).

Population Data

A transboundary aerial total count covering the entire “WAPOK” complex found no elephants in northern Togo (Bouché et al., 2004b). Estimates of zero from this survey replace informed guesses of 16 and 35 for Kéran (Okoumassou, quest. reply, 2002) and Oti-Mandouri (Okoumassou, 1995) respectively. informed guesses for Abdoulayé Faunal Reserve, Fazao-Malfakassa and Fosse aux Lions National Parks have been retained from the previous report (2002).

These changes, which result in a decline of 51 in the possible category, are likely to be due to seasonal elephant movements, rather than to a decline in Togo's population.

Cross-border Movements

Togo's small and fragmented populations of elephants range widely in search of water during the dry season, especially in the north. A study of elephant movements in Togo confirmed the seasonal passage between Togo and Ghana, Benin and Burkina Faso (Kotchikpa & Durlot, 2002), but dense human settlement may be restricting their movement.

SUMMARY TOTALS FOR TOGO

Data Category DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 0 0 0 0
Informed Guesses 4 0 61 0
TOTALS2006 4 0 61 0
TOTALS 2002 4 0 112 0

INTERPRETATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES FROM PREVIOUS REPORT

Cause of Change DEFINITE PROBABLE POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE
Different Technique 0 0 -51 0
TOTAL CHANGE 0 0 -51 0

AREA OF RANGE COVERED BY EACH DATA CATEGORY (km2)

Data Category Known Range Possible Range Total Range
Aerial or Ground Total Counts 1,412 0 1,412
Informed Guesses 2,319 0 2,319
Unassessed Range 1,375 339 1,714
TOTAL 5,105 339 5,444

TOGO: ELEPHANT ESTIMATES

INPUT ZONE CAUSE OF CHANGE1 SURVEY DETAILS2 NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS SOURCE PFS3 AREA (km2) MAP LOCATION
TYPE RELIAB. YEAR ESTIMATE 95% C.L. LON. LAT.
Abdoulayé Faunal Reserve IG3 D 2002 4 Okoumassou, quest. reply, 2002 2 300 1.3 E 8.7 N
Fazao-Malfakassa National Park IG3 D 2002 61 Okoumassou, quest. reply, 2002 1 1,920 0.8 E 8.7 N
Fosse aux Lions National Park IG3 D 2002 0 Okoumassou, quest. reply, 2002 17 0.2 E 10.8 N
Kéran National Park DT AT2 A 2003 0 Bouché et al., 2004b 1,402 0.7 E 10.1 N
Oti-Mandori Faunal Reserve DT AT2 A 2003 0 Bouché et al., 2004b 1,484 0.7 E 10.6 N

1 Key to Causes of Change: DA: Different Area; DD: Data Degraded; DT: Different Technique; NA: New Analysis; NG: New Guess; NP: New population; PL: Population Lost; RS: Repeat Survey (RS' denotes a repeat survey that is not statistically comparable for reasons such as different season); —: No Change

2 Key to Survey Types: AS: Aerial Sample Count; AT: Aerial Total Count; DC: Dung Count; GD: Genetic Dung Count; GS: Ground Sample Count; GT: Ground Total Count; IG: Informed Guess; IR: Individual Registration; OG: Other Guess. Survey Type is followed by an indicator of survey quality, ranked from 1 to 3 (best to worst). Survey Reliability is keyed A–E (best to worst)

3 PFS: Priority for Future Surveys, ranked from 1 to 5 (highest to lowest). Based on the precision of estimates and the proportion of national range accounted for by the site in question, PFS is a measure of the importance and urgency for future population surveys. All areas of unassessed range have a priority of 1. See Introduction for details on how the PFS is derived.

< previous section  < index >  next section >