WWF African Elephant Conservation Fund (E.G

WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN African Elephant 2007-2011

2 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN African Elephant 2007-2011

Peter J. Stephenson

3 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

This WWF Species Action Plan was written and edited by Peter J. Stephenson.

The author is grateful to the following individuals who provided ideas, advice, input and help at various stages in the development of the action plan: Elies Arps, Inogwabini Bila-Isia, Stephen Blake, Julian Blanc, Steven Broad, Richard Carroll, Michael Case, Wendy Elliot, Sandrine Jimenez, George Kampamba, David Kpelle, Leonardo Lacerda, Keith Leggett, Sue Lieberman, Rob Little, Cyprian Malima, Stephanie Mansourian, Roland Melisch, Simon Milledge, Tom Milliken, Caroline Mitten, Helena Motta, Amanda Nickson, Leo Niskanen, Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu, Cliona O'Brien, Frans Schepers, Lisa Steel, Peter Sumbi, Russell Taylor, Martin Tchamba, Taye Teferi, Leonard Usongo, Chris Weaver, Mark Wright, Sabri Zain.

Published in June 2007 by WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), CH- 1196, Gland, Switzerland

Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. No photographs from this publication may be reproduced on the internet without prior authorization from WWF. The material and the geographical designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. © text 2007 WWF All rights reserved

Proposed citation: Stephenson, P.J. (2007). WWF Species Action Plan: African Elephant, 2007-2011. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Front cover photo: African savanna elephant herd on the move in Amboseli National Park, Kenya. The female in the middle has exceptionally long tusks. Back cover photo: Male African forest elephant in early morning mist, Dzanga-Ndoki National Park, Central African Republic.

Printed by Ropress, Zurich, Switzerland on Reprint FSC (with the cover on Aconda Verd Silk FSC), using vegetable oil-based inks.

RePrint FSC contains 50% recycled post-consumer waste and 50% virgin wood fibre from well-managed forests certified in accordance with the rules of FSC. Ropress holds FSC chain of custody SGS-COC-0474.

4 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 2 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT...... 4 2.2 THE HISTORY OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT EXPLOITATION AND POPULATION DECLINE ...... 5 2.3 CURRENT ELEPHANT POPULATION LEVELS AND CONSERVATION STATUS ...... 6 2.4 CURRENT ISSUES IN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ...... 8 Poaching...... 8 Illegal Trade ...... 9 Habitat Destruction and Range Reduction ...... 10 Human-Elephant Conflict ...... 12 The Landscape Approach to Conservation and Transfrontier Collaboration in Elephant Management ...... 15 Enabling Environment for Elephant Management - Policy and Capacity...... 16 Local Over-population and Related Management Options ...... 16 Socio-economic Considerations in Elephant Management...... 17 Sub-regional Differences in Elephant Threats, Status and Management ...... 18 3. DEVELOPING WWF'S AFRICAN ELEPHANT PROGRAMME (2007-11): BUILDING ON LESSONS LEARNT...... 18 3.1 ACHIEVEMENTS IN IMPLEMENTING WWF'S FIRST SPECIES ACTION PLAN FOR AFRICAN ELEPHANTS...... 19 3.2 LESSONS LEARNT FROM IMPLEMENTING WWF'S FIRST AFRICAN ELEPHANT ACTION PLAN ...... 20 4. THREATS TO AFRICAN ELEPHANTS TO BE ADDRESSED BY WWF ...... 21 5. SELECTING PRIORITY ACTIONS AND LANDSCAPES: WHICH ELEPHANT POPULATIONS SHOULD WWF WORK ON?...... 22 5.1 CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING WWF'S WORK IN AFRICAN ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES...... 22 Elephant Landscape Assessment Criteria - Category A...... 23 Elephant Landscape Assessment Criteria - Category B ...... 24 Work Outside of Landscapes ...... 25 5.2 PRIORITIZING WWF'S ACTIONS WITHIN AFRICAN ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES ...... 25 6. PROGRAMME MISSION...... 26 6.1 VISION...... 26 6.2 GOAL ...... 26 6.3 OBJECTIVES ...... 26 7. PROGRAMME INTERVENTION...... 27 7.1 KEY ACTIVITIES AND INDICATORS TO MEET PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES...... 27 7.2 PRIORITY AFRICAN ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES...... 30 7.3 OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES ...... 31 7.4 CONTRIBUTION TO WWF ECO-REGIONAL TARGETS ...... 31 7.5 APPROACH TOWARDS DEVELOPING NEW ELEPHANT INITIATIVES...... 31 7.6 PROGRAMME PARTNERS AND TARGET BENEFICIARIES...... 32 7.7 PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATION: HUMAN RESOURCES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..... 32 The AEP Co-ordinator ...... 32 Communications and Administration...... 32 7.8 PROGRAMME MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LESSON SHARING ...... 33 7.9 PROGRAMME FUND-RAISING...... 33 7.10 PROGRAMME SUSTAINABILITY ...... 34 ANNEX 1: ACRONYMS USED IN THE TEXT...... 35 ANNEX 2: MAP OF ELEPHANT RANGE IN AFRICA...... 36 ANNEX 3: SUMMARY OF ELEPHANT POPULATION NUMBERS ACROSS AFRICA ...... 37 ANNEX 4: SUMMARY OF THREATS FACING KEY ELEPHANT HABITAT TYPES AND ECOREGIONS ACROSS AFRICA ...... 38 ANNEX 5: ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS - THREATS FACING AFRICAN ELEPHANTS...... 41 ANNEX 6: ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WWF PRIORITY ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES...... 42 ANNEX 7: RANKING OF WWF PRIORITY ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES BY SUB-REGION...... 50 ANNEX 8: MAPS SHOWING LOCATION OF WWF PRIORITY AFRICAN ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES IN EACH SUB-REGION...... 54 ANNEX 9: PLANNING TERMINOLOGY...... 58 ANNEX 10: OUTLINE PROGRAMME BUDGET, JANUARY 2007 TO DECEMBER 2011 ...... 59 ANNEX 11: PROGRAMME FRAMEWORK ...... 60 ANNEX 12: OUTLINE PROGRAMME MONITORING PLAN...... 65 ANNEX 13: BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 69

1 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY where people and wildlife flourish alongside each other. The African elephant is found in 37 countries across the continent. Populations in many areas GOAL: were severely reduced in the latter half of the By 2017, elephant populations and their habitat twentieth century primarily through legal and cover are stable or increasing in 20 landscapes. illegal hunting. Some populations, especially in southern and eastern Africa, have shown OBJECTIVES: signs of recovery in the last decade or so, but 1.1 The development and application of pol- many populations, especially those in west and icies and legislation that create an enabling central Africa, remain highly at risk. The main environment for elephant conservation facil- threats facing elephants across their range are itated in 13 range states by 2011 poaching for ivory and meat, the loss, 2.1 Elephant habitat conserved effectively in deterioration and fragmentation of their hab- order to increase range and connectivity be- itat, and human-elephant conflict (HEC). tween populations (including transboundary populations) in 14 landscapes by 2011 In 2000, WWF established an African Ele- 3.1 Illegal killing of elephants reduced by at phant Programme to address the threats facing least 30% in 12 landscapes by 2011 elephants through targeted field projects. From 3.2 Illegal trade in major elephant product 2001 to 2006 this programme supported markets reduced by at least 50% in 9 African projects that, among other things, helped: to states and two Asian states by 2011 train more than 420 African professionals from 4.1 Human-elephant conflict reduced by at 18 range states in elephant management; to least 40% in pilot sites in 18 landscapes by establish a new national park (Quirimbas, 2011 Mozambique) and provide survey data for 4.2 The livelihoods of people living alongside three other proposed new protected areas elephants are improved through economic (Cameroon); to increase anti-poaching efforts development activities linked to wildlife around 10 protected areas; to develop and test conservation in 20 landscapes by 2011 HEC mitigation methods and train local people 5.1 Public support for, and participation in, in communities in six countries; to establish elephant conservation increased in 20 elephant monitoring and census programmes in landscapes by 2011 through increased six sites across central Africa; to develop two awareness of policies, laws, options and national and two sub-regional elephant man- benefits agement strategies; to develop capacity for range states to implement the Convention on The document outlines the key activities re- International Trade in Endangered Species of quired to attain the programme's objectives. Wild Fauna and Flora and its monitoring The action plan will be implemented through a systems (MIKE and ETIS); to conduct studies portfolio of projects developed by WWF field into domestic ivory markets in six African programmes and their partners. These projects states and further highlight the importance of will be focused on priority landscapes which such domestic markets in fuelling the illegal include: international trade. In several countries where WWF supported elephant work populations Rank Priority Landscapes and Range states have increased (e.g. Kenya, Tanzania, and South Africa). Central Africa 1 TRIDOM - Trinational Park of Dja, This document represents WWF's second Odzala, Minkebe Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Gabon Species Action Plan (SAP) for African 2 Sangha Trinational elephants and covers the five-year period Cameroon, Central African Republic, 2007-2011. It is a framework for WWF's Republic of Congo support for elephant conservation throughout 3 Gamba complex Africa. It builds on lessons learned from the Gabon first phase of the programme (2001-2006). 4 Salonga Democratic Republic of Congo VISION: 5 Maiko - Kahuzi-Biega In 25 years time, forest and savanna elephants Democratic Republic of Congo continue to roam across Africa in landscapes Eastern Africa 1 Selous 2 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Tanzania initiatives which aim to empower Africans to 2 Mara - Serengeti manage their own elephant populations for Kenya, Tanzania broader biodiversity conservation and 3 Ruaha - Rungwa sustainable development needs. Tanzania 4 Tarangire – Lake Manyara The African elephant SAP will be imple- Tanzania mented through an African Elephant Pro- 5 Shimba Hills Kenya gramme managed by a co-ordinator. An Southern Africa African Elephant Working Group will ensure 1 Northern Mozambique WWF Network input into AEP strategic Mozambique plannng and fund-raising. 2 North-west Namibia Namibia It is estimated that the implementation of this 3 Kavango-Zambezi plan will cost around 12 million Swiss francs. Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia 4 Luangwa Valley 2. INTRODUCTION Zambia 5 Greater Limpopo The African elephant (Loxodonta africana) South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique West Africa was among the first recognized flagship 1 Tai - Grebo species, providing a focus for raising aware- Côte d'Ivoire-Liberia ness and stimulating action and funding for 2 Park W - Eastern Burkina Reserves - broader conservation efforts (Leader-Williams Pendjari Park - northern Togo Reserves & Dublin 2000). Its role as a flagship species Burkina Faso, Benin, Niger, Togo is helped by the fact it is one of the most well 3 Nazinga -Kabore Tambi NP - Red Volta- known of all wild animals worldwide, and Doungh closely associated with African biodiversity Burkina Faso, Ghana, Togo and wilderness. However, the African elephant 4 Gourma - Sahel poses a huge challenge for conservationists. Mali, Burkina Faso 5 Bia - Goaso - Djambarakrou In some parts of its range, the African elephant Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire survives only in small, fragmented populations in tiny "islands" of forest in a "sea" of agri- In addition to work in these landscapes, WWF culture and human settlement; in other parts of and TRAFFIC (WWF’s joint wildlife trade its range it is thriving with population in- programme with IUCN) will tackle elephant creases exceeding 7 percent per annum. In trade issues in the following African states: some places the species is perceived as a huge Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, asset for local, national and international Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, economies. There is demand for elephant Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, and Sudan. ivory, hide and meat. Elephants are also an We will also support work to reduce illegal important source of revenue through tourism trade in Asian consumer states, such as China (Brown & Henry 1993; Goodwin & Leader- and Japan. Williams 2000): many people are prepared to pay large sums of money either to watch and In order to implement the action plan, WWF photograph them in the wild, or to hunt them aims to work with range state governments and for sport. However, people living alongside their relevant natural resource management elephants run many risks and can become authorities (such as wildlife departments, victims to elephant crop raiding, or to attack. national parks authorities, regional and district Elephants are therefore often seen as a pest and staff, etc.). We will also work with other a threat to local livelihoods. stakeholders in elephant conservation, particularly local communities living side by side Elephants play an important "keystone" with elephants, national and international non- ecological role in savanna and forest eco- governmental organizations (NGOs), research systems, helping to maintain suitable habitats institutions, and key elements of the private for a myriad of other species. Yet when their sector (especially logging and tourism dispersal is blocked by human activity, local companies). Throughout its elephant work, population increases can cause damage to their WWF will emphasise capacity building own habitat. 3 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 Overall, it is clear that an African continent Gestation lasts 650-660 days and leads to one that can house healthy populations of elephants (and very rarely two) young. They can often is likely to preserve many other species of survive on solid food within two years, though fauna and flora that share the same habitats. stay close to their mothers for up to ten years. Given the wide expanses of land required to African elephants are thought to live up to conserve elephants, the species also emph- about 65 years in the wild. asizes many of the ideas of ecoregion conservation and landscape design being promoted Recent research has confirmed that elephants in Africa. Therefore, a future for elephants are highly sentient and intelligent mammals should mean a future for much of the bio- and share a number of behavioural traits with diversity in Africa (Stephenson 2004). None- apes and dolphins. Wild and captive elephants theless, as human populations grow and their have been known to engage in tool use (see demand for natural resources increases, a e.g. Chevalier-Skolnikoff & Liska 1993; Hart complex set of threats to elephants and their et al. 2001). Social structure within elephant habitats have to be tackled simultaneously and populations is complex and multi-layered (e.g. extensively if elephants are to roam across the Wittemyer et al. 2005), and communication African continent for much longer. within and between social groups involves tactile, chemical and vocal means (e.g. 2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE AFRICAN Langbauer 2000; McComb et al. 2000, 2003; ELEPHANT Poole et al. 2005). Elephants are among the very few animals that can recognize them- The African elephant is the largest living land selves in mirrors, a trait probably linked to mammal. (For a full account of the species and their complex sociality and co-operation other proboscideans see e.g. Laursen & Bekoff (Plotnik et al. 2006). They show concern for 1978; Spinage 1994; Kingdon 1997; Nowak distressed and dead individuals, and render 1999; Sukumar 2003). Adult males reach up to assistance to ailing conspecifics (Douglas- 4 m in shoulder height, and weigh up to 7,500 Hamilton et al. 2006); this has been interpreted kg. Along with Asian elephants, African ele- as compassionate behaviour. phants are the only surviving members of the mammalian family Elephantidae in the order Traditionally, two subspecies of African Proboscidea. They are distinguished from elephant have been recognized: the African other large mammals by having a nose extend- savanna (or bush) elephant (Loxodonta ed into a trunk, large ears, and upper incisor africana africana) and the African forest teeth that develop into tusks in male and elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis). As female African elephants (and male Asian their names imply, they inhabit different elephants). Related species such as mammoths habitats: the bush elephant is generally found and mastodons died out thousands of years in savanna and woodland environments, whilst ago. the forest elephant occurs in dense tropical forest. Morphologically, the forest elephant is Elephants feed on a variety of plant matter, generally smaller in size than the savanna especially grass, leaves, fruit and bark. They subspecies, has more oval-shaped ears and can consume up to five percent of their body straighter, downward pointing tusks. There are mass (i.e. up to 300 kg) in 24 hours, and drink also differences in the size and shape of the about 225 litres of water a day. skull and skeleton. Behavioural differences, besides habitat use, include diet and social The central social unit in elephant society is organization. The forest elephant is much more the mother and her offspring. Matriarchal of a browser and a frugivore (i.e. it feeds more family groups often interact with other groups on leaves and fruit); the savanna elephant more to form clans. Males leave these clans when often grazes on grass. Forest elephants live in they reach 10-14 years of age to live alone or smaller social groups of two to four individuals with other males. compared with 4-14 in bush elephant herds; it appears that bull forest elephants tend to be African elephants can breed all year round solitary whereas the savanna bulls associate though there is a slight peak in births in the more with herds. rainy season, at least in savanna elephants. Females generally conceive from the age of Some genetic studies (e.g. Roca et al. 2001; eight years, though they are receptive (in Comstock et al. 2002) suggest that the two oestrus) for only a few days every few years. subspecies of African elephant are two distinct 4 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 species, but the evidence is equivocal affect other species in the habitat (de Beer et (Debruyne 2005). The IUCN/SSC African al. 2006), causing a potential decline in species Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) believes diversity. Even where elephants do not affect that premature allocation into more than one vegetation cover at a landscape level, increased species may leave hybrids in an uncertain numbers can be correlated with a decline in conservation status (AfESG 2003). WWF other mammalian herbivores (Valeix et al. therefore continues to follow the guidance of 2007). the Specialist Group and will consider both as subspecies. However, for conservation pur- Although young elephants may be predated by poses, each will be considered separately, large carnivores such as lion (Joubert 2006; since threats facing forest elephants appear to Loveridge et al. 2006), it is probable that be greater than those facing the savanna sub- humans have been the only serious threat to species. the species in recent times. Humans have also greatly shaped the modern-day distribution and The African elephant once inhabited most of abundance of elephants across their range. the continent, from the Mediterranean coast to the tip of South Africa. It is adapted to many habitat types and occurs in the moist forests of west Africa, the dense rain forests of the Congo Basin, the woodlands, forests and acacia-savanna grasslands of the Indian Ocean coast, and arid semi-desert zones in Namibia and Mali.

