PROSPER PEOPLE, RULES AND ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING THE PROTECTION OF ECOSYSTEM RESOURCES
BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared by Fauna and Flora International November 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a rapid biodiversity assessment of five forests in Liberia, which have been selected by the USAID PROSPER project for the development of community forestry: the Sayee Community Forest (CF), Gblor CF and Big Gio CF in Nimba County, and the Barconnie CF and Kortor CF in Grand Bassa County. The Big Gio Forest is under jurisdiction of four clans (Gblor, Sehzuplay, Quilla and Beatuo), but forms one contiguous forest block and therefore was assessed as a single unit.
The biodiversity assessment intended to identify conservation values in the proposed CF sites and to set a baseline as reference for the evaluation of the project’s impact and achievements during and by the end of the project. The assessment focused on forest condition, 40 faunal indicator species (31 mammals, 7 birds, 2 reptiles) and the identification of main threats. Rapid assessment tools included participatory mapping, interviews of local hunters, one-day forest walks and a desk review. An Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex) was calculated for three taxonomic groups (primates, duikers and hornbills) and used for the comparison of the ecological intactness of the CF sites with that of other forest blocks in Liberia: Sapo National Park, Cestos- Senkwehn, Cestos-Gbi, Grebo and Nimba-Northeast.
Sayee Community Forest The Sayee CF lies within the Liberian part of Mount Nimba Range, an area of significant conservation value within the Upper Guinean Rainforest. The site of interest is a comparatively small piece of 600-700 hectares of Primary Forest that remains on a mountain called Mount Dehton. The forest is encircled by a belt of farms and Young Secondary Forest on the lower slopes and in the lowland areas. Twenty-four of 39 potentially occurring faunal indicator species (61.54%) are still present in Dehton Forest; among them 10 of conservation concern (2 Endangered, 2 Vulnerable, 6 Near Threatened). Twenty-one of the 24 species (87.50%) were reported to show decreasing trends over the past ten years, due to hunting. The overall ecological integrity of Dehton Forest is relatively low compared to other forest blocks in Liberia. Its small size and isolated character decrease its wildlife carrying capacity and value as suitable habitat. The biodiversity is mainly threatened by farming, chainsawing and hunting.
Barconnie Community Forest The Barconnie CF is located in the wider Buchanan area and has an estimated size of less than 2,000 hectares. It comprises mangroves in the coastal areas and patches of Mature Secondary Forest in the “upland”. The beach is known as a sea turtle nesting site. While the mangroves are largely intact, the upland forest is highly fragmented and in part degraded. Thirteen of 39 potentially occurring key animal species (33.33%) were reported present in the Barconnie CF. These include 1 Vulnerable and 2 Near Threatened species. Five of the 13 species occur both in the upland forest and the mangroves. Reasons given for the disappearance of other species which were present in the past included hunting and habitat loss. Due to the absence of a number of species in Barconnie CF, the Ecological Integrity Indices of the three assessed taxa are very low compared to the other forest sites in Liberia. The high degree of fragmentation of the remaining forest into numerous, comparatively small and in part degraded patches decreases its overall carrying capacity and animal abundance. The continuous destruction and degradation of the upland forest by farming, chainsawing and charcoal production were identified as main threats to Barconnie’s biodiversity, and to a lesser extent hunting.
Kortor Community Forest The Kortor CF is located in District 4 in Grand Bassa County and extends over an area of at least 10,000 hectares. It consists mainly of Primary Forest and offers a variety of habitats, including rivers, swamps and hilly areas. The overall contiguity of the forest is largely intact, but disturbed by human activities around three permanent settlements within the forest. Thirty-two of the 38 potentially occurring faunal indicator species (84.21%) were reported to be present in Kortor Forest. These include 16 species of conservation concern (4 Endangered, 5 Vulnerable and 7 Near Threatened). Thirteen of the 32 species still occur in relatively high numbers, nine species were classified as intermediate abundant, and ten (mainly large species) as scarce. Decreasing population trends over the past 10 years were reported for at least 18 species, mainly due to hunting, habitat loss and the impacts of adjacent logging companies. The overall Ecological Integrity of Kortor CF is relatively high and comparable to those of Cestos-Senkwehn, Cestos-Gbi, Grebo and Nimba-Northeast. Further, Kortor Forest shows the highest Indices of all five PROSPER CF sites. The biodiversity however is threatened mainly by commercial chainsawing, farming and hunting. The chainsaw business was of specific concern, as apart from encroaching and destroying the forest, the community is not satisfied with the benefit sharing mechanism among the community members.
Gblor Community Forest The Gblor CF lies southeast of the Big Gio Forest in the Tappita area in Nimba County and covers an area of at least 12,000 hectares. Continuous commercial selective logging operations over the past 40 years have shaped the forest profile, which is best described as disturbed Mature Secondary Forest. Further, the forest is degraded by human activities around human settlements within its borders. Twenty- five of 38 potentially occurring species (65.79%) were reported present in the Gblor CF. These include 10 species of conservation concern (2 Endangered, 4 Vulnerable and 4 Near Threatened). Fifteen of the 25 species were reported to occur in comparatively high numbers, while the population of 4 was considered as intermediate, and 6 species were rated as scarce. Eighteen of the 25 present animal species showed decreasing trends over the past ten years, mainly due to hunting. Due to the absence of high-forest depending primate species, the Gblor CF has the lowest primate EcoIntex of all compared sites, while the duiker and hornbill Indices rank intermediate. Farming and hunting were identified as the main threats to Gblor’s biodiversity. Big Gio Community Forest The Big Gio Forest comprises at least 32,930 hectares. It is located in the Tappita area in Nimba County and surrounded by the Gblor Clan in the south, the Sehzuplay Clan in the west, the Quilla Clan in the north and the Beatuo Clan in the east. The Big Gio Forest was demarcated as National Forest in the 1960s and is currently classified as an unallocated Forest Management Concession. However, FDA is not currently managing it and has expressed interest in reclassifying it as a Community Forest. The Big Gio Forest is a hilly area and comprises one large mountain range. Due to continuous logging operations over the past 50 years most of the original Primary Forest has been depleted, and today might only be found in the most inaccessible areas, such as mountain tops and swamps. The remaining area has to be considered as disturbed Mature Secondary Forest, which is further degraded by farming activities. The most destroyed part was found in the Quilla Clan area, with numerous permanent villages inside Big Gio, while the most undisturbed area of the forest appears to be around the Beatuo Clan. Thirty of 38 potentially occurring faunal indicator species were reported present (78.95%), among them 13 of conservation concern (2 Endangered, 4 Vulnerable, 7 Near Threatened). At least 13 species still occur in relatively high numbers, 5 species were classified as intermediate, while eleven species have become rare in Big Gio today. The wildlife is threatened by a high hunting pressure, and also facing habitat loss. In total 20 of the remaining 30 species were reported as decreasing by the communities over the past ten years. Compared to other forest sites, the overall Ecological Integrity of the Big Gio Forest is considered intermediate. The EcoIndices reflect a higher hunting pressure on primates and duikers as compared to hornbills, as well as the degradation and disturbed ecological integrity of the forest by other human impacts, such as logging and farming. The species composition at Big Gio Forest, both in diversity and relative abundance, shows a bias towards species able to cope with degraded, secondary vegetation, while the ones depending on undisturbed, high-canopy, intact primary forest are either rare or locally extinct. Main threats include farming, rubber plantations and excessive hunting. The communities further complained that some forest resources are also exploited by people from outside.
Conclusions The overall assessment showed that the communities around the forests heavily depend on the forest resources, and all five CF sites are of conservation importance on a community level. Finally, the conservation value of theses forests was further evaluated in a broader context, based on seven criteria: forest size, forest type, forest intactness, degree of forest fragmentation, potential connectivity to adjacent forest blocks, presence of key species and ecological integrity. Due to its small size and isolation, Dehton Forest of the Sayee CF is of no significant conservation value from a regional, national and global perspective. The same applies for the degraded and highly fragmented upland forest in the Barconnie Community, while the mangroves, including the beaches are of particular importance, both on a regional and national, and probably even on an international level. The Gblor CF by itself is of no significant conservation value in a wider context. However, given its vicinity and potential connectivity to the Big Gio Forest rises its importance on a regional level. Since large parts of Nimba have been converted to agricultural land, the Big Gio Forest and the Gblor CF are, beyond the community interest, of conservation importance on a regional and national level. The highest conservation value was found for the Kortor CF. The preservation of this forest is not just significant for the community, but also in a broader context, especially in view of the dwindling biodiversity in its wider surroundings.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction……………………………………………………….4
2. Methodology for data collection and analysis……...………... 7 2.1 Approach………………………………………………………………… 7 2.2 Field survey methods…………………………………………………...7 2.2.1 Step 1: Identification of target areas……………………………………..…… 8 2.2.2 Step 2: Initial village meeting and identification of key informants………… 8 2.2.3 Step 3: Focus group exercise: participatory mapping and group interview.8 2.2.4 Step 4: Forest walks……………………………………………………….…..13
2.3 Analysis………………………………………………………………… 14 2.3.1 General data analysis………..……………………………………………..… 14 2.3.2 Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex)………………………………………... 15
2.4 Limitations………………………………………………………………17
3. Results………………………………………………………….. 19 3.1 Sayee CF, Sanniquellie, Nimba County……………………………. 19 3.1.1 General site description………………………………………………………. 19 3.1.2 Field operations……………………………………………………………..… 21 3.1.3 Forest condition…………………………………………………….………..... 21 3.1.4 Key animal species………………………………………………………….... 22 3.1.5 Ecological Integrity……………………………………………………..….….. 26 3.1.6 Forest use and threats…………………………………………………...... 28 3.1.7 Summary………………………………………………………………………..30 3.2 Barconnie CF, Greater Buchanan Area, Grand Bassa County….. 32 3.2.1 General site description………………………………………………………. 32 3.2.2 Field operations……………………………………………………………….. 32 3.2.3 Forest condition……..………………………..……………………………….. 32 3.2.4 Key animal species……………………………………….…………………... 35 3.2.5 Ecological Integrity…………………………………………………………..... 39 3.2.6 Forest use and threats……………………..…………………………….…... 41 3.2.7 Summary…………………………………………….…………………...... 43 3.3 Kortor CF, District 4, Grand Bassa County……………………...... 45 3.3.1 General site description…………………………………………………….... 45 3.3.2 Field operations…………………………………………………..……….…... 45 3.3.3 Forest condition……….…………………………………………………..…... 46 3.3.4 Key animal species…………………………………………………...…….… 48 3.3.5 Ecological Integrity…………………………………………………………..... 52 3.3.6 Forest use and threats……………………………………………………….. 54 3.3.7 Summary………………………………………………………………….…... 57
3.4 Gblor CF, Tappita Area, Nimba County……………………...... 59 3.4.1 General site description…………………………………………………….... 59 3.4.2 Field operations…………………………………………………..……….…... 59 3.4.3 Forest condition……….…………………………………………………..…... 59 3.4.4 Key animal species…………………………………………………...…….… 61 3.4.5 Ecological Integrity…………………………………………………………..... 64 3.4.6 Forest use and threats……………………………………………………….. 66 3.4.7 Summary………………………………………………………………….…... 67
3.5 Big Gio Forest, Tappita Area, Nimba County………...………...... 69 3.5.1 General site description…………………………………………………….... 69 3.5.2 Field operations…………………………………………………..……….…...70 3.5.3 Forest condition……….…………………………………………………..…... 70 3.5.4 Key animal species…………………………………………………...…….… 74 3.5.5 Ecological Integrity…………………………………………………………..... 78 3.5.6 Forest use and threats………………………………………………………...81 3.5.7 Summary………………………………………………………………….….... 84
4. Conclusion………………………………………………………85
5. References…………………………………………………...…89
Annexes…………………………………………………………… 92 Annex 1 BAT and contact persons in the field…………………………………… 92 Annex 2 Data collection sheets……………………………………..……………... 93 Annex 3 Timetable field surveys……………………………………………….... 103 Annex 4 Personal data interviewees………..………………………………..…. 104 Annex 5 Big Gio Forest detailed data clan level……………………………...…108 Annex 6 Common local names of faunal indicator species………..………….. 118
ACRONYMS
AML: ArcelorMittal Liberia Limited
ARD: Association for Rural Development, Inc.
ATC: Atlantic Timber Company
BAT: FFI Biodiversity Assessment Team
CI: Conservation International
ENNR: East Nimba Nature Reserve (declared in 2003)
FDA: Forestry Development Authority
FFI: Fauna and Flora International
GEF: Global Environment Facility
IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature
LAC: Liberian Agriculture Company
LAMCO: Liberian American Swedish Minerals Company (a now-defunct corporation)
LFRAP: Liberia Forest Re-Assessment Project
LFSP: Liberia Forestry Support Program
LRCFP: Land Rights and Community Forestry Program
PROSPER: People, Rules and Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources
SCNL: Society for the Conservation of Nature of Liberia
SNP: Sapo National Park (gazetted in 1983)
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 3
1. INTRODUCTION
The Upper Guinean Rainforest (WHITE 1983), which stretches from southern Guinea and eastern Sierra Leone eastward through Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana into western Togo, is considered one of the world’s most important Biodiversity Hotspots (MYERS et al. 2000; BAKARR et al. 2004). In terms of species richness and endemism, this ecosystem is one of the most biologically diverse in Africa, e.g. harbors more than a quarter of Africa’s mammals and represents one of the seven Endemic Bird Areas (EBA) of western Africa (BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL 2012a; BORROW AND DEMEY 2008). The Upper Guinean Rainforest however is also one of the most critically fragmented forest regions on earth (CEPF 2000). Only 15 to 20 percent of its original forest cover, estimated at 420,000 km², remains intact today, the major part of which is made up by three main forest blocks. Liberia contains the largest proportion, with an estimated 42% of the remaining Upper Guinean Rainforest, and two of the three blocks, respectively. Côte d’Ivoire is estimated to hold 28%, including the third block, while Ghana, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Togo share the remaining 30%. A conservation priority-setting initiative for the Upper Guinean Forest Ecosystem in December 1999 – led by Conservation International (CI) with the participation of over 150 experts and the support of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – identified Liberia as the top priority country in humid West Africa from a conservation perspective. Home to more than 2000 vascular plant species, approximately 125 terrestrial mammal species, 590 bird species, 74 known reptiles and amphibians and over 1000 described insect species, Liberia’s forests also provide one of the last strongholds and the best chance of survival for several globally threatened species, including the West African Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus), Western Red Colobus (Procolobus badius badius), Pygmy Hippopotamus (Choeropsis liberiensis) and Jentink’s Duiker (Cephalophus jentinki). With 560 km of coastline, the country’s natural resources furthermore comprise marine and coastal biodiversity, including mangroves. Historically often regarded as swampy, mosquito-infested muddy wastelands, that should be cleared in interest of public health (AFROL 2002) or reclaimed for human settlements, it has emerged however, that mangroves are among the most productive terrestrial ecosystems and of high ecological importance (FAO 1994; UNEP 2007). Essential for shoreline protection and the prevention of flooding and erosion, mangroves offer shelter, food and breeding sites for freshwater and marine animals and birds. They have also been identified as effective carbon capturers and able to reduce methane emissions, and therefore play an important role in combatting climate change. Whereas most other West African countries have lost enormous amounts of their forest cover, (more than 80% of western Côte d’Ivoire, for example, has been logged during the recent past (CHATELAIN et al. 1996)), Liberia’s forests still are quite extensive. An analysis of the fragmentation and clearance of Liberia’s forests during 1986-2000 estimated the average deforestation rate at 0,2% per year, whereas it
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 4 was 20% in western Côte d’Ivoire (CHRISTIE et al. 2007). However, as Liberia emerges from conflict and reconstitutes its agricultural and economic sectors, the country’s forests and biodiversity face increasing threats. With large forest concessions being granted for logging, oil palm production and mining of iron ore and gold, these commercial enterprises have a serious impact on the forests’ ecological balance, not only directly through deforestation, forest degradation and fragmentation but by providing access to previously inaccessible forest areas. This in turn encourages the spread of shifting cultivation and hunting.
PROSPER and scope of report The USAID PROSPER project focuses on 10 sites in Liberia and builds on the development of community forestry that was started in 2007 under the USAID Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LRCFP) and continued under the US Forest Service (USFS) Liberia Forestry Support Program (LFSP). The project includes a strong biodiversity conservation component, and requires that PROSPER activities directly address threats to biodiversity (USAID 2012a). FFI has been subcontracted to, inter alia, carry out an initial rapid biodiversity assessment of the new sites to identify conservation values within the proposed CF sites and to set a baseline as reference for the evaluation of the project’s impact and achievements during and by the end of the project. A “site” is defined at the clan level, the management unit for the community forestland use. Seven new sites were selected in addition to the three existing sites established under LRCFP (USAID 2012a):
(1) Sayee Community, northern Nimba, adjacent to the existing Gba site (Sayee CF) (2) Barconnie Community in Grand Bassa County (Barconnie CF) (3) Kpogblen Community in Grand Bassa County (Kortor CF) (4) Gblor Community in Nimba County (Gblor CF and Big Gio CF) (5) Sehzuplay Community in Nimba County (Big Gio CF) (6) Yourpea (Beatuo) Community in Nimba County (Big Gio CF) (7) Quilla Community in Nimba County (Big Gio CF)
This report presents the results of the biodiversity assessment of all new sites. The Big Gio Forest is under jurisdiction of four clans, but forms one contiguous forest block and therefore was assessed as a single unit. The map below shows the location of the PROSPER CF sites.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 5
[Insert Map]
Location of PROSPER CF sites.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 6
2. METHODOLOGY FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 2.1 Approach The biodiversity assessment was carried out by the FFI biodiversity assessment team (henceforth BAT), consisting of three persons: the Technical Advisor for Biomonitoring and two Field Assistants. In the field the BAT was supported by PROSPER field staff who acted as community mobilizers and facilitators during meetings and exercises. For details please refer to Annex 1. Conducting a biodiversity assessment at this stage of the project was intended to identify conservation values in the proposed CF sites and to set a baseline as reference for the evaluation of the project’s impact and achievements during and by the end of the project. Rapid assessment tools were used that are adequate to offer a general overview with no pretension of providing detailed surveys on specific taxa. The assessment focused on three main aspects: (i) Rapid assessment of forest condition (type, intactness and use) (ii) Rapid assessment of faunal indicator species (mainly mammals and birds) (iii) Identification of major threats to biodiversity in the respective areas
The relevant information was collected through a combination of field surveys and desk review, comprising the following methods: a) Participatory mapping exercise with local villagers b) Group interviews of local villagers c) Forest walks d) Use of (updated satellite imagery) maps of the proposed forests (as far as available, see 2.4) e) Desk study and literature review to collect any other relevant information on the respective areas.
The key source of information for the biodiversity assessment was derived from the knowledge of the local stakeholder communities, which have an impact on and interest in the respective forest blocks. Therefore the field visits comprise the main part of the assessment activities and are outlined in more detail below.
2.2 Field survey methods Field surveys comprised the following four main steps: Step 1: Identification of target areas Step 2: Initial village meeting and identification of key informants Step 3: Focus group exercise: participatory mapping and group interview Step 4: Forest walks
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 7
2.2.1 Step 1: Identification of target areas As a first step, for each site the target villages and operation areas for steps 2-4 had to be identified. This was mainly done upon consultation with the PROSPER field staff, who already had a good or at least basic knowledge of the sites and surrounding areas. Further, two PROSPER reports were consulted: the Final Site Assessment Report (USAID 2012a) and the Barcoline Community Profiling Report (USAID 2012b) which only became available in late September. Where available, maps were used to get an overview of villages which with regard to their geographic position were most likely to have a direct influence on the respective forest (e.g. by using forest resources, farming), and therefore could provide the most relevant information for the biodiversity assessment. In addition to location, proximity to the forest and accessibility, the size of the village constituted another selection criterion, i.e. the village had to comprise a sufficient number of households to allow the minimum required number of key informants (on average 10-20 key informants per site). In areas with many but small settlements around the forest block, informants from the different villages were gathered at a central meeting point for the focus group exercise (Step 3).
2.2.2 Step 2: Initial village meeting and identification of key informants Once the target areas had been identified, initial village meetings were held to (i) inform the community on the purpose of the mission, (ii) provide them with general background information on biodiversity assessment and (iii) identify the key informants for the focus group exercise and forest walks. In order to get the most relevant information on the forest condition, faunal indicator species and threats, a stratified sampling method was used, focusing on hunters, preferably longtime residents who were familiar with the area. Moreover participants were selected from a range of different ethnic groups in order to reflect different social levels in terms of wealth and influential position within the community and to account for the potential of different hunting methods, taboos, education levels etc.. The identified key informants formed the target group for the subsequent data collection, i.e. the focus group exercise (and in part the forest walks, see below), but was also attended by additional persons such as town chiefs, elders and other “observers”. On average 10 persons were selected per village and/or in total 20 persons per site, respectively.
2.2.3 Step 3: Focus group exercise: participatory mapping and group interview The main objective of the focus group exercise was to get a broad overview and rapidly collect general information on the forest condition, faunal indicator species and threats. It comprised two components, the participatory mapping and the focus group interview. Before the actual exercises started, the BAT recorded personal data of the participants and gave the focus group a basic introduction to biodiversity, conservation, the assessment methods and the purpose of the respective exercises.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 8
The participatory mapping took on average 2-3 hours and the interview 3-4 hours, so the whole exercise could usually be completed within one day.
2.2.3.1 Participatory Mapping The mapping exercise focused on the forest block of interest or at least on the respective section used by the focus group. Based on a satellite image and/or maps of the area, the focus group, supported by the BAT, drew a sketch map of the forest block and settlements on the ground. Participants were then asked to identify essential features such as forest types, key wildlife habitats, use of forest areas for what kind of activities etc. During the mapping exercise, the BAT filled a forest description form (Annex 2A) and took notes on relevant ancillary information, which was not reflected on the map. Finally, when the focus group had agreed on the final version of the sketch map, the BAT transferred a copy of the map to flipchart paper. A transparent coordinate system was superimposed on the map to facilitate the allocation and analysis of spatial data (also of the one obtained during the subsequent interview). Box 1. Summary of main steps of mapping exercise
- Introduce main principles of mapping and explain key features of the available satellite image / map of the area - Draw a sketch map of the forest block based on satellite image/map - Identify key landmarks (e.g. settlements, rivers, roads) - Focus group should sketch in the boundary of the forest block they know/use
- Focus group should describe the forest types which can be found within the forest block, based on criteria such as age, tree size (i.e. height and stem), degree of canopy closure, tree density, density of understory and climbers, dominant tree species if known, and identify these types on the map - Focus group should identify areas with high density of wildlife
- Focus group should identify the forest areas they use / specify the purpose of use - Focus group should sketch in the main areas used by the villagers for farming - Focus group should identify threats to / degree of disturbance of the different forest areas (past and present, such as logging, mining, uncontrolled forest fires)
2.2.3.2 Focus Group Interview The participatory mapping provided essential information on the forest condition, use and threats. Subsequently the focus group was interviewed in order to obtain more details on the faunal diversity. The intent of this exercise was to (i) get an overview of the species present in the forest, (ii) identify the common local names and make sure that the key informants all use the same name for the same animal (this was of particular importance for species identification during the forest walk) and (iii) to collect data on the relative abundance, distribution, and trends of faunal indicator species. Interviews were conducted using interpreters where necessary using the questionnaire (Annex 2B). The interview was structured as follows:
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 9
Part I: Freelisting The interview started with the general question “What animals can be found in your forest?”. The participants were then asked to list any species that spontaneously came to their mind. Whenever possible the common English names were noted. If participants didn’t know the English names, the BAT recorded the local name instead. It can be assumed that animals spontaneously listed - especially at the beginning of the exercise - are (i) of particular importance for the community (e.g. as protein source, pests raiding crops), and/or (ii) the most common ones in the forest. Further the freelist also supports correct data collection in the following part. For example, one community mentioned a “Mountain Deer” during freelisting, but in the second part didn’t identify any of the duikers as this particular animal. Detailed questions finally revealed that the Mountain Deer refers to the Ogilby’s Duiker, which wasn’t identified as a known species from the picture alone (see also section 2.4, paragraph 3).