African elephants, being "keystone species" in most of their habitats, directly influence tree diversity and density, forest structure, and the wider landscape (see e.g. Wing & Buss 1970; Western 1989; Sheil & Salim 2004; Mtui & Owen-Smith 2006). In tropical forests, elephants create clearings and gaps in the canopy that allow tree regeneration and provide habitats for gap-specialized species (Kortland 1984); they also affect the cover and distribution of miombo and acacia woodlands (Mapaure & Campbell 2002; Skarpe et al. 2004). In savanna ecosystems elephants can maintain species diversity by reducing bush cover and creating an environment favourable to a mix of browsing and grazing animals (Western 1989). © WWF-Canon / Martin HARVEY Some tropical tree species may be dependent on elephants for seed dispersal and seedling 2.2 THE HISTORY OF AFRICAN germination and establishment (Alexandre ELEPHANT EXPLOITATION AND 1978, Chapman et al. 1992; Hawthorne & POPULATION DECLINE Parren 2000, Theuerkauf et al. 2000; Waithaka 2001; Cochrane 2003; Goheen et al. 2004). In Ivory has long been a marketable commodity west African forests, up to 30 percent of tree and has been worked and traded for thousands species may require elephants to help dispersal of years; the earliest ivory sculptures date back and germination (Alexandre 1978). The more than 30,000 years (Conard 2003). Early decline of some forest trees is therefore hominids exploited proboscideans (elephants expected if elephants are lost from the habitat and their ancestors) for at least 1.8 million (e.g. Hall & Swaine 1981, Cochrane 2003); years (Surovell et al. 2005). this may have happened already in some forests in central Africa (Maisels et al. 2001). Hunting for ivory, and loss of habitat through In contrast, where elephants occur in high human cultivation and settlement, has densities, their reduction of tree cover might threatened elephant populations for centuries. 5 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 During Roman times until 217 BC African Most of the ivory sold in the 1980s went to the elephants in the north were domesticated for Far East, but after Japan the USA was the military purposes (Laursen & Bekoff 1978) but largest single importer, with a retail ivory trade the species was eliminated from north of the worth US$ 100 million per year (Thomsen Sahara by about the sixth century AD (Meester 1988). The sharp decline in elephant numbers & Setzer 1977), or possibly earlier (Spinage in Africa caused an international outcry. In 1994). Ivory has been traded from eastern 1989 many importing countries imposed their Africa since Roman times, with a further own legislation to stop the importation of raw expansion in the trade from AD 1000, leading ivory, and in 1989 the African elephant was to an apparent peak in the mid nineteenth placed on Appendix I of CITES (the Con- century (see Hakansson 2004). In southern and vention on International Trade in Endangered west Africa elephant numbers were drama- Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). This tically reduced in the eighteenth and nineteenth prevented international trade in ivory and other centuries as Europeans settled the continent, elephant products. This ban was imposed in an expanding the trading routes and increasing the attempt to cut off supply to the markets. demand for timber and ivory. The west African trade in ivory during the seventeenth century In Africa anti-poaching efforts were aug- "brought about such a swift decline in the mented where the means were available. number of elephants in the coastal zone that Although poaching never completely stopped, the trade itself had begun to decline by the elephant numbers recovered in many countries beginning of the eighteenth century" (Fage (see below). However, in many parts of the 1969). continent, the problems have not gone away.

In the twentieth century, Africa's human Accurate historical data on population levels population continued to expand. Over the last are difficult to obtain. Some estimates suggest 25 years, the number of people in Africa has there may have been several million African risen from 478,824,000 in 1980 to 905,936,000 elephants at the start of the twentieth century in 2005 (UNEP 2006a). By 2031, there will (Milner-Gulland & Beddington 1993); num- probably be nearly 1.5 billion people on the bers may have declined from 3-5 million in the continent. 1930s and 1940s and, after severe poaching in the 1970s and 1980s, possibly fewer than Africa has many of the world's poorest nations, 400,000 remained in the early 1990s (Douglas- and human development across the continent Hamilton et al. 1992; Said et al. 1995). (as measured by the Human Development Index covering dimensions of income, In spite of this overall continental decline, education and health) is the lowest in the elephants made a remarkable comeback world. Over the last decade the HDI has been throughout much of their southern African rising across all developing regions except range during the last century (Blanc et al. sub-Saharan Africa (UNDP 2005). The 2003). Partly as a result of these population majority of Africans are still reliant on increases, three southern African states agriculture as the primary source of food and (Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe) received revenue. This has caused an ever increasing permission from CITES to conduct a one-off demand on natural resources and land, further sale of some of their ivory stocks in 1999; reducing the area available to elephants and permission for a second sale from three states other wildlife. (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa) was also approved in 2002, although by the end of 2006 Throughout much of the twentieth century the all the conditions had not yet been met for that hunting of African elephants for their ivory to go ahead. (both legal and increasingly illegal) continued to decimate populations. Elephants were hit 2.3 CURRENT ELEPHANT particularly hard in the 1980s when an est- POPULATION LEVELS AND imated 100,000 individuals were being killed CONSERVATION STATUS per year and up to 80 percent of herds were lost in some regions (Eltringham & Malpas Population Status 1980; Douglas-Hamilton 1987; Cobb & Western 1989; Merz & Hoppe-Dominik 1991; African elephants now occur in 37 countries Alers et al. 1992; WWF 1997, 1998). (or range states - see Annex 3 for list). The data available for elephant population esti- 6 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 mates is very variable in quality and in 1980s) was the last African state to lose its geographical coverage (see Blanc et al. 2007). elephants (see Barnes 1999). Today several Of the land believed to be elephant range (3.3 west African elephant populations are pre- million square kilometres), elephant population carious: Senegal cannot confirm more than one data is only available for 51% of the area. animal, and Togo four (Blanc et al. 2007); the Although for some sites there are accurate data future for the 4-10 elephants in Guinea Bissau from regular aerial counts or dung counts, is “bleak” (Brugière et al. 2006). Côte d'Ivoire other population estimates are based merely on was named for its abundance of elephants but guesses. Due to the variation in data coverage the population appears to have been declining and quality, estimating precise elephant num- with poaching evident in many protected areas, bers and determining population trends is very and particularly rampant in Comoé, the largest difficult. However, at the time of the last park in the sub-region (Schulenberg et al. continent wide assessment in early 2007, it 1999; Fischer 2005). Overall, the future for was calculated that the African elephant elephants in this sub-region may lie only in a population is at least 472,269, and probably small network of well-protected parks and 554,973 (Blanc et al. 2007); is it possible that reserves (Barnes 1999). numbers may exceed 685,000 (see Annex 3). Although no differentiation is made in the In central Africa, little is known of many status report between subspecies, it is populations deep in the Congo Basin. Under estimated that one quarter to one third of the the dense canopy, populations can only be total numbers are forest elephants. However, censused through dung counts (Barnes 1993). continued poaching in central Africa (Blake et Although this method is potentially very al. 2007), may mean this figure is much lower. accurate (see Barnes 2001), it remains a logistical challenge in many remote parts of Although a direct comparison between the range. Nonetheless, recent survey data different years' data is complex, there is some suggests that elephant poaching remains evidence that the elephant populations across rampant in many parts of central Africa (Blake eastern and southern Africa are increasing & Hedges 2004; Blake et al. 2007), and the (Blanc et al. 2005). Forty-one out of 51 sites sub-region provides much of the illegal ivory compared in the region showed higher being traded elsewhere on the continent and elephant population estimates in the 2002 beyond (see below). dataset (Blanc et al. 2003) than in the 1998 dataset (Barnes et al. 1999), and across these sites in eastern and southern Africa there was a recorded increase in population estimate of 25 percent (Blanc et al. 2005). The latest status report (Blanc et al. 2007) shows that the minimum number of elephants (figures considered “definite”) across the whole continent has increased by 70,200 since 2002, largely due to increases in eastern and southern Africa.