Part II: Identification of and information on indicator species The second part of the interview focused on selected faunal indicator species (see Table 1). In total 40 species (31 mammals, 7 birds, 2 reptiles) were included, based on criteria such as - Global conservation importance, indicated by IUCN status (IUCN 2012). Out of the 40 species, 5 are classified as Endangered (EN), 8 as Vulnerable (VU), 9 as Near Threatened (NT), and 17 as Least Concern (LC). One species, i.e. the Slender-snouted Crocodile is Data Deficient (DD), meaning that there is inadequate information to assess its risk of extinction. - Local / regional endemism, range-restricted species (e.g. Nimba Otter Shrew) - Indicator function with regard to habitat type, ecological integrity, forest intactness, disturbance. For example, large mammals such as elephants or leopards depend on contiguous forest blocks, duikers are both vulnerable to snare and gun hunting, certain primate species depend on high, closed primary forests (e.g. Red Colobus, Diana Monkeys), while others easily cope with disturbed secondary forest or farmbush (e.g. Spot-nosed Monkeys). - Potentially occurring at the respective sites, based on the existence of suitable habitats - Easy to recognize and to identify
The species numbered 1-38 were used for the assessment at all proposed CF sites, while the West African Manatee (No. 39), an aquatic, mostly marine mammal (also known as “sea cow”) that sometimes enters watercourses into mangrove forests, was included in the interview in Barconnie CF, and the Nimba Otter Shrew (No. 40) in the assessment of the Sayee CF in Nimba.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 10
Table 1. List of faunal indicator species for biodiversity assessment. IUCN No. English name Scientific name status1 1 Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus EN 2 Black-and-White Colobus Colobus polykomos VU 3 Olive Colobus Procolobus verus NT 4 Red Colobus Procolobus badius badius EN 5 Campbell's Monkey Cercopithecus campbelli LC 6 Diana Monkey Cercopithecus diana diana VU 7 Spot-nosed Monkey Cercopithecus petaurista LC 8 Sooty Mangabey Cercocebus atys atys NT 9 Elephant Loxodonta africana cyclotis VU 10 Pygmy Hippopotamus Choeropsis liberiensis EN 11 Leopard Panthera pardus NT 12 Golden Cat Caracal aurata NT 13 Bongo Tragelaphus eurycerus NT 14 Buffalo Syncerus caffer nanus LC 15 Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus LC 16 Jentink's Duiker Cephalophus jentinki EN 17 Yellow-backed Duiker Cephalophus silvicultor LC 18 Zebra Duiker Cephalophus zebra VU 19 Maxwell's Duiker Philantomba maxwellii LC 20 Black Duiker Cephalophus niger LC 21 Bay Duiker Cephalophus dorsalis LC 22 Ogilby's Duiker Cephalophus ogilbyi brookei VU 23 Royal Antelope Neotragus pygmaeus LC 24 Water Chevrotain Hyemoschus aquaticus LC 25 Red River Hog Potamochoerus porcus LC 26 Giant Forest Hog Hylochoerus meinertzhageni LC 27 Giant Pangolin Smutsia gigantea NT 28 Long-tailed Pangolin Uromanis tetradactyla LC 29 Tree Pangolin Phataginus tricuspis NT 30 Black-casqued Hornbill Ceratogymna atrata LC 31 Yellow-casqued Hornbill Ceratogymna elata NT 32 White-crested Hornbill Tropicranus albocristatus LC 33 Brown-cheeked Hornbill Bycanistes cylindricus NT 34 African Pied Hornbill Tockus semifasciatus LC 35 Piping Hornbill Bycanistes fistulator LC 36 White-breasted Guineafowl Agelastes meleagrides VU 37 Dwarf Crocodile Osteolaemus tetraspis VU 38 Slender-snouted Crocodile Mecistops cataphractus DD 39 West African Manatee Trichechus senegalensis VU 40 Nimba Otter Shrew Micropotamogale lamottei EN 1 IUCN Red List (2012). Classifications: EN: Endangered; VU: Vulnerable; NT: Near Threatened; LC: Least Concern; DD: Data Deficient
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 11
Pictures of all species were shown to the focus groups to determine whether they knew the different animals and to record the commonly used name. The pictorial charts also included several alien species, such as the Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) or Ader’s Duiker (Cephalophus adersi) to check the reliability, extent and precision of the hunter’s identification skills. However these pictures turned out to be more confusing than helpful and therefore were omitted after the first two interviews. If the focus group knew the shown species, several questions on its presence, distribution, relative abundance and trends were asked, before moving on to the next species (Annex 2B).
Part III: Ranking exercise on selected indicator species Finally, a ranking exercise based on relative abundance was carried out for selected species within three taxonomic groups (primates - 7 species, ungulates – 10 species, hornbills – 6 species). These data were used to calculate an Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex) score (see details in section 2.3.2). For each taxonomic group, a matrix was completed to determine the relative abundance of the single species relative to other species (see Annex 2B). Each species, column by column, was compared against the species arranged in the rows below it. Therefore the BAT asked the focus group to look at the picture of species A and compare it with species B, and decide which one of both is more abundant in their forest. A “1” was inserted if the species atop the column heading was more abundant than the species to the left in the row heading. A “0” in the cell indicated that the species atop the column heading was less abundant than the corresponding row heading. If two species were equally abundant, a value of 0.5 was entered in both cells. The matrix below shows an example for primates, in which the Black-and-White Colobus is rated to be more abundant than the Red Colobus and the Olive Colobus, but less abundant than the Campbell’s Monkey and Spot-nosed Monkey, and equally abundant as the Sooty Mangabey and the Diana Monkey.
After the matrix had been completed, the total score was calculated for each species by column and entered in the bottom row.
Example of ranking exercise on Primates. Spot- B-and-W Red Olive Campbell Sooty Diana nosed Primates Colobus Colobus Colobus Monkey Mangabey Monkey Monkey B-and-W Colobus 0 0 1 0.5 0.5 1 Red Colobus 1 Olive Colobus 1 Campbell's Monkey 0 Sooty Mangabey 0.5 Diana Monkey 0.5 Spot-nosed Monkey 0 Sum 3
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 12
2.2.4 Step 4: Forest walks In order to crosscheck and “ground-truth” some of the information obtained from the focus groups, the third part of the field visit consisted of a one-day forest walk through areas which, based on satellite imagery and data collected during the focus group exercise, had been identified as being of particular conservation interest. The BAT carried out the forest walks together with 3-5 key informants, who were familiar with the area and capable of detecting and identifying animal signs. In order to cover a certain distance and a variety of habitats, while at the same time maintaining the predetermined direction, a mixture of existing foot paths and self-cut ways were followed. Walking speed was slow to allow for the search and detection of animal signs. GPS devices were used for navigation, tracking of the route and calculation of the total walking distance. Further the team was equipped with binoculars and a digital camera. Due to time constraints, these short field trips could not give a representative sample of the biodiversity and general forest condition of the whole area, but served as crosscheck or “snapshot reference” of the information provided by the interviews and satellite image. During the walks, the field team went slowly and searched for animal signs and indications of human impact. The BAT recorded two main data sets:
(1) A basic running forest profile and its major changes along the route, such as forest type, degree of closure, degree of intactness, topography, water resources and other key features (Annex 2C) (2) All direct and indirect signs of the faunal indicator species and human activities, including type and age of signs, number of individuals, habitat type, GPS coordinates and weather conditions (Annex 2D)
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 13
2.3 Analysis
2.3.1 General data analysis The forest type was classified based on criteria such as age, tree size, canopy closure and understory density (e.g. WHITE 1983; WHITE AND EDWARDS 2000). Primary Forest refers to untouched, pristine forest that exists in its original condition and that has been relatively unaffected by human activities or other disturbance. It is characterized by large, old trees, a high unbroken canopy and a relative sparse vegetation cover on the ground. Secondary Forest is a forest that has been disturbed in a wide scale, either naturally (by fires, floods, land-slides, wind throw etc.) or by humans (logging, clearcutting, slash-and-burn etc.), and then left to regenerate. Depending on the level of degradation, Secondary Forest generally is characterized by a less developed canopy structure, young and smaller trees and dense ground vegetation. As times goes by, it will change gradually, passing through several successive stages from Young through Mature to Old Secondary, and finally will turn into a Primary Forest again. These transitions are fluxionary and it is not always easy to determine the actual stage. Especially the difference between Old Secondary and Primary Forest is difficult, if not impossible to assess; in fact the rainforests in Africa are generally very Old Secondary Forests (WHITE AND EDWARDS 2000 p. 120ff). In this study the following types were distinguished: (1) Primary / Old Secondary Forest (as a combined class) (2) Mature Secondary Forest, (3) Young Secondary Forest and (4) Farmbush, i.e. an open, regenerating area which has recently been used by humans for plantation, usually lacks of trees, but mainly contains weedy plants, creepers and shrubs. Apart from the forest type, the forest condition was evaluated by the overall intactness (i.e. the consistency/disturbance of the forest structure, for example by farming inside the forest) and the degree of fragmentation. Given the nature of a rapid assessment, all parameters (tree height, stem diameter, canopy closure, size of degraded areas etc.) were assessed in a qualitative descriptive way, and by using distinct, ordinal scaled categories for quantification where applicable. If more than one focus group exercise was carried out at one CF site, the information was combined for the whole site. Where necessary and possible, average values were calculated (e.g. if one focus group rated an animal species as scarce, while the second rated it as abundant, it was rated as intermediate for the whole site). In some of these cases the results of the single interviews are presented and discussed separately. Animal species were classified as present if the latest record was not more than a year ago. For elder records the species’ presence was rated as “Past” and unknown species (or unknown for the area) as “Never”.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 14
The distance covered by the forest walks refers to the respective part inside the forest of interest. In some areas it took some time for the team to reach the forest edge from the villages; this distance is not included, i.e. survey length and data collection started/ended at the forest entering point/leaving point.
2.3.2 Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex) The EcoIntex was developed from a rapid faunal assessment in Sapo National Park (SNP) in 2001 and later also applied in the Liberian Forest Re-assessment Project (WAITKUWAIT 2003; WAITKUWAIT AND SUTER 2003). It is based on ratios of indicator species relative to one another within certain taxa (primates, ungulates, hornbills), and considers the species composition in western SNP in 2001 to reflect the optimum stage of ecological integrity, in terms of an in general intact, undisturbed primary rainforest. Though this method has its limitations and is not without caveats, it allows to some extent an assessment of the ecological integrity of a forest compared to the reference site SNP. The Index is calculated as follows: 1. Determine the relative abundance of indicator species relative to each other The following species need to be included: Primates (7): Black-and-White Colobus, Red Colobus, Olive Colobus, Diana Monkey, Campbell’s Monkey, Sooty, Mangabey, Spot-nosed Monkey Ungulates (10): Jentink’s Duiker, Bay Duiker, Ogilby’s Duiker, Zebra Duiker, Maxwell’s Duiker, Black Duiker, Yellow-backed Duiker, Bushbuck, Water Chevrotain, Royal Antelope Hornbills (6): Black-casqued Hornbill, Yellow-casqued Hornbill, Brown- cheeked Hornbill, Piping Hornbill, African Pied Hornbill, White- crested Hornbill At SNP many of the interviewed hunters did not clearly distinguish between the Black-casqued and Yellow-casqued Hornbill (which do in fact look very similar), but considered them to be one and the same species, so both species were combined for the development of the Index (WAITKUWAIT 2003). To allow comparisons, the same method was applied during this assessment; moreover the same problem was encountered in some of the CF sites. Within each taxon, the relative abundance of the single species relative to each other was compared step-by-step, by using the above explained matrix (page 11). Where species A was rated to be more abundant than species B, species A received a score of 1 and species B a score of 0. If 2 species were rated as equally abundant, both received a score of 0.5. If a species was determined to be locally extinct or absent, it was not rated against the others, but received a total score of 0.
2. Calculate the total score for each species by adding up its single scores. Table 2 shows the results for SNP in 2001 (WAITKUWAIT 2003), which are used as a reference base for the calculation of the index at the sample site.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 15
Table 2. Total scores for indicator species of ranking exercise at SNP in 2001. Primates Duikers Hornbills Black-casqued and Red Colobus 6 Maxwell's Duiker 9 4 Yellow- casqued Hornbill Sooty Mangabey 5 Zebra Duiker 8 Brown-cheeked Hornbill 3 Diana Monkey 4 Bay Duiker 7 White-crested Hornbill 2 B-and-W Colobus 3 Ogilby's Duiker 6 African Pied Hornbill 1 Campbell's Monkey 2 Jentink's Duiker 5 Piping Hornbill 0 Spot-nosed Monkey 1 Water Chevrotain 4 Olive Colobus 0 Black Duiker 3 Yellow-backed Duiker 2 Royal Antelope 1 Bushbuck 0 Total 21 45 10
3. Calculate the EcoIntex for each species at the sample site, by multiplying the species’ total score at the sample site by the respective score of that species at Sapo and subsequently taking the square root of the product. The sum of all the single species’ EcoIntex within one taxon results in the taxon’s EcoIntex. The following table (Table 3) shows an example for the calculation of the Primate EcoIntex at a sample site.
Table 3. Calculation of the Primate EcoIntex at a sample site.
Species Score and Score EcoIntex EcoIntex SNP Sample Site Sample Site
Red Colobus 6 3 4.24 Sooty Mangabey 5 5 5 Diana Monkey 4 4 4 B-and-W Colobus 3 0 0 Campbell's Monkey 2 6 3.46 Spot-nosed Monkey 1 2 1.41 Olive Colobus 0 1 0 EcoIntex Taxon 21 18.11
The Primate Ecological Integrity Index of the sample site is 18.11 compared to 21 at SNP. A site with exactly the same relative abundance ranking as in SNP would achieve a score of 21. It is not possible to score higher than SNP. This is only a relative ranking, i.e. the value of the EcoIntex itself does not have a meaning with regard to the species’ true population sizes or densities, but provides a means to quantify differences between sites. In general, if two sites have the same EcoIntex for a species group, the ecological niche occupied by those species is presumed to be in roughly similar ecological condition at both sites. If a taxon’s EcoIntex at a sample site is different from the reference site SNP, then the sample site’s EcoIntex will change in proportion to the increased scores of species with low scores at SNP. This
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 16 means that if a species low-ranking at SNP has a higher score at the sample site, it will contribute relatively little to the sample site’s EcoIntex, indicating a different (presumably negative) ecological status in the latter. This is because in fact the high ranking species at SNP in general depend on and are indicators for undisturbed, high-canopy primary rainforests (e.g. Red Colobus, Diana Monkey, Zebra Duiker, Bay Duiker, Jentink’s Duiker, Black-casqued and Yellow-casqued Hornbill). In contrast lower ranking species can also survive in disturbed regenerating areas (e.g. Campbell’s Monkey, Spot-nosed Monkey, Black Duiker, Royal Antelope, African Pied Hornbill; see for example KINGDON 1997 for general overview).
2.4 Limitations
There were several challenges and constraints, which do not diminish the overall outcome, but have to be taken into consideration with regard to the scope of the assessment. - There was a considerable delay in the site selection, which according to PROSPER’s statement of work was due 6 weeks after project start (07.05.12), i.e. by mid of June 2012, but was not completed until early September 2012. This entailed two major constraints on the biodiversity assessment. First, despite that significant delay it was not possible to postpone the scheduled submission date for the biodiversity assessment, which was maintained for early November 2012. This considerably limited the time available for the assessment. Second, the delay also meant that the assessment had to take place during the peak of the rainy season, the most unsuitable time for field work. It was not just difficult to reach some project sites due to challenging road conditions, but bad weather conditions also had an impact on the feasibility of forest walks and quality of data collection. - The maps required for the assessment (updated satellite images at a reasonable scale, showing forest cover, vegetation types, the exact location, size and extent of the respective forest blocks as well as settlements), were not available at the time of the assessment and report writing. The preliminary maps that were provided were of limited value, as they did not contain the aforementioned features, which are important for a comprehensive evaluation of the conservation value of a forest. Though some limited information such as proxies for the estimated forest size could be gleaned from the Final Site Assessment Report (USAID 2012a), other important data such as geographic position within / relative to other forest blocks (potential connectivity criteria), actual forest cover, degree of fragmentation etc. were lacking. - Due to time constraints and bad weather conditions, key information on the forests and biodiversity was mainly collected by interviews. In general, interviews are a useful tool in rapid assessment and conservation research, and can provide a valuable complement to field surveys (e.g. WHITE AND EDWARDS 2000). Despite providing a straightforward means of data collection, however, interviews also have their limitations and bear some uncertainties. Information gathered in interviews can be inaccurate and out-dated, and interviewee reliability is notoriously difficult to assess. Informants may be reluctant to share
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 17
information in the presence of a foreigner or fear the consequences of sharing information about sensitive topics such as hunting. There are several counterstrategies to avoid or mitigate these issues (for example questions have to be neutral and non-leading, interviewers need to be well-trained and experienced etc.), see WHITE AND EDWARDS 2000. All of these were taken into consideration in the biodiversity assessment. Nevertheless, in some cases there remained some limitations in the data. With regard to species identification, for example, informants confused some species or were not able to reliably identify them by the picture. These issues and others are addressed in the sections below.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 18
3. Results
3.1 Sayee CF, Sanniquellie, Nimba County 3.1.1 General site description Under the LRCFP three community forests were established in Northern Nimba around the East Nimba Nature Reserve (ENNR), which will also be included in the PROSPER project: the Gba Community Forest, Bleih Community Forest and the Zor Community Forest (USAID 2011a, 2011b). The three forests, along with the ENNR and the wider region, are part of the Mount Nimba Range on the border of Liberia, Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire, one of the major elevations in West Africa and an area which from a global conservation perspective is of highest conservation concern (BAKARR et al. 2001, RICKETTS et al. 2005). These mountains are dominated by rainforests on the foothills and ravines, and montane grasslands at higher elevations, the latter probably being the rarest West African habitat type (LAMOTTE 1998, LAMOTTE AND ROY 2003). The Mount Nimba Range is known to be generally very rich in terms of diversity and endemism (LAMOTTE AND ROY 2003). Its high species richness is mainly due to the huge variety of different habitats, whereas the high number of endemic species may be attributed to the mountains’ presumed history as a rainforest refugium in Pleistocene and pre-Pleistocene dry periods (e.g. POORTER et al. 2004). Key biodiversity comprise over 100 mammals, about 400 bird species, a known herpetofauna of at least 66 frog and 52 snake species (making it the most diverse frog and snake area in West Africa), about 600 butterflies, and among these taxa numerous globally threatened and / or range-restricted, endemic species such as the Endangered Nimba Otter Shrew (Micropotamogale lamottei), Critically Endangered Lamotte’s Round-Leaf Bat (Hipposideros lamottei), Vulnerable Nimba Flycatcher (Melaenornis annamarulae) and Critically Endangered Nimba Toad (Nimbaphrynoides occidentalis) (e.g. LAMOTTE AND ROY 2003, RÖDEL et al. 2004, AML 2010, AML AND CI 2012; AML 2012 in prep.)
The Liberian part of Mount Nimba Range comprises two main ranges and their surroundings - the East Nimba Range, including the ENNR, and the West Nimba Range, part of which is AML’s mining concession area. The Sayee Clan site is located between the two ranges, approximately 10 km north of Sanniquellie and between the Gba and Bleih Community forests, i.e. also part of the wider Mount Nimba Range. The selection of this site served to expand the area at the landscape level where PROSPER activities will be conducted (USAID 2012a). The forest of interest is called Dehton Forest, and is situated east of the main road from Sanniquellie to Yekepa, between two major towns of the community, Sehyikimpa and Zolowee (Figure 1).
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 19
Dehton Forest
Figure 1. Location of Sayee CF / Dehton Forest in northern Nimba County. Maps modified, based on the ones provided by PROSPER.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 20
3.1.2 Field operations Field activities in the Sayee Community comprised two focus group exercises and two forest walks: - A focus group exercise was carried out in Sehyikimpa on the 18th of September 2012, attended by in total 22 persons; the main focus group consisted of 9 key informants from 3 towns (Sehyikimpa, Suakazu and Gbobayee). - A focus group exercise was carried out in Zolowee on the 19th of September 2012, including 15 participants, of which 11 formed the focus group. Though people from Mankinto had been invited as well, only people from Zolowee joined this meeting. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the southern part of Dehton Forest on the 20th of September 2012. Survey length was 3.5 kilometers and 7 hours 22 minutes, respectively. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the northern part of Dehton Forest on the 21rst of September 2012, with a total survey length of 2.5 kilometers and 5 hours 28 minutes, respectively.
3.1.3 Forest condition The mapping exercise revealed that the forest of interest, called Dehton Forest, is located on – and restricted to – the mountain area half way between Sehyikimpa and Zolowee (Figure 2; in Figure 1 above approximately at the level of Mankinto, i.e. in reality the forest block is much smaller than indicated by the sketch map).
“Thick Bush“
Main creeks
Figure 2. Sketch map of Dehton Forest (18.09.12), Sayee CF, North Nimba.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 21
Referred to the satellite map’s scale, this mountain expands over an area of approximately 3.26 x 1.96 km. The proposed CF size is estimated at 600-700 ha. The highest altitude recorded during the forest walks was 760m. The major part of the mountain forest consists of Primary Forest, which, apart from some minor impacts, still seems to be largely intact (Figure 3a). It was reported that during the LAMCO operational period (1964-1989), logs were extracted from the southwestern lowland parts for railroad construction, and in 1992 an uncontrolled forest fire broke out and spread over the southwestern area of the mountain. A small patch on top of the ridge in the west was used in the late 1990s for growing various crops, because of the favorable microclimate at higher elevations, but abandoned later. The focus groups further mentioned a difficult to penetrate “thick bush” in the eastern part of Dehton (see Figure 2), which was also identified as an area with high wildlife density. This site was visited during one of the forest walks and turned out to be a relatively open, rocky area in the upper regions, densely covered by a thick mat of shrubs and climbers (Figure 3b), which due to its relative impenetrability by humans could serve as a refuge for certain animal species. On the lower slopes and the lowland areas of Dehton Forest, the forest is encircled by a belt or mosaic of farms, fallows/farmbush and Young Secondary Forest. Both focus groups stressed the importance of Dehton’s water resources for the community.
Figure 3. a) Dehton Forest b) “Thick bush” within Dehton Forest
3.1.4 Key animal species Table 4 shows the results of the faunal indicator species data analysis. A list of the common local names of the animal species is attached in Annex 6. Twenty-four of the 39 potentially occurring species (61.54 %) were reported to be still present today in Dehton Forest. These include, inter alia, 5 primates, 7 ungulates, leopard, 2 pangolins, the 6 hornbill species as well as both crocodile species. Ten of the 24 are classified as threatened: 2 listed as Endangered (Chimpanzee and Nimba Otter Shrew), 2 as Vulnerable (Ogilby’s Duiker and Dwarf Crocodile) and 6 as Near Threatened. Chimpanzees were also heard during the forest walks and several
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 22 recently built nests were found. Six of the 39 species were present in the past in the Dehton Forest, but all have to be considered locally extinct, as they have not been recorded since 1989. The one exception is the Black-and-White Colobus, whose latest record dates back to 2009 suggesting that they may still be in existence albeit in very low numbers. According to the interviewees, 9 of the 39 species never were present in Dehton area; 2 of these, the Elephant and the Pygmy Hippo, might in fact have never occurred in the wider region. Available information on the historical presence of the Pygmy Hippo in this part of the Mount Nimba Range is contradictory, as on the one hand it has been reported to be locally extirpated (AML 2010, p. 24), while according to a recently reviewed IUCN SSC distribution map it never occurred as far north as Nimba (MALLON et al. 2011). The remaining 7 of the 9 absent species however have been recorded in adjacent areas, e.g. mainly in ENNR (overview see AML 2010, p. 23-33). One-third of the 24 present species were also recorded during the forest walks, mostly ungulates that were identified by their tracks. One Maxwell Duiker was seen, and Chimpanzees and the African Pied Hornbill heard.
Looking at the species’ relative abundance, the most common species according to the interviews seem to be the Chimpanzee, White-crested and African Pied Hornbill. These were also the only ones with reported increasing trends over the past 10 years, which was explained by the fact that these animals are not hunted. For the Chimpanzee however this applies only for the data of Zolowee, where people seem to have a taboo on hunting this particular species, while people of Sehyikimpa don’t. Accordingly, interviewees of Sehyikimpa said that the chimpanzee’s population size has decreased over the past 10 years, due to hunting. Four species - three duikers and the Black-casqued Hornbill - were rated as intermediately abundant, and the remaining 17 as scarce, all showing decreasing trends, caused by local hunting (see sub-section 3.1.6 below). Impacts from the mining companies such as habitat destruction and noise, were also said to be responsible for the decline, namely of the Olive Colobus and the Black-and-White Colobus. As an additional noteworthy record it has to be remarked that the interviewees both at Sehyikimpa and Zolowee mentioned the presence of the White-necked Rockfowl (Picathartes gymnocephalus), a globally threatened bird species, which now has a highly fragmented distribution; the majority of its breeding colonies are extremely small and isolated, many close to the minimum for long-term viability (BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL 2012b).
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 23
Table 4. Faunal key species analysis for Sayee CF, Dehton Forest.
Relative Trend IUCN Type of records and age No. Species Presence Abundance past Reason status See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Chimpanzee EN Yes − 0 − 0 1 0 3 1.15 ↓S ↑Z S: Hunting Z: Taboo 2 Olive Colobus NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting, habitat loss, mining 3 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 4 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 5 Sooty Mangabey NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 6 Leopard NT Yes − − − − − 4 1 − ↓ Hunting 7 Bushbuck LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 1 0.19 ↓ Hunting 8 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 1989 1 0.58 ↓ Hunting 9 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes 0 − − 0 − 0 2 2.12 ↓ Hunting 10 Black Duiker LC Yes − − 0 0 − 0 2 0.96 ↓ Hunting 11 Bay Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 2 1.54 ↓ Hunting 12 Ogilby's Duiker VU Yes − − − − − 4 1 ↓ Hunting 13 Royal Antelope LC Yes − − − 0 − 2 1 0.19 ↓ Hunting 14 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 15 Tree Pangolin NT Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 16 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 1 2 − ↓ Hunting 17 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 18 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − →S ↑Z Not hunted 19 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ not specified 20 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.38 ↑ Not hunted 21 Piping Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 22 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes − − − − − 2 1 − ↓ Hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 24
23 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Yes − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting 24 Nimba Otter Shrew EN Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 25 Black–and-White Colobus VU Past − − − − − 2009 0 − ↓ Hunting / impacts by mining 26 Red Colobus EN Past − − − − − 1989 0 − − Hunting 27 Diana Monkey VU Past − − − − − 1989 0 − − Hunting 28 Red River Hog LC Past − − − − − 1950 0 − − not specified 29 Giant Pangolin NT Past − − − − − 1989 0 − − not specified 30 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Past − − − − − 1989 0 − − Hunting 31 Elephant VU Never − − − − − − − − − − 32 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Never − − − − − − − − − − 33 Golden Cat NT Never − − − − − − − − − − 34 Bongo NT Never − − − − − − − − − − 35 Buffalo LC Never − − − − − − − − − − 36 Jentink's Duiker EN Never − − − − − − − − − − 37 Zebra Duiker VU Never − − − − − − − − − − 38 Water Chevrotain LC Never − − − − − − − − − − 39 Giant Forest Hog LC Never − − − − − − − − − − KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted. Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 25
3.1.5 Ecological Integrity Index Table 5 shows the Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex) for the three animal groups and the single species in Dehton Forest, compared to the reference site Sapo National Park (a-c), and other forest sites (d), which have been assessed by the same method during the Liberia Forest Re-assessment Project in 2003 (WAITKUWAIT 2003). The sub-tables a) - c) list the results of the interviews both at Sehyikimpa and Zolowee, as well as a combined value for the whole site, which was calculated as the average and is expressed as a percentage of the corresponding EcoIntex value at SNP. This combined value was also used for the comparison of sites in sub-table 5d.