Although these analyses are encouraging, © WWF-Canon / Peter J. STEPHENSON concern remains for many elephant herds. In eastern Africa, the viability of some popu- Conservation Status lations, especially those in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somalia and parts of Uganda, is In its Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN uncertain (Blanc et al. 2007). In west and 2006), the World Conservation Union central Africa population estimates are based considers the African elephant to be largely on old data or guesses (Blanc et al. Vulnerable. This means that the species faces 2003, Blake & Hedges 2004). However, it is "a high risk of extinction in the wild in the clear that in west Africa only some 35 isolated medium-term future". This category was populations remain in fragmented forest chosen in spite of the sub-regional population habitats; only 11 of the 35 populations are variations because there was overall an thought to contain 100 or more elephants inferred population decline of at least 20 (Blanc et al. 2003; IUCN 2003a; Blake & percent over three generations (75 years). It Hedges 2004). Mauritania (at the end of the was also felt that some of the major causes of 7 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 population decline, such as habitat loss, have 2000, Eves & Ruggiero 2000). Extractive not ceased and may not be reversible (see the industries that operate in forests compound African elephant species information at poaching. For example, logging can directly or http://www.iucnredlist.org/). This does indeed indirectly facilitate commercial hunting for the seem to be the case, as many of the threats bushmeat trade (see e.g. Auzel & Wilkie 2000; facing elephants today are the same as they Wilkie et al. 2001). Income from the sale of have been for decades (WWF 1997). elephant meat, as well as ivory, can provide significant revenue for small rural villages. For Although the IUCN Red List assessment was example, in the Republic of Congo, the sale of conducted at the species level, not at the sub- meat and tusks from each elephant hunted is species level, forest elephants appear to be worth about US$400 profit for the villagers, more threatened than savanna elephants since with some villages making more than poaching appears to be more prevalent in US$2,000 per month from elephants (Eves & forest habitats (see below). Ruggiero 2000). Anecdotal evidence from the field suggests many elephants across central 2.4 CURRENT ISSUES IN ELEPHANT Africa are being hunted for their meat, but the CONSERVATION scale of this problem has not yet been determined. Poaching The level of protection afforded elephants is A certain amount of legal killing of elephants correlated with elephant population density occurs each year, mostly through trophy (UNEP 1989). However, many range states do hunting (where sport hunters pay a license fee not have adequate financial or human re- to take a number of game species), and sources to protect their elephants, conduct problem animal control (where wildlife regular population counts, or to enforce authorities shoot animals causing damage to legislation on the illegal trade in elephant people and property). However, throughout products. Essential management information large parts of their range, African elephants are on population trends, distribution and poaching still hunted illegally, often to provide ivory for levels is currently not available for many parts the illegal international trade. Much of the of the continent. illegal poaching today occurs in the forests of central Africa: poached elephant carcasses are The inadequate capacity of range states to found "routinely" in many parks in the sub- protect their elephants is demonstrated by the region (Blake & Hedges 2004). lack of available financial and human resources, both of which have been shown to The limited resources available to wildlife affect conservation success (e.g. Leader- departments, combined with the remoteness Williams & Albon 1988). and inaccessibility of much of the forest in elephant range, makes it difficult for govern- Overall operating budgets for protected areas ments to monitor and protect their herds. The are frequently inadequate; adequate, long-term problem is compounded by the unstable and secure funding is absent from at least 75 political situation in some range states, and percent of Africa’s forest parks (Struhsaker et where conflict occurs (such as in the Demo- al. 2005). For example, in parks in DRC in cratic Republic of Congo, DRC) armed militias 2002 budgets were as little as US$6.9 per km2 often hide in the elephant’s forest habitat per annum, when at least US$50 was probably (Draulans & Krunkelsven 2002). The broader required (Mubalama & Bashige 2006) and environmental impacts of war include the (judging by estimates in the 1980s) more than over-exploitation of natural resources for US$200 would probably have been more subsistence and commercial purposes, leading appropriate (Leader-Williams 1994). Conse- to habitat destruction and increased hunting quently, park guards in DRC are paid very low (Shambaugh et al. 2001). A correlation has wages (in 2004 the equivalent of US$2 per been shown between political instability and month), which are frequently not delivered for the lack of representative governments and months at a time (Stephenson & Newby 1997; reduced elephant population growth rates Blake & Hedges 2004). (McPherson & Nieswiadomy 2000). Staffing levels are too low in many protected Elephants represent a source of wild meat to areas important for elephants. It has been people in several range states (see e.g. Barnett suggested traditionally that staffing levels 8 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 should be between about one person per 20 sub-regional databases for use in managing km2 to one person in 50 km2 for effective national populations. conservation of large mammals (Bell & Clarke 1984). In the last few years this level has not Elephant management skills need to be being attained in elephant range states like developed and implemented across the range DRC: in Kahuzi-Biega National Park there is of the African elephant. Such skills should be one guard per 72 km2 (Mubalama & Bashige made available not only to government 2006), in Salonga National Park one staff management authorities but also to private member per 205 km2 (Blake & Hedges 2004), game conservancies and community-managed and in the Okapi Wildlife Reserve there was wildlife areas that will be managing elephant only one guard for every 352 km2 (Stephenson herds and on whom the survival of the & Newby 1997). These small numbers of staff elephants will increasingly come to depend. are poorly equipped and their transport and infrastructure are inadequate. Similar situations Illegal Trade can be found across Africa. Even the wealth- iest state in central Africa, Gabon, makes Since the global CITES trade ban took effect available only limited resources to manage in 1990, there have been conflicting views areas with large elephant populations (Blake & about its impact on the ivory trade. The Hedges 2004). immediate result was an apparent reduction in illicit trade and a decline in the scale of certain key ivory markets. For example, ivory sales dropped markedly in Europe, North America and Japan (Martin & Stiles 2003, 2005). At the same time, background levels of poaching in Africa continued (see e.g. Dublin et al. 1995; Martin & Stiles 2000). Ongoing demand for ivory, as well as for wild meat, has maintained hunting pressures on many African elephant populations to the present day.

The CITES Secretariat, monitors ivory trade through ETIS (the Elephant Trade Information System), which is managed by TRAFFIC, the joint wildlife trade monitoring programme of WWF and IUCN. The central feature of ETIS is a database holding the world’s largest collection of ivory seizure records. CITES Parties are obliged to report all elephant product seizures to TRAFFIC for inclusion in ETIS, but within Africa not all seizures appear to be reported. The lack of response mostly relates to deficiencies in internal capacity, structure and understanding (T. Milliken, personal communication). There is a need to promote better understanding about the requirements of © WWF-Canon / Martin HARVEY ETIS and to support the development of national-level data collection protocols. In the last five years, the CITES Programme for Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants Ivory is still in demand in the Far East; for (MIKE) has helped develop the capacity of a example, ivory seals, or hankos, are still prized number of range states to census and monitor in Japan. Two successive analyses of the ETIS elephant populations and to measure the rates data have demonstrated that new demand for and causes of mortality. Baseline data has been ivory in China stands behinds a steadily in- produced for target sites using standardized creasing trend in illicit trade since 1995. With data collection protocols. Nonetheless, many astonishing economic growth and a growing range states still need assistance in censusing commercial presence in Africa that includes their elephants, monitoring threats and illegal involvement in ivory trade, China is a sig- killing, and in developing reliable national or 9 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 nificant influence on international ivory trade Conference of the Parties to CITES in October (T. Milliken, personal communication). 2004, all African elephant range States approved (in Decision 13.26) an “action plan On the other hand, analysis of ETIS data fail to for the control of trade in African elephant provide evidence that the one-off ivory sale ivory” which commits them: permitted by CITES in 1999 affected rates of x to prohibit unregulated domestic sale of poaching or illegal trade (Stiles 2004). To the ivory, whether raw, semi-worked, or contrary, the ETIS data demonstrate that illicit worked trade in ivory statistically correlates most x to instruct all law enforcement and border strongly with the presence of large-scale, control agencies to enforce such laws unregulated domestic ivory markets in many x to engage in public awareness campaigns African and Asian countries. to publicize these prohibitions.

Recent trade studies continue to show that Many countries require support in implement- there are still thriving domestic ivory markets ing the agreed plan. In fact, ivory trade in many African elephant range states (inclu- dynamics remain poorly understood in most ding Angola, Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique and African countries with flourishing markets and Nigeria), as well as in countries such as Egypt, law enforcement and awareness-raising Ethiopia, Senegal and Sudan that have no wild activities need to be expanded. Ivory trade elephants or very few wild elephants (Martin studies and ongoing monitoring are vital & Stiles 2000; Courouble et al. 2003; Martin components supporting implementation of the 2005; Martin & Milliken 2005; Milliken et al. CITES action plan. 2006). Much of the ivory in these domestic markets originates from central Africa, with New techniques have been developed to key source countries including Cameroon, the identify the DNA of seized ivory and use it to Central African Republic (CAR) and DRC. determine the place of origin (see e.g. Following documentation of the trade by Comstock et al. 2003; Wasser et al. 2004). TRAFFIC, Save The Elephants and others, and However, such modern techniques are still pressure from CITES meetings, some degree largely unavailable to law enforcers in most of market suppression has been noted in places range states, partly because of their high cost. such as Ethiopia and Mozambique (Milledge & Abdi 2005; Milliken et al. 2006). Even though some markets, such as the one in Egypt, have declined in size in recent years (Martin & Milliken 2005), some markets, such as the ones in Angola and Sudan, appear to be growing (Martin 2005; Milliken et al. 2006).

Overall, it has been estimated that carvers servicing the unregulated ivory markets around the world consume the tusks from up to 12,249 African elephants each year (Hunter et al. 2004). The ivory in Africa’s markets - usually © WWF-Canon / Folke WULF derived from illegal sources and illegal international trade - often continues on an illegal Habitat Destruction and Range Reduction path around the globe. It is transported by either individual travellers or commercial African elephants have less room to live in traders, and often ends up in Asia (in places than ever before (Stephenson 2004). There is a such as China, Japan and Thailand), the USA continuing decline in the extent and quality of and Europe (e.g. Martin & Stiles 2002; their habitat as expanding human populations Courouble et al. 2003; Martin 2005). China, convert land for agriculture, settlement and however, remains the major driver of the development activities (see e.g. Parker & increasing global trend in the illicit ivory trade Graham 1989; Thouless 1999). Conversion of (Milliken et al. 2004). habitat for plantations for biofuels is an increasing problem. Extractive industries such African governments have acknowledged the as logging and mining also cause habitat problem of unregulated domestic ivory destruction and improve accessibility of markets. At the thirteenth meeting of the remote forests to hunters (Wilkie et al. 2001). 10 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 to be created in elephant habitat wherever possible. This is especially important in central Africa, particularly in DRC, where the majority of the more threatened forest elephants are found. In addition, elephant range outside protected areas needs to be taken into consideration during land-use planning such that human use becomes more compatible with wildlife. Extractive industries need to be engaged, as well as local communities, with the aim of ensuring sustainable forest manage- © WWF-Canon / Martin HARVEY ment (SFM) outside of protected areas. Certif- ication schemes such as FSC (the Forest Ste- Many forest areas in west and central Africa wardship Council) are starting to develop in are in decline (see e.g. Sayer et al. 1992, Africa and offer one mechanism to ensure Myers et al. 2000). Root causes of forest loss SFM. include the long history of commercial logging, human population growth, poverty, Fragmentation of remaining habitats is also armed conflict and population displacement problematic as it reduces genetic flow between (Minnemeyer & Selig 2004). Savanna and wildlife populations. Roads traversing forest woodland habitats of bush elephants face blocks further exacerbate fragmentation and similar threats. increase access for poachers (Laurance et al. 2006; Blake et al. 2007). In all habitat types, In total, elephant range has declined from 7.3 corridors are required to provide connectivity million square kilometres in 1979 to 3.3 mill- between elephant populations; in at least one ion square kilometres in 2007 (Blanc et al. case, connectivity across national boundaries 2007). Of the remaining range, at least 70 also helped reduce the impacts of civil war on percent falls outside protected areas. elephant populations (Plumptre et al. 2007b). Recent research (Damschen et al. 2006) sugg- Elephants can coexist with people at various ests that habitat patches connected by corridors levels of human activity, but it seems that once will also retain more native plant species, a threshold of human population density has enhancing overall biodiversity conservation. been reached (for example, 15.6 people/km2 in Corridors can be protected areas, or multiple a savanna study area in Zimbabwe) elephants use zones managed for human needs as well as disappear (Hoare & du Toit 1999). This means elephant movements. Many corridors, espe- that land clearing by an expanding human cially those in the very fragmented forests of population may result in a non-reversible west Africa and coastal east Africa, will decline in elephant density. require initiatives for forest landscape restoration (see Mansourian et al. 2005). Habitat loss and deterioration in habitat is occurring throughout elephant range. An Various forms of community-based wildlife assessment of threats to ecoregions with key management can provide direct revenue to elephant habitat types is presented in Annex 4. local communities and provide added incentives to maintain elephants and their Protected areas are becoming increasingly habitats as well as other wildlife (see e.g. isolated and elephants increasingly confined Taylor 1994, WWF 2006). Community-based within their borders, as the animals’ traditional natural resource management (CBNRM) seasonal migratory routes are cut off. The fact schemes have helped conserve elephant pop- that protected areas systems are likely to be ulations in several parts of southern Africa, amongst the last secure refuges for elephants with the CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas means that management for broader bio- Management Programme for Indigenous diversity goals and law enforcement within the Resources) and LIFE (Living in a Finite protected areas will have to be improved as Environment) programmes being two many today do not provide adequate manage- examples. Such CBNRM schemes are now ment or protection (see e.g. Bruner et al. 2001; expanding in eastern Africa. For example, Struhsaker et al. 2005). Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are being developed in Tanzania, and in some Before it is too late, new protected areas need parts of Kenya community associations are 11 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 exploring alternatives to cultivation that ainable forest management (Schuyt 2005). conserve remaining forest whilst generating Therefore, the end users to be targeted are benefits from the forest and its wildlife (Sitati diverse and include (but are not limited to) et al. 2003). However, the policy and leg- logging companies, mining companies, water islative enabling environment for imple- companies, hydroelectricity power generating menting CBNRM is not always present in companies, infrastructure development comp- elephant range states. anies, and agricultural enterprises.

WWF has a long history of experience with Climate change is one of the main emerging protected areas, sustainable forest management threats facing biodiversity and, in tropical and forest landscape restoration (see e.g. hotspots, it may lead to higher rates of species Dudley et al. 2005, Mansourian et al. 2005). extinctions than deforestation (Malcolm et al. The African Elephant Programme will 2006). It is no longer safe to assume that all of therefore work very closely with forest a species’ historic range remains suitable, so projects and WWF forest staff to conserve conservation efforts need to consider climate elephant habitat. change in all aspects of in situ conservation (McCarty 2001). Conservation strategies that Forest conservation tools and approaches plan further into the future and explicitly developed by WWF and its partners (e.g. address the potential effects of climate change Hocking et al. 2000; Ervin 2003) will be used are required (Hannah et al. 2002). Habitat loss in elephant habitat. For example, the Rapid and fragmentation, already a problem across Assessment and Prioritization of Protected elephant range, will have a secondary effect of Area Management (RAPPAM) methodology, hampering the ability of species to disperse to protected area management effectiveness new climatically suitable areas (Thomas et al. framework, and the WWF/World Bank track- 2004). The selection of any new protected ing tool will be used to monitor progress and areas also needs to take account of potential effectiveness within elephant reserves. long-term changes brought about by a changing climate (Araujo et al. 2004). Forest conservation initiatives need to better value forests goods and services and better As a result of the added threat of climate monitor the return of forest functions at land- change to elephants and their habitat, early in scape level (Mansourian & Dudley 2005). the implementation of conservation actions in Frequently a large number of people benefit this plan climate vulnerability assessments will directly from the environmental goods and be conducted for elephant populations in services provided by forests, but the burden of Africa using available assessment tools (see responsibility for finding resources to conserve Hannah 2003). The results will be used to these forests has rested with just a handful of develop and implement climate change adapt- stakeholders, namely government forest and ation strategies for elephant landscapes ident- wildlife agencies and non-governmental con- ified as being at high risk. servation organizations. "One major reason why it has proved so difficult to halt and Human-Elephant Conflict reverse global forest loss is that those who manage forests typically receive little or no Human-elephant conflict (HEC) has existed for compensation for the services that these forests a long time: elephants may have limited agri- generate for others and hence have little in- cultural development in equatorial forests for centive to conserve them" (Dudley & Stolton centuries (Barnes 1996) and HEC was re- 2003). corded in Africa early in the twentieth century (e.g. Schweitzer 1922). Although trends are One solution is to implement schemes that difficult to ascertain, (Kangwana 1995), there provide Payment for Environmental Services. is some evidence that HEC is a growing These ensure that end users of the forest, its problem and that the costs of dealing with goods and services contribute to the conser- "problem animals" are increasing (Omondi et vation of the very resources they depend upon. al. 2004). HEC has become one of the biggest It is increasingly being suggested that we issues facing elephant conservationists today should "bundle" environmental services (Stephenson 2004). together (e.g. carbon sequestration, water shed protection, biodiversity, tourism value) and sell HEC can take many forms (see Hoare 2000). the whole package as an incentive for sust- The most common is the direct killing of 12 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 elephants by people. However, elephants also In some instances, HEC becomes more serious cause many problems for people living along- and marauding animals sometimes kill people. side them: they enter fields where they eat and For example, around eastern Selous in Tanz- trample crops, they raid food stores, and they nia, when two people were killed by elephants damage village infrastructure including water within a 12 month period, 25 elephants were sources. Their presence in or around settle- killed by people in retaliation (Malima et al. ments can also disrupt community life, stopp- 2004). In an area of Transmara District, ing transit along roads or preventing children Kenya, 35 people were killed by elephants from attending school. In some cases where between 1986 and 2000 (Sitati et al. 2003). In there is direct confrontation, they occasionally such instances wildlife authorities are obliged injure or kill people. to take action to control problem animals, with a result that many elephants are shot – indeed, Over recent years, our understanding of HEC selective shooting “has been widely employed has improved. Many crop varieties are fed on throughout Africa as the main method of or damaged by elephants, but common ones control” (Hoare 1995). In spite of potential include maize, millet, bananas, sweet potatoes, short-term mitigation effects, and appeasement sorghum, beans, cassava, cotton, groundnuts, of affected communities, evidence suggests cashew nuts, mangos, melons, sunflowers that shooting problem elephants has little (Hoare 1999a, Chiyo et al. 2005, Malima et al. effect on crop-raiding (see e.g. Bell 1984). 2004). It appears elephants often search out ripe crops, even when wild forage is available The problem of HEC is exacerbated by the fact (Chiyo et al. 2005). Males have generally been that, after the population crashes in the 1970s associated with taking higher risks in foraging and 1980s due to rampant poaching, elephant and for being involved in most crop raiding, populations are now increasing in several but in many sites family groups are also ranges states (Blanc et al. 2005). Much of their involved (see e.g. Hoare 1999a, Sitati et al. former range is now being used by expanding 2003). human population for agriculture and settlement (Myers 1993). Therefore, when elephants There are differences in the temporal and try to follow traditional migration corridors spatial patterns of HEC between sites, but through what was once forest, woodland or some general trends include the fact that it savanna, they are confronted with roads, fields, often occurs between dusk and dawn, is often and villages. Some 30 percent of elephant seasonal, and conflict is often highest in areas range may fall within protected areas (Blanc et close to protected areas that act as elephant al. 2007). However, even parks and reserves refuges (see e.g. Hoare 1999a, 2000; Parker & can be inadequate to stop conflict since some Osborn 2001). The lunar cycle and rainfall elephants have home ranges much larger than patterns may also affect elephant foraging and the protected area they live in (e.g. Blake HEC (Barnes et al. 2006). 2002; Galanti et al. 2006) and many individuals spend large amounts of time (up to 80 Since an elephant can eat up to 300 kg of food percent) foraging in surrounding land (Nzooh a day, even a small herd can wipe out a et al. 2005). farmer's annual crop in one night's foraging. Other wildlife pests such as primates, rodents, WWF identified HEC as a major issue affect- suiids (boars and pigs), birds and insects cause ing elephant conservation (WWF 1997) and more frequent damage than elephants, and may supported a number of HEC initiatives in the cause greater total crop damage over time (e.g. late 1990s. This work included providing Naughton-Treves 1998; Naughton et al. 1999, grants to the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Gillingham & Lee 2003). Livestock losses to Specialist Group to develop important new lions can have a greater financial impact on tools for tackling HEC - a standard monitoring farmers than crop losses to elephants protocol and a Decision-Support System (O’Connell-Rodwell et al. 2000). Nonetheless, (Hoare 1999b, 2001). Since 2001 a number of elephant damage is often localized and there- projects have been established or supported by fore more destructive in a relatively small area. WWF to tackle HEC, to use standard Elephants are also generally less tolerated by monitoring protocols and the DSS, and to villagers than other pests because they are develop and test new mitigation measures (see dangerous and because a lot of time and effort Stephenson 2005). Successful methods have is spent trying to keep them out of fields then been replicated at other sites. (Naughton et al. 1999; Hoare 2001). 13 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 Therefore, a shifting combination of simple methods may be a successful short-term approach (Hoare 2001, Sitati et al. 2003), especially if they are focused on early detect- ion, increased guarding and the use of active deterrents as well as passive, chilli-based barrier methods (Sitati et al. 2005; Sitati & Walpole 2006).

In spite of local successes in keeping elephants out of fields and villages, “if rural people continue to practice agriculture in habitats shared with elephants, it is likely that conflicts with elephants cannot be eradicated, only reduced” (O’Connell-Rodwell et al. 2000). In some areas there is also evidence that success in mitigating HEC has led farmers to increase the area under cultivation (Sitati & Walpole 2006).

Ultimately, only integrated land-use planning can solve HEC problems in the long-term (Osborn & Parker 2002; Lee & Graham 2006), accompanied by incentives to conserve natural wildlife habitat (Sitati & Walpole 2006). At © WWF-Canon / Folke WULF the national level, such planning needs to ensure adequate room for elephants and the Traditional methods of keeping elephants out setting aside of migration corridors; at the local of fields include guarding, erecting barriers, level this can involve improved ori-entation of and scaring elephants with lights, noise and farmers' fields so that they avoid planting close smoke (Hoare 1995, 2001; Nelson et al. 2003; to the forest edge and plant in blocks. Blocks Osborn & Parker 2003). They have met with of fields will also facilitate shared guarding mixed success. Electric fencing – erected among community members. Buffer zones either around protected areas to keep elephant planted with crops that are less attractive to in, or around fields to keep elephants out – is a elephants (e.g. chilli, tea, coffee and tobacco) more effective method of keeping elephants can also be considered (Osborn & Parker 2002; and people apart. However, the system is not Chiyo et al. 2005). guaranteed to succeed and the cost of such a barrier is prohibitive to most communities and Overall, efforts must be doubled to help parks authorities in Africa (see Nelson et al. mitigate HEC and to empower people living 2003). near the animals to make informed decisions on the choices available to mitigate or mini- Recent experiments using chilli-based mize the risk of conflict. Efforts also need to deterrents, for example applying chilli-oil be made to develop programmes for the mixtures to rope barriers or burning elephant national "vertically integrated" management of dung mixed with chilli, have proven parti- HEC that not only concentrate on field-level cularly successful (e.g. Osborn 2002; Osborn mitigation measures but also encompasses & Parker 2002; Stephenson 2005; Sitati & relevant higher-level policy issues such as Walpole 2006). The advantages to such compensation, land use planning, land tenure, techniques are that they are easily applied and equitable benefit sharing. This will entail using relatively cheap, locally available engaging with a much broader set of stake- materials. Where farmers have planted chilli holders than occurs at present (for example, in for use on elephant barriers, they also have an addition to the environment sector, develop- opportunity for income generation from selling ment, agriculture and finance sectors of their new crop. government must consider HEC in decision- making processes on land-use planning). Elephants can habituate to many deterrents (e.g. Tchamba 1996; Osborn & Parker 2002).

14 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 The Landscape Approach to Conservation secure long-term political will and to harm- and Transfrontier Collaboration in onize approaches, policies and legislation (van Elephant Management der Linde et al. 2001). Recently elephant range states have taken moves to develop such In the last decade, conservationists have collaboration specifically for elephant recognized the need to conserve biodiversity at conservation. A series of “range states larger scales than before, to ensure represent- dialogues” have been organized and neigh- ative samples of the world's main habitat types bouring countries have developed sub-regional are preserved along with ecosystem processes elephant management strategies. These (Mittermeier et al. 1998; Olson & Dinerstein strategies, prepared by wildlife managers, 1998). Many conservation programmes now scientists and other stakeholders, can provide focus on whole ecoregions and landscapes the basis for collaboration. rather than isolated sites. Given the size of elephant range and the large amount of Already a number of transboundary or unprotected elephant habitat, over the coming transfrontier programmes are being developed. decade elephant conservation must be re- For example, at the Yaoundé summit in 1999, oriented towards conserving and managing central African governments committed to populations across broader “landscapes” protect and manage sustainably their forests (Stephenson 2004). and to work on transboundary initiatives. Since then, progress has been made towards estab- Using large, multi-use landscapes as a strategy lishing the Sangha Trinational Park between to conserve mammals is an approach increase- Cameroon, the Central African Republic and ingly advocated to take into account the the Republic of Congo, and a Transborder integrity and function of ecosystems and other Conservation Initiative to link the forests of elements of biodiversity, as well as the target Dja (Cameroon), Minkebe (Gabon) and Odzala taxa (see e.g. Noss et al. 1996; Entwistle & (Congo) (referred to as the TRIDOM land- Dunstone 2000; Linnell et al. 2000). Elephant scape). A joint conservation plan ensures landscapes should include a network of protection of core areas and sustainable forest protected areas covering a representative management and “conservation-friendly” land sample of elephant habitat types. These core uses in surrounding zones. Along with other areas need to be surrounded by buffer zones landscapes these initiatives are supported by and linked by corridors that allow migration the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (see and gene flow between populations. These Kamdem-Toham et al. 2003). In southern buffers zones and corridors will not necessarily Africa, Transfrontier Conservation Areas be pristine habitat but at least their land use (TFCAs) are being established, often as Peace should be sustainable and “elephant-friendly” Parks (see e.g. Hanks, 2000). The largest, the and some parts should be community-managed Kavango-Zambezi TFCA, covers the core area so that local people benefit directly in some of the largest population of elephants in the way from the habitat and its wildlife. Further- world. more, the planning of all new corridors should take into account ways of reducing HEC. More efforts need to be initiated along similar lines, taking in to account regional and sub- The elephant landscapes need to be established regional, rather than just national, conservation and consolidated in the next 10-15 years before priorities. Certainly the Congo Basin is a large it is too late and before too much habitat has enough wilderness area that existing trans- been lost (Stephenson 2004). Time is running boundary initiatives could be built on to estab- out in key ecoregions such as Guinean Moist lish other new “megaparks” (Stephenson Forests and East African Coastal Forests, and 2004). There is much potential to build on in some parts of Africa the opportunity for existing protected areas within the Miombo creating corridors may have been lost already and Baikiaea Woodlands, and opportunities (see e.g. Newmark 1996). also exist in west Africa to link remaining blocks of Guinean Moist Forest that traverse Conservation of very large tracts of land poses national boundaries (Parren et al. 2002). In new challenges to conservationists. Land use every case, efforts need to be made to involve planning over such large scales requires cross- key stakeholders such as private enterprise and sectoral collaboration. Where transfrontier local communities. populations are being conserved, cross-border collaboration requires additional efforts to 15 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 Enabling Environment for Elephant 2003a,b), central Africa (IUCN 2005) and Management - Policy and Capacity southern Africa (Taylor in prep). In each case the government wildlife departments have Although many range states have legislation consulted stakeholders to identify strategic protecting elephants and banning illegal trade priorities. However, several of these plans in ivory and elephant products, many laws have yet to be officially ratified or published, need updating. Many governments also need and many of them fail to identify geographical support to develop their capacity to enforce priorities. Few elephant management plans are these laws, especially relating to poaching and being put in to practice in anything more than a ivory trade. piecemeal way, largely due to resource constraints. "Policies that authorize local communities to benefit financially from the revenue generated Local Over-population and Related within protected areas have been very success- Management Options ful in raising community support for the protected areas" (Ntiamoa-Baidu et al. 2000). In some parts of southern and eastern Africa Nonetheless, many states still do not have elephant populations that are well protected are legislation or land tenure systems that easily increasing in size. When these growing popu- permit community-based wildlife manage- lations are unable to disperse (either because ment. their former range has been converted to farms and human settlement or because their pro- One of the first steps a range state government tected area has been fenced to keep them in) a can make in developing a suitable policy for situation of "local over-population" occurs. A elephant management is to develop a manage- growing population that cannot disperse starts ment plan or strategy. In recent years national to cause excessive damage to its habitat, and elephant management strategies have been can reduce the availability of forage and water developed or updated for a number of range for elephants and other wildlife (see summary states including: in van Aarde and Jackson 2007). There is also x Benin (Ministère de l’Agriculture, de the possibility of increased human-elephant l’Elevage et de la Pêche 2005) conflict as elephants force their way into x Botswana (DG Ecological Consulting neighbouring farms and settlements in search 2003) of food. x Burkina Faso (Ministère de l'Environ- nement et du cadre de Vie 2003) Options available to wildlife management x Cameroon (Ministry of Environment authorities to tackle local over-population are and Forestry 2000) quite limited (WWF 1997; van Aarde & x Côte d'Ivoire (Ministère des Eaux et Jackson 2007). They include: Forêts 2004) x expanding range by increasing the size of x Ghana (Wildlife Division 2000) protected areas and linking protected areas x Mozambique (Ministry of Agriculture with corridors to allow elephant dispersal and Rural Development 1999) and x moving elephants to sites with more space northern Mozambique (Ministry of through translocation Agriculture and Rural Development x reducing birth rates through the admini- 2005) stration of contraceptive drugs to sexually x Namibia (Ministry of Environment mature individuals (a technique still large- and Tourism 2005) ly in the experimental phase – see e.g. x Niger (Direction de la Faune, de la Delsink et al. 2006) Pêche et de la Pisciculture 2004) x reducing numbers through culling x Tanzania (Wildlife Division 2001) x doing nothing. x Togo (Ministère de l'Environnement et des Ressources Forestières 2003) The local over-population of elephants is a growing issue. In Kruger National Park in x Zambia (Ministry of Tourism, En- South Africa regular culls used to be con- vironment and Natural Resources ducted to keep elephant numbers down, but 2003). since this culling was stopped in 1995 the elephant population has almost doubled These national plans complement sub-regional (Cumming & Jones 2005). Problems caused by strategies developed for west Africa (IUCN growing elephant numbers include tree loss, 16 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 and damage to fencing. Buffaloes escaping less, in principle, if natural resource use is through elephant-created holes have caused sustainable both people and wildlife can foot and mouth disease in local farmers, benefit in the long term. threatening livelihoods. As a result of these problems, the national parks authority (SANParks) is considering a resumption of culling. This has sparked a long and heated debate within the country and beyond.