Table 5. Ecological Integrity Index of a)-c) the selected taxa and key species compared to SNP, and d) the three taxa at different sites, as % of the EcoIntex at SNP. Table a) – c) show the results for both Sehyikimpa and Zolowee, as well as the combined EcoIntex for the whole site (i.e. the average), expressed as % of SNP.
Sehyi Sehyi a) Primates SNP Zolowee b) Hornbills SNP Zolowee kimpa kimpa
Red Colobus 6 0 0 Black-casqued & 4 2.83 2.83 Sooty Mangabey 5 0 2.24 Yellow-casqued HB Diana Monkey 4 0 0 Brown-cheeked 3 0 0 Black & White Colobus 3 0 0 Hornbill Campbell's Monkey 2 1.41 2.83 White-crested Hornbill 2 1.41 0 Spot-nosed Monkey 1 1.41 1.73 African Pied Hornbill 1 1.73 1.73 Olive Colobus 0 0 0 Piping Hornbill 0 0 0 Total 21 2.82 6.8 Total 10 5.97 4.56
% SNP 13.43 32.38 % SNP 59.70 45.60 % SNP combined Sayee CF 22.90 % SNP combined Sayee CF 52.65
Sehyi c) Duikers SNP Zolowee d) Site Comparison (as % of EcoIntex SNP) kimpa Maxwell's Duiker 9 6.71 5.20 Site Prim Duik HB Zebra Duiker 8 0 0 Bay Duiker 7 4.58 2.65 Sapo NP 100 100 100 Ogilby's Duiker 6 2.45 0 Cestos-Senkwehn 90.14 87.02 73.70 Jentink's Duiker 5 0 0 Cestos-Gbi 91.29 87.58 79.23 Water Chevrotain 4 0 0 Grebo 86.86 90.64 81.64 Black Duiker 3 2.45 2.45 Nimba-Northeast 58.76 79.56 77.36 Yellow-backed Duiker 2 0 0 Sayee CF 22.90 29.43 52.65 Royal Antelope 1 0 0 Bushbuck 0 0 0 Total 45 16.19 10.30 % SNP 35.98 22.89 % SNP combined Sayee CF 29.43
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 26
Compared to SNP, especially the primate and duiker indices of Dehton Forest are quite low, i.e. 22.90% and 29.43%, respectively. This is due to the general absence or low ranking of species, which were high-ranking at SNP. Among the primates, the Red Colobus and Diana Monkey are no longer present at Dehton (see also Table 4 above), which is also the case for the Sooty Mangabey in Sehyikimpa. There the hunters said that they haven’t encountered this species for several years, and rated it as scarce compared to the other species. In contrast, the interviewees at Zolowee claimed to have seen the Sooty Mangabey within a month of the assessment. The distance between the two towns is only 10km and given the small size of Dehton Forest, this ambiguity is vexing and illustrates the uncertainty of interviews. The Sooty Mangabey is known to be still present in the wider region (AML 2010). The most common monkey species at Dehton Forest, according to the interviews, are the Campbell’s and the Spot-nosed Monkey, species which cope very well with degenerated, disturbed habitats. As both are low-ranking at Sapo, the calculation of the EcoIntex results in a low value, regardless of their abundance at Dehton (see details outlined in sub-section 2.3.2). Looking at the duikers, it is the total absence of the Zebra Duiker, Jentink’s Duiker and Water Chevrotain that largely accounts for the low index score. Maxwell Duiker and Bushbuck were reported to be the most abundant species, the latter of which was the lowest-ranking at Sapo. A similar case was found within the hornbill group, of which the African Pied Hornbill was rated as more abundant than any other species at Dehton, but which is second-lowest at Sapo. However, the SNP highest-ranking Black-and Yellow-casqued Hornbills were claimed to be the second most abundant in Dehton. In total, the hornbill EcoIntex of Dehton corresponds to 52.65% of the one at SNP.
The overall ecological integrity of Dehton Forest is not just relatively low compared to SNP, but also with regard to other forest blocks in Liberia, i.e. Cestos-Senkwehn, Cestos-Gbi, Grebo and Nimba-Northeast which refers to the area around the ENNR (Table 5d and Figure 4). It has to be noted however, that the assessment of these forests took place in 2003, and none of them is a protected area, so the validity of these data today is questionable. Nevertheless, given its proximity to Dehton and an assumed similar habitat type, the data of Nimba-Northeast are of particular interest, showing that the low integrity indices of Dehton cannot be explained by the fact that it is located in a mountainous area, while the other forests are in the lowland. If this were the case then one would expect the EcoIndices of Nimba-Northeast in the 2003 assessment to be in general much lower and different than at the other forests; this is not the case for duikers and hornbills. The comparatively low primate index was explained by the absence of the Red Colobus (WAITKUWAIT 2003), a species that had at least occurred in the past in the Mount Nimba Range (AML 2010). Low integrity values indicate that the respective site is somehow disturbed. It does not automatically mean that the forest itself is poor or degraded, as many other factors have to be taken into account. The overall assessment of the Dehton Forest showed that what is left still seems to be in a good condition, most likely because it is located on a mountain, making access and use difficult. However, its small size and
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 27 isolated character decrease its wildlife carrying capacity and value as suitable habitat, especially for species which are less tolerant of disturbance than others. Other impacts such as those caused by the mining operations in the surrounding areas have to be considered as well, and the low indices for primates and duikers, compared to an overall higher value for the hornbills could be a strong indicator for hunting pressure. It is therefore important for the overall assessment to look at the use of and threats to the forest resources as well, which will be done in the next section.
100
90
80
70
Sapo NP 60 Cestos-Senkwehn
50 Cestos-Gbi Grebo 40
% EcoIntex SNP EcoIntex % Nimba-Northeast 30 Sayee CF 20
10
0 Primates Duikers Hornbills
Figure 4. Ecological Integrity Indices of the three taxa at different forest sites, expressed as percentage of SNP.
3.1.6 Forest use and threats A detailed threats analysis will be carried out separately by PROSPER at all sites later in the project. This report aims to provide a rough overview of the main threats that prevail in the different CF sites. Table 6 lists the (present) use of and threats to Dehton Forest’s natural resources, as reported by the community during the focus group exercises. As some types of use were also classified as a threat, both are shown in the same table. Seven types of use were classified, of which three - farming, chainsawing and the collection of firewood and charcoal production - mainly take place in the lower parts surrounding Dehton Forest, in the farmbush/secondary forest belt.
Collection of NTFPs such as medicinal plants, fishing and hunting are carried out both in and around the forest. The products are mainly used for subsistence or are
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 28 sold locally within the community and to the local markets in Sanniquellie. Two types of use were also seen as a threat to Dehton Forest: farming and chainsawing. This represents an incremental threat as these activities progressively expand into Dehton Forest as resources are depleted in the surrounding lowlands. Shifting cultivation with an average fallow period of 7 years requires the regular establishment of new forest farms, hence a creeping but continuous encroachment over the years (Figure 5).
Table 6. Use of and threats to the natural resources of Dehton Forest.
No. Type Area Notes Use Threat
around the shifting cultivation, fallow 1 Farming x x forest period on average 7 years Safe drinking water creeks from 2 and general water x mountain / forest supply around the community purpose and 3 Chainsawing x x forest small scale commercial
Hunting (by gun, trap, around and in subsistence and small scale 4 x dogs) the forest commercial (locally)
around and in 5 NTFP collection x the forest
Fishing (by basket, creeks in subsistence and small scale 6 x hooks, net, poison) /around forest commercial (locally) Firewood collection around the 7 and charcoal x forest production Uncontrolled forest around and in 8 x fires the forest northeastern Mt. Bleih Resource was and 9 Mining prospecting in early 2012, but x southwestern stopped by the community parts of forest
Uncontrolled forest fires caused by shifting cultivation or by hunters were listed as an additional, potential threat. A major fire occurred in 1992 (see also sub-section 3.1.3). Finally, in early 2012 a mining company was exploring for iron ore in the southwestern and northeastern parts of the mountain (Figure 6), but was forced to withdraw by the community. Interestingly, hunting was not mentioned as a threat, although it was reported as the main reason for the decrease of all animal species in the subsequent interview part (sub-section 3.1.4). The increasing hunting pressure was explained by the general population growth after the crisis.
Data collected during the forest walks, which also focused on signs of human impact, resulted in 3.46 signs/km. 89% of the signs accounted for gunshells and traps, i.e. hunting indicators. However, according to the key informants, 89% of these signs were more than three months old, and 60% rated as older than one year. The
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 29 encounter rate of hunting signs less than one year was 1.92 signs/km. Recent bushmeat studies (USAID 2011b, AML AND CI 2012), carried out among others in the existing Bleih and Zor CF, reported an encounter rate of human impact of 1.42 signs/km for the Bleih CF and 5.50 signs/km for the Zor CF, respectively, but do not mention the age of signs. Both studies provide a detailed analysis of the various bushmeat and hunting aspects in the area. Their results underpin the preliminary findings of this rapid assessment, confirming that hunting – even if “only” on the subsistence level – definitely has to be considered as a threat to Dehton Forest’s wildlife.
Figure 5. Shifting cultivation encroaching Dehton Forest. Figure 6. Mining prospection site.
3.1.7 Summary This section summarizes the key findings of the biodiversity assessment of the Sayee CF.
Forest size: small, approximately 600-700 hectares
Forest type(s): Primary/Old Secondary (“Dehton Forest”) restricted to the middle and upper parts of the mountain, encircled by a belt of mixed farm / farmbush / Young Secondary Forest
Intactness: Dehton Forest still largely intact
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 30
Connectivity to adjacent forest blocks: Based on this assessment Dehton Forest is considered as an isolated forest block. Updated satellite maps showing the forest cover need to be consulted for final confirmation
Faunal indicator species: Twenty-four of 39 potentially occurring species are still present (61.54%), among them 10 of conservation concern (2 Endangered, 2 Vulnerable, 6 Near Threatened)
Ecological Integrity: overall comparatively low Primate EcoIntex 22.90% of SNP Duiker EcoIntex 29.43% of SNP Hornbill EcoIntex 52.65% of SNP
Main threats: Farming, hunting, chainsawing
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 31
3.2 Barconnie CF, Greater Buchanan Area, Grand Bassa County
3.2.1 General site description The Barconnie Community is located south of Buchanan along the coast line, approximately 5 km from the Buchanan port. It was settled by Kru fishermen more than 150 years ago. Today the community comprises 13 villages and towns: Bleewien (which is the seat of the community), Bleedy, Diaplay, Douwhien, Gee Town, Gbeorgba Town, Giah Town, Kono Town, Massah Town, Nyagbaa, Penneh Town, Sanwien and Saydee Town. A dirt road, most parts accessible by vehicle, connects the majority of towns. The community forest is a mosaic of mangroves and so-called “upland forest”. The beach is collectively owned by the community and known as a sea turtle nesting site, especially from September to January. (Source: USAID 2012a, b).
3.2.2 Field operations Field operations in the Barconnie Community comprised the following activities: - A general field survey was carried out on the 25th of September 2012 to get an overview of the area and to hold initial village meetings. 8 towns/villages were visited: Sanwien, Bleewien, Nyagbaa, Massah Town, Kono Town, Penneh Town, Douwhien Town and Giah Town. - A focus group exercise was carried out in Bleewien on the 26th of September 2012, including 11 key informants representing 9 of the 13 settlements. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the upland forest around Massah Town on the 27th of September 2012. Survey length was 6.1 kilometers and 5 hours 51 minutes, respectively. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the mangroves along New Cess River and surroundings on the 28th of September 2012. However, due to heavy rain falls, data recording was quite restricted. Apart from a very limited visibility and the difficulty to perceive animal sounds, any potential tracks and dung most probably had been washed away. The mangroves were flooded, but the water level still allowed passing through providing an overall impression of the ecosystem and its general condition in that area. The field walk was ended after 2 hours and a total survey length of 2 kilometers.
3.2.3 Forest condition In the mapping exercise the community confirmed the occurrence of two major forest types within the Barconnie Community, i.e. the mangrove forest and upland forest (Figure 7-9). The mangroves stretch in the coastal areas mainly along the Savage River in the north, the Bleegbah Creek in the central part and the New Cess and Gaa Rivers in the south. The former, along Savage River and latter, along and between New Cess and Gaa River, were reported to form the two main mangrove areas within the community.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 32
Figure 7. Sketch map of Barconnie Community, showing a.o. the 13 towns and the 2 major identified forest types: the mangroves along Savage River (left), Bleegbah Creek (central bottom, right of Bleewien), Gaa and New Cess River (right), as well as the “upland forest” patches. The Gbakumu swamp area is located between Savage River and Bleegbah Creek, on the left side on the road from Sanwien to Bleewein (indicated by the greenish oval).
With regard to the second type, the exercise revealed that the term “upland forest” used by the community refers to the remaining upcountry patches of what according to the description of the focus group was identified as primary lowland forest (but see below). The largest contiguous block of upland forest extends between Massah and Kono Town and is called Paye’s Town Forest, which was also identified as an area containing comparatively high densities of wildlife. In total there are approximately 25 forest patches scattered across Barconnie Community. Based on the criteria used in the Forest Description Form, the upland forest was classified as an old, dark forest, with a largely closed canopy, plenty of big trees, and an intermediary tree density. However, the forest that was encountered during the forest walk showed a different picture, i.e. mainly small to middle-sized trees (both in height and stem diameter), with the highest trees approximately 20-25m in average height, and a middle to more open canopy cover (Figure 9). A one-day forest walk, due to its limitation in time, distance and area covered, is not sufficient to assess the forest as a whole and can just give a snapshot reference. It might be that the parts visited during the forest walk still lay within the catchment area of the surrounding settlements and therefore are affected by human impacts. This is underlined by the analysis of the running profile of the forest walk, which showed that the overall forest structure on average every 500m was interrupted by degraded areas, mainly regenerating farmbush and Young Secondary Forest. Two (operating) farms that lay within the forest were encountered as well. On the other hand, the (assumed) lack of old big trees, a continuous, largely closed canopy etc. could also indicate an impact in the past, which might date back to a time too long ago to be remembered by the present generations. It should also be noted that the community was abandoned during the period between 1993 and 1996 (USAID 2012b). Updated forest coverage maps will help to clarify what kind of forest types are left in the Barconnie
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 33
Community. Based on the present assessment, the upland forest preferably is to be considered as Mature Secondary Forest rather than Primary/Old Secondary Forest.
Figure 8. Mangroves along New Cess River, merging into upland forest in the backlands
Figure 9. Upland Forest around Massah Town, Barconnie CF
Between the upland forest patches and the mangroves lies a mosaic of farms, farmbush, Young Secondary Forest, grassland with naturally grown oil palms and swamps. One major swamp called Gbakumu is found in the area between Sanwien and Bleewien, and was reported to contain relatively high numbers of deer and
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 34 monkeys. The total size of the CF area is estimated to be less than 2,000 ha (USAID 2012a, 2012b).
3.2.4 Key animal species Since the animal indicator species selected for the biodiversity assessment in general are forest-dwelling species, the results of this part of the assessment mainly refer to the upland forest. Mangroves are quite a distinct, specialized ecosystem and harbor an own complex biodiversity, including taxa which might be important bio- indicators but not easy to identify and monitor (e.g. fish, shellfish, mollusks, other invertebrates). However, mangroves can also provide habitats for several species included in the assessment list. Table 7 shows the key results of the faunal indicator species data analysis. A list of the common local names of the animal species is attached in Annex 6. Thirteen of the 39 species which could potentially occur in the area (based on the existence of suitable habitats), i.e. 33.33%, were reported to be still present in the Barconnie CF. These include 2 primate species, 5 ungulates, 2 pangolins, both crocodile species and 2 hornbills. One species, the Dwarf Crocodile is classified as Vulnerable, 2 as Near Threatened (Sooty Mangabey and Tree Pangolin), while the remaining 10 are either of Least Concern of Data Deficient. Five of the 13 species occur both in the upland forest and the mangroves, 5 were reported to depend on the forest. The Slender-snouted Crocodile was described to be generally present in and around the rivers (including mangrove areas), while the Dwarf Crocodile is mainly found in the mangroves. Regarding the Sooty Mangabey it has to be remarked that it was not exclusively attributed to the mangroves, but is also found in the farm-secondary-grassland-swamp mosaic scattered between the two main forest types. This was also the case for the Bushbuck, Black Duiker, Water Chevrotain, both pangolin species and the African Pied Hornbill. Interestingly, the key informants also mentioned another monkey species to be present in Barconnie (in all habitat types), which was not on the list. According to their description this can only refer to the Vervet Monkey Chlorocebus sabaeus (IUCN status Least Concern), which according to the IUCN distribution map (IUCN 2012) obviously occurs in Liberia, but doesn’t seem to be very common, or at least seems to be generally absent from rainforest blocks. It is neither known to occur in SNP (AGORAMOORTHY 1990), nor mentioned in survey reports from other areas (e.g. WAITKUWAIT 2003; AML 2010). This is not further surprising, as Vervet Monkeys, though being the most widespread of the African monkeys and found broadly across the whole continent, in general are reported to be largely absent from the forests in west-central Africa (CAWTHON LANG 2006). As habitat generalists they are tolerant of a wide variety of habitats, what allows them to avoid competition with other primate species by inhabiting less suitable areas. Anecdotal records of the presence of Vervet Monkeys have also been heard from Lake Piso (FFI internal communication), that reflects similar habitat conditions as Barconnie, however both areas so far lack confirmed data.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 35
Table 7. Faunal key species analysis for Barconnie CF.
Relative Trend IUCN Type of records and age No. Species Presence Forest Abundance past Reason status See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes M, UF − − − − − 0 3 ↑ Less gun hunting after war 2 Sooty Mangabey NT Yes M − − − − − 0 2 − ↑ Less gun hunting after war 3 Bushbuck LC Yes M, UF − − − 0 − 0 3 0.98 ↑ Less gun hunting after war 4 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes UF − − − 0 − 0 3 0.49 ↓ Trap hunting has increased 5 Black Duiker LC Yes UF − − − 0 − 0 3 0.82 ↓ Trap hunting has increased 6 Bay Duiker LC Yes UF − − − 0 − 2001 1 0.16 ↓ Trap hunting has increased 7 Water Chevrotain LC Yes M, UF − − − 0 − 2 1 0.66 ↓ Trap hunting has increased 8 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes UF − − − 0 − 0 3 0.16 ↑ Less hunting pressure 9 Tree Pangolin NT Yes UF − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting pressure 10 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes UF, M − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting pressure 11 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes UF, M − 0 − − − 0 3 0.16 ↑ Less hunting pressure 12 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes M − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting pressure 13 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Yes River − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Species not hunted 14 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Past M, UF − − − − − 2009 1 − ↑ Less gun hunting after war 15 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Past River − − − − − 2001 0 − − not known 16 Leopard NT Past UF − − − − − 1997 0 − − not known area too small, not enough 17 Buffalo LC Past M, UF 2011 1 − − − − − − ↓ space 18 Red River Hog LC Past UF − − − − − 1990 0 − − Hunting, habitat loss 19 Giant Forest Hog LC Past UF − − − − − 1990 0 − − Hunting, habitat loss 20 Chimpanzee EN Never − − − − − − − − − − − 21 Black-and-White Colobus VU Never − − − − − − − − − − − 22 Olive Colobus NT Never − − − − − − − − − − −
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 36
23 Red Colobus EN Never − − − − − − − − − − − 24 Diana Monkey VU Never − − − − − − − − − − − 25 Elephant VU Never − − − − − − − − − − − 26 Golden Cat NT Never − − − − − − − − − − − 27 Bongo NT Never − − − − − − − − − − − 28 Jentink's Duiker EN Never − − − − − − − − − − − 29 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Never − − − − − − − − − − − 30 Zebra Duiker VU Never − − − − − − − − − − − 31 Ogilby's Duiker VU Never − − − − − − − − − − − 32 Royal Antelope LC Never − − − − − − − − − − − 33 Giant Pangolin NT Never − − − − − − − − − − − 34 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Never − − − − − − − − − − − 35 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Never − − − − − − − − − − − 36 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Never − − − − − − − − − − − 37 Piping Hornbill LC Never − − − − − − − − − − − 38 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Never − − − − − − − − − − − 39 West African Manatee VU Never − − − − − − − − − − − KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest Forest Type of forest in which species is present. M: Mangroves; UF: Upland Forest
Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted.
Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 37
Six species were present in the past (defined as the latest record being more than 1 year old), among them the (Near Threatened) Leopard and the (Endangered) Pygmy Hippo, which was last seen in the area of New Cess River in 2001. Based on their latest records, both the Pygmy Hippo and the Leopard, as well as two hog species can be considered as locally extinct, while the Spot-nosed Monkey and Buffalo might probably still be present in the wider area. According to the interviewees, 20 of the 39 species have never occurred in Barconnie, so in case they ever were present, they may have become locally extinct long ago. These include the Chimpanzee, the three Colobus monkey species, Diana Monkeys, other large mammals such as the Elephant, Bongo and Jentink’s Duiker. The hunters seemed to recognize the West African Manatee, but none of them knew of any sightings in Barconnie. It could however occur, as it is reported from other mangrove areas in Liberia, e.g. Lake Piso (FDA 2012 in prep.)
No animal signs were found during the mangrove survey, which was hampered by bad weather conditions, but 7 species were recorded during the upland forest walk, including 5 ungulates and the Long-Tailed Pangolin, which were identified by their tracks, as well as the African Pied Hornbill, which was heard.
The overall abundance of the species which are still present in Barconnie was rated relatively high for 10 of the 13 species. Only two species, the Bay Duiker and the Water Chevrotain were reported to be scarce, and the Sooty Mangabey was reported to occur in intermediate numbers. These data correlate well with the subsequently collected information on the single species’ trend over the past 10 years, which for 8 out of the 10 most common ones was rated as increasing. This was explained mainly by the fact that after the war hunting by gun has decreased. At the same time however, this resulted in an increase of hunting by traps, causing a decline of certain duiker species, such as the Maxwell’s Duiker, Black Duiker, Bay Duiker and Water Chevrotain. One confusing piece of information is notable regarding the Spot-nosed Monkey. While it hadn’t been recorded since 2009 and was rated as scarce, there was an increasing trend due to less gun hunting. Reasons given for the disappearance of other species which were present in the past included hunting and habitat loss.
Though the marine and coastal biodiversity was not assessed within the scope of this report, it is important to add that the beach of the Barconnie CF is known as a sea turtle nesting site, during the period from September to January (USAID 2012a, b). Five of the world’s 7 sea turtle species, all of them of immense conservation concern, could potentially occur on Liberia’s coasts, and at least two are definitely confirmed from the Buchanan / Barconnie area, i.e. the Critically Endangered Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and a second, unidentified species (AML 2010). During this assessment, one of the key informants reported that just 2 nights ago a turtle had laid eggs and showed the BAT the location on the beach, close to Nyagbaa. The description of the animal was not sufficient to allow a clear identification of the
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 38 species (but it could be concluded that it was not a Leatherback). CI, with support from Chevron, is currently initiating a conservation project in the Barconnie Community with a focus on sea turtle conservation, which could be linked to the PROSPER community forestry activities in the future.
3.2.5 Ecological Integrity Table 8 shows the Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex) of the three animal groups and the single species in Barconnie, compared to the reference site Sapo National Park (a-c), as well as to (d) other forest sites, i.e. Cestos-Senkwehn, Cestos-Gbi, Grebo and the area around ENNR in Nimba, which have been assessed by the same method during the Liberia Forest Re-assessment Project in 2003, (WAITKUWAIT 2003), as well as compared to the Sayee CF in Nimba. The bottom row in sub-tables a)-c) reflect the overall animal group’s EcoIntex at Barconnie as percentage of the corresponding EcoIntex value at SNP, which was also used for the comparison of sites in 8d.
Table 8. Ecological Integrity Index of a)-c) the selected taxa and key species compared to SNP, and d) the three taxa at different sites, as % of the EcoIntex at SNP.
a) Primates SNP Barconnie b) Hornbills SNP Barconnie
Red Colobus 6 0 Black-casqued & 4 0 Sooty Mangabey 5 0 Yellow-casqued HB
Diana Monkey 4 0 Brown-cheeked 3 0 Black & White Colobus 3 0 Hornbill Campbell's Monkey 2 2.00 White-crested Hornbill 2 0 Spot-nosed Monkey 1 1.00 African Pied Hornbill 1 1.00 Olive Colobus 0 0 Piping Hornbill 0 0 Total 21 3.00 Total 10 1.00 % SNP 14.29 % SNP 10.00
c) Duikers SNP Barconnie d) Site Comparison (as % of EcoIntex SNP)
Maxwell's Duiker 9 5.20 Site Prim Duik HB Zebra Duiker 8 0 Bay Duiker 7 0 Sapo NP 100 100 100 Ogilby's Duiker 6 0 Cestos-Senkwehn 90.14 87.02 73.70 Jentink's Duiker 5 0 Cestos-Gbi 91.29 87.58 79.23 Water Chevrotain 4 2 Grebo 86.86 90.64 81.64 Black Duiker 3 2.45 Nimba-Northeast 58.76 79.56 77.36 Yellow-backed Duiker 2 0 Sayee CF 22.90 29.43 52.65 Royal Antelope 1 0 Barconnie CF 14.29 21.44 10.00 Bushbuck 0 0 Total 45 9.65 % SNP 21.44
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 39
Due to the absence of a number of species in Barconnie CF, the scores of all taxa are very low compared to the other forest sites, resulting in Ecological Integrity Indices of less than a quarter of the EcoIntex at the reference site SNP. The primate index at Barconnie corresponds to 14.29%, the duikers’ to 21.44% and the hornbills’ index to 10% of the respective values at SNP. Within the primates, only 2 (possibly 3 including the Spot-nosed Monkey although it might now be locally extinct) of the 7 species are present in Barconnie (see also above Table 7), and one of them, the Campbell’s Monkey is a low-ranking species at SNP. Within the duikers, 4 species are totally absent, among them the Sapo high-ranking Zebra, Ogilby’s and Jentink’s Duiker, respectively. The Bushbuck, on the other hand, is the lowest-ranking at Sapo but was reported to be the most common ungulate of the 5 species present in Barconnie. Only 2 hornbill species are known in Barconnie, i.e. the African Pied Hornbill, which was ranked to be more abundant than the second species, the White- crested Hornbill.