In Kenya, elephants in Shimba Hills National Park are thriving but they are now damaging their coastal forest habitat. Three hundred animals are being moved to the much larger Tsavo National Park around 350 km away to reduce the immediate pressure (P. Omondi, personal communication). However, this operation is costing around US$ 8,000 per elephant. Not all countries can afford such a wildlife translocation operation, and questions arise about how to stop the Shimba population growing again in coming years.

It is clear that each option open to range states has its advantages and disadvantages. Any final decisions must take account of overall conservation goals for a given site, as well as local value systems (see Cumming & Jones, 2005, for a review of the issues).

Since local over-population is likely to in- © WWF-Canon / Folke WULF crease, and because of the contentious nature of several of the management options for tack- Given that elephants can be both dangerous ling over-population (especially culling), the and destructive many people are not com- issue is likely to require a lot of time and con- fortable living alongside them. However, when sideration by wildlife managers across the perceived as an asset, elephant conservation continent in coming years. Decision-makers can become a locally developed and integrated need to be aware of the issues and have info- approach to land use (Taylor 1994). This may rmation and tools at hand to make informed in turn counter negative perceptions and and appropriate choices. The IUCN/SSC promote greater tolerance of HEC. AfESG has produced a set of technical guidelines to help elephant managers way up the Local and national economies can benefit from options and methods for translocation (Dublin the presence of elephants directly in numerous & Niskanen 2003). A similar set of guidelines ways. CBNRM schemes may allow limited is being finalized for dealing with local over- off-take of elephants or other wildlife at population in general. Such technical support sustainable levels that promote wildlife as a needs to be built upon and expanded. land use and provide direct revenue to local people. Tourism can bring in revenue from Socio-economic Considerations in Elephant people prepared to pay to view elephants, their Management habitats and other wildlife. Trophy hunting is a form of consumptive use that can also be of Many conservationists recognize that, in order benefit if managed properly. Consumptive and to address problems and threats facing ele- non-consumptive tourism also has knock on phants, solutions need to integrate the needs of effects for the economy in terms of job cre- the people, as well as the elephants (see e.g. ation, and the provision of goods and services. Lee & Graham 2006). Many people see Although tourism is often seen as a panacea to wildlife as a resource to be exploited and, with Africa's wildlife management problems, care a high dependence on natural resources, needs to be paid to ensure it does not have Africans often have few alternatives. Nonethe- adverse impacts on wildlife, habitats and local 17 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 people (see e.g. Roe et al. 1997) issue of concern for several southern African states, but it is not even discussed in west and In addition to direct benefits, many indirect central Africa! benefits accrue to people preserving elephants. Elephants are keystone species and their role Conservation strategies need to take into as habitat engineers and in tree seed dispersal account these sub-regional differences and and germination means they are integral to the apply approaches and methods best suited to long-term survival of healthy ecosystems that the local context. benefit people as well as wildlife. 3. DEVELOPING WWF'S AFRICAN WWF therefore advocates that all elephant ELEPHANT PROGRAMME (2007-11): conservation work needs to take account of BUILDING ON LESSONS LEARNT local interests, values and livelihoods. Efforts will be made to empower people to manage WWF has supported elephant conservation their own resources and to provide incentives since the organization was established. From for wildlife conservation through schemes such 1962 to 2000, a number of its projects speci- as CBNRM, eco-tourism and sustainable forest fically targeted elephants, such as those management. financed by the WWF African Elephant Conservation Fund (e.g. mitigating human- Sub-regional Differences in Elephant elephant conflict in Gabon; development of an Threats, Status and Management elephant conservation strategy for west Africa and for Ghana; supporting the work of the The four sub-regions in sub-Saharan Africa IUCN Species Survival Commission African (central, eastern, southern, west) differ Elephant Specialist Group). In addition, a large considerably in vegetation and human density. number of projects throughout the WWF Elephants also vary in habitat use in each sub- Africa and Madagascar Programme indirectly region. In much of central Africa, elephants supported elephants through broader conser- occur primarily in forest habitats. In east and vation goals. These included projects that southern Africa they occur primarily in support protected areas in elephant range (e.g. flooded grasslands, savannas and miombo national parks in range states such as Camer- woodlands, though some populations also oon, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Nigeria, inhabit coastal forests. South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda), trade monitoring and controls (e.g. support to The distribution and abundance of elephants TRAFFIC), and community-based and sus- varies between sub-regions due to habitat types tainable wildlife use (e.g. support to CAMP- and differing levels of threat. For example, FIRE in Zimbabwe, LIFE in Namibia). elephant populations in southern Africa are much larger and more stable than the small, In the context of developing a strong and declining and fragmented populations in west decentralized WWF Africa and Madagascar Africa. Whereas Botswana probably has at Programme, and in light of the on-going least 150,000 elephants, only two west African threats to elephant populations, it was con- range states have populations larger than 1,000 sidered appropriate to develop a continent- (Blanc et al. 2007). West African populations wide strategy for elephant conservation which suffer from forest conversion and poaching, responds more to the needs of the species whereas many of the southern African popu- across its full range, and in which WWF can lations have a much larger range available. play a specific and well-identified role under a Savanna elephants in eastern Africa are programmatic approach. Therefore, the WWF generally relatively well studied populations African Elephant Programme (AEP) was est- residing largely in protected areas - in central ablished in 2000. Africa, forest elephants are poorly known and large numbers occur outside protected areas. Building on 40 years of experience in elephant conservation, WWF’s new initiative aimed to Current evidence suggests that west and provide strategic field interventions to help central African populations are probably either guarantee a future for this threatened species. stable or declining, whereas many in southern The Programme Document (WWF 2001) rep- and eastern Africa are either stable or increase- resented the action plan on which the AEP was ing (Blake & Hedges 2004; Blanc et al. 2005; based for its first phase, from 2000 to 2005. Blanc et al. 2007). Local over-population is an 18 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

The long-term goal of the first WWF action x Surveys were conducted in Congolian plan was: to conserve forest and savanna coastal forest in Cameroon to provide data elephant populations in Africa. for the establishment of the three new reserves of Mont Nlonako, Makombe and WWF’s elephant interventions were organized Ebo. around four objectives: x Human-elephant conflict was monitored 1. (Protection and Management): To reduce and HEC mitigation methods were de- the illegal killing of elephants through veloped and tested around several sites in improved protection and management Africa including Quirimbas National Park 2. (Capacity Building): To increase capacity and Niassa Game Reserve in Mozambique, within range states to conserve and man- the Masai Mara National Reserve in age elephants Kenya, South Luangwa National Park in 3. (Conflict Mitigation): To increase public Zambia, Selous Game Reserve in Tanz- support for elephant conservation by re- ania, Campo Ma'an National Park in ducing conflict Cameroon and in the Caprivi Strip in 4. (Trade Controls): To reduce the illegal Namibia. WWF supported the training and trade in elephant products equipping of villagers and local wildlife authority staff. These objectives were in turn broken down x A training course was developed for HEC into a series of targets and milestones and key mitigation. Building on material developed activities. With the development of WWF's previously by the Elephant Pepper global targets and milestones for flagship Development Trust, and consolidating species conservation in 2001, the AEP then lessons learned from work carried out by became a delivery mechanism for the WWF AfESG members and partners across Global Species Programme. Africa, an annotated course outline was produced. 3.1 ACHIEVEMENTS IN x The IUCN AfESG is working in Burkina IMPLEMENTING WWF'S FIRST Faso and Tanzania to develop a model SPECIES ACTION PLAN FOR AFRICAN approach to vertically-integrated manage- ELEPHANTS ment systems for HEC from field to policy level. After an initial period of planning and fund- x The MIKE Programme was implemented raising for the first action plan, support for across six sites in central Africa, building field activities began in mid 2001. Between capacity of wildlife authorities to monitor July 2001 and June 2006 WWF's African and census elephants and providing base- Elephant Programme made a number of line data on elephant populations where significant achievements. Highlights from previously no accurate records existed. projects supported by the programme include: x WWF support helped increase anti- poaching efforts around 10 protected areas x More than 420 people in 18 range states through training and the provision of were trained in elephant management equipment and supplies. issues such as law enforcement and HEC WWF provided financial and/or technical mitigation. Numerous community training x support for the development of sub- workshops were organized specifically on regional management strategies for central HEC mitigation. In addition, the sharing of and southern Africa, and for national lessons between elephant management strategies in northern Mozambique and authorities from different range states and Kenya. conservation NGOs was promoted through exchange visits and workshops. x The CITES Secretariat and TRAFFIC provided training for law enforcement x A new national park - Quirimbas - was officials in Ethiopia to improve wildlife established in Mozambique, preserving 2 trade monitoring and control. This was some 6,000 km of elephant range. Al- followed by a significant crack down on though many actors were involved with illegal domestic ivory markets and a re- creating this protected area, the AEP vision of wildlife legislation. provided some of the first funding to help establish management systems, train over x TRAFFIC provided training to government 30 park guards, and help more than 20 authorities in Tanzania to implement ETIS. local communities mitigate HEC. 19 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 x TRAFFIC conducted studies into domestic resource management programmes (e.g. ivory markets in six African states conservancies in Namibia, CAMPFIRE in (Angola, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Mozam- Zimbabwe). bique, Nigeria, and Senegal) and further highlighted the importance of such 3.2 LESSONS LEARNT FROM domestic markets in fuelling the illegal IMPLEMENTING WWF'S FIRST international trade. AFRICAN ELEPHANT ACTION PLAN x A review was conducted of opinions and options available to wildlife managers in Each WWF elephant project provided lessons southern Africa in managing elephants. for its implementers and partners. Much The report (Cumming & Jones 2005) was experience has also been gained by project presented to range state representatives teams, especially in the ever-evolving area of during a meeting to develop the southern HEC mitigation. African management strategy. x The AfESG’s Local Over-population Task In 2005, WWF decided that it was necessary Force has produced draft guidelines for the and appropriate to review the implementation management of local over-population of of the first plan to assess progress, identify African elephants. constraints and areas for improvement, and learn lessons for the development and imple- Whilst it is often difficult to prove any direct mentation of a new plan. This formal, external link between WWF’s investment in elephant evaluation, conducted in early 2006, identified conservation and population changes, it is a number of lessons and produced a number of perhaps noteworthy that, in several countries pertinent recommendations (EDG 2006). where WWF supported elephant work (e.g. Lessons included: Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa), populations x Targeted interventions clustered in the have increased. same geographical area are more effective than to work towards the same range of The achievements of the AEP were realised by objectives in geographically, socially and a portfolio of 18 projects that complement administratively different places. elephant conservation work in WWF's broader x Elephants are icons for both landscape conservation programme across Africa. None conservation and fund-raising and con- of the achievements could have been attained servation of landscapes sufficient for without the collaboration of range state gov- elephants will benefit a host of other ernments and their respective Ministries, species, along with local people. national parks services and wildlife authorities, x The approach of working closely with and local people around project sites. Several partner programmes and organizations multi-lateral agencies and NGOs were also key possessing specialist expertise in key areas partners in programme implementation, many of elephant conservation should be taking the lead in certain projects. These continued and strengthened, as this will partners included: CITES, Durrell Institute of achieve greater results than would be Conservation and Ecology, Elephant Pepper possible by acting in isolation. Development Trust, Integrated Rural Develop- x A long term presence leads to more ment and Nature Conservation, IUCN/SSC successful outcomes and some of the more AfESG, Monitoring the Illegal Killing of successful WWF elephant projects have Elephants Programme, SRN (Sociedade de been those that have either been funded Gestão e Desenvolvimento da Reserva do through several phases or have built on Niassa), TRAFFIC, and the Wildlife earlier success by other funding agencies Conservation Society (WCS). in the same site or country.