The results of the site comparison (Table 8d) are further illustrated in Figure 10, and shows that the Barconnie CF has the lowest integrity indices of all six forests. As already outlined above, the assessments of Cestos-Senkwehn, Cestos-Gbi, Grebo and Nimba-Northeast date back to 2003 and would need to be reviewed, so their EcoIndices have to be considered with certain reserves.
100
90
80 Sapo NP
70 Cestos-Senkwehn 60 Cestos-Gbi 50 Grebo EcoIntex SNP EcoIntex 40 % % Nimba-Northeast 30 Sayee CF 20 Barconnie CF
10
0 Primates Duikers Hornbills
Figure 10. Ecological Integrity Indices of the three taxa at different forest sites, expressed as percentage of SNP.
The ecological integrity of the Barconnie forest (excluding mangroves) is considered largely disturbed. The absence and disappearance of numerous forest animal species - though some might in fact have never occurred in the Barconnie area – can
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 40 be attributed to two main factors, i.e. habitat loss and probably overhunting in the past. The high degree of fragmentation of the remaining forest into numerous, comparatively small patches, which in part seem to be degraded as well, decreases its overall carrying capacity and animal abundance, especially of those species which depend on large contiguous and intact forest blocks. If these declining species are then exposed to the same or increasing hunting pressure, they will sooner or later become locally extinct. These and other potential threats to the forest of Barconnie will be the subject of the next section.
3.2.6 Forest use and threats Table 9 lists the (present) use of and threats to Barconnie’s natural resources, as reported by the community during the focus group exercise.
Table 9. Use of and threats to the natural resources of Barconnie.
No. Type Area Notes Use Threat
Fishing (by basket, both for subsistence and 1 Mangroves x hooks, nets) commercial purpose
Collection of "kiss- both for subsistence and 2 Mangroves x meat" and oysters commercial purpose
Hunting (by gun, trap, Mangroves and both for subsistence and 3 x dogs, ambush, calling) Upland Forest commercial purpose
4 Wood for construction Upland Forest x x
Upland Forest, 5 Charcoal production x at farms
Edges of Upland shifting cultivation, fallow 6 Farming x x Forest period on average 5 years
7 NTFP collection Upland Forest x
The mangroves are mainly used for fishing and the collection of “kissmeat”, a sort of small conch, and the Mangrove Oyster (Figure 11, 12). It is known from other areas like Lake Piso that people preferably use wood from the mangroves for smoking fish, which gives it a favorable colour and taste (FDA 2012 in prep.), a practice that leads to considerable destruction of the mangroves. The BAT therefore asked the community if this is a common practice in Barconnie as well, which was negated. This corresponds further to the observations during the – though quite limited – forest walk, which found the mangroves looking largely intact. Hunting is carried out both in the mangroves and the upland forest, and another four activities are exclusively taking place in the latter. These include the extraction of wood for construction, charcoal production (from lumbered trees on the farms),
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 41 farming and the collection of NTFP such as medicinal plants, rattan, bitter root and honey.
Figure 11. Baskets used for fishing/collection of freshwater animals
Figure 12. “Kissmeat” (left) and the Mangrove Oyster (right) – products collected in the mangroves
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 42
Most products are used mainly for subsistence and in case of surplus sold locally within the community, some (e.g. kissmeat) are also collected for commercial purpose, and sold to the market in Buchanan. Two types of use were also seen as a threat: timber extraction and farming. Though farming was reported to take place mainly at the forest edges, the forest walk showed that there are also farms within the remaining patches, increasing the overall forest fragmentation. Moreover the community uses not only old plantations after an average fallow period of 5 years, but current farming practices require clearing of new farms which further reduces the size of the remaining forest patches. Hunting was not considered a threat by the Barconnie Community. This had also been the case in the Sayee Community in Nimba (section 3.1.6). The reason could be that it is just such a normal activity of the communities’ daily life and one that provides them with needed protein, that probable negative effects are not as immediate obvious as clearing forest. It could also be that the key informants, mostly hunters, didn’t want to identify their main activity as problematic. In contrast to the Sayee Community however, in Barconnie this did not conflict with the information provided later on the abundance and trends of species. As outlined in 3.2.4, the interviewees felt that the population size of 9 out the 13 species present in Barconnie had increased over the past 10 years, mainly because gun hunting had decreased. Data collected during the forest walk, which also focused on signs of human impact, resulted in 0.66 signs/km (compared to 3.46 signs/km in Dehton Forest in Nimba). One of the key informants reported that he had set a trapline of 52 traps the week before (some of which were encountered during the survey) and one empty gunshell, estimated to be 2-3 years old, was found. Excluding this record, i.e. looking only at the signs less than 1 year old, resulted in an encounter rate of 0.49 signs/km (compared to 1.92 signs/km in Nimba). Hence the hunting pressure seems to be in fact lower than in the Sayee CF, but could still be a threat to Barconnie’s wildlife, as the relatively high levels of fragmentation do not support large numbers of animals in the remaining forest patches.
3.2.7 Summary This section summarizes the key findings of the biodiversity assessment of the Barconnie CF.
Size: Total CF size estimated < 2,000 hectares
Forest type(s): Mature Secondary Forest patches (Upland Forest) in the backcountry Mangroves in the coastal areas, stretching along Savage River, Blegbaah Creek, Gaa River an New Cess River Mosaic of Young Secondary Forest / farms / farmbush / grassland / swamps between mangroves and Upland Forest
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 43
Intactness: Mangroves largely intact, 3 major areas (along Savage River, along Blegbaah Creek and along/between Gaa and New Cess River) Upland Forest highly fragmented and in part degraded; split into ca. 25 more or less isolated patches
Connectivity to adjacent forest blocks: To the northwest limited / isolated due to Buchanan port / Buchanan city, and to the north by main road. Potential connectivity to the southeast across New Cess River. Updated satellite maps showing the forest cover needed to be consulted for confirmation
Faunal indicator species: 13 of 39 potentially occurring species still present (33.33%), among them 3 of conservation concern (1 Vulnerable, 2 Near Threatened)
Ecological Integrity: overall very low Primate EcoIntex 14.29% of SNP Duiker EcoIntex 21.44% of SNP Hornbill EcoIntex 10% of SNP
Main threats: Continuous destruction and degradation of the Upland Forest by farming, chainsawing and charcoal production; to a lesser extent hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 44
3.3 Kortor CF, District 4, Grand Bassa County
3.3.1 General site description The proposed Kortor CF site is located east of the Liberian Agriculture Company (LAC) rubber concession area, approximately 60 km northeast of Buchanan, in District 4 in Grand Bassa County (Figure 13). The area is under the jurisdiction of the Kpogblen clan and comprises 17 towns and 2 satellite villages. One major town and the central base for PROSPER field operations is Bold Dollar. It is located along the road leading through the clan area referred to as the Monwhre road. The forest of interest stretches south of the road, between District 3 in the west, the Timbo River, marking the border to River Cess County in the east and the Nepue Creek in the south. The size of the proposed CF is estimated to be at least 10,000 ha (USAID 2012a).
Bold Dollar
District 3
Kortor CF
District 4
River Cess County
Figure 13 Approximate location of the Kortor CF in District 4, Grand Bassa County. Map provided by PROSPER
3.3.2 Field operations Field activities in Kortor CF comprised two focus group exercises and two forest walks: - A focus group exercise was carried out in Bold Dollar on the 1rst of October 2012 with 16 participants from 4 of the nearby towns
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 45
- A focus group exercise was carried out in Bold Dollar on the 2nd of October 2012 with a second group of total 13 participants coming from 6 towns, including some of the more distant settlements of the community - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the western part of the main proposed CF forest on the 3rd of October 2012. Survey length was 4.7 kilometers and 5 hours 21 minutes, respectively. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the south-eastern part of the main proposed CF forest on the 4th of October 2012. This survey was challenging due to bad weather conditions and because the hunters were not familiar with the area and could not agree on the right direction. The forest walk took 5 hours and covered a total length of 4.1 kilometers.
3.3.3 Forest condition Figure 14 shows the location and extension of the Kortor Forest based on the mapping exercise with the community.
Timbo River
Gboweh
Car Car Road
Sammie Nepue Creek Nepue
Forest Border Karr Kpah Bold Dollar DZC
Nepue Creek
District 3 Figure 14. Sketch map of Kortor Forest.
From Bold Dollar the forest is accessible in approximately 30 minutes ( 2 kilometers) by a foot path leading to Karr’s Town, which is located at the forest’s boundary. Three major settlements are within the forest, i.e. Kpah’s Town, Sammie’s Town and
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 46
Gboweh Town, all connected by a network of bushroads. An abandoned mission, called DZC, lies halfway between Karr’s and Kpah’s Town. The Kortor Forest consists mainly of Primary Forest (Figure 15) and offers a variety of habitats, including the two main waterbodies - Timbo River and Nepue Creek -, as well as several swamps. Most of the terrain is flat, but there are some hilly areas, particularly to the left of the path between Karr’s Town and Sammie’s Town. The overall contiguity and intactness of the forest is disturbed by human activities (primarily farming) around the settlements, especially those located inside the forest (but also around the forest edges). It is difficult to assess the extent of their impact, but some observations during the forest walks suggest a range of at least 700m from settlements. Old farms, representing regenerating farmbush patches were also encountered at distances of up to 2 km away from the forest towns. These areas were not just characterized by a destroyed or degraded forest structure (open farmbush, Young Secondary Forest) but also by a higher density of traps.
Artisanal gold mining took place in 2007 around Karr’s Town and in early 2012 at Timbo River, but on a small scale and is not longer ongoing.
Figure 15. Kortor Forest at Nepue Creek.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 47
3.3.4 Key animal species Table 10 shows the results of the faunal indicator species data analysis. A list of the common local names of the animal species is attached in Annex 6. Thirty-two of the 38 potentially occurring species (84.21%) were reported to be present in Kortor Forest. These include 7 of the 8 listed primates, 10 ungulates, the Pygmy Hippo, Leopard and Golden Cat, all 6 hornbill species and the White-breasted Guineafowl. With regard to species with IUCN status, Kortor Forest harbors all four Endangered species, i.e. the Chimpanzee, the Red Colobus Monkey, Pygmy Hippo and the Jentink’s Duiker, and 5 Vulnerable such as the Diana Monkey, Zebra Duiker, Ogilby’s Duiker, Dwarf Crocodile and White-breasted Guineafowl. Another 7 species are classified as Near Threatened. The remaining 6 of the 38 species were present in the past, but may no longer occur in Kortor Forest today. One of them, the Elephant definitely has to be considered as locally extinct, as its latest record dates back to 1964. The focus group further thought that the Black-and-White Colobus Monkey, latest observed in 2010, is locally extinct, while the Bongo (latest record 2009), Royal Antelope (2011), Giant Forest Hog (2011) and Giant Pangolin (2010) may still be present, but in very low numbers (this also refers to the Diana Monkey, which was last recorded in late 2011). Hunting was the reason given for the disappearance of these animals. Signs of 13 of the 32 species (40.62%) were found during the forest walks. A variety of indicators confirmed the presence of Chimpanzees, including 10 nests, footprints and dung (Figure 16). All Chimpanzee signs were found during the second forest walk, which took place in the hilly area to the left of the path between Karr’s Town and Sammie’s Town. Another important observation, on the first day, was the sighting of Campbell’s Monkeys, approximately 250 meters away from Nepue Creek. Further, six duiker species could be identified, based on tracks and dung. This included the Zebra Duiker and Jentink’s Duiker. Footprints and rootle signs confirmed the presence of Red River Hogs, and four of the six hornbill species were heard. The Black-casqued and the Yellow-casqued Hornbill however could not always be clearly distinguished, so the records for both species were combined in Table 10. According to the interviews, 13 species still occur in relatively high numbers (i.e. were rated as “plenty”), including the Chimpanzee, Campbell’s and Spot-nosed Monkeys, Tree Pangolin, five hornbill species as well as the White-breasted Guineafowl. Nine species were classified as intermediate abundant, and ten as scarce. The latter comprise mainly large species such as the Pygmy Hippo, Leopard, Bongo, Buffalo and Yellow-Backed Duiker, species known to be the first to disappear due to habitat loss, fragmentation and hunting pressure. The highest encounter rates during the forest walks were obtained for the Maxwell’s Duiker (2.08 signs/km), Red River Hog (0.83 signs/km), Black/Yellow-casqued Hornbill (0.83 signs/km) and Chimpanzee (0.69 signs/km).
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 48
Table 10. Faunal key species analysis for Kortor CF.
Relative Trend IUCN Type of records and age No. Species Presence Abundance past Reason status See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Chimpanzee EN Yes − 0 1 0 0 0 3 0.69 ↑ ↓ Hunting (less / increased) 2 Olive Colobus NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting / impact logging comp. 3 Red Colobus EN Yes − − − − − 1 2 − ↑ ↓ Hunting (less / increased) 4 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes 0 − − − − 0 3 0.14 ↑ unknown, probably less hunting 5 Diana Monkey VU Yes − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting 6 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − → ↓ Hunting 7 Sooty Mangabey NT Yes − − − − − 1 2 − ↓ Hunting 8 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Yes − − − − − 4 1 − ↓ Hunting / impact logging comp. 9 Leopard NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Habitat loss / logging impact 10 Golden Cat NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 11 Buffalo LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 12 Bushbuck LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.55 ↑ ↓ Hunting (less / increased) 13 Jentink's Duiker EN Yes − − − 0 − 1 2 0.28 → ↓ Hunting 14 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting / impact logging comp. 15 Zebra Duiker VU Yes − − − 0 − 1 1 0.14 ↓ Hunting 16 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes − − 0 0 − 0 3 2.08 → ↓ Hunting 17 Black Duiker LC Yes − − 0 0 − 0 2 0.42 → ↓ Hunting 18 Bay Duiker LC Yes − − 0 0 − 0 2 1.11 ↓ Hunting 19 Ogilby's Duiker VU Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 20 Water Chevrotain LC Yes − − − − − 2 2 − → ↓ Hunting 21 Red River Hog LC Yes − − − 0 − 1 3 0.83 → ↓ Hunting 22 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes − − − − − 1 2 − ↓ ↑ Hunting / Fast reproduction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 49
23 Tree Pangolin NT Yes − − − − − 1 3 − ↓ ↑ Hunting / Fast reproduction 24 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Yes − − − − 0 3 → ↑ Less hunting 0 0.83 25 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Yes − − − − 0 3 → 26 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.14 ↑ → Less hunting 27 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.14 ↑ Less hunting 28 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 29 Piping Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↑ → Less hunting 30 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ → Less hunting 31 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes − − − − − 1 2 − ↑ ↓ Hunting (less / increased) 32 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Yes − − − − − 4 2 − → ↓ Hunting 33 Black–and-White Colobus VU Past − − − − − 2010 0 − ↓ Hunting 34 Elephant VU Past − − − − − 1964 0 − − Hunting 35 Bongo NT Past − − − − − 2009 1 − ↓ unknown 36 Royal Antelope LC Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting 37 Giant Forest Hog LC Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting 38 Giant Pangolin NT Past − − − − − 2010 1 − ↓ Hunting KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest
Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted.
Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 50
Figure16 a) Chimpanzee nest b) Chimpanzee dung
Looking at the trends, the information given by the two interview groups differed in 17 cases as indicated in the “Trend”-column of Table 10 by two arrows in the respective species’ row. The first arrow corresponds to the interview of Day 1, the second to Day 2. In general, the focus group of Day 1 rated ambiguous cases higher than the group of Day 2, i.e. for 14 species, Group 1 stated either an increasing or stable trend, while Group 2 rated the same species as stable or decreasing (e.g. Chimpanzee, Red Colobus, several duiker species, both crocodile species etc.). The main reason for increasing trends given by Group 1 was less hunting, while increasing hunting pressure was cited as the cause for decreasing trends in Group 2. There are several possible explanations for this ambiguity. First of all, according to the interviewees, some people in the community respect personal taboos that forbid the hunting of certain species. It is possible that in some areas certain species are in fact not hunted and therefore their numbers are increasing. It could also be however, that Group 1 exaggerated or did not want to acknowledge any negative effects of hunting activities. However, in general it was perceived that the information provided by Group 1 was reliable, and in some cases even more reliable than the one of Group 2. Group 1 for example seemed to be more certain and confident with regard to the correct species identification, and the persons selected for the forest walks based on their supposed knowledge proved to know the area as stated, which was
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 51 not the case for Group 2 (see subsection 3.3.2). Further, some information provided by Group 2 was contradictory, e.g. Group 2 reported population decreases in 22 of the 32 occurring species, while at the same time reported “plenty of animals are coming back across Timbo River to District 4”, as a result of logging in River Cess. Nevertheless, this issue could not be solved satisfactorily, and is an example for the limitations of interview-based information. In 15 cases, both groups matched, i.e. stated decreasing population trends for 12 species such as the Diana Monkey, Pygmy Hippo, Leopard, Golden Cat, Zebra Duiker etc., due to hunting, habitat loss and the impacts of adjacent logging companies (mainly the noise). Three species, the Campbell’s Monkey, Brown-cheeked Hornbill and African Pied Hornbill showed increasing tendencies over the past ten years, most probably due to decreased hunting.
3.3.5 Ecological Integrity Table 11 shows the Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex) for the three animal groups and the single species in Kortor Forest, compared to the reference site Sapo National Park (a-c), and other forest sites (d) of the Liberia Forest Re-assessment Project in 2003 (WAITKUWAIT 2003), and the Sayee CF and Barconnie CF (this report). The sub- tables (a-c) list the results of the two interview days, as well as a combined value for the whole site, which was calculated as the average and is expressed as a percentage of the corresponding EcoIntex value at SNP. This combined value was also used for the comparison of sites in sub-table 11d. First of all it can be noticed that the two interview groups differed in ranking especially the primate and the hornbill species. The primate EcoIntex of Group 1 is very likely too high, caused mainly by a contradictory ranking of the Diana Monkey. Though the Diana Monkey was reported as scarce by Group 1 in the overall abundance section (see Table 10 above), it was then ranked to be more abundant than the Red Colobus, which had been assessed as intermediate. This resulted in a relatively high total score for the Diana Monkey in the ranking exercise. As the Diana Monkey is also the third-highest ranking species in Sapo, this ranking contributes to the relatively high value of the overall primate EcoIntex. Within the hornbills, the main difference refers to the ranking of the Black-and Yellow- casqued hornbill. While according to Group 1 it is the least abundant of all five species, Group 2 rated it as the second most frequent in the area. This reflects one of the main caveats of the EcoIntex, as the perception of relative abundances is quite subjective and prone to bias. As a mitigation measure, this problem was addressed by calculating a combined value for each taxon, i.e. the average of the two ranking exercises. The combined primate EcoIntex for Kortor CF is then 62.71% of SNP, the duiker EcoIntex 78.39% and the hornbill EcoIntex results in 76.45%. These values are relatively high, especially when compared to the other two CF sites of this report, i.e. Sayee CF and Barconnie CF (see also Figure 17). This is because in the Kortor Forest there are in general more species present (in fact all species which are required for the ranking, except the Black-and-White Colobus and the Royal
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 52
Antelope), meaning that high-ranking species occur, that were often missing at Sayee and Barconnie CF.
Table 11. Ecological Integrity Index of a)-c) the selected taxa and key species compared to SNP, and d) the three taxa at different sites, as % of the EcoIntex at SNP. Table a) – c) show the results for both Day 1 and Day 2, as well as the combined EcoIntex for the whole site (i.e. the average), expressed as % of SNP.
Kortor Kortor Kortor Kortor a) Primates SNP b) Hornbills SNP Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2
Red Colobus 6 3.00 2.45 Black-casqued & 4 0 3.46 Sooty Mangabey 5 4.18 2.74 Yellow-casqued HB Diana Monkey 4 3.74 0 Brown-cheeked 3 1.73 2.45 Black & White Colobus 3 0 0 Hornbill Campbell's Monkey 2 3.32 2.83 White-crested Hornbill 2 2.24 1.41 Spot-nosed Monkey 1 2.35 1.73 African Pied Hornbill 1 2.00 2.00 Olive Colobus 0 0 0 Piping Hornbill 0 0 0 Total 21 16.59 9.75 Total 10 5.97 9.32 % SNP 79.00 46.43 % SNP 59.70 93.20 % SNP combined Kortor CF 62.71 % SNP combined Kortor CF 76.45
Kortor Kortor c) Duikers SNP d) Site Comparison (as % of EcoIntex SNP) Day 1 Day 2 Maxwell's Duiker 9 8.22 9.00 Site Prim Duik HB Zebra Duiker 8 2.00 5.66 Bay Duiker 7 6.48 7.00 Sapo NP 100 100 100 Ogilby's Duiker 6 1.73 3.46 Cestos-Senkwehn 90.14 87.02 73.70 Jentink's Duiker 5 3.16 2.24 Cestos-Gbi 91.29 87.58 79.23 Water Chevrotain 4 4.47 4.90 Grebo 86.86 90.64 81.64 Black Duiker 3 3.46 3.87 Nimba-Northeast 58.76 79.56 77.36 Yellow-backed Duiker 2 2.45 2.45 Sayee CF 22.90 29.43 52.65 Royal Antelope 1 0 0 Barconnie CF 14.29 21.44 10.00 Bushbuck 0 0 0 Kortor CF 62.71 78.39 76.45 Total 45 31.97 38.58 % SNP 71.04 85.73 % SNP combined Kortor CF 78.39
Compared to the other forests, the indices of Kortor CF comply particularly with the ones of Nimba-Northeast, i.e. the area around the ENNR, in 2003 (Table 11d, Figure 17), and the duiker and hornbill indices are also comparable to all the remaining sites (except SNP, which reflects an optimum, undisturbed stage of highest ecological integrity, which may no longer be found in Liberia today). The relatively lower primate index at Kortor CF is due to the absence of the Black-and-White Colobus and the relatively low numbers of Red Colobus and Diana Monkeys. These three primate species depend especially on undisturbed, high-canopy, intact primary forest, hence their indices at Kortor CF might reflect a disturbed ecological integrity caused by the
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 53 settlements within the forest. However, this cannot be the only reason, because then one would also expect comparably lower duiker and hornbill indices, as both taxa include high-forest depending species too. The primate fauna therefore in addition might have been exposed to high hunting pressure in the past. Last but not least, it was interestingly reported both by the Sayee Community in Nimba and the Kortor Community that some animal species, among them the Black-and-White Colobus and the Red Colobus, seem to react adversely to noise disturbance, as caused for example by mining and logging operations. These and other potential threats will be analysed in the next section.
100
90
80 Sapo NP
70 Cestos-Senkwehn 60 Cestos-Gbi 50 Grebo
EcoIntex SNP EcoIntex 40 Nimba-Northeast % % Sayee CF 30 Barconnie CF 20 Kortor CF 10
0 Primates Duikers Hornbills
Figure 17. Ecological Integrity Indices of the three taxa at different forest sites, expressed as percentage of SNP.
3.3.6 Forest use and threats Table 12 lists the (present) use of and threats to Kortor Forest’s natural resources, as reported by the community during the focus group exercises. The community depends on the forest’s resources in many ways, and listed 7 types of uses. Farming takes place around the towns and affects the forest mainly by the creation of new forest farms. Old farms are used as well but require a fallow period of at least four, but an average of six to seven years. The forest is further used for hunting, collection of NTFP, the collection of firewood and the extraction of timber. The latter is not just for community purpose, but there is a “commercial chainsaw business”, arranged between the community and tradesmen from outside. According to the interviewees, salesmen cut 500 planks of timber, including species such as Brachystegia leonensis, Tetraberlinia tubmaniana and Terminalia ivorense, every 2 months, of which 10% (50 pieces) go to the community (Figure 18). Given the common price of
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 54
120 LD per plank, the benefit for the community therefore is 6,000 LD every 2 month. The trees are extracted from the forest areas close to Monwhre road, i.e. which lies within a reasonable walking distance of approximately 1 hour. Kortor CF’s natural water resources, finally, are important for fishing and providing safe drinking water.
Table 12. Use of and threats to the natural resources of Kortor Forest.
No. Type Area Notes Use Threat
shifting cultivation, old farms can be used earliest after 4 1 Farming around the towns x x yrs, average fallow period 6-7 yrs subsistence and small scale commercial; Hunting (by gun, wire 2 in the forest some people have taboos x traps, food traps) (e.g. chimpanzee, leopard, monkeys) commercial purpose, ca. 500 around the towns 3 Chainsawing planks / 2 months (ca. 15 x x close to the forest trees)
Wood for firewood and 4 around the towns community purpose x construction
5 NTFP collection in the forest x
Fishing (by basket, rivers and creeks 6 x hooks, net) around towns
Safe drinking water / creeks around 7 x general water supply towns
Natural causes, e.g. 8 x storms
in 2007 (Karr's Town) and Karr's Town 9 Artisanal gold mining early 2012 (Timbo River), but x Timbo River has been stopped
Two of the above listed activities were considered serious threats to the forest, i.e. farming and the commercial chainsawing. Chainsawing was of serious concern, and the BAT sensed a certain annoyance and disagreement with the benefit sharing arrangement among the community members. How seriously this commercial timber extraction will affect the Kortor Forest in the longterm is difficult to assess and will require more analysis. Five hundred planks, according to the key informants, corresponds to approximately 15 trees (in 2 months), which means that every year approximately 90 high value species of trees are extracted. If off-take levels are
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 55 higher than the forest’s timber species natural regeneration rate (i.e. the annual increment of volume), the integrity of the forest will be largely disturbed over time. Therefore, an evaluation requires the knowledge of certain parameters, such as size of area of impact, density and measurements of the respective tree species, annual increment rates etc., which for Kortor CF does not exist yet. However, apart from an assumed negative impact on the forest, there are, as mentioned, also general concerns about the contractual agreement within the community, which might need to be addressed by PROSPER in the further CF development process.
Figure 18. Timber extraction by chainsawing at Kortor CF.
In addition, natural causes such as storms were mentioned as a potential threat to the forest, and in the past people were looking for gold around Karr’s Town and Timbo River. However, this was done on a small and individual scale, and is currently not an issue. Again, as had been noticed already during the assessment of the other two sites, i.e. the Sayee and Barconnie CF, did neither Group 1 nor Group 2 consider hunting a threat to Kortor’s biodiversity, although it was mentioned as the main reason for declining animal populations (see Table 10). Records on human impacts taken during the forest walks resulted in an encounter rate of 1.60 signs/km (compared to 3.46/km in Sayee and 0.66/km in Barconnie), including snare traps (Figure 19), gunshells, chainsawing and a fishing area. Most of the signs, i.e. 83.33% were less than one year old, corresponding to an encounter rate of 1.39 signs/km (Sayee: 1.92/km; Barconnie: 0.49/km). The hunting pressure therefore can be considered as intermediate between the Sayee CF site (highest) and Barconnie (lowest). Animals are not just hunted for meat, but sometimes also kept as pets, especially monkeys (Figure 20). However, this might be more a side-effect of hunting for bushmeat, i.e. in cases when a mother carrying a baby is killed.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 56
Figure 19. Snare trap set in Kortor Forest Figure 20. Woman in Bold Dollar, keeping a ca. 2- year old Spot-nosed Monkey
Last but not least, there are several impacts in the areas surrounding Kortor CF, which do not (yet) directly affect, but might pose an indirect threat to Kortor Forest. This includes noise, traffic, construction, pollution, increase of human population and hence an increasing need for forest resources, and the potential for expanded encroachment in the future. Of additional concern is the potential expansion of the LAC rubber concession, as well as logging concessionaires in District 3 and River Cess. Further a private rubber plantation covering approximately 120 hectares exists in the community, located approximately 3 km east of Bold Dollar, north of Monwhre road, and the Atlantic Timber Company (ATC) is planning to log under a PUP in the forest around Bold Dollar north of Monwhre road.
3.3.7 Summary This section summarizes the key findings of the biodiversity assessment of the Kortor CF.
Forest size: at least 10,000 hectares
Forest type(s): Primary/Old Secondary
Intactness: overall relative intact, but 3 settlements and 1 abandoned mission within the forest, around which forest is destroyed or highly degraded
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 57
Connectivity to adjacent forest blocks: Towards the north restricted by Monwhre road, private rubber plantation and planned logging by ATC. Potential connectivity towards west, south and east, but updated satellite images required to assess the extension of adjacent forests and logging and rubber concessions
Faunal indicator species: Thirty-two of 38 potentially occurring species still present (84.21%), among them 16 of conservation concern (4 Endangered, 5 Vulnerable, 7 Near Threatened)
Ecological Integrity: overall relatively high Primate EcoIntex 62.71% of SNP Duiker EcoIntex 78.39% of SNP Hornbill EcoIntex 76.45% of SNP
Main threats: Chainsawing (commercial), farming, hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 58
3.4 Gblor CF, Tappita Area, Nimba County
3.4.1 General site description The Gblor community is located east of Tappita, Nimba County, about ten kilometers from the city center and comprises seven towns. The seat of the community is Dialah Town. The Gblor Clan has jurisdiction both over the southeastern part of the Big Gio Forest (see also section 3.5) and the Gblor Community Forest, which is located southeast of Big Gio. The Gblor customary community forest area is estimated at 400,000 hectares, but includes privately-owned forest land. The forest is divided by the road that passes from Tappita to Zwedru. The portion on the northern side of the road is the area under consideration for community management and it is estimated to cover an area of more than 12,000 hectares. (Source: USAID 2012a)
3.4.2 Field operations Field activities in the Gblor CF site included one focus group exercise and one forest walk: - A focus group exercise was carried out in Dialah Town on the 9th of November 2012, attended by 17 key informants from 7 towns - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the Gblor Community Forest on the 10th of November 2012. The survey length was 7.4 kilometers and 6 hours 44 minutes, respectively.
3.4.3 Forest condition Figure 21 shows the sketch map of the Gblor Community Forest that was developed during the focus group exercise. Located north of the Tappita-Zwedru highway, it borders the Cestos River (which separates Nimba and Grand Gedeh counties) in the east and the Boyee Creek in the north. Towards the west lies Big Gio Forest, from which it is separated by a car road. The area between the roads and towns and the Community Forest is privately-owned land which is mainly used for farming. The forest can be reached in approximately 30 minutes by vehicle from Dialah Town.
Several logging companies have been operating in the area over the past 40 years; the last one was MGC in 2001/2002. The impacts of these operations are clearly visible and mould the profile of the forest (Figure 22). A network of logging roads traverses the forest and has led to the creation of open areas, dominated by young secondary growth. Due to the selective extraction of large timber species the high canopy is largely broken, and the forest profile in general is characterised by middle- to small-sized trees, dense undergrowth and lianas. Though the original Primary Forest hasn’t been completely destroyed, selective logging has changed its condition and composition, so that it is best described as disturbed Mature Secondary Forest. The overall terrain is flat and contains three main water resources, i.e. the Cestos River, Boyee Creek and Sou Creek. The area south of Sou Creek is dominated by Raphia swamps (Figure 23).
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 59
Figure 21. Sketch map of Gblor Community Forest.
Figure 22. Gblor Community Forest profile.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 60
Figure 23. Raphia swamp in the southern part of Gblor Community Forest.
Three permanent villages are located along Cestos River, inside the Gblor CF, and two seasonally occupied settlements in the southern part of the forest are used by people from the towns (e.g. from Dialah) for farming. Around these villages and farms one finds mainly farmbush and Young Secondary Forest.
3.4.4 Key animal species Table 13 shows the results of the faunal indicator species data analysis. A list of the common local names of the animal species is attached in Annex 6. Twenty-five of the 38 potentially occurring species (65.79%), were reported present in the Gblor Community Forest. Ten of the 25 animals are classified as threatened, i.e. either as Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened, including two of the four Endangered species, i.e. the Chimpanzee and the Jentink’s Duiker. Further, the Vulnerable Zebra Duiker, Ogilby’s Duiker, White-breasted Guineafowl and Dwarf Crocodile, as well as the Near Threatened Golden Cat, Tree Pangolin, Yellow-casqued and Brown- cheeked Hornbills. Fifteen of these species were reported to occur in comparatively high numbers (i.e. their relative abundance rated as 3), while the population of four was considered as intermediate, while 6 species, including the Golden Cat, Zebra, Jentink’s and Ogilby’s Duiker were reported as scarce.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 61
Table 13. Faunal key species analysis for Gblor CF. Relative Type of records and age Trend No. Species IUCN Presence Abundance past Reason See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Chimpanzee EN Yes − − − − − 0 2 − ↓ Hunting pressure 2 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.13 ↓ Hunting pressure 3 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 2 0.13 ↓ Hunting pressure 4 Golden Cat NT Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 5 Buffalo LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.40 ↑ Not hunted 6 Bushbuck LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.40 ↓ Hunting pressure 7 Jentink's Duiker EN Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 8 Zebra Duiker VU Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 9 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes 0 − − 0 − 0 3 0.95 ↓ Hunting pressure 10 Black Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 1 0.40 ↓ Hunting pressure 11 Bay Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 2 0.13 ↓ Hunting pressure 12 Ogilby's Duiker VU Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 13 Water Chevrotain LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 14 Red River Hog LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.68 ↓ Hunting pressure 15 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 16 Tree Pangolin NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 17 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 ↓ Hunting pressure 0.54 18 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 ↓ Hunting pressure 19 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.13 ↑ Less hunting 20 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 21 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes 0 − − − − 0 3 0.13 ↑ Less hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 62
22 Piping Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 23 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Yes − − − − − 1 3 − → 24 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 25 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Yes − − − − − 0 2 − → 26 Black-and-White Colobus VU Past − − − − − 2000 0 − − Hunting pressure 27 Olive Colobus NT Past − − − − − 2002 0 − ↓ Hunting pressure 28 Diana Monkey VU Past − − − − − 2000 0 − − Hunting pressure 29 Sooty Mangabey NT Past − − − − − 2000 0 − − Hunting pressure 30 Elephant VU Past − − − − − 1970 0 − − Hunting pressure 31 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 32 Leopard NT Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 33 Bongo NT Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 34 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 35 Royal Antelope LC Past − − − − − 1970 0 − − Hunting 36 Giant Pangolin NT Past − − − − − 1995 0 − − Hunting pressure 37 Red Colobus EN Never − − − − − − − − − − 38 Giant Forest Hog LC Never − − − − − − − − − − KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted. Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 63
Two of the 13 absent species, the Red Colobus and the Giant Forest Hog, were reported to have never appeared in the Gblor CF, while the remaining 11 were present in the past. These represent large species and species that depend on contiguous intact high forest such as the Black-and-White Colobus, Diana Monkey, Elephant, Pygmy Hippo and Leopard. However, as signs of the Pygmy Hippo, Leopard, Bongo and Yellow-backed Duiker were still found in early-mid 2011, these four species, though in very low numbers, might still be present. Seven species, i.e. four primates, the Elephant, Royal Antelope and Giant Pangolin have to be considered as locally extinct, as no evidence of their presence was reported within the past ten years. The reason for their disappearance according to the locals is hunting, which was also stated as main cause for the decline of other species. Eighteen of the 25 present animal species showed decreasing trends over the past ten years, although 9 at the same time were reported to still occur in relatively high numbers (i.e. their relative abundance rated as 3, see above). However, this is not contradictory, as a species’ overall population size today might have decreased while still remaining more abundant than other species. The population of the White- breasted Guineafowl and Slender-Snouted Crocodile remained stable, while the Buffalo and four hornbill species show increasing trends, as they are not hunted. The hornbills are not considered “attractive” meat (i.e. the amount of meat per catch is quite low) and are not easy to catch, while the Buffalo is not only dangerous to hunt, but the interviewees also said that they were told by FDA not to hunt large species, as most of them are protected. The increasing number of buffaloes however is becoming a problem and the locals report increasing conflict incidences, mainly because the buffaloes enter and destroy their farms. Fresh tracks of buffaloes were observed during the forest walk. Further species recorded during the one-day survey – in total twelve - include observations of the Maxwell’s Duiker and African Pied Hornbill, calls of Campbell’s and Spot-nosed Monkeys as well as the Black-casqued, Yellow-casqued and White-crested Hornbills, and tracks of Bushbuck, Black Duiker, Bay Duiker and Red River Hog.
3.4.5 Ecological Integrity Table 14 shows the Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex) of the three animal groups and the single species in the Gblor CF, compared to the reference site SNP (a-c), and (d) to the forests which have been assessed by the same method during the Liberia Forest Re-assessment Project in 2003, (WAITKUWAIT 2003), as well as compared to the three CF sites of this report (Sayee CF, Barconnie CF, Kortor CF). The bottom row in sub-tables a)-c) reflect the overall animal group’s EcoIntex at Gblor CF as percentage of the corresponding EcoIntex value at SNP, which was also used for the comparison of sites in sub-table 14d. The results of the site comparison are further illustrated in Figure 24.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 64
Table 14. Ecological Integrity Index of a)-c) the selected taxa and key species compared to SNP, and d) the three taxa at different sites, as % of the EcoIntex at SNP.
a) Primates SNP Gblor CF b) Hornbills SNP Gblor CF
Red Colobus 6 0 Black-casqued & 4 2.45 Sooty Mangabey 5 0 Yellow-casqued HB
Diana Monkey 4 0 Brown-cheeked 3 2.74 Black & White Colobus 3 0 Hornbill Campbell's Monkey 2 1.00 White-crested Hornbill 2 0 Spot-nosed Monkey 1 0.71 African Pied Hornbill 1 2.00 Olive Colobus 0 0 Piping Hornbill 0 0 Total 21 1.71 Total 10 7.19 % SNP 8.14 % SNP 71.90
c) Duikers SNP Gblor CF d) Site Comparison (as % of EcoIntex SNP)
Maxwell's Duiker 9 7.94 Site Prim Duik HB Zebra Duiker 8 0 Bay Duiker 7 5.29 Sapo NP 100 100 100 Ogilby's Duiker 6 3.00 Cestos-Senkwehn 90.14 87.02 73.70 Jentink's Duiker 5 3.54 Cestos-Gbi 91.29 87.58 79.23 Water Chevrotain 4 2.83 Grebo 86.86 90.64 81.64 Black Duiker 3 3.87 Nimba-Northeast 58.76 79.56 77.36 Yellow-backed Duiker 2 0 Sayee CF 22.90 29.43 52.65 Royal Antelope 1 0 Barconnie CF 14.29 21.44 10.00 Bushbuck 0 0 Kortor CF 62.71 78.39 76.45 Total 45 26.47 Gblor CF 8.14 58.82 71.90 % SNP 58.82 First of all it can be noticed that especially the primate index is very low, i.e. 8.14% of the respective value at SNP, so far the lowest of all sites. Species which depend on undisturbed, high-canopy forest, such as the Red Colobus, Diana Monkey and Black- and-White Colobus are no longer present in the Gblor Community Forest today. In fact, besides the Chimpanzee, there seem to be only two other primate species: the Campbell’s and Spot-nosed Monkey, low-ranking at Sapo and able to survive in disturbed, regenerating areas. Regarding the duikers, however, most of the species are still present, only the Yellow-Backed Duiker and Royal Antelope are lacking, so the absence of the respective primate species might not be related to habitat loss alone, but the general disturbance by logging operations in the past (as mentioned in previous chapters some animal species react very sensitive to human disturbance), and may also indicate a high hunting pressure on primates in the past.
The composition of the ungulate fauna at Gblor nevertheless differs from that of Sapo, i.e., apart from the Maxwell’s Duiker, which is highest-ranking in both areas, high-ranking Sapo species are less abundant in Gblor CF and vice-versa. The Zebra Duiker for example was rated as the rarest and the Bushbuck as the second most
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 65 abundant species at Gblor CF. The overall duiker EcoIntex corresponds to 58.82% of that at Sapo, much lower than the one of the LRFP sites (which however might need updating, see above chapters), and intermediate between the three PROSPER sites. The highest integrity index at Gblor CF was reached for the hornbills, i.e. 71.90% of SNP reference site, higher than the ones of Sayee and Barconnie CF, and comparable to those of the remaining sites. All six hornbill species were reported to be still present at Gblor CF today. According to the ranking exercise, the most abundant one is the African Pied Hornbill, the rarest the White-crested Hornbill. The highest ranking species at SNP, i.e. the Black-casqued and Yellow-casqued Hornbills, large species utilizing extensive home ranges and are thus sensitive indicators of environmental degradation (PEPPER 2007), were rated as the second- rarest species at Gblor. Though they were reported to be hunted, this also reflects the disturbed ecological integrity of the forest due to the impacts of selective logging in the past.
100
90
80 Sapo NP
70 Cestos-Senkwehn
60 Cestos-Gbi Grebo 50
Nimba-Northeast EcoIntex SNP EcoIntex
% % 40 Sayee CF 30 Barconnie CF
20 Kortor CF Gblor CF 10
0 Primates Duikers Hornbills
Figure 24. Ecological Integrity Indices of the three taxa at different forest sites, expressed as percentage of SNP.
3.4.6 Forest use and threats Table 15 lists the present use of and threats to the Gblor Community Forest’s natural resources, as reported by the community during the focus group exercise. The forest is mainly used for hunting, farming, fishing, the collection of NTFPs such as rattan, walnuts, bush pepper etc. and delivers sticks and planks for construction. Before the PROSPER project started, timber was extracted from the forest not only for community purpose, but also on a commercial level of approximately 25 trees per month. This however was just practiced for a period of three months and stopped when the project came in. Hunting and fishing were reported mainly on a subsistence
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 66 basis and, in case of surplus, on a small-scale commercial level. Though the private land located between the towns and Gblor CF is used for agriculture, the community said that it is not sufficient, and therefore people are also living and making farms inside the forest. There are three permanent villages, along the Cestos River, and at least two additional, temporary occupied settlements in the southern part, used by people from outside. According to the mapping exercise, there appears to be a high level of farming activities inside the forest (see red asterisks in Figure 21). It was reported that 21 families from Dialah alone have farms within the Gblor CF. For that reason, farming – in addition to hunting – is considered a main threat.
Table 15. Use of and threats to the natural resources of Gblor Community Forest.
No. Type Area Notes Use Threat
subsistence and small scale 1 Hunting in the forest x x commercial (locally)
shifting cultivation, average fallow period 4-5 yrs; in the private land and forest are 3 permanent 2 Farming x x in the forest villages at Cestos River and 2 seasonally used farming villages
subsistence and small scale 3 Fishing creeks, river x commercial (locally)
4 NTFP collection in the forest x
before PROSPER project Sticks and planks for private land and started, for 3 months on a 5 x construction in the forest commercial scale (ca. 25 trees/month)
3.4.7 Summary This section summarizes the key findings of the biodiversity assessment of the Gblor CF.
Forest size: at least 12,000 hectares
Forest type: Mature Secondary Forest
Intactness: Partly degraded by logging impact and farming (3 permanent and 2 temporary settlements within the forest)
Connectivity to adjacent forest blocks: Towards the north across Boyee Creek, and to the west to Big Gio Forest (however the two forest blocks are separated by a car road
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 67
and private land which is mainly used for farming). The area south of the Tappita-Zwedru road also belongs to the Gblor community, but according to the interviewees is given to a logging concession. The area east of Gblor CF, across Cestos River, might still contain some forest patches, but allegedly is largely degraded by farming. For final confirmation updated satellite images required.
Faunal indicator species: Twenty-five of 38 potentially occurring species still present (65.79%), among them 10 of conservation concern (2 Endangered, 4 Vulnerable, 4 Near Threatened)
Ecological Integrity: overall intermediate Primate EcoIntex 8.14% of SNP Duiker EcoIntex 58.82% of SNP Hornbill EcoIntex 71.90% of SNP
Main threats: Farming and hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 68
3.5 Big Gio Forest, Tappita Area, Nimba County
3.5.1 General site description The Big Gio Forest is located in Nimba County, east of the main road between Saclepea and Tappita (Figure 25). It has an oval, longish shape, which stretches from its southwestern end around Tappita City over approximately 35 km into the northeast, and according to FDA covers an area of 32,930 ha (but the USAID Final Site Assessment Report mentions a size of 58,000 ha; this reference was also received from FDA, so further clarification is required).
Figure 25. Location of the Big Gio Forest (demarcated Forest Management Concession) in Nimba County (Map provided by PROSPER).
The forest is located between four clans: Gblor in the south, Sehzuplay in the west, Quilla in the north and Beatuo (Yourpea) in the east. The Gblor Clan also has jurisdiction over the Gblor Community Forest, which is located east of Big Gio’s southern part (see section 3.4). The Big Gio Forest was demarcated as National Forest in the 1960s and is currently classified as an unallocated Forest Management Concession. However, FDA is not currently managing it and has expressed interest in reclassifying it as a Community Forest. The communities around Big Gio consider the forest as their own and complain that FDA took their forestland without consultation. Denying them ownership rights has led to a situation of open access
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 69 that is not sustainable. Recently the four clans submitted a written request to the FDA to turn over management of the Big Gio Forest to the communities (USAID 2012a).
3.5.2 Field operations Field activities in the Big Gio Forest included four focus group exercises and four forest walks: - A focus group exercise was carried out with the Gblor Clan in Dialah, on the 9th of November 2012, attended by 17 key informants from 7 towns. - A focus group exercise was carried out with the Sehzuplay Clan on the 12th of November 2012 in Zeongehn, with 19 key informants from 6 towns. - A focus group exercise was carried out with the Quilla Clan in Marlay, on the 14th of November 2012, including 20 key informants from 7 towns. - A focus group exercise was carried out with the Beatuo Clan on the 16th of November 2012 in Old Yourpea, with 26 key informants coming from 9 towns. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the Gblor Clan part of Big Gio Forest on the 11th of November 2012. Survey length was 2.9 kilometers and 4 hours 15 minutes. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the Sehzuplay Clan area of Big Gio Forest on the 13th of November 2012. Survey length was 8.1 kilometers and 5 hours 31 minutes. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the Quilla Clan part of Big Gio Forest on the 15th of November 2012. Total survey length was 9.2 km and 5 hours 36 minutes. On this site however, the forest at and around the Big Gio National Forest boundary line is largely disturbed, both by the old logging road and farming activities (see sub-section 3.5.3 below), and therefore a major part of the forest walk lead through degenerated, open farmbush, passing several villages. The actual distance walked within “real” forest apart from logging roads or other disturbed areas was only 2.5 km. - A one-day forest walk was carried out in the Beatuo Clan part of Big Gio Forest on the 17th of November 2012. Survey length was 5.3 kilometers and 4 hours 33 minutes.
3.5.3 Forest condition Figure 26 shows the sketch map of Big Gio Forest, which was produced by the Gblor Clan during the Community Profiling. For more details of the respective clan areas please refer to the site maps by clan level in Annex 5. Please note that the sketch map suggests that the Ganta-Zwedru road runs north to south, while in reality it veers to the east at Tappita City. This means that the forest area does not have a circular shape as indicated by the sketch map, but an oval longish one as mentioned above (Figure 25). Further, the Beatuo Clan is mistakenly named Kpablee, but that is a reference to the name of the district.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 70
(= Beatuo Clan)
N
Figure 26. Sketch map of Big Gio Forest. The Ganta-Zwderu road (bottom of picture) in reality veers to the east at Tappita City. The Beatuo Clan is mistakenly named Kpablee.
Figure 27. Mount Gao Range Figure 28. Quill River
The Big Gio Forest, i.e. its demarcation line, can be reached by a one- to two-hours walk from the different clan sites, e.g. by 1 hour from Kwipea (Gblor) and Volay (Sehzuplay), 40 minutes from Marlay (Quilla) and 2 hours from Old Yourpea (Beatuo). It is a hilly area and comprises one large mountain range in the southern area managed by the Gblor and Sehzuplay clans, which is called Mount Tappeh Range (Gblor) or Mount Lawai (Sehzuplay). There are also several hills and mountains in the north, e.g. Mount Gwai in the Quilla area, and Mount Gao Range
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 71
(Figure 27) and Mount Zaye in the Beatuo part of the forest (see maps Annex 5). The main watercourses are the Sou and Neh Creek in the south and Quill River in the north (Figure 28). In addition, swampy areas are scattered across the whole forest, and the Gblor Clan further mentioned one large, dangerous swamp within their area.
The original Primary Forest of Big Gio has been disturbed by two major impacts: logging and farming. There have been continuous commercial logging operations over (at least) the past 50 years, most recently by MGC from 2000-2003. The forest is traversed by a network of logging roads and the selective extraction of large timber species has created gaps in the high canopy, which is largely broken (Figure 29). The forest profile in general is dominated by middle- to small sized trees, a dense ground cover and considerable lianas (Figure 30). Secondly, the clans use the forest for farming, which does not only take place around the demarcation line, but also deeper inside the forest. The worst case was found in the Quilla Clan area, with numerous permanent villages inside Big Gio (according to the mapping exercise 14 settlements, see Annex 5), while Sehzuplay allegedly has 5 villages close to the border line (inside Big Gio) and Gblor reported of 2 farming settlements. Only the Beatuo Clan claimed to not carry out any farming activities within Big Gio. The most undisturbed area of the forest appears to be around the Beatuo Clan area and may be due to the considerable distance between the community and the forest, in comparison to the Quilla Clan area that is located very close to the forest border.
Figure 29. Broken canopy of Big Gio Forest.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 72
Figure 30. Typical forest profile of Big Gio Forest.
Figure 31. Remains of Big Gio Forest around the demarcation line in the Quilla Clan area.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 73
The logging and farming activities have had two major impacts on the Big Gio Forest. First there has been an overall decrease in its area resulting mainly from farming which has encroached on the boundary, especially (but not exceptionally) in the Quilla Clan area (Figure 31). Secondly most of the original Primary Forest has been depleted, and today might only be found in the most inaccessible areas, such as mountain tops and swamps. The remaining area has to be considered as disturbed Mature Secondary Forest, interspersed by farmbush and Young Secondary Forest around the farms and logging roads.
3.5.4 Key animal species Table 16 shows the combined results of the faunal indicator species data analysis for the Big Gio Forest. The results by clan level can be taken from the tables attached in Annex 5. In case where the interview results differed between the four clans, either the majority score or an average value was used for the combined analysis. The following rules were applied to the analysis: Presence: The majority was taken to reflect the respective species’ status for the whole forest. In balanced cases (5) the species’ status was rated as “Yes”. The forest part for which the respective result applies is specified in the adjacent column. The Chimpanzee, for example, was reported by all four clans to be still present today in Big Gio Forest, but the Black-and-White Colobus was reported only by the Beatuo and Quilla Clan, while the Gblor and Sehzuplay Clan said it was found in their area in the past, but not today anymore. Age of type of sign: the table lists the most recent record Relative abundance Interview: Majority or average (if three clans rated the relative abundance of a species as plenty and one as medium, the species was listed as plenty for the Big Gio Forest as a whole; if two said plenty and two said scarce it was rated as intermediate). In ambiguous case (only for the Bay Duiker), both values are shown. Relative abundance Forest Walk: the average of all encounter rates was taken Trend: The majority result is shown. There was only one ambiguous case, i.e. for the Maxwell Duiker, which was reported as stable by the Beatuo and the Sehzuplay Clan, and decreasing by the Gblor and Quilla Clan. The table shows both results.