In addition to activities co-ordinated by the Key recommendations from the evaluation AEP, many other WWF projects contributed to were: elephant conservation by enhancing protected x The wide participation of the WWF Net- areas management in elephant range (e.g. work in the development of the next action Dzanga-Sangha in CAR, Lobeke in Cameroon, plan Comoé in Côte d'Ivoire, Salonga in DRC, x The next phase should be designed in line Minkebe in Gabon, Udzungwa Mountains in with the new WWF Standards for Project Tanzania, Greater Limpopo in southern Africa) and Programme Management and the and by implementing community-based natural 20 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 Global Species Programme's monitoring with the importance of the African ele- system. phant as a global flagship representing the x The AEP should concentrate on its proven challenges of wildlife in the context of strengths and on key ongoing and emer- human land use and as an icon that brings ging threats. Its current strengths are in in substantial funding to the Network. HEC mitigation and trade investigations x WWF needs to improve co-ordination of and control. Ongoing and emerging threats its elephant activities so that even those include the acceleration of habitat con- projects not directly supported by the AEP version due to commercial use of land (for provide information to the co-ordinator biofuel, intensive agriculture or forestry or and are considered to make a contribution human settlement), the increasing towards delivery of the African elephant insularization of elephant populations, action plan. disruption of natural population processes x The AEP should have appropriate human and consequent perceptions of local over- resources, especially a full-time co- population, increasing poaching and over- ordinator. exploitation for domestic and international ivory markets, as well as possibly the WWF has taken these lessons and recomm- bushmeat trade. endations in to account as it has developed the x The AEP should cluster its actions in key new action plan for the period 2007-2011. ecoregions, countries, or regions, operating at several different levels within the same The following sections of this document area to bring together actions on policy outline the threats that will be addressed by the and legislation, capacity-building of new plan, how landscapes have been pri- regional, national and local institutions and oritized, and the programme's mission (vision, grass-roots community work to secure key goal, objectives and key activities). elephant habitats and populations. How- ever, the AEP should retain sufficient 4. THREATS TO AFRICAN flexibility to support a few stand-alone ELEPHANTS TO BE ADDRESSED BY projects in other sites that might contribute WWF to a larger “win” or serve as tests or models of an innovative approach. The main, direct threats to African elephants x Rather than dealing with HEC, perceived are poaching for ivory and meat, loss of over-population and the need for con- habitat, and human-elephant conflict (see servation-friendly livelihood enhancement Section 1.2). In turn, these direct threats are as separate issues, there should be more influenced by a suite of indirect threats. A root emphasis on “managed elephant range” cause analysis is presented in Annex 5. In that looks for solutions of coexistence summary the key threats are as follows: between people and elephants, and along with them the ecosystems and biodiversity Direct Threat: Poaching they share. Indirect threats/root causes 1: Demand for x The practice of forming partnerships with ivory (local, national and international); organizations with complementary skills Demand for meat (local and national); No legal should be continued and enhanced, and ex- control or enforcement; tended to working with social development Indirect threats/root causes 2: Subsistence organizations for the purposes of con- needs; Revenue generation; Few alternative servation-friendly livelihood benefits. sources of revenue or protein (especially for x WWF field offices would benefit from families who have lost the main earner(s) input from the AEP to add value to their through HIV/AIDS); Inadequate resources/ programmes, and the AEP should target its capacity for law enforcement initiatives by considering sub-regional programme priorities. Direct Threat: Habitat loss (including habitat x The AEP Coordinator should not have to deterioration and fragmentation) spend so much time on fund-raising within Indirect threats/root causes 1: Demand for land the WWF Network (rather than outside of (for agriculture, settlement, development); WWF); the AEP should receive a more Demand for timber; Inadequate habitat secure, multi-year funding commitment protection from the WWF Network, commensurate Indirect threats/root causes 2: Subsistence

21 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 needs; Commercial and economic develop- well known. However, since the biological and ment (local and national); Land-use practices conservation significance of populations and policies identified as ecologically unique has not been supported by any genetic evidence, and since Direct Threat: HEC well-studied populations are generally well Indirect threats/root causes 1: Close proximity monitored by other conservation agencies, it of villages and fields to elephant habitat; Local would appear that WWF might be better over-population of elephants; Lack of space placed to contribute to the conservation of for elephants; No awareness of effective large elephant populations. mitigation measures. Indirect threats/root causes 2: Land use Most of the larger elephant populations occur policies and practices; Habitat conversion; in tropical forest and miombo woodland Increasing human populations (Douglas-Hamilton et al. 1992). However, if the WWF AEP concentrated on only these The objectives and activities of this SAP are populations, opportunities would be lost in aimed at addressing most of these direct and conserving forest populations in west Africa indirect threats, as articulated in Section 5 and where not only are elephants important key- Section 6. stone species, but they can be flagships for broader biodiversity conservation. Genetic 5. SELECTING PRIORITY ACTIONS evidence also suggests there may be diff- AND LANDSCAPES: WHICH erences between west and central African ELEPHANT POPULATIONS elephants (Eggert et al. 2002). SHOULD WWF WORK ON? WWF cannot work everywhere, and would be unwise to set itself elephant conservation "It is important not to spend money on objectives in areas it has no capacity to work elephant populations that are doomed by in. Wherever it works, it must also be sure the habitat loss and the pressure of human elephant conservation it supports will be con- population growth. On the other hand it is tinued by partners once a project intervention important not to use too large a proportion of is concluded. resources on relatively secure populations" (Thouless, 1999). This is an accurate summary Range state management strategies do not of the dilemma facing WWF in choosing provide guidance on where to focus geo- priority populations on which to focus its graphically. Most of the sub-regional and limited resources. WWF could maximise the national elephant management strategies number of elephants saved by helping produced to date (see section 2.4) take a conserve the largest, most intact and healthiest threats-based approach to planning and do not populations. On the other hand, it could try to list geographical priorities. Therefore, in order save the most threatened elephants by to take account of the multitude of factors concentrating on the smaller, more fragmented affecting choice of sites and activities, WWF and most endangered populations. has developed a set of criteria for prioritizing its work in elephant landscapes. In an earlier elephant priority setting exercise (Cumming et al. 1990) emphasis was placed 5.1 CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING on saving the most threatened and unique WWF'S WORK IN AFRICAN ELEPHANT populations. Therefore, the habitat-specific LANDSCAPES populations were given highest priority (e.g. the desert-dwelling populations in Namibia). WWF cannot provide direct support to help The small, fragmented and most threatened conserve all African elephant populations populations in west Africa were considered the across all 37 range states. We need to focus second highest priority, with the large, intact our conservation efforts on delivering the and relatively well-managed populations in objectives of our African elephant species southern Africa coming lowest on the list. action plan in a number of key landscapes where we can make a measurable conservation Later, Thouless (1999) proposed that popu- impact. For the purpose of WWF's African lations of “high intrinsic importance” should elephant work, a landscape is considered to be priorities - these are populations that are mean an area of land in elephant range that is large, ecologically unique and scientifically

22 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 currently inhabited by an inter-connected Elephant Landscape Assessment Criteria - population of elephants. Category A

Criteria have been developed to help prioritize The following criteria and assessment WWF interventions in elephant landscapes. questions were used to decide if a given These consider a mix of institutional, bio- landscape was eligible to be considered for logical and political factors that can help WWF WWF support, whether or not funding goes decide on whether it should intervene in a through the AEP. Note that the Category A given site or landscape on a given issue. Note criteria are essentially killer assumptions - if that, if a landscape meets the assessment they were not met, the landscape was not criteria, it may be a priority for the African considered for inclusion in the programme. Elephant Programme even if it is not part of a WWF priority ecoregion. A1: Identified threat. WWF will only act in order to address a specific, identified threat or Potential landscapes for consideration were management issue affecting an elephant pop- identified based on factors such as sub- ulation. Threats to be addressed include habitat regional importance, known conservation loss or deterioration, poaching, HEC, etc. needs, range state management plans, and Issues include CBNRM, policy development, WWF's strategic interests and priorities (see etc. section 7.2). Consideration was given to x Is there an identified threat or landscapes across the whole continent with management issue facing this elephant emphasis on the protection of historically population that WWF would be able to isolated lineages (or Evolutionarily Significant help address? Units) because these cannot be recovered, and protection of adaptive features through A2: Population viability. Support will only be conservation of heterogeneous landscapes and provided to elephant populations considered viable populations (see Moritz 2002). viable (i.e. likely to survive in the landscape for at least three generations to come if the Category A criteria were used to decide if a major threats are reduced or removed). Work landscape would be considered or not, and will not be supported on elephant populations proposed sites failing to meet any of these considered too small or too unstable to be criteria were rejected. Category B criteria were viable, nor on those that occur in habitats not used to establish the suitability of landscapes expected to survive even with conservation and help rank them in order of importance for efforts (e.g. due to planned logging). WWF within the action plan. x Is the elephant population in the landscape viable for the long-term (at Each potential landscape was scored against least 3 elephant generations) if the main each question. (The scoring is 0, 1 or 2 for threats are reduced or removed? each question - multiplied by the relative x Are conservation measures likely to weighting of the question - to provide a total ensure the survival of adequate elephant score for each landscape). habitat in the landscape?

Note that elephant conservation work that falls A3: Feasibility and sustainability. Inter- outside of WWF priority elephant landscapes ventions will not be supported if they are as defined in this SAP will not be supported. deemed infeasible, unsustainable, or where the Also note that, as the SAP is implemented, political and social climate means conservation both sets of criteria, the questions and their action is unlikely to be successful. The polit- weightings will be reviewed regularly by the ical and social climate will be gauged as WWF African Elephant Working Group, and unfavourable if there has been, for example, priorities may be altered to take account of any on-going civil conflict or strife that has new information that becomes available. rendered conservation projects unviable. The Boundaries of priority landscapes will also be political climate is also measured by the considered labile until they can be finalized broader wildlife and environment policy arena with input from partners and other stake- (see B2) holders. x Is the political and social climate suitable for conservation in this landscape?