A list of the common local names of the animal species is attached in Annex 6. Thirty of the 38 potentially occurring species, i.e. 78.95 %, were reported to be still present today in the Big Gio Forest. These include 6 of the 8 listed primates, 8 ungulates, the Pygmy Hippo, Leopard and Golden Cat, two pangolin species, all 6 hornbill species and the White-breasted Guineafowl. With regard to the IUCN status, two of the four included Endangered species can still be found today in Big Gio Forest, i.e. the Chimpanzee and the Pygmy Hippo. It further harbours four Vulnerable
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 74
Table 16. Faunal key species analysis for the Big Gio Forest. Relative Type of records and age Trend Forest No. Species IUCN Presence Abundance past Reason Part See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Chimpanzee EN Yes B G Q S − − − − − 0 2 − ↓ Hunting, habitat loss / disturb. 2 Black-and-White Colobus VU Yes B Q − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 3 Olive Colobus NT Yes B G Q S − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 4 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes B G Q S − 0 − − − 0 3 0.08 ↓ Hunting pressure 5 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Yes B G Q S − 0 − − − 0 3 0.04 → 6 Sooty Mangabey NT Yes B Q S − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 7 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Yes B S − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 8 Leopard NT Yes Q S − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 9 Golden Cat NT Yes B G S − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 10 Buffalo LC Yes B G Q S − − − 0 − 0 3 0.16 ↑ Not hunted 11 Bushbuck LC Yes B G Q S − − − 0 − 0 3 0.04 ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 12 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Yes B Q − − 0 0 − 1 1 0.20 ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 13 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes B G Q S − − − 0 − 0 3 0.71 → ↓ Hunting 14 Black Duiker LC Yes B G Q S − − − 0 − 0 1 0.35 ↓ Hunting pressure 15 Bay Duiker LC Yes B G Q S − − 0 0 − 0 1,2 0.59 ↓ Hunting pressure 16 Ogilby's Duiker VU Yes B G Q − − − 0 − 1 1 0.04 ↓ Hunting pressure 17 Water Chevrotain LC Yes B G Q S − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 18 Red River Hog LC Yes B G Q S − − − 0 − 0 2 0.27 ↓ Hunting 19 Giant Forest Hog LC Yes Q S − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 20 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes B G Q S − − − 0 − 0 2 0.04 ↓ Hunting pressure 21 Tree Pangolin NT Yes B G Q S − − − − − 0 2 − ↓ Hunting pressure 22 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Yes B G Q S − 0 − − − 0 3 0.71 ↑ Less hunted
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 75
23 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Yes B G Q S 0 0 − − − 0 3 ↑ Less hunted 24 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes B G Q S − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunted 25 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Yes B G Q S − 0 − − − 0 3 0.04 ↑ Less hunted 26 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes B G Q S 0 − − − − 0 3 0.04 ↑ Less hunted 27 Piping Hornbill LC Yes B G Q S − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunted 28 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Yes B G Q S − − − 0 0 1 3 0.16 ↑ Less hunted 29 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes B G Q S − − − 0 − 0 2 0.04 ↓ Hunting pressure 30 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Yes B Q S − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 31 Red Colobus EN Past B Q S − − − − − 2003 0 − ↓ Hunting pressure 32 Diana Monkey VU Past B G Q S − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 33 Elephant VU Past B G Q S − − − − − 1980 0 − − Hunting and habitat loss 34 Bongo NT Past B G Q − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 35 Jentink's Duiker EN Past G S − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 36 Zebra Duiker VU Past B G Q S − − − − − 1979 0 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 37 Royal Antelope LC Past B G Q S − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 38 Giant Pangolin NT Past B G Q S − − − − − 2005 0 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest Forest Part Part of Big Gio Forest on clan level, where species was reported to be present (B: Beatuo, G: Gblor, Q: Quilla, S: Sehzuplay)
Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted.
Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction .
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 76 species (Black-and-White Colobus, Ogilby’s Duiker, White-breasted Guineafowl, Dwarf Crocodile) and another seven species that are classified as Near Threatened. According to the interviews, 21 of the 30 species can still be found in all four clan areas. The highest number, i.e. 29 species were strikingly reported for the Quilla area (the missing one being the Pygmy Hippo), which at the same time seems to have the most destroyed forest part. This questions a bit the reliability of their answers, and might reflect a tendency to palliate. In Beatuo and Sehzuplay 28 species were reported present, while the Gblor community listed the lowest number at 23. The remaining 8 of the 38 species were present in the past, and four of them can definitely be considered as locally extinct in Big Gio, as their latest records are dated. These are the Red Colobus (Endangered), the Elephant and Zebra Duiker (both Vulnerable) as well as the Giant Pangolin (Near Threatened). The other four were, though not in all areas, still found in (early-mid) 2011 and therefore might still be present, at least in the areas where these latest records come from: the Diana Monkey in Quilla and Beatuo (in Sehzuplay and Gblor they were latest noticed in 2007 and 2008), the Bongo in Quilla, the Jentink’s Duiker in Gblor and Sehzuplay, and the Royal Antelope in Sehzuplay and Beatuo. However, as animals move they cannot be considered as absolutely extinct in the respective parts of Big Gio Forest. Interestingly 3 of the absent 8 species were reported to have never occurred in certain areas. Specifically, the Red Colobus was not known in the Gblor area, the Bongo was not known to the Sehzuplay, and the Jentink’s Duiker allegedly never roamed in either Gblor or Quilla. According to the interviews, 13 species still occur in relatively high numbers (i.e. were rated as “plenty”), including three primate species, Buffalo, Bushbuck and Maxwell’s Duiker, as well as all seven bird species. The Sehzuplay community further rated the Chimpanzee as plenty as well. This clan does have a hunting taboo for this particular species, so in fact the population might be higher than in other areas. Five species were classified as intermediate, as was the Bay Duiker in Gblor and Quilla (but as scarce in Beatuo and Sehzuplay). The remaining eleven species, including large animals such as the Black-and-White Colobus, the Pygmy Hippo, Leopard, Yellow- backed Duiker and Giant Forest Hog have become rare in Big Gio today. The wildlife is threatened by a high hunting pressure, and also facing habitat loss. In total 20 of the remaining 30 species were reported as decreasing by the communities over the past ten years. This further applies to the Maxwell’s Duiker in Gblor and Quilla, while its population was considered as stable in Beatuo and Sehzuplay. The latter also applied for the Spot-nosed Monkey over the whole Big Gio Forest. Certain species however, i.e. all seven bird species and the Buffalo, are either not or only incidentally hunted, and therefore show increasing trends. The reasons are similar to those explained above for the Gblor Community Forest (page 63), i.e. that the birds are not considered “attractive” meat (i.e. the amount of meat per catch is quite low) and not easy to catch, while the Buffalo is not only dangerous to hunt, but the interviewees also said that they were told by FDA not to hunt large species, as most of them are protected.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 77
As in the Gblor CF, the increasing number of buffaloes has become a problem for the communities around Big Gio. The communities report conflicts because the buffaloes enter and destroy their farms. Fresh tracks of buffaloes were found in all areas except in the Gblor Clan area. Further species recorded during the surveys – in total seventeen of the 30 (56.67%) - include the Campbell’s and Spot-nosed Monkey, Bushbuck, five duiker species, Long-tailed Pangolin, four hornbill species and the Dwarf Crocodile. The highest encounter rates were obtained for the Maxwell’s Duiker and Black/Yellow-casqued Hornbill (both 0.71 signs/km), and the Bay Duiker (0.59/km). Seven species were just recorded one time during the four forest walks, resulting in an encounter rate of 0.04 signs/km. These were the Spot-nosed Monkey, Ogilby’s Duiker and Long-tailed Pangolin in Beatuo, the Bushbuck, Brown-cheeked Hornbill and Dwarf Crocodile in Sehzuplay, and the African Pied Hornbill in Quilla.
3.5.5 Ecological Integrity Table 17 shows the Ecological Integrity Index (EcoIntex) for the three animal groups and the single species in Big Gio Forest, compared to the reference site Sapo National Park (a-c), as well as compared to (d) the forest sites of the Liberia Forest Re-assessment Project in 2003 (WAITKUWAIT 2003), and the four PROSPER CF sites assessed in this report. The sub-tables a)-c) list the results by clan level, as well as a combined value for the whole site, which was calculated as the average and is expressed as a percentage of the corresponding EcoIntex value at SNP. This combined value was also used for the comparison of sites in sub-table 17d. Looking at the clan level first, it can be noticed that there were differences in the ranking, in particular of the primates and duikers. Gblor and Sehzuplay show the lowest primate indices, i.e. 12.52% and 26.90% of SNP, due to the absence of high- ranking species such as the Red Colobus, Diana Monkey and Black-and-White Colobus. As some of these are still present at Quilla and Beatuo, their indices were higher, i.e. correspond to nearly half of the Sapo EcoIntex (47.43% and 49.90%). The two clans further showed similar duiker indices, i.e. 44.89% and 45.02% of SNP, respectively, but highest was reported at the Gblor site (58.82%). The main difference in the duiker species composition at Gblor compared to the other clans was the ranking of middle-range Sapo species, in particular the Jentink’s Duiker and Water Chevrotain, which were either lowest-ranking or totally absent in the other three sites. The lowest duiker index shows Sehzuplay with 32.76% of SNP. According to the interviewees, four of the ten species, i.e. the Zebra Duiker, Ogilby’s Duiker, Jentink’s Duiker and Yellow-backed Duiker are not present anymore in their area today and therefore were rated as 0. It has to be understood that the differences in the clans’ primate and duiker indices mainly arise from the different ranking of a few high-middle ranking Sapo species, but that the four clans concordantly rated low- ranking Sapo species such as the Spot-nosed and Campbell’s Monkey, as well as
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 78 the Bushbuck as amongst the most abundant species in their areas. Consequently the indices of both animal groups are low compared to Sapo. Table 17. Ecological Integrity Index of a)-c) the selected taxa and key species compared to SNP, and d) the three taxa at different sites, as % of the EcoIntex at SNP. Table a) – c) show the results per clan, as well as the combined EcoIntex for the whole site (average), expressed as % of SNP.
a) Primates SNP Gblor Sehzuplay Quilla Beatuo Red Colobus 6 0 0 0 0 Sooty Mangabey 5 0 2.24 3.16 3.16 Diana Monkey 4 0 0 0 1.41 Black & White Colobus 3 0 0 1.73 1.22 Campbell's Monkey 2 1.41 2 2.83 2.45 Spot-nosed Monkey 1 1.22 1.41 2.24 2.24 Olive Colobus 0 0 0 0 0 Total 21 2.63 5.65 9.96 10.48 % SNP 12.52 26.90 47.43 49.90 % SNP combined Big Gio 34.19
b) Duikers SNP Gblor Sehzuplay Quilla Beatuo Maxwell's Duiker 9 7.94 6.71 7.04 7.35 Zebra Duiker 8 0 0 0 0 Bay Duiker 7 5.29 4.58 5.29 4.58 Ogilby's Duiker 6 3.00 0 3.46 3.46 Jentink's Duiker 5 3.54 0 0 0 Water Chevrotain 4 2.83 0 0 0 Black Duiker 3 3.87 2.45 3.00 3.46 Yellow-backed Duiker 2 0 0 1.41 1.41 Royal Antelope 1 0 1.00 0 0 Bushbuck 0 0 0 0 0 Total 45 26.47 14.74 20.20 20.26 % SNP 58.82 32.76 44.89 45.02 % SNP combined Big Gio 45.37
c) Hornbills SNP Gblor Sehzuplay Quilla Beatuo Black- & Yellow-casqued HB 4 2.45 2.83 0 3.16 Brown-cheeked Hornbill 3 2.74 2.45 1.73 2.74 White-crested Hornbill 2 0 0 2.45 0 African Pied Hornbill 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Piping Hornbill 0 0 0 0 0 Total 10 7.19 7.28 6.18 7.90 % SNP 71.90 72.80 61.80 79.00 % SNP combined Big Gio 71.37
d) Site Comparison (as % of EcoIntex SNP)
Cestos- Cestos- Nimba- Sayee Barconnie Kortor Gblor Big Gio Site Sapo NP Grebo Senkwehn Gbi Northeast CF CF CF CF Forest
Primates 100 90.14 91.29 86.86 58.76 22.90 14.29 62.71 8.14 34.19 Duikers 100 87.02 87.58 90.64 79.56 29.43 21.44 78.39 58.82 45.37 Hornbills 100 73.70 79.23 81.64 77.36 52.65 10.00 76.45 71.90 71.37
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 79
Relatively high indices however were found for the hornbills, across all four sites, i.e. 71.90% at Gblor, 72.80% at Sehzuplay, and, the highest, 79% at Beatuo. Only Quilla falls below with 61.80%, as they rated the Black-and Yellow-casqued species as the rarest, while this was the White-crested Hornbill at the other three sites. The most abundant species at all clan sites is the African Hornbill.
The combined EcoIndices for the Big Gio Forest as a whole result in 34.19% for the primates, 45.37% for the duikers, and 71.37% for the hornbills. Compared to other forest blocks (Table 17d and Figure 32), the latter is (much) higher than in Barconnie CF and Sayee CF, and similar to the ones of the remaining six sites. The primate and duiker integrity values score between those of the other four PROSPER CF sites (with Kortor CF always being the highest), and relatively low compared to Cestos- Senkwehn, Cestos-Gbi, Grebo and Nimba-Northeast, which have been assessed in 2003.
100
90
80 Sapo NP Cestos-Senkwehn
70 Cestos-Gbi 60 Grebo 50 Nimba-Northeast
EcoIntex SNP EcoIntex Sayee CF % % 40 Barconnie CF 30 Kortor CF 20 Gblor CF 10 Big Gio Forest
0 Primates Duikers Hornbills
Figure 32. Ecological Integrity Indices of the three taxa at different forest sites, expressed as percentage of SNP.
The overall results reflect a higher hunting pressure on primates and duikers as compared to hornbills (which is in accordance with the information collected during the interviews), as well as the degradation and disturbed ecological integrity of the forest by other human impacts, such as logging (in the past) and farming. The species composition at Big Gio Forest, both in diversity and relative abundance, shows a bias towards species able to cope with degraded, secondary vegetation, while the ones depending on undisturbed, high-canopy, intact primary forest are either rare or locally extinct. This applies in particular to the primates, as some species are sensitive to disturbance and also depend to a higher extent on an
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 80 unbroken high canopy than the other two taxa. Though the hornbills include high- forest depending species too, they might be more reliant on certain fruit trees and high trees in general for nesting (which might still be present in the forest, as selective logging extracts the valuable timber species but leaves other big trees of low economic value). In addition, as volant animals, hornbills depend to a lesser extent on a contiguous canopy. This is also the case for duikers, which of the three taxa are assumed to face the highest hunting pressure, as they are caught both by gun and snares. These and other potential threats to Big Gio’s biodiversity will be analysed in the next section.
3.5.6 Forest use and threats Table 18 lists the use of and threats to Big Gio Forest’s natural resources, as reported by the four clans during the focus group exercises. All four clans use the forest for hunting, farming, the collection of NTFP, fishing and the extraction of wood for construction. People hunt using guns, snares and dogs, mainly for subsistence but also sell surplus locally. There are taboos on certain species, either at the individual or clan-level, e.g. the Sehzuplay Clan does not hunt chimpanzees, and none of the communities hunt the Buffalo (though this is mainly because of the risk and warnings against doing so by FDA). Hunting takes place year-round, with a peak in April/May and less activity in the rainy season. The forest further offers land for farming, as the areas around outside the forest according to the interviewees are not big enough to cover the needs. Three clans, i.e. Gblor, Sehzuplay and Quilla have villages inside Big Gio, while farming activities at the Beatuo side allegedly have not encroached into the forest interior. The most intensive use was registered at the Quilla Clan, who also report more new farms than old ones. The general fallow period is at least 6 or 7 years but averages 8-10 years. Nimba is known as the “food basket” of Liberia, and agriculture takes place as in a much bigger and commercial style than in other counties. This is also the case in the Big Gio area. Comparatively more people engage in agriculture and make bigger farms, hence more land is required and subject to agricultural conversion. The Sehzuplay Clan further mentioned the existence of 20-30 rubber plantations in their forest part, most of which were established in the 1960s and are still harvested. A third, commercially used forest product is timber in the Quilla area, where people extract approximately 500 planks every 2 months (by chainsaw), which corresponds to a minimum of six mature trees. The clans also mentioned artisanal mining activities by individuals, which happened around Marlay in the past and is ongoing in the Sehzuplay Clan area of Big Gio. BHP Billiton further prospected in the Gblor area in early 2012, but has abandoned the concession area for the present. The four clans all expressed serious concerns about threats to their forest. Excessive hunting, farming and the rubber plantations were judged as the most devastating hazards (Figure 33-36). Rubber was considered the most problematic, because once established the land is unavailable for farming (although it does provide an alternative revenue stream for farmers).
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 81
Table 18. Use of and threats to the natural resources of Big Gio Forest.
No. Type Area Notes Use Threat
certain taboos exist; less hunting in the rainy season and peak in April/May; 3-4 Hunting (by gun, all clans, in the 1 days/trip; up to 250 snare x x snares, dogs) forest traps set in 1 week; mainly for subsistence and small scale commercial
Gblor, Sehzuplay shifting cultivation, fallow and Quilla have period minimum 6-7 years, farms and villa- average 8-10 years; Quilla 2 Farming x x ges inside the clan reported to use more new forest (Beatuo at than old farms; subsistence very edges) and commercial
Sehzuplay Clan Clan reported of more than 20 3 Rubber farms area, around and rubber plantations inside the x x in the forest forest
all clans, in the 4 NTFP collection x forest
Fishing (by basket, subsistence and small scale 5 hook, net, water rivers and creeks x commercial fence)
for community purpose; Quilla Clan also doing commercial Sticks and planks for all clans, around chainsaw business, i.e. 500 6 x x construction and in the forest planks/2 months (min. 6 trees, depending on size), around the towns
artisanal mining around Marlay (Quilla), stopped in Gblor, Sehzuplay 2000; some individual 7 Mining and Quilla parts artisanal miners in Sehzuplay x x of forest forest; BHP Billiton prospected Gblor area in early 2012 but did not come back
in the past, several companies all over Big Gio 8 Logging (since 1968; the latest from x Forest 2000-2003 MGC + SIMPLE)
potentially in the dry season, when the rocks are heated up Mount Tappeh 9 Fire by the sun until they explode / x Range spark off forest fires; happens every 2-3 years
10 Storms all over the forest potentially in April and May x
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 82
The people recognized their own activities as being destructive, but also complained that the forest resources (wildlife, rubber) are overharvested by other people from outside (e.g. “Upper Nimba”). The felling of trees for construction and mining were also seen as threats, and all four clans were clearly aware of the severe negative impacts left by the logging companies in the past. Last but not least, the forest may potentially be further threatened by natural causes, namely forest fires and storms. Forest fires happen regularly in very dry and hot seasons, around the Mount Tappeh Range, when the rocks are heated up by the sun so intensely that they spark off fires. Storms occur mainly in April and May, and can affect the whole forest.
Figure 33. Hunted Campbell’s Monkey (Quilla) Figure 34. Trap in the Sehzuplay area.
Figure 35. Hunted Dwarf Crocodile (Beatuo) Figure 36. Farming village inside Big Gio, Quilla.
Records on human impacts taken during the forest walks resulted in an encounter rate of 1.29 signs/km for whole Big Gio, mostly snare traps and gunshells. Most of
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 83 the signs, i.e. 90.91% were less than one year old, corresponding to an encounter rate of 1.18 signs/km. The analysis by clan level resulted in 2.76 hunting signs/km (less than 1 year: 2.41/km) in Gblor, 1.60 signs/km (less than 1 year: 1.48/km) in Sehzuplay, 1.20 signs/km (all less than 1 year) in Quilla and 1.51/km (less than 1 year: 1.32/km) in Beatuo. The highest encounter rate was found in the Gblor area, however it should be noted that this was the shortest of all four forest walks and did not lead too deeply into the forest. Empirically, the density of human impact is higher at the forest edges (as they in general are nearest to towns) and decreases the deeper one walks into the forest. The most severe human impact, comprising all activities, was found in Quilla. As already mentioned in subsection 3.5.2 above, the total walking distance in the Big Gio Forest at Quilla was 9.2 km, of which 6.7 km led through villages, farmbush and other degraded areas (i.e. along logging roads).
3.5.7 Summary This section summarizes the key findings of the biodiversity assessment of the Big Gio Forest.
Forest size: 32,930 hectares (58,000 ha?)
Forest type: Mature Secondary Forest
Intactness: In general degraded by logging impact and farming (three clans have villages inside the forest), some areas largely degraded
Connectivity to adjacent forest blocks: According to the (outdated) Forest Cover Map of FDA (2004), the Big Gio is quite ecologically isolated; apart from a potential connectivity to the Gblor CF in the southeast (from which it is however separated by a road and privately-owned land used for farming), there might be a potential connectivity to an adjacent forest block in the south.
Faunal indicator species: Thirty of 38 potentially occurring species still present (78.95%), among them 13 of conservation concern (2 Endangered, 4 Vulnerable, 7 Near Threatened)
Ecological Integrity: overall intermediate Primate EcoIntex 34.19% of SNP Duiker EcoIntex 45.37% of SNP Hornbill EcoIntex 71.37% of SNP
Main threats: Farming, rubber plantations and excessive hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 84
4. Conclusions In order to allow an interpretation of the main results of this report within a broader context, a relative conservation value of each site was assessed based on seven criteria, i.e. (1) forest size, (2) forest type, (3) forest intactness, (4) degree of forest fragmentation, (5) potential connectivity to adjacent forest blocks, (6) presence of key species (expressed as percentage of the potentially occurring total number) and (7) ecological integrity (expressed as percentage of the corresponding SNP EcoIntex). The criteria further were classified by up to five distinct categories, and each category was given a score between 0 – 4 (see Table 19). Table 19. Criteria and related scores used for the conservation value assessment of the CF sites. Score Conservation value assessment criteria 0 1 2 3 4
small moderate very small big Forest Size ─ 1,000 – 5,000 – < 1,000ha > 20,000ha 5,000ha 20,000ha
Primary/Old Young Mature Forest Type ─ Secondary ─ Secondary Secondary Mangroves
largely moderately Intactness degraded largely intact undisturbed degraded intact
not Degree of fragmentation ─ high moderate low fragmented
at least to 1 more than 2 Connectivity to adjacent 2 adjacent in all isolated adjacent adjacent forests areas directions area areas
Number of key species as % of potentially 0 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% occurring total number
Ecological Integrity 0 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% as % of EcoIntex SNP
With regard to the forest size, a balance had to be found between what is meaningful from a conservation perspective, while at the same time factoring in the community forestry statutory limit of 49,999 hectares. The forest type refers to the one of the forest block of interest, i.e. the calculation does not include the degraded farmbush-secondary forest mosaic around or within these blocks.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 85
The connectivity criterion refers to a potential for connection. In terms of conservation however a potential connectivity is only meaningful if the adjacent region still harbors reasonable sized areas of intact suitable wildlife habitats. As mentioned this requires the availability of updated maps, hence could be analysed more detailed in the future, but for the time being it is possible to assess the general network potential of the given site. The score of the ecological integrity was calculated by rating the (combined) values for each of the three animal groups separately first, and then taking the average. For example, at the Sayee CF, the primate index (22.90%) receives a score of 1, the duiker index (29.43%) a score of 2, and the hornbill index (52.65%) a score of 3, i.e. the average score for all three taxa is 2 (1+2+3=6/3=2). For Barconnie the mangroves and the upland forest were assessed separately and then the average calculated for the site as a whole. However, as at the time of the assessment it was unknown how large the remaining forest types were. The estimated size for the whole CF, stated as < 2,000ha (USAID 2012a,b) was used for the calculation. As outlined in sub-section 3.2.4 and 3.2.5, the faunal key species and hence the EcoIntex were not really applicable for the mangroves, but mainly refer to the upland forest. These two criteria therefore were just assessed for the upland forest and the respective scores apply at the same time for the whole site. The Big Gio Forest was assessed as a whole and not by clan level.
Table 20 shows the results of the conservation value assessment for the five CF sites. It has to be kept in mind that the total score is just a relative value to allow some weighted comparison of the sites, within the scope of and based on the methodology applied for the rapid assessment. The highest possible score for a hypothetic optimum site would be 27.
Table 20. Conservation value scores of the five PROSPER CF sites. Barconnie CF Criteria Sayee CF Kortor CF Gblor CF Big Gio M UF Combined Forest Size 1 ? ? 2 3 3 4
Forest Type 3 3 2 2.5 3 2 2
Intactness 3 3 1 2 2 1.5 1.5
Fragmentation 3 3 1 2 3 2 2
Connectivity 0 1 1 1 3 2 1
Key species 3 ─ 2 2 4 3 4
Ecological Integrity 2 ─ 1 1 3.67 2.33 2.33
Score 15.00 12.50 21.67 15.83 16.83
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 86
The total scores of the five sites are 15.00 for Sayee CF, 12.50 for Barconnie CF, 21.67 for Kortor CF, 15.83 for Gblor CF and 16.83 for the Big Gio Forest. This corresponds to 55.55% (Sayee CF), 46.30% (Barconnie CF), 80.26% (Kortor CF), 58.63% (Gblor CF) and 62.33% (Big Gio) of the hypothetic maximum, respectively (see Figure 37).
100
90
80 70 60 50 40 30
of maximum conservation value conservation maximumof 20 % % 10 0 Sayee CF Barconnie CF Kortor CF Gblor CF Big Gio
Figure 37. Relative conservation value of the 5 sites, expressed as percentage of the maximum
Hence, from a conservation perspective, all sites except Kortor CF rank relatively low, i.e. do not even reach two third of the maximum. Looking at Sayee first, the Dehton Forest is part of the Nimba Mountain Range, an area of highest conservation importance within the overall Upper Guinean biodiversity hotspot. Yet, given its small size and isolation, Dehton contributes relatively little to the overall picture, and, in the broader context, is of low conservation value. This however does not suggest that its conservation per se is meaningless, as today even the smallest spot of forest on earth might be important, and the conservation of Dehton Forest is definitely of significance for the Sayee Community. For Barconnie with the lowest score, one might assume the same, but it requires a bit more detailed examination. Due to its relative degradation and high level of fragmentation, the Upland Forest can be considered, though important for the community, of no significant conservation value from a regional, national and global perspective. The Barconnie CF however comprises other ecosystems, which go beyond a bare community interest. First of all the mangroves, which in general are considered of high ecological importance, and at Barconnie still seem to be largely intact. This can also be gathered from its rating scores in Table 20. If one considers only the four criteria, which could be assessed
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 87 for the mangroves (forest type, intactness, fragmentation, connectivity), its total score is 10, compared to 9 for Dehton Forest, 5 for the Upland Forest, 11 for Kortor Forest, 7.5 for the Gblor CF and 6.5 for Big Gio (the overall maximum would be 15). Moreover, large parts of the mangroves in the greater Buchanan area have already been destroyed due to the development of the port in the 1960s (AML 2010), so the mangroves of Barconnie are of particular importance, both on a regional and national, and probably even on an international level. The site’s conservation value is further underpinned by its beaches, known as a sea turtle nesting site.
The Gblor Community Forest obtained a score similar to the Sayee CF. Though it is certainly important for the community, the Gblor CF, by itself, is of no significant conservation value. Its proximity and potential connectivity to the Big Gio Forest, however, raise its importance on a regional level. Though both the Big Gio Forest and the Gblor CF have been degraded by the logging operations in the past, they still contain “good” forest and suitable wildlife habitats, and, especially if taken together, represent a relative large contiguous forest block. Given that large parts of Nimba have been converted to agricultural land, the Big Gio Forest and the Gblor CF are, beyond the community interest of conservation, important on a regional and national level.
Finally, the assessment showed a relative high conservation value of the Kortor CF. The preservation of this forest is not just significant for the community, but also in a broader context, especially in view of the dwindling biodiversity in its wider surroundings, related to logging and rubber concessions. Kortor Forest’s long-term future will thus depend on the continued existence and proper management of its resources.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 88
5. References
AGORAMOORTHY G (1990). Survey of Rainforest Primates in Sapo National Park, Liberia. Primate Conservation (10), 71-73.
ARCELORMITTAL LIBERIA LIMITED (AML) (2010). Western Range DSO Iron Ore Project Volume 4, Part 1: Zoological Assessment. Internal ESIA-ESMP Report, AML, September 2010.
ARCELORMITTAL LIBERIA LIMITED (AML) (2012). ESIA-Phase 2 Report. In preparation.
ARCELORMITTAL LIBERIA LIMITED (AML) AND CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL (CI) (2012). Further Ecological Studies as part of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for ArcelorMittal Liberia: Bushmeat and Biomonitoring studies in the Northern Nimba Conservation Area. AML 2012.
AFROL 2002. Mangroves of Western Africa threatened by Global Warming. In: Afrol News. http://www.afrol.com/Categories/Environment/env019_mangroves_threatened.htm (accessed 18 July 2006).
BAKARR M, BAILEY B, BYLER D, HAM R, OLIVIERI S AND OMLAND M (2001). From the forest to the sea: biodiversity connections from Guinea to Togo, Conservation Priority-Setting Workshop, December 1999. Conservation International, Washington DC
BAKARR M, OATES JF, FAHR J, PARREN M, RÖDEL MO AND DEMEY R (2004). Guinean forests of West Africa. In: MITTERMEIER RA, GIL PR, HOFFMANN M, PILGRIM J, BROOKS T, MITTERMEIER CG, LAMOREUX J, DA FONSECA GAB (eds): Hotspots revisited: earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Conservation International and CEMEX, Washington, DC, p 123–130.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2012a). BirdLife International. Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs). b http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/eba. (accessed 30 October 2012).
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2012b). Species factsheet: Picathartes gymnocephalus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 30/08/2012.
BORROW N AND DEMEY R (2008). Birds of Western Africa. A and C Black Publishers Ltd., London.
CAWTHON LANG KA (2006). Primate Factsheets: Vervet (Chlorocebus) Taxonomy, Morphology, and Ecology. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/vervet. Accessed 2012 October 27
CHATELAIN C, GAUTIER L AND SPICHIGER R (1996): A recent history of forest fragmentation in southwestern Ivory Coast. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5: 783-791.
CHRISTIE T, STEININGER MK, JUHN D AND PEAL A (2007). Fragmentation and clearance of Liberia’s forests during 1986-2000. Oryx 41:4.
CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND (CEPF) (2000). Ecosystem Profile: Upper Guinean Forest Ecosystem of the Guinean Forests of West Africa Biodiversity Hotspot. CEPF, 47p.
FAO (1994). Mangrove forest management guidelines. FAO Forestry Paper 117. Rome.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 89
FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FDA) (2012). Lake Piso Multiple Sustainable Use Reserve Management Plan. in prep
IUCN (2012). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org.
KINGDON J (1997). The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. London: A and C Publishers Ltd.
LAMOTTE M (1998). Le mont Nimba. Réserve de la biosphère et site du patrimoine mondial (Guinée et Côte d’Ivoire). Initiation à la géomorphologie et à la biogéographie. UNESCO Publishing, Paris
LAMOTTE M AND ROY R (eds) (2003). Le peuplement animal du Mont Nimba (Guinée, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia). Mém Mus Natl Hist Nat 190:1–724
MALLON D, WIGHTMAN C, DE ORNELLAS P AND RANSOM C (2011). Conservation Strategy for the Pygmy Hippopotamus. IUCN Species Survival Commission. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
MYERS N, MITTERMEIER RA, MITTERMEIER CG, DA FONSECA GAB AND KENT J (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858.
PEPPER WT (2007). African hornbills: keystone species threatened by habitat loss, hunting and international trade. Ostrich 78 (3): 609-613.
POORTER L, BONGERS F AND LEMMENS RHMJ (2004) West African forests: introduction. In: POORTER L, BONGERS F, KOUAME FN AND HAWTHORNE WD (eds) Biodiversity of West African forests: an ecological atlas of woody plant species. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, p 5–14
RICKETTS TH, DINERSTEIN E, BOUCHER T, BROOKS TM and others (2005). Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:18497–18501
RÖDEL MO, BANGOURA MA AND BÖHME W (2004). The amphibians of south-eastern Republic of Guinea (Amphibia: Gymnophiona, Anura). Herpetozoa (Wien) 17:99–118
UNEP (2007). Mangroves of Western and Central Africa. UNEP - Regional Seas Programme/UNEP-WCMC.
USAID (2011a). Final evaluation of the Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LRCFP). Internal project document, October 2011.
USAID (2011b). Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LRCFP). Conservation International Final Report. Internal project document, November 2011.
USAID (2012a). PROSPER. Final Site Assessment Report. Internal project document, August 2012.
USAID (2012b). Barcoline Community Profiling Report. Internal project document, August 2012.
WAITKUWAIT WE (2003). Report on the Rapid Faunal Surveys to assess Biological Integrity of Forest Areas of Liberia proposed for the establishment of National Parks and Nature Reserves. Report for the Liberian Forest Re-assessment Project, FFI, Cambridge, UK.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 90
WAITKUWAIT WE AND SUTER J (2003). Report on the first year of operation of a community- based bio-monitoring programme in and around Sapo National Park, Sinoe County, Liberia. FFI internal document, Cambridge, UK
WHITE F (1983). The vegetation of Africa: a descriptive memoir to accompany the NESCO/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa. UNESCO, Natural Resources Research, Vol. 20: 1-356.
WHITE L AND EDWARDS A (eds.) (2000). Conservation research in the African rain forests: a technical handbook. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 91
Annexes
Annex 1: BAT and Contact persons in the field
FFI Biodiversity Assessment Team (BAT): Dr. Tina Vogt, Technical Advisor for Biomonitoring and Research, FFI Liberia; Team Leader and Survey Coordinator Evangeline S. Nyantee, Conservation Department FDA; Field Assistant Tiecanna A. Jones, Field Assistant
PROSPER Field staff: Henry P. Mulbah, Administration Officer, PROSPER Field Office Sanniquellie, Nimba Darlington Jacobs, Sayee Community Mobilizer, Nimba Peter Zuway, Sayee Community Mobilizer, Nimba Adam Abdullie, Barconnie Community Mobilizer, Grand Bassa Joseph T. Kpainay, FDA, Community Mobilizer Bold Dollar, District 4, Grand Bassa Joe B. Josiah, Intern PROSPER, joined field trip to Grand Bassa D. Nuah Biah, Forestry Officer, PROSPER Field Office Tappita, Nimba Chirrey Baimie, CJPS/PROSPER, Community Mobilizer Gblor Clan, Nimba Magdalena Sherman, NAEAL/PROSPER, Community Mobilizer Gblor Clan, Nimba Joseph S. Gayflor, NAEAL/PROSPER, Community Mobilizer Sehzuplay Clan, Nimba Joseph Coleman, CJPS/PROSPER, Community Mobilizer Sehzuplay Clan, Nimba
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 92
Annex 2: Data Collection Sheets
Annex 2A: Forest Description Form CF Site (county, area) Village Date Recorder
1. Forest types Make notes on the forest type as described by the focus group. The following criteria will help to reflect and classify the group’s information: Age (old, middle, young), Tree size (big, middle, small), Tree density (high, middle, low), Degree of canopy closure (open = big gaps, lack of bigger trees or bigger trees spaced more than one crown-diameter away of each other; middle = bigger trees spaced one or less than one crown-diameter away but crowns don’t overlap; closed = crowns of bigger trees overlap), Density of understory and climbers (high, middle, low) Dominant tree species if known
No Description Area
2. Wildlife – note areas with high density
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 93
(continuation Annex 2A. Forest Description Form) 3. Forest use No Description Area When?
4. Threats (e.g. fire, logging, mining etc.)
No Description Area When?
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 94
Annex 2B: Focus Group Interview Recording Sheet
Group Interview Questionnaire Date
CF Site (county, area) Village Interviewer
Part I. Species List
What animals live in your forest? (Freelisting)
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 95
(continuation Annex 2B. Focus Group Interview Recording Sheet) No. English name Local name(s) 1 Chimpanzee 2 Black-and-White Colobus 3 Olive Colobus 4 Red Colobus 5 Campbell's Monkey 6 Diana Monkey 7 Spot-nosed Monkey 8 Sooty Mangabey 9 Elephant 10 Pygmy Hippopotamus 11 Leopard 12 Golden Cat 13 Bongo 14 Buffalo 15 Bushbuck 16 Jentink's Duiker 17 Yellow-backed Duiker 18 Zebra Duiker 19 Maxwell's Duiker 20 Black Duiker 21 Bay Duiker 22 Ogilby's Duiker 23 Royal Antelope 24 Water Chevrotain 25 Red River Hog 26 Giant Forest Hog 27 Giant Pangolin 28 Long-tailed Pangolin 29 Tree Pangolin 30 Black-casqued Hornbill 31 Yellow-casqued Hornbill 32 White-crested Hornbill 33 Brown-cheeked Hornbill 34 African Pied Hornbill 35 Piping Hornbill 36 White-breasted Guineafowl 37 Dwarf Crocodile 38 Slender-snouted Crocodile 39 West African Manatee 40 Nimba Otter Shrew
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 96
(continuation Annex 2B. Focus Group Interview Recording Sheet) Part II. Key species information
Is the When last Abundance In what areas Trend How far do you animal time seen Type of (scarce, do you find it? (increasing, Why? No. English name have to go to present in or record medium or (forest parts stable or (explain trend) find it? your forest? recorded? plenty) on map) decreasing)
1 Chimpanzee
2 Black-and-White Colobus
3 Olive Colobus
4 Red Colobus
5 Campbell's Monkey
6 Diana Monkey
7 Spot-nosed Monkey
8 Sooty Mangabey
9 Elephant
10 Pygmy Hippopotamus
11 Leopard
12 Golden Cat
13 Bongo
14 Buffalo
15 Bushbuck
16 Jentink's Duiker
17 Yellow-backed Duiker
18 Zebra Duiker
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 97
19 Maxwell's Duiker
20 Black Duiker
21 Bay Duiker
22 Ogilby's Duiker
23 Royal Antelope
24 Water Chevrotain
25 Red River Hog
26 Giant Forest Hog
27 Giant Pangolin
28 Long-tailed Pangolin
29 Tree Pangolin
30 Black-casqued Hornbill
31 Yellow-casqued Hornbill
32 White-crested Hornbill
33 Brown-cheeked Hornbill
34 African Pied Hornbill
35 Piping Hornbill
36 White-breasted Guineafowl
37 Dwarf Crocodile
38 Slender-snouted Crocodile
39 West African Manatee
40 Nimba Otter Shrew
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 98
(continuation Annex 2B. Focus Group Interview Recording Sheet) Part III. Ranking Exercise
Black / Red Olive Campbell Sooty Diana Spot-nosed White Primates Colobus Colobus Monkey Mangabey Monkey Monkey Colobus
Black / White Colobus Red Colobus Olive Colobus Campbell's Monkey Sooty Mangabey Diana Monkey Spot-nosed Monkey Sum
Yellow- Water Jentink's Bay Ogilby's Zebra Maxwell's Black Bush- Royal backed Chevro- Duikers Duiker Duiker Duiker Duiker Duiker Duiker buck Antelope Duiker tain Jentink's D. Bay Duiker Ogilby's D. Zebra D. Maxwell's D Black D. Yellow-backed Bushbuck Water Chevrotain Royal Antelope Sum
Black- / Brown- African White- Yellow- Piping cheeked Pied crested Hornbills casqued Hornbill Hornbill Hornbill Hornbill Hornbill
Black-casqued / Yellow-
casqued Hornbill
Brown-cheeked Hornbill
Piping Hornbill
African Pied Hornbill
White-crested Hornbill
Sum
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 99
Annex 2C: Forest Profile
CF Site:______Date:______Start Time:______Start Point:______Village:______Team:______End Time:______End Point:______
Description Forest type: Primary, Secondary, Farmbush, Cultivation Age: old, middle, young Closure: open, middle, closed Meter Waypoint GPS coordinates Disturbance: intact, disturbed (specify, e.g. by selective logging, fire, storms, etc.) Terrain: Slope, hill, valley Water resources: River, creek, swamp, seasonally inundated Other features: tree falls, logging road etc.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 100
Annex 2D: Forest Walk - Data Collection Sheet
Weather data - take records every hour CF Site: Start Point: use one of the following numbers for clouds, rain and wind: 0, 1, 2 or 3 (0=none, 1=small, 2=medium, 3=heavy) Village: End Point: Time: Clouds: Date: Start Time: Rain: Team: End Time: Wind:
Number Type of Age of No. Time Meter Species ind / Habitat GPS Waypoint 29N UTM sign sign nests
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 101
(continuation Annex 2D. Forest Walk – Data Collection Sheet) Age of sign: Type of sign: Age Class S for see: you see the animal or a human Sign H for hear: you hear an animal or human voices 1 2 3 4 No balls are T for tracks: animal or human footprints intact, but there is still dung material No dung material D for dung One or more balls Elephant left and sticking is left, only traces All balls are intact (but not all) are N for chimpanzee nests together (e.g. such as plant dung intact NCS for chimpanzee nut cracking sites plant fibres are fibres remain hold together by R for roads: animal road, hunting road dung material) G for gun (in case you should find a gun, but don’t see anybody) Recent - Smell Very old - Fresh - might still be Old - no smell, crumbling, GS for gun shot: you hear a gun shot sometimes still Other present, but no may have mould, dispersed, tending warm, smell and a SH for gun shells sheen anymore, overall form to disappear, dung sheen (from fatty overall form still breaking down covered by leaf C for (hunting) camps acids) still present intact, no mould fall O for any other sign (e.g. burrows, feathers, eggs etc.) Recent - most Very old - no or Fresh - all leaves leaves are still only few leaves are green and green, but also Old - most leaves left, nest has lost Chimp generally dung or drying leaves of dry/brown, but the its main form, but Number of individuals: urine smell is different colours form of the nest is Nests is still identifiable The number you have to enter here depends on your type of sign: found under the present, no dung still largely intact by remaining nest or urine smell See: How many animals / humans do you see? In case you cannot count all, twigs give an estimate (e.g. you encounter a group of monkeys and can see 3 under the nest Recent - less than Old - less than 1 individuals, but you know there must be at least 5, fill in 5). Fresh - less than Very old - more Tracks 1 week (but more month (but more 1 day than 1 month Hear: How many individuals do you hear calling or talking? Do not count the than 1 day) than 1 week) number of calls themselves. Again, if it is difficult to count the individuals try to estimate their number (e.g. if a group of Red Colobus is vocalizing, it Recently used - will be difficult to distinguish the individuals) not during the Old - not used for Very old - not Animal Used during the past few days, but more than 1 used for more Tracks: The tracks you see come from how many individuals? Do not count the Roads past few days number of footprints. within the last month than 6 months month Dung: The dung you see was produced by how many individuals? Do not count the number of dung pellets. Recently used Old - not in use Very old - not in Hunting Fresh - very fresh Nests: If you see chimpanzee nests, make sure that you can find and count all of (e.g. during the for more than 1 use for more than cuttings present them. Roads last week) month 6 months Road: Do not fill in a number. In most cases it will be not possible to say how many individuals are using a trail. Old - not in use for more than 1 Very old - Gun: How many guns do you find? Abandoned, but month, but structures rotten Camps In use Gun sound: How many gun shots do you hear? recently used structures (i.e. or not present sticks for tent etc) anymore Gun shells: If you find empty gun shells, count them still present
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 102
Annex 3: Timetable field surveys
Field work for the assessment of the seven sites was carried out in two phases: Phase I from 17th of September to 5th of October 2012, including Sayee CF, Barconnie CF and Kortor CF, and Phase II, which focused on the remaining four sites, i.e. Gblor CF and the Big Gio Forest, took place from 07th – 18th of November 2012. The following time table gives an overview on the activities.
Date BAT Activity Phase I: 17.09.-05.10.2012 (Sayee CF, Barconnie CF, Kortor CF) 17.09.2012 Travel Monrovia - Sanniquellie, Nimba County 18.09.2012 Focus group exercise in Sehiykimpa, Sayee Community 19.09.2012 Focus group exercise in Zolowee, Sayee Community 20.09.2012 Forest walk in southern part of Dehton Forest, Sayee CF 21.09.2012 Forest walk in nothern part of Dehton Forest, Sayee CF 22.09.2012 Travel Sanniquellie - Monrovia 23.09.2012 Equipment maintenance and preparation of field trip to Grand Bassa Travel Monrovia - Buchanan, Grand Bassa County 24.09.2012 Planning meeting with PROSPER field staff 25.09.2012 Field visit of 8 villages of Barconnie Community, initial village meetings 26.09.2012 Focus group exercise in Bleewien, Barconnie Community 27.09.2012 Forest walk in upland forest around Massah Town, Barconnie Community 28.09.2012 Forest walk in mangroves around Nyagbaa, Barconnie Community 29.09.2012 Equipment maintenance and preparation of field trip to Kortor CF, Grand Bassa Travel Buchanan - Bold Dollar, Kortor CF, District 4, Grand Bassa 30.09.2012 Initial village meeting in Bold Dollar 01.10.2012 Focus group exercise with Group 1 in Bold Dollar, Kortor CF 02.10.2012 Focus group exercise with Group 2 in Bold Dollar, Kortor CF 03.10.2012 Forest walk in south-eastern part of forest, Kortor CF 04.10.2012 Forest walk in north-western part of forest, Kortor CF 05.10.2012 Travel Bold Dollar - Buchanan - Monrovia Phase II: 07.11.-18.11.2012 (Gblor CF, Big Gio CFs) 07.11.2012 Travel Monrovia - Tappita, Nimba County 08.11.2012 Planning meeting with PROSPER field staff 09.11.2012 Focus group exercise in Dialah, Gblor Community 10.11.2012 Forest walk in Gblor CF 11.11.2012 Forest walk in Gblor part (south-eastern part) of Big Gio Forest 12.11.2012 Travel to and focus group exercise in Zeongehn, Sehzuplay Community 13.11.2012 Forest walk in Sehzuplay part (south-western part) of Big Gio Forest 14.11.2012 Travel to and focus group exercise in Marlay, Quilla Community 15.11.2012 Forest walk in Quilla part (north-western part) of Big Gio Forest 16.11.2012 Travel to and focus group exercise in Old Yourpea, Beatuo Community 17.11.2012 Forest walk in Beatuo part (north-eastern part) of Big Gio Forest 18.10.2012 Travel Old Yourpea - Monrovia
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 103
Annex 4: Personal Data Interviewees
Personal data of key informants for focus group exercise and forest walks. * Persons marked with an asterisk participated in forest walks Main source of No. Name Sex Age # years Town Education Main activity resident income
Sayee CF 1 Otis N. Payne M 43 43 Gbobayee 5th Grade Hunting & farming Farming/Agriculture 2 Michel Mantor M 22 17 Suakazu Illiterate Hunting & farming Farming/Agriculture 3 Terrance Lakpor* M 40 35 Sehyikimpa Highschool Hunting & farming Hunting 4 Gibson N. Gberto* M 42 39 Sehyikimpa 7th Grade Hunting & farming Hunting 5 Nyah Flomo* M 35 34 Sehyikimpa Illiterate Hunting & farming Farming 6 Prince Tokpah* M 52 52 Sehyikimpa Illiterate Hunting Hunting 7 Richard Yeanan M 36 34 Gbobayee 10th Grade Hunting & farming Farming 8 Jacob Gono M 45 43 Sehyikimpa Highschool Hunting & farming Farming 9 Wesley Quoi* M na na Sehyikimpa na na na 10 Jacob Thompson* M 57 40 Zolowee Illiterate Farming Farming & hunting 11 Amos Zuweh* M 46 41 Zolowee 9th Grade Farming Farming 12 Oscar Yealor* M 27 21 Zolowee 4th Grade Farming Farming 13 Mamie Zuweh F 32 24 Zolowee 4th Grade Farming Farming 14 Sata Gborlee F 23 17 Zolowee Highschool Farming Farming 15 Wuo Suah M 35 30 Zolowee Illiterate Farming & hunting Farming 16 Jeff J. Messah M 41 36 Zolowee Highschool Farming & hunting Farming 17 Samuel L. Tokbah M 35 32 Zolowee 6th Grade Farming & hunting Hunting 18 Moses Tokpah M 27 20 Zolowee 1rst Grade Hunting Hunting 19 Patrick Gongar* M na na Zolowee na na na 20 Roland S. Dolo* M na na Zolowee na na na Barconnie CF 1 Moses N. Flahn* M 45 40 Bleewien no education Fishing & farming Fishing, farming, charcoal 2 Peter Teah M 43 32 Bleewien no education Farming & palm cutting Palm oil, farming Anthony Charcoal & mat 3 M 31 31 Sanwien no education Farming, charcoal prod., hunting Nyankoon* production 4 Isaac C. David* M 43 23 Penneh Town Junior High Farming, charcoal prod., hunting Charcoal & mat business 5 Alex Joe M 37 5 Penneh Town no education Farming & hunting Farming, hunting, coal 6 Joseph Z. Dean* M 62 42 Nyagbaa Junior High Hunting & farming Charcoal, farming 7 Philp K. Davids* M 40 40 Kono Town Junior High Hunting & farming Farming & hunting 8 Joseph G. Kwatee M 50 50 Douwhien no education Hunting & farming Farming, hunting, coal 9 John Yarbah M 52 52 Diaplay no education Farming, mat & charcoal prod. Farming, mat & charcoal 10 Kennedy Flahn* M 58 30 Massah Town Elementary Farming, charcoal & wood prod. Farming, wood & charcoal 11 Anthony Henry M 43 43 Giah's Town no education Mat, charcoal & stick business Mat, coal & stick business Kortor CF George G. 1 M 85 35 Karr's Town Highschool Farming Fishing & farming Gboyah 2 John Goah M 68 23 Bold Dollar Elementary Farming Fishing & farming Farming & Pitsaw 3 Emmanuel Henry M 36 20 Bold Dollar 7th Grade Farming Business 4 Thomas Nebo M 43 8 Bold Dollar Junior High Farming Hunting Emmanuel 5 M 33 33 Bold Dollar Elementary Farming Hunting George* 6 Emmanuel John M 26 26 Farr's Town Elementary Farming Hunting 7 Moses Jiobia M 40 30 Bold Dollar Junior High Farming Hunting 8 Elison Vah M 29 20 Jinnah no education Farming Hunting & farming 9 Morris S. Gborga M 37 37 Bold Dollar Elementary Farming Farming 10 David Vah M 47 47 Karr's Town Elementary Farming Farming & hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 104