23 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 x Does WWF operate in this landscape or by a government's willingness to engage in plan to operate in this landscape in the partnership with WWF, the national policy next 2-5 years? environment (including presence of appro- x Does WWF have the capacity to priate elephant management strategies), the implement elephant work in the country's history of signing, ratifying and landscape? implementing key international conventions, the level of investment in wildlife conser- Elephant Landscape Assessment Criteria - vation, etc. WWF capacity relates to issues Category B such as WWF's presence on the ground (e.g. projects, offices, staff) where it has demon- The following criteria and assessment que- strated added value, and available technical stions are used to decide the relative import- expertise within the Network. WWF will not ance of a given landscape to WWF. The work at sites where other agencies and NGOs relative weighting of each question is marked are clearly coping with the threats and where in parentheses. WWF would not add any extra value. At the same time as considering all these factors, B1: Population size, range and represent- creativity and innovation will be fostered as we ativeness. For a given sub-region, biome or strive for new strategic solutions to long- ecoregion, larger elephant populations will standing problems (see below). generally be given priority over smaller x How strong is the political will to populations. Adequate range must be available conserve the landscape? (1) with core areas of suitable elephant habitat. x Does WWF have strong capacity to The AEP will aim to conserve representative operate (ourselves or through partners) populations of each sub-species (forest and and support elephant conservation in this savanna elephants) and populations in repre- landscape (due to its current or expected sentative habitat types (forest, woodland, presence)?(3) savanna, desert) in all four sub-regions x Is WWF's involvement necessary to (central, eastern, southern and west Africa). conserve elephants in the landscape (i.e. This approach is aimed at ensuring the genetic will we add value)?(1) and behavioural/cultural diversity within x Are appropriate partnerships with NGOs elephant populations is conserved and they and/or government agencies and/or local maintain their keystone role in representative people likely to develop or expand in this habitats across the continent. landscape?(2) x Is the population an appropriate size for x Overall, is WWF liable to make a the intervention? (i.e. is the population conservation impact on elephants in this large enough to make an intervention landscape i.e. can threats to elephants be worthwhile?) (Weighting: 3) reduced or removed?(3) x Is adequate range and habitat available or potentially available following habitat B3: Synergies with priority ecoregions and restoration or range expansion? (3) other WWF strategic priorities. Priority will x Is the population ecologically, geograph- be given to landscapes that overlap with ically or taxonomically significant for WWF's identified priorities for biome/place- that sub-species or its habitat?(3) based conservation (especially forests, but also freshwater), and other priority or flagship B2: Conservation impact. AEP interventions species, such as great apes and rhinos. In this must have a high likelihood of producing a way the project will have more impact by concrete conservation impact on the ground. addressing several WWF conservation targets Factors used to determine potential impact are for a given investment of funds. This criterion sustainability, demonstrated political will of is especially important for forest elephants the relevant national government(s), and the since many populations occur sympatrically strength of the existing or planned WWF with great apes in priority forest ecoregions. In capacity on the ground to deliver. Sustain- addition, many savanna elephants in woodland ability issues are crucial - it must be clear that ecoregions such as miombo overlap in range work in a given landscape will have a chance with black rhino populations. It should be of having an impact that will last beyond the noted, however, that species like elephants that life of the intervention through on-going work cross habitat boundaries may sometimes have by partners. Political will can be demonstrated important populations outside of priority biomes or ecoregions. 24 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 x Is the landscape also important for WWF outside an elephant landscape; indeed, often biome priorities?(2) outside elephant range states. For example, x Is there an overlap with WWF priorities many states without elephants or with very few for other priority species?(2) elephants (such as Egypt, Sudan and China) are implicated in ivory trade (see section 2.4). B4: Elephants as flagship species. Inter- Therefore, work to tackle ivory and bushmeat ventions will be favoured in landscapes where trades will focus on priority countries iden- there is strong potential to maximise the use of tified through market studies and the analysis elephants as a potential flagship species in of ETIS data. The WWF African Elephant terms of providing opportunities for communi- Programme will concentrate its efforts on cations, education and awareness, and fund- addressing trade in elephant products in range raising, and having a knock-on effect of states where WWF is also addressing poaching helping conserve other species. issues. At the same time, however, it may be x Is the elephant a suitable flagship species necessary to focus on other African states that for broader conservation issues in the serve as key trade routes or markets for landscape?(2) contraband ivory, even if they do not have x Will other faunal and floral species elephants themselves. Priorities for such trade benefit from the project? (1) work have been chosen in collaboration with TRAFFIC, which conducts most of WWF's B5: Innovation and catalytic role. The AEP wildlife trade work. encourages innovative programmes that test new approaches to elephant conservation and 5.2 PRIORITIZING WWF'S ACTIONS can act as models that provide lessons for other WITHIN AFRICAN ELEPHANT programmes. They should produce a multiplier LANDSCAPES effect wherever possible, leveraging further support from other agencies. This can be In this Species Action Plan, objectives are demonstrated through the intervention's role in developed to address identified threats to generating action, policy and partnerships at all African elephants (see above). The structure of levels. the objectives, and the activities developed to address them, take account of a number of x Is WWF's work in this landscape likely to have a multiplier effect, leveraging factors, including: further support or replica initiatives? (1) x sub-regional and national elephant management strategies (thus ensuring that B6: Cost-benefit Assessment. Any WWF WWF's work closely reflects the identified intervention must maximise the conservation priorities of the range states ands their key impact for the given budget and provide value stakeholders) for money. If the elephant conservation work x successful actions undertaken by WWF required in a landscape is going to be very during implementation of its first African expensive for relatively small impact, it should elephant SAP (2001-6) so that WWF’s not be supported. Issues of scale and logistical work builds on its strengths and lessons feasibility will be relevant in this assessment. learned x Is WWF support for elephant conser- x lessons learnt from the formal programme vation in this landscape likely to be cost evaluation (EDG 2006) and experiences effective?(2) from implementing other WWF action plans for terrestrial flagship species in When the application of the assessment criteria Africa and Asia resulted in some landscapes having equal x potential synergies with other WWF scores, priority was given to 1. the landscape programmes, especially terrestrial with the highest score before the weighting Ecoregion Action Programmes and system is applied; 2. the landscape with the Species Action Plans for flagships in the largest elephant population. same habitats (i.e. African great apes and African rhinos) Work Outside of Landscapes x the WWF Standards for Project and Programme Management and the Root causes of illegal killing of elephants monitoring system developed by WWF's include the demand for meat and ivory (see Global Species Programme. Annex 5). These demands often come from

25 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 6. PROGRAMME MISSION WWF's objectives for African elephants, by "category of objective" are as follows: This Species Action Plan outlines the goal, objectives, and key activities for WWF's work Category of Objective 1. To further relevant on African elephants. It is the framework policy and legislation in all sectors and at all which will guide the implementation of the levels WWF African Elephant Programme for the SAP Objective 1.1: The development and period 2007-2011. It differs from other action application of policies and legislation that plans as it outlines where WWF’s specific create an enabling environment for contributions will be, rather than what needs to elephant conservation facilitated in 13 be done overall for African elephants. All new range states by 2011 WWF elephant projects throughout Africa will Target range states include: Burkina have to demonstrate a contribution towards the Faso, Cameroon, CAR, Congo, Côte SAP. (Note: the SAP is the plan for action; the d'Ivoire, DRC, Gabon, Kenya, AEP is the mechanism for delivery although Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, some elements of the SAP will be delivered by Zambia, Zimbabwe other parts of the WWF Network and its partners). Category of Objective 2. To ensure the necessary extent, integrity and functioning of The goal, objectives and activities are struc- critical habitats [quantity, quality, tured in a logical, hierarchical manner, and are management] as objectively verifiable as possible to assist in SAP Objective 2.1: Elephant habitat programme monitoring and evaluation. Activ- effectively conserved in order to increase ities describe the types of action required to range and enhance connectivity between attain objectives, but detailed activities will be populations (including transboundary described in individual programme inter- populations) in 14 landscapes by 2011 ventions as they are developed, as well as in Target landscapes include TRIDOM, annual work plans of the AEP. The planning Sangha, Gamba, Salonga, Maiko, terminology is explained in Annex 9. Selous, Mara, Ruaha, Northern Mozambique, KAZA, Greater Limpopo, 6.1 VISION Tai, Park W, Nazinga

In 25 years time, forest and savanna elephants Category of Objective 3. To ensure adequate continue to roam across Africa in landscapes protection and biological management of where people and wildlife flourish alongside populations each other. SAP Objective 3.1 Illegal killing of elephants reduced by at least 30% in 12 6.2 GOAL landscapes by 2011 Target landscapes: TRIDOM, Sangha, By 2017, elephant populations and their habitat Gamba, Salonga, Maiko, Selous, Ruaha, cover are stable or increasing in 20 landscapes Northern Mozambique, Luangwa, Tai, Park W, Nazinga 6.3 OBJECTIVES SAP Objective 3.2: Illegal trade in major elephant product markets reduced by at The objectives for African elephants reflect least 50% in 9 African states and 2 Asian what WWF aims to achieve for the conser- states by 2011 vation of this species through projects on the Target states include: Angola, ground with partner agencies and local people. Cameroon, CAR, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Choice of target landscapes for each objective DRC, Japan, Mozambique, Nigeria, is defined in section 7.2. Each objective of the Senegal, Sudan. WWF SAP for African Elephants is grouped under a higher level "Category of Objective". Category of Objective 4. To generate The category objectives are standard objectives mutually beneficial incentives for the co- for all WWF SAPs. By showing how work on existence of people and species each elephant objective relates to these higher SAP Objective 4.1 Human-elephant level objectives it helps WWF roll up results conflict reduced by at least 40% in pilot from its field programmes on all flagship sites in 18 landscapes by 2011 species to demonstrate its global impact. 26 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 Target landscapes include: TRIDOM, MEAs; Number of companies with environ- Sangha, Gamba, Selous, Mara, Ruaha, ment policies Tarangire, Shimba, Northern Mozam- bique, NW Namibia, KAZA, Luangwa, Key Activities: Greater Limpopo, Tai, Park W, Naz- inga, Gourma, Bia x Help revise national legislation to adapt to SAP Objective 4.2 The livelihoods of international environment conventions and people living alongside elephants are multi-lateral environment agreements, and improved through economic development to provide an enabling environment for activities linked to wildlife conservation in elephant conservation (e.g. HEC miti- 20 landscapes by 2011 gation, CBNRM, benefit sharing, ivory Target landscapes include: TRIDOM, trade controls, transboundary harmon- Sangha, Gamba, Salonga, Maiko, ization) Selous, Mara, Ruaha, Tarangire, Shimba, Northern Mozambique, NW x Collaborate with UNEP and CITES in the Namibia. KAZA, Luangwa, Greater development and implementation in Limpopo, Tai, Park W, Nazinga, African elephant range states of a frame- Gourma, Bia. work for reviewing national wildlife policy

Category of Objective 5. To create awareness x Develop, implement and monitor partic- and influence adverse attitudes and behaviour ipatory land use plans with stakeholders to SAP Objective 5.1 Public support for, and conserve buffer zones and corridors and participation in, elephant conservation in- reduce HEC creased in 20 landscapes by 2011 through increased awareness of policies, laws, x Support the elaboration, implementation options and benefits and monitoring of 3 sub-regional elephant Target landscapes include: TRIDOM, management plans (central, southern, Sangha, Gamba, Salonga, Maiko, western) and 8 national elephant manage- Selous, Mara, Ruaha, Tarangire, ment plans (Cameroon, CAR, Congo, Shimba, Northern Mozambique, NW DRC, Gabon, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia. KAZA, Luangwa, Greater Tanzania) ensuring transboundary Limpopo, Tai, Park W, Nazinga, collaboration is promoted. Gourma, Bia. x Lobby for the integration of sub-regional 7. PROGRAMME INTERVENTION plans into sub-regional planning processes (e.g. CAECS into Plan de Convergence for 7.1 KEY ACTIVITIES AND INDICATORS the Congo Basin; SAECS into SADC and TO MEET PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES TFCA development) and the allocation of government funding for implementation The AEP objectives will be addressed through a series of interventions solicited from, and x Develop and implement cooperative developed in collaboration with, the WWF agreements between states for conser- sub-regional programme offices and their vation and management of transboundary partners. Any given intervention may address elephant populations one or more of the programme objectives. The activities listed under each indicator provide an x Support development of appropriate indication of the sorts of actions required, but policies for addressing local over- they are not exhaustive. population of elephants by promulgating WWF positions, disseminating existing SAP Objective 1.1: The development and technical guidelines on translocation and application of policies and legislation that local over-population, and helping develop create an enabling environment for elephant and test non-lethal tools. conservation facilitated in 12 range states by 2011 SAP Objective 2.1: Elephant habitat conserved effectively in order to increase Indicators: Number of states with appropriate range and connectivity between populations policies, legislation and action plans; Number of range states adhering to Conventions & 27 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 (including transboundary populations) in 14 habitat cover and habitat quality in target landscapes by 2011 landscapes.

Indicators: Area of habitat cover; Area of SAP Objective 3.1 Illegal killing of habitat under protection; PA Management elephants reduced by at least 30% in 12 effectiveness (as measured by scorecards) landscapes by 2011

Key Activities: Indicators: Trend of illegal off take; Law enforcement effectiveness per unit effort x Promote the creation of new national and transboundary protected areas (to expand Key Activities: elephant range, increase habitat protection and reduce local over-population) x Train and equip anti-poaching staff (e.g. park guards, community game guards) to x Improve management effectiveness in PAs increase area and frequency of surveillance and TFCAs (including reduction of logg- coverage ing, mining, hunting and settlement) x Monitor anti-poaching success per unit x Conduct studies into elephant movements effort and habitat use across seasons to identify corridors required for connectivity and to x Develop capacity for MIKE implement- improve anti-poaching patrols ation and provide support for regular population censuses x Establish land use plans for elephant corridors between protected areas to max- x Support the development and operation of imize connectivity, prevent encroachment key elephant databases (e.g. African and reduce HEC Elephant Database, MIKE) to provide information on elephant numbers, x Develop initiatives with the private sector poaching levels and poaching impacts. to monitor and reduce the impacts of extractive industries (mining, logging, SAP Objective 3.2: Illegal trade in elephant agribusinesses, etc) on elephants and their products reduced by at least 50% in 9 habitats - including promotion of best African states and 2 Asian states by 2011 practices and SFM in logging companies Indicators: Levels of ivory trade in major x Provide tools (e.g. best practice guidelines) markets; Number and volume of ivory seizures for management of TFCAs and integration of local people into PA management Key Activities: x Conduct climate vulnerability assessments x Monitor domestic ivory markets and lobby for elephant populations in Africa and use for study recommendations to be the results to develop and implement implemented in Africa and Asia climate change adaptation strategies for landscapes identified as being at high risk x Train and equip law enforcement officers (e.g. customs, police) to monitor and x Use appropriate scorecards to measure tackle illegal wildlife trade and help protected area management effectiveness implement the CITES Action plan for the control of domestic trade in ivory in x Develop joint habitat protection initiatives collaboration with TRAFFIC with forest and freshwater conservation programmes and explore options for using x Improve implementation of ETIS and data schemes such as Payment for reporting in range states in collaboration Environmental Services with TRAFFIC x Implement monitoring system with x Investigate the sustainable use of DNA partners to assess regularly the level of markers and other tools to identify sources

28 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

of illegal ivory and improve ETIS Key Activities: reporting x Support implementation of CBNRM x Identify the impact of the bushmeat trade schemes (taking account of lessons learned on elephants and develop initiatives to from existing programmes) where local curb the problem (especially in central people benefit from wildlife in elephant Africa). range (e.g. Wildlife Management Areas in Tanzania; conservancies in Namibia) SAP Objective 4.1 Human-elephant conflict reduced by at least 40% in pilot sites in 18 x Conduct feasibility studies and implement landscapes by 2011 pilot projects in wildlife-based tourism to provide revenue for local people Indicators: Level of conflict (fields raided, area of crops lost, people hurt, infrastructure x Establish appropriate private sector destroyed); Financial costs of HEC (cost of partnerships to enhance opportunities for crops and infrastructure lost); Number of local communities to realise tourism elephants killed in PAC operations benefits