11 Abraham Bureh M 28 28 Jinnah Elementary Farming Farming & hunting 12 Mat Peter M 40 40 Jinnah no education Farming Farming & hunting Papa K. 13 M 44 17 Jinnah Junior High Farming Hunting & farming Flomoson* 14 Richard Smith* M 40 12 Bold Dollar C-Certificate Teacher Teacher, Farming 15 Shadrach Joseph M 26 26 Bold Dollar Elementary Farming Farming 16 Moses Gbotoe M 52 25 Bold Dollar no education Hunting Farming 17 Robert Gbayee* M 41 41 Gueh Town no education Farming Farming & hunting 18 Daniel S. Wadyu M 34 10 Kpah Junior High Farming Farming & hunting 19 Patrick Ben M 35 35 Gueh Town no education Farming Farming & hunting 20 Emmanuel Dunn M 38 38 Gueh Town no education Farming Farming & hunting 21 Jacob Guah M 42 42 Gueh Town Highschool Farming Farming & hunting 22 Ba-Bawin Gboyah M 31 31 Sammie Town Highschool Farming Farming & hunting 23 Alphonso Davis* M 38 38 Farr's Town Elementary Farming Farming & hunting 24 William Kennedy M 52 23 Farr's Town Elementary Farming Farming & hunting 25 Ross Godee M 24 24 Sammie Town Elementary Farming Farming & hunting 26 Peter Gboe M 28 28 Duah Town Elementary Farming Farming & hunting 27 Alfred Doegay M 58 58 Gueh Town no education Farming Farming & hunting Sampson 28 M 46 46 Kpah Highschool Farming Farming & hunting Mondah* 29 Lenuel Juwee M 55 6 Bold Dollar C-Certificate Teacher Teacher Gblor CF / Big Gio Forest - Gblor Cristopher K. 1 M 43 43 Dialah 11th Grade Farming Farming Tonh* 2 John Boyee* M 60 12 Dialah None Hunting Hunting 3 Dahn Johnson M 26 5 Dialah 7th Grade Hunting Farming Gwinyeayen- 4 Friday Moore M 49 26 8th Grade Farming Hunting bopea 5 Saturday Dulonge M 54 30 Doeley 11th Grade Farming Farming 6 Tiatun Goe M 25 25 Wrolay 11th Grade Hunting Farming Gwinyeayen- 7 Peter Gweh M 52 40 None Hunting Farming bopea 8 Peter Mianen* M 32 32 Kwipea 8th Grade Hunting Farming 9 Charles Kuo M 43 23 Gbouto 6th Grade Farming Hunting 10 Enocu Manson* M 38 38 Gbouto None Hunting Hunting 11 Jerry B. Locker M 33 33 Fahnlay None Hunting Farming 12 G. Robert Baiboe M 48 48 Doeley 10th Grade Hunting Hunting 13 Fedresco Troh M 34 34 Fahnlay 8th Grade Hunting Fishing 14 James Y. Diah* M 55 30 Kwipea 7th Grade Hunting Farming 15 Sam Nuahn M 51 45 Kwipea 7th Grade Hunting Farming 16 Christian Sehlspor M 27 10 Wrolay 12th Grade Education Hunting 17 Maxsion Tarr* M 42 10 Doeley Graduate Farming Garden 18 David Dahmie* joined only the forest walk (Big Gio) Big Gio Forest - Sehzuplay 1 P. Moses Wobuah M 50 50 Zeongehn Highschool Farming & hunting Agriculture 2 James Obe M 54 30 Zeongehn no education Farming & hunting Agriculture 3 Cooper Lormie M 62 62 Zeongehn Junior High Farming & hunting Agriculture 4 Moses Tuazama M 52 52 Miller Village no education Farming & hunting Agriculture 5 Nuah Blehyee M 70 35 Zeongehn no education Farming & hunting Agriculture 6 Sam Doe M 65 14 Zeongehn no education Farming & hunting Agriculture K. Morris 7 M 43 43 Volay no education Farming & hunting Agriculture Wogbeh* 8 Luke Darwon* M 50 50 Volay na Farming & hunting Agriculture 9 Alfred Langar* M 43 43 Volay na Farming & hunting Agriculture 10 John Tougbay* M 57 57 Korlay 10th Grade Farming & hunting Agriculture 11 SWB Anthony M 52 52 Zuolay Teacher College Commissioner Farming
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 105
Teah 12 Joe Z. Wobuah M 50 50 Zeongehn Junior High Farming Farming 13 Jerrry G. Wobuah M 41 41 Zeongehn no education Farming Farming 14 Zachaeus Weh* M 44 44 Korlay Junior High Farming Farming 15 Jefferson Zaza M 40 10 Zeongehn no education Farming Farming 16 Joram B. Wamah M 28 na Zeongehn Junior High Farming Farming 17 Anthony Karzon M 66 49 Volay Highschool Retired Farming 18 Sarday D.G. Gbor M 50 38 Zeongehn Junior High Farming Farming 19 John Zoriah M 48 48 Graie Town Junior High Farming Farming Big Gio Forest - Quilla 1 Marshall Werde M 42 42 Yiteepea 8th Grade Farming Farming 2 Junior M. Jackson M 29 29 Yiteepea 10th Grade Farming Farming 3 Freeman Kentu M 41 41 Yiteepea 11th Grade Farming Farming 4 James Gonkenme M 38 38 Yiteepea 9th Grade Farming Farming 5 Isaya Z. Quoi M 39 29 Youlay 1 7th Grade Farming Farming 6 Moses Dayfune M 68 68 Youlay 1 no education Farming Farming 7 Patrick Kenriah M 69 69 Zuatuo no education Farming Farming 8 Henry Fahn M 52 52 Zuatuo no education Farming Farming 9 Edward Gupa M 49 45 Zuatuo Highschool Farming Farming 10 Tarkpor Mansuah M 57 57 Toweh Town no education Farming Farming 11 Kuazito F. Duo M 40 10 Toweh Town Highschool Farming Farming 12 Oldman Diah M 39 6 Toweh Town 6th Grade Farming Farming 13 Arthur Gahn* M 64 58 Marlay Town no education Farming Farming 14 Prince Togbah M 48 48 Marlay Town 11th Grade Farming Farming 15 James Gahn M 47 47 Marlay Town 6th Grade Farming Farming 16 Jessy Sayn M 60 60 Tarwian no education Hunting Hunting 17 Biah Suomie M 42 20 Tarwian 11th Grade Hunting Hunting 18 Gaye Lormie* M 46 40 Youlay 2 9th Grade Farming Farming 19 Tokpor Quinie* M 43 43 Youlay 2 7th Grade Farming Farming 20 Andrew Worlor* M 48 48 Youlay 2 10th Grade Farming Farming 21 Saady Vaye* M joined only the forest walk Big Gio Forest - Beatuo 1 Junior Kwity M 40 40 Old Yourpea 8th Grade Farming Farming 2 John Sayou M 50 50 Kpabee no education Farming Farming 3 Erison Gaye M 38 38 Kpabee no education Hunter Hunting 4 Jessie Bah M 42 42 Bah Town 8th Grade Hunter Hunting 5 Dill Bah M 32 32 Bah Town no education Hunter Hunting 6 Exodus Ziaty M 32 32 Zodru 7th Grade Hunter Hunting 7 Paye Sayon M 52 52 Zodru no education Hunter Hunting 8 Jacob Karhou M 42 42 Dewoblee 8th Grade Hunter Farming 9 Harry Wongba M 63 63 Beatuo no education Farming Farming 10 Dohn Mongrue M 40 40 Beatuo 12th Grade Hunter Hunting 11 Nelson Tur M 36 36 Beatuo 11th Grade Farmer Farming 12 Ben Kpatue M 38 38 Dewoblee 10th Grade Hunter Farming 13 Paye Lawrence M 60 60 Old Yourpea no education Hunter Farming 14 Augustin Gaye M 35 35 Touzon 8th Grade Hunter Farming 15 William Seewru M 50 50 Touzon 6th Grade Hunter Farming 16 Paul Sehmon M 42 42 Kaylay 9th Grade Hunter Hunting 17 Junior Youtee M 31 31 Old Yourpea na Hunter Hunting 18 Sam Kpatue M 52 52 Touzon no education Hunter Hunting 19 Emmanuel Kar M 25 25 Old Yourpea 5th Grade Hunter Hunting 20 Jerry Gorhou M 42 42 Dewoblee 5th Grade Hunter Hunting 21 Prince Dakar M 50 50 New Yourpea 8th Grade Hunter Hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 106
22 Peter Neewary M 65 65 Old Yourpea no education Hunter Hunting 23 Moses Lowah M 48 48 Beatuo 9th Grade Hunter Hunting 24 John Gbar M 58 58 Old Yourpea no education Hunter Hunting 25 Jame Larmie M 46 46 Beatuo no education Hunter Hunting 26 Salay Zarh M 40 40 Beatuo 12th Grade Hunter Hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 107
Annex 5: Big Gio Forest detailed data clan level
N
Figure 38. Sketch map Big Gio Forest, Gblor Clan.
N
Figure 39. Sketch map Big Gio Forest, Sehzuplay Clan.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 108
N
Figure 40. Sketch map Big Gio Forest, Quilla Clan.
N
Figure 41. Sketch map Big Gio Forest, Beatuo Clan.
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 109
Table 21. Faunal key species analysis for Big Gio - Gblor.
Relative Type of records and age Trend Abundance No. Species IUCN Presence past Reason See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Chimpanzee EN Yes − − − − − 0 2 − ↓ Hunting pressure 2 Olive Colobus NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 3 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.34 ↓ Hunting pressure 4 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Yes − − − − − 0 2 − ↓ Hunting pressure 5 Golden Cat NT Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 6 Buffalo LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Not hunted 7 Bushbuck LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 8 Jentink's Duiker EN Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 9 Zebra Duiker VU Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 10 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 1.38 ↓ Hunting pressure 11 Black Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 1 1.03 ↓ Hunting pressure 12 Bay Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 2 1.38 ↓ Hunting pressure 13 Ogilby's Duiker VU Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 14 Water Chevrotain LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 15 Red River Hog LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 1.03 ↓ Hunting pressure 16 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 17 Tree Pangolin NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 18 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 ↓ Hunting pressure 1.38 19 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 ↓ Hunting pressure 20 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 21 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 110
22 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 23 Piping Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 24 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Yes − − − − − 1 3 − → 25 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting pressure 26 Black-and-White Colobus VU Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 27 Diana Monkey VU Past − − − − − 2008 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 28 Sooty Mangabey NT Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 29 Elephant VU Past − − − − − 1970 0 − − Hunting pressure 30 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 31 Leopard NT Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 32 Bongo NT Past − − − − − 2000 0 − − Hunting pressure 33 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 34 Royal Antelope LC Past − − − − − 1970 0 − − Hunting 35 Giant Forest Hog LC Past − − − − − 2008 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 36 Giant Pangolin NT Past − − − − − 2005 1 − ↓ Hunting pressure 37 Red Colobus EN Never − − − − − − − − − − 38 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Never − − − − − − − − − − KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest
Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted.
Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 111
Table 22. Faunal key species analysis for Big Gio - Sehzuplay.
Relative Type of records and age Trend Abundance No. Species IUCN Presence past Reason See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Chimpanzee EN Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Hunting taboo clan level 2 Olive Colobus NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting 3 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.12 ↓ Hunting 4 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ difficult to hunt 5 Sooty Mangabey NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − → difficult to hunt 6 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 7 Leopard NT Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 8 Golden Cat NT Yes − − − − − 4 3 − ↓ Hunting 9 Buffalo LC Yes − − − 0 − 1 2 0.25 ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 10 Bushbuck LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.12 ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 11 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.12 → 12 Black Duiker LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 13 Bay Duiker LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 14 Royal Antelope LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 15 Water Chevrotain LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 16 Red River Hog LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 17 Giant Forest Hog LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 18 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 19 Tree Pangolin NT Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 20 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Yes − − − − 0 3 ↑ not hunted 0 0.49 21 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Yes − − − − 0 3 ↑ not hunted
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 112
22 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ not hunted 23 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.12 ↑ not hunted 24 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ not hunted 25 Piping Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ not hunted 26 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Yes − − − − − 4 3 − ↑ not hunted 27 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes − − − 0 − 0 1 0.12 ↓ Hunting 28 Black-and-White Colobus VU Past − − − − − 2010 1 − ↓ Hunting 29 Red Colobus EN Past − − − − − 1960 0 − − Habitat loss 30 Diana Monkey VU Past − − − − − 2007 1 − ↓ Hunting 31 Elephant VU Past − − − − − 1980 0 − − all killed 32 Jentink's Duiker EN Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting 33 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting and habitat loss 34 Zebra Duiker VU Past − − − − − 1972 0 − − Habitat loss 35 Ogilby's Duiker VU Past − − − − − 2010 1 − ↓ Hunting 36 Giant Pangolin NT Past − − − − − 1974 0 − − not identified 37 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Past − − − − − 2009 1 − ↓ Hunting 38 Bongo NT Never − − − − − − − − − − KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest
Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted.
Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 113
Table 23. Faunal key species analysis for Big Gio - Quilla.
Relative Type of records and age Trend Abundance No. Species IUCN Presence past Reason See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Chimpanzee EN Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Habitat loss and disturbance 2 Black-and-White Colobus VU Yes − − − − − 2 3 − ↑ Less hunting 3 Olive Colobus NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − → 4 Red Colobus EN Yes − − − − − 2 1 − ↓ Hunting 5 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting 6 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting 7 Sooty Mangabey NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 8 Leopard NT Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 9 Buffalo LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.11 ↑ Less hunting 10 Bushbuck LC Yes − − − − − 0 2 − ↓ Hunting 11 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Yes − − 0 0 − 1 1 0.33 ↓ Hunting 12 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 2 0.43 ↓ Hunting 13 Black Duiker LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 14 Bay Duiker LC Yes − − 0 0 − 0 2 0.43 ↓ Hunting 15 Ogilby's Duiker VU Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 16 Water Chevrotain LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 17 Red River Hog LC Yes − − − 1 − 1 2 0.22 ↓ Hunting 18 Giant Forest Hog LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 19 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 20 Tree Pangolin NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting 21 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.65 ↑ Less hunting
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 114
22 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Yes 0 0 − − − 0 3 ↑ Less hunting 23 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 24 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 25 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes 0 − − − − 0 3 0.11 ↑ Less hunting 26 Piping Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunting 27 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Yes − − − − − 1 3 − ↑ Less hunting 28 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes − − − − − 0 2 − ↓ Hunting 29 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 30 Diana Monkey VU Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting 31 Elephant VU Past − − − − − 1960 0 − − Habitat loss 32 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting 33 Golden Cat NT Past − − − − − 2000 0 − − Hunting 34 Bongo NT Past − − − − − 2011 1 − − Hunting 35 Zebra Duiker VU Past − − − − − 1979 0 − ↓ Hunting 36 Royal Antelope LC Past − − − − − 2007 1 − ↓ Hunting 37 Giant Pangolin NT Past − − − − − 1974 0 − − Habitat loss 38 Jentink's Duiker EN Never − − − − − − − − − − KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest
Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted.
Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 115
Table 24. Faunal key species analysis for Big Gio - Beatuo.
Relative Type of records and age Trend Abundance No. Species IUCN Presence past Reason See Voc Dun Tra Nes Int IN FW 10 yrs 1 Chimpanzee EN Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 2 Black-and-White Colobus VU Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 3 Olive Colobus NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↓ Hunting 4 Campbell's Monkey LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − → 5 Diana Monkey VU Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 6 Spot-nosed Monkey LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.19 → 7 Sooty Mangabey NT Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Habitat loss 8 Pygmy Hippopotamus EN Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 9 Golden Cat NT Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 10 Buffalo LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.,19 ↑ not hunted 11 Bushbuck LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − → 12 Yellow-backed Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 2 1 0.38 ↓ Hunting 13 Maxwell's Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 1.70 → 14 Black Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 2 1.13 → 15 Bay Duiker LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 1 1.32 ↓ Hunting 16 Ogilby's Duiker VU Yes − − − 0 − 1 2 0.19 ↓ Hunting 17 Water Chevrotain LC Yes − − − − − 1 1 − ↓ Hunting 18 Red River Hog LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 1 0.38 ↓ Hunting 19 Long-tailed Pangolin LC Yes − − − 0 − 0 3 0.19 ↓ Hunting 20 Tree Pangolin NT Yes − − − − − 0 2 − ↓ Hunting 21 Black-casqued Hornbill LC Yes − 0 − − − 0 3 0.75 ↑ Less hunted
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 116
22 Yellow-casqued Hornbill NT Yes − − − − 0 3 ↑ Less hunted 23 White-crested Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunted 24 Brown-cheeked Hornbill NT Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunted 25 African Pied Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunted 26 Piping Hornbill LC Yes − − − − − 0 3 − ↑ Less hunted 27 White-breasted Guineafowl VU Yes − − 0 0 − 1 3 0.75 ↑ Less hunted 28 Dwarf Crocodile VU Yes − − − − − 0 1 − ↓ Hunting 29 Slender-snouted Crocodile DD Yes − − − − − 1 1 − − Hunting 30 Red Colobus EN Past − − − − − 2003 1 − ↓ Hunting 31 Elephant VU Past − − − − − 1980 0 − − Habitat loss / high hunting pr. 32 Leopard NT Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Habitat loss 33 Bongo NT Past − − − − − 2004 1 − ↓ Hunting 34 Zebra Duiker VU Past − − − − − 1960 0 − ↓ Habitat loss and hunting 35 Royal Antelope LC Past − − − − − 2011 1 − ↓ Hunting 36 Giant Forest Hog LC Past − − − − − 1966 0 − − Habitat loss and hunting 37 Giant Pangolin NT Past − − − − − 1970 0 − − Habitat loss and hunting 38 Jentink's Duiker EN Never − − − − − − − − − − KEY Present Yes: species is present in the particular forest; Past: latest record more than 1 year ago; Never: species never occurred in particular forest
Type of record (ordered from left to right by decreasing significance; all types except "Int" refer to the forest walks) See: direct observation of animal; Voc: animal heard; Dun: dung; Tra: track (footprint); Nes: chimpanzee nest; Int: according to information of focus group interview. The numbers refer to the age of the record: 0: ≤ 1 week; 1: > 1 week - 3 months; 2: > 3 - 6 months; 3: > 6 - 9 months; 4: > 9 - 12 months; 1990 (example): year of latest record if more than 1 year ago. The most recent record is displayed in grey; in case of several records within the same age class, only the most significant is highlighted.
Relative Abundance IN: based on interview, 0: species is considered as locally extinct; 1: scarce; 2: medium; 3: plenty FW: data from forest walk, records/km Trend (compares abundance today to 10 years ago; based on interview) species' population is ↑ increasing; → stable; ↓ decreasing Reason (based on interview) main explanation for increasing or decreasing trend or extinction
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 117
Annex 6: Common local names of faunal indicator species
Common local names No. English name Scientific name Sayee Community Barconnie Community Kpoglen Clan, District 4 Nimba Grand Bassa Grand Bassa 1 Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus Baboon, Kieh − Baboon 2 Black-and-White Colobus Colobus polykomos Weytien − Boa 3 Olive Colobus Procolobus verus Kpon, Kahn − N'yoo, Dah 4 Red Colobus Procolobus badius badius Lowah − Lowah, Gorr 5 Campbell's Monkey Cercopithecus campbelli Kahn, Clone Savannah Monkey Borgbay, Gbu-jlay 6 Diana Monkey Cercopithecus diana diana Gehyee − Gorr 7 Spot-nosed Monkey Cercopithecus petaurista Golo Gloe Klein, Gloe
8 Sooty Mangabey Cercocebus atys atys Jacko, Kwehn Kpan-Vankan Jacko, Dweh-eh 9 Elephant Loxodonta africana cyclotis − − Yoweh 10 Pygmy Hippopotamus Choeropsis liberiensis − − Neegben 11 Leopard Panthera pardus Gorr, Goy Gee Gee 12 Golden Cat Caracal aurata − Gee Bush Cat, Gee Weh 13 Bongo Tragelaphus eurycerus − − Ghen 14 Buffalo Syncerus caffer nanus Bush Cow, Duo Bush Cow Bush Cow, Duwee
15 Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus Red Deer, Zolo Red Deer, Dray Red Deer, Drai 16 Jentink's Duiker Cephalophus jentinki − − N'yala 17 Yellow-backed Duiker Cephalophus silvicultor Sue − Kar Yarlah 18 Zebra Duiker Cephalophus zebra − − Marking Deer, Nenmen 19 Maxwell's Duiker Philantomba maxwellii Foolish Deer, Vleh Foolish Deer Foolish Deer, Kweh
20 Black Duiker Cephalophus niger Black Deer, Gbah Black Deer, Dugbee Black Deer, Deebee
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 118
21 Bay Duiker Cephalophus dorsalis Bleh Black Back Black Back, Bec 22 Ogilby's Duiker Cephalophus ogilbyi brookei Gbo-bo Bleh − Mountain Deer, Baah 23 Royal Antelope Neotragus pygmaeus Clever Deer, Sehn − Clever Deer, Yon 24 Water Chevrotain Hyemoschus aquaticus Yee-ah wee Water Deer, Kplay-mann Water Deer, Kplay-ma
25 Red River Hog Potamochoerus porcus Bush Hog Baay Bush Hog, Bayee 26 Giant Forest Hog Hylochoerus meinertzhageni Black Bush Hog − Bay 27 Giant Pangolin Smutsia gigantea Big Antbear, Zorh − Zweh Red Antbear, Bala Zolo, 28 Long-tailed Pangolin Uromanis tetradactyla Antbear, Nyan Antbear, Wan-na Worr 29 Tree Pangolin Phataginus tricuspis Ballah Tee Antbear, Kayaa Antbear, Kar-yah 30 Black-casqued Hornbill Ceratogymna atrata Forn − Kpon 31 Yellow-casqued Hornbill Ceratogymna elata Forn − Kpon 32 White-crested Hornbill Tropicranus albocristatus Weh-gbo-blay Mon Jlay Boy Jlay Boy 33 Brown-cheeked Hornbill Bycanistes cylindricus Nyaan − Gbay-han 34 African Pied Hornbill Tockus semifasciatus Kpala Kpala − Kpia-kpia 35 Piping Hornbill Bycanistes fistulator Waysee Mon − Ku-jue-na 36 White-breasted Guineafowl Agelastes meleagrides Lu-ghan − Pay-nan 37 Dwarf Crocodile Osteolaemus tetraspis Gbue Crococdile Crocodile, Muwhen
38 Slender-snouted Crocodile Mecistops cataphractus Lue-lu Alligator Alligator, Wru-weh 39 West African Manatee Trichechus senegalensis − − − 40 Nimba Otter Shrew Micropotamogale lamottei Slone Benn − −
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 119
Common local names No. English name Scientific name Gblor Clan Sehzuplay Clan Quilla Clan Beatuo Clan Nimba Nimba Nimba Nimba 1 Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus Baboon Ku-or, Baboon Kuoh, Baboon Kuo, Weh
2 Black-and-White Colobus Colobus polykomos Lion Monkey Veh, Lion Monkey Veh Vei, Boryan
3 Olive Colobus Procolobus verus Fooh La-loud Kuah Phai, Satyelay 4 Red Colobus Procolobus badius badius − Red Monkey Neweah Doe-ai 5 Campbell's Monkey Cercopithecus campbelli Kpahtee Kpar-tee Kpar-tee Bowhoa
6 Diana Monkey Cercopithecus diana diana Colour Monkey Gar Gare Glay, Gaa
7 Spot-nosed Monkey Cercopithecus petaurista Gloe Gloe, White Nose Grouth Nut-we-mlan, Clitenn
8 Sooty Mangabey Cercocebus atys atys Jacko Klan, Jacko Krauh Kaweh 9 Elephant Loxodonta africana cyclotis − Beah Baye Dweh, Beyi 10 Pygmy Hippopotamus Choeropsis liberiensis Hippo Nu-wen, Hippo Nueh Niwein, Nein
11 Leopard Panthera pardus Goh Gorh Gorh Gee, Gou
12 Golden Cat Caracal aurata Gorr Gorr Gorr Zo 13 Bongo Tragelaphus eurycerus Geh − Geoor Gahn 14 Buffalo Syncerus caffer nanus Duo Duo Duo, Bush Cow Duo, Dowe
15 Bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus Zloe Zlow, Red Deer Zloah Zoloe, Dilay Blong, White 16 Jentink's Duiker Cephalophus jentinki Luo-wue Antelope − − Luo-wool, Black 17 Yellow-backed Duiker Cephalophus silvicultor Blor-own Luo-weeh Nyan-weh Antel. 18 Zebra Duiker Cephalophus zebra Noon Nun Neuh Nemann
19 Maxwell's Duiker Philantomba maxwellii Foolish Deer Vor, Foolish Deer Vooah Kweh
20 Black Duiker Cephalophus niger Gbah Gbah, Black Deer Black Deer Debe
21 Bay Duiker Cephalophus dorsalis Black Back Bu-wor Beuh Bet
22 Ogilby's Duiker Cephalophus ogilbyi brookei Zaah Zarr, White Ear Beuh Zare Baya
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 120
23 Royal Antelope Neotragus pygmaeus Slong Slong, Tricky Deer Sleah, Beyelay Gbolor-weh
24 Water Chevrotain Hyemoschus aquaticus Water Deer Kpo-an Kpleah Bai
25 Red River Hog Potamochoerus porcus Gbor, Red Hog Bog Bong Boh
26 Giant Forest Hog Hylochoerus meinertzhageni Gbor-tee Bog Tee Bong Tee Boyely
27 Giant Pangolin Smutsia gigantea Zor Zor Zuare Zor-weh
28 Long-tailed Pangolin Uromanis tetradactyla Zor-lor-wor Wor Ware Warr
29 Tree Pangolin Phataginus tricuspis Gbar-dor By-dor Barther Yan
30 Black-casqued Hornbill Ceratogymna atrata Twah-yah Toe-yah Tweah Gnon
31 Yellow-casqued Hornbill Ceratogymna elata Twah-yah Pu Toe-yah Zare Gee-gnon
32 White-crested Hornbill Tropicranus albocristatus Wor-hu-gbo-ah-ma Wor-gbo-man Wor-gbor-mah Yelay-wabaho
33 Brown-cheeked Hornbill Bycanistes cylindricus Zar-dweh Zaa-dwah Zare-duah Gee-doh
34 African Pied Hornbill Tockus semifasciatus Zoe-yan Zoe-yan Zooyeh Gbahi-kweh
35 Piping Hornbill Bycanistes fistulator Zar-kpoh Zlah Zare-kpeeh Doh-giagia
36 White-breasted Guineafowl Agelastes meleagrides Blue-tor Blu-tor Blea-torre Kra-soe
37 Dwarf Crocodile Osteolaemus tetraspis Gbaah Gbaah Gbare Kona
38 Slender-snouted Crocodile Mecistops cataphractus Gu-wor Gu-wor Guah Whiene
PROSPER, FFI Biodiversity Assessment Report, November 2012 121