Key Activities: x Establish pilot projects that use appropriate and sustainable agricultural practices in x Develop new field and policy tools for elephant habitat to increase farmers' yields improving HEC monitoring and mitigation and profits but reduce conflict with elephants x Field test modern methods for HEC monitoring and mitigation, and measure x Set up community-based schemes to impacts of HEC mitigation on local diversify income-generating activities livelihoods away from extractive or illegal activities such as hunting and logging x Replicate successful HEC pilot projects in remaining priority landscapes x Implement participatory rural appraisal systems for monitoring livelihood benefits x Train wildlife management authorities and directly accrued by local people from local people in HEC mitigation CBNRM/SFM and other revenue generating schemes x Develop programmes with stakeholders from all levels for the national "vertically x Assess lessons learned from revenue- integrated" management of HEC (concen- generating projects linked to elephants and trating not only on field-level mitigation disseminate results to people involved with measures but also encompassing relevant developing new initiatives. higher-level policy issues such as compensation, land use planning, land SAP Objective 5.1 Public support for, and tenure, and equitable benefit sharing) participation in, elephant conservation increased in 20 landscapes by 2011 through x Organize workshops and disseminate increased awareness of policies, laws, publications to encourage the transfer and options and benefits sharing of experiences, expertise, skills and knowledge on HEC between sites, Indicators: Perceived importance of countries, sub-regions and continents. conservation to local people; Number of people engaged with WWF projects and SAP Objective 4.2 Livelihoods of people implementing WWF tools and methods living alongside elephants improved through economic development activities in Key Activities: 20 landscapes by 2011 x Establish and implement an Information, Indicators: Benefits derived from elephants Education, Communications (IEC) camp- (household incomes; PA gate receipts) aign on elephant issues with target groups (including CBOs, school children, media,

29 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 users of elephant products within and projects in the top five ranked landscapes in outside Africa, and key decision-makers each sub-region which are as follows: e.g. civil servants, local government officials, judiciary) Rank Priority Landscapes and Range states x Building on traditional beliefs and rel- Central Africa ationships between people and elephants, 1 TRIDOM - Trinational Park of Dja, raise awareness on the importance of Odzala, Minkebe conserving elephants. Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Gabon 2 Sangha Trinational Cameroon, CAR, Republic of Congo x Raise awareness among ivory buyers, 3 Gamba complex sellers and carvers about legislation Gabon relating to trade in elephant products. 4 Salonga DRC x Raise awareness of local people living 5 Maiko - Kahuzi-Biega alongside elephants of key opportunities DRC relating to wildlife management (e.g. Eastern Africa tourism, HEC mitigation support, etc) 1 Selous Tanzania 2 Mara - Serengeti x Monitor community views and opinions Kenya, Tanzania (in target groups) on elephant management 3 Ruaha - Rungwa and conservation to measure the impacts of Tanzania the IEC work 4 Tarangire – Lake Manyara Tanzania x Provide communications tools (website, 5 Shimba Hills newsletters, brochures, position state- Kenya ments, simplified explanations of wildlife Southern Africa laws etc) to allow others to replicate IEC 1 Northern Mozambique campaigns, and facilitate implementation Mozambique of sub-regional IEC campaigns on 2 North-west Namibia elephants and key management issues Namibia (over-population, HEC, etc). 3 Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia 7.2 PRIORITY AFRICAN ELEPHANT 4 Luangwa Valley LANDSCAPES Zambia 5 Greater Limpopo The landscapes holding the largest and South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique potentially most viable populations of West Africa elephants were identified for each sub-region 1 Tai - Grebo and each main habitat type as determined Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia through the African Elephant Database (Blanc 2 Park W - Eastern Burkina Reserves - et al. 2007). The initial selection of landscapes Pendjari Park - northern Togo Reserves for assessment was based on factors such as Burkina Faso, Benin, Niger, Togo sub-regional importance (for elephant 3 Nazinga - Kabore Tambi NP- Red populations and broader biodiversity), known Volta-Doungh Burkina Faso, Ghana, Togo conservation needs, range state management 4 Gourma - Sahel plans, and WWF's strategic interests and Mali, Burkina Faso priorities. 5 Bia – Goaso - Djambarakrou Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire Thirty-three landscapes were identified in this way. Twenty-six passed the screening with Note that this list of landscapes will be review- category A criteria and were then scored ed on a regular basis and WWF reserves the against WWF's category B criteria for right to alter its priorities in the light of new prioritizing landscapes (as explained in section information or changing circumstances on the 5.1). The analysis (presented in Annex 6) ground. It should also be noted that many other produced a ranking of the 26 landscapes elephant populations across Africa merit con- (Annex 7). WWF will aim to develop elephant servation action; this list reflects simply the

30 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 areas where WWF will primarily invest its re- active and dynamic communications sources into elephants. strategy x raise funds for programme expansion In addition to work in priority landscapes, by communicating to donors and fund- WWF and TRAFFIC will tackle elephant trade raisers within and outside WWF issues in the following African states: x develop partnerships for concrete, x Angola cost-effective conservation actions and x Cameroon work closely with organizations that x Central African Republic have skills that are complementary to x Côte d'Ivoire WWF’s x Democratic Republic of Congo x base its conservation actions on x Mozambique available scientific knowledge and x Nigeria work with scientists to improve x Senegal knowledge where it is lacking x Sudan. x help manage information on elephants and elephant conservation issues on Actions will also be taken to monitor and behalf of the WWF Network regulate ivory trade in at least two Asian x provide opportunities for African consumer states, such as China and Japan. students and researchers to conduct studies into elephant conservation Note, however, that provision will be made to issues such as HEC, habitat use, accommodate for shifting trade patterns. CBNRM, bushmeat trade, etc. Identification of new or emerging trade routes x provide a WWF voice in discussions may necessitate action in countries as yet and policy debates on elephant unidentified to maximize WWF’s impact on management issues as appropriate domestic markets. Similarly, government x ensure all WWF elephant initiatives action to curb unregulated markets may result are scientifically-based, socially in some countries being removed from the list. acceptable, promote equitable sharing of benefits, and can be sustained in the 7.3 OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES long-term by governments, local communities and other stakeholders. During the implementation of the SAP by WWF's African Elephant Programme, the 7.4 CONTRIBUTION TO WWF ECO- following principles will be adhered to. The REGIONAL TARGETS AEP will: x co-ordinate and monitor WWF's Several WWF Ecoregion Action Programmes portfolio of elephant projects (EAPs) – and proposed WWF Network x consider elephant conservation within Initiatives based on ecoregion groupings - the broader biodiversity conservation work in landscapes with elephants and will and socio-economic goals of range contribute directly to the conservation of states elephants and their habitats. Efforts will be made to ensure that projects supported by the x provide support for strategic and catalytic elephant conservation actions AEP complement the EAPs and add extra across the four African sub-regions, value for elephant conservation work. In turn whilst maintaining the flexibility to the EAPs and the African elephant SAP respond to emergencies as and when protected areas actions will contribute to they arise broader forest conservation objectives. In future, more synergies also need to be x support capacity-building inter- developed with freshwater conservation ventions under each conservation initiatives where they fall in elephant range. objective to ensure African governments and people are able to 7.5 APPROACH TOWARDS manage and protect their own elephant DEVELOPING NEW ELEPHANT populations INITIATIVES x raise awareness of elephant conservation issues with the general All new WWF elephant projects in Africa will public and within WWF through an need to conform to the African elephant SAP

31 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 and contribute to its objectives and key development and conservation. Extraction activities. Field-based interventions will also industries (especially logging and mining) and have to focus on one of the identified priority the tourism industry have large impacts on landscapes. Nonetheless, throughout the elephants and their habitats and represent programme WWF will need to maintain potential opportunities for partnerships. flexibility to adapt to new data and new situations as they arise. 7.7 PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATION: HUMAN RESOURCES, ROLES AND 7.6 PROGRAMME PARTNERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TARGET BENEFICIARIES The AEP Co-ordinator The WWF AEP aims to work with range state governments and their relevant natural Implementation of the SAP will be overseen resource management authorities (such as by an African Elephant Programme Co- wildlife departments, national parks author- ordinator. If long-term funding is secured for a ities, regional and district staff, etc.). WWF broader programme, a full-time dedicated co- will also work with other stakeholders in ordinator will be recruited. The co-ordinator elephant conservation particularly local has important roles to play in project develop- communities living side by side with ment, fund-raising, programme monitoring, elephants, national NGOs and research and communications. The precise organ- institutions. Throughout its actions, the AEP izational chart for the AEP will be finalized will emphasise capacity building initiatives when structural re-organization is completed at which aim to empower Africans to manage WWF International. their own elephant populations for broader biodiversity conservation and sustainable Communications and Administration development needs. Experience with similar initiatives such as the Several international conservation and animal African Rhino Programme has shown that welfare NGOs invest in African elephant work. programme delivery can be optimised if the The AEP will explore ways of building new co-ordinator is provided with additional human partnerships as well as strengthening existing resources to help with programme and project partnerships with such agencies where joint administration, and communications. A action towards common goals can provide programme administrator would help with greater conservation impact and value for budgeting and financial reporting. A commun- money, and provide greater scope for innov- ications officer would help produce publicity ative and catalytic interventions. There is and media materials, and help promote fund- particularly large scope for developing joint raising. Such posts will be filled as deemed interventions with WWF’s existing partners, necessary in relation to the size and growth of especially the TRAFFIC Network (a joint the programme, and as permitted by available WWF-IUCN programme), and the IUCN/SSC funding. Opportunities will be sought as African Elephant Specialist Group, which has appropriate to share such posts with other many similar objectives. Other current project WWF African species programmes, such as partners are listed in section 3.1. In addition, as the African Great Apes Programme and part of its broader conservation programme African Rhino Programme. WWF has partnership agreements with several agencies (e.g. World Bank, CARE, Peace The African Elephant Working Group Parks Foundation) that may be able to help with further development of activities under The WWF African Elephant Working Group the African Elephant Programme, especially (AEWG) was established in 2000 as an those relating to habitat conservation and internal WWF body to oversee the develop- community livelihoods. ment, implementation and evaluation of the AEP. The private sector is playing an increasingly important role in providing land and support The AEWG comprises a range of WWF staff for wildlife conservation, sometimes in joint active in species conservation across Africa, ventures with communities. More effort needs including focal points for each sub-region who to be put into developing appropriate public- are directly working on elephant conservation. private partnerships to help sustainable WWF National Organizations providing 32 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 financial contributions representing more than regularly (every six months and three months 20 percent of the overall AEP budget are also respectively) in line with WWF Programmatic offered a seat. TRAFFIC was represented at and Operational Standards. previous AEWG meetings and should be considered for future membership. Commun- Technical staff in sub-regional programme ications staff are encouraged to act as offices will help monitor activities on the observers. ground through site visits where appropriate. In turn, a summary technical progress report In summary, the role and function of the will be produced by the co-ordinator every six AEWG for the first phase of the AEP was: months based on the reports received from the x To assist in the development, imple- field to detail overall progress of the project mentation and monitoring of the AEP portfolio towards attaining the SAP objectives. x To ensure the regular review and updating Reporting will be based on the programme of the SAP logframe and a monitoring framework that x To provide input into the identification and tracks indicators. development of projects to address the SAP objectives The annual report and analysis will be prod- x To ensure that a balance is maintained in uced and circulated to donors, project leaders, the AEP project portfolio, taking into and other key partners within and outside the account the need to address all objectives WWF Network. A number of workshops will and the need for appropriate geographical also be organized where possible to diss- and habitat representation eminate lessons learned. x To agree on funding priorities in accordance with the SAP, and work together with An external evaluation of the AEP, conducted other WWF funding sources and potential by a team including non-WWF members, will donor agencies to meet additional agreed be conducted in the latter half of FY 2010. funding needs. This will assess lessons learned and provide recommendations for further development of The role and membership of the AEWG needs the programme. to be revised and updated to take account of the latest WWF policies and procedures for 7.9 PROGRAMME FUND-RAISING programme management, as well as on-going re-structuring in the WWF International Secre- Implementation of the African elephant SAP tariat. Physical meetings may be rare, but the will require the acquisition of significant, long- group should remain in regular telephone and term funding. The ‘buy in’ of the WWF Net- email contact over strategic and fund-raising work to the SAP will be vital to help ensure issues. suitable donor support. Linkages and align- ment with relevant African Ecoregion Action 7.8 PROGRAMME MONITORING, Programmes, and other regional and global EVALUATION AND LESSON SHARING initiatives relating to species and forests will also be crucial to complement core elephant An outline monitoring plan for the SAP is funding. presented in Annex 13. This will be finalized and implemented by the AEP Co-ordinator. The AEP Co-ordinator will drive a fund- The co-ordinator, in conjunction with the raising campaign to secure funds from within AEWG, will then track progress of WWF the WWF Network and from outside donors. elephant projects in delivering on SAP Various external opportunities exist. For objectives. example, there are a number of private foundations and charities that have an interest Each elephant project that contributes to this in supporting either species work, or for programme will also have a monitoring plan, helping develop capacity among African based on objectives and clear, measurable professionals. Many of these would be best indicators of conservation impact against approached directly by WWF field projects which progress can be assessed. Baseline data and offices; the AEP could help facilitate that. required to track progress against indicators will be collected within the first year where it Most government aid agencies (GAAs) that is not available already. Technical and fund conservation work do so as part of a financial progress reports will be delivered broader environment and sustainable develop- 33 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 ment agenda. Very few seem prepared to fund national or international non-governmental species conservation directly. Proposals aimed organizations operating locally. Such partner- at GAAs will most likely need to focus on the ships ensure that complementary skills and conservation of elephant habitat and the knowledge are applied. Training focuses on associated benefits of projects to local people who can then train others. For example, communities. Aspects of the SAP that lend in an existing WWF project in Mozambique, themselves to this focus are protected area the first villagers to receive training on HEC establishment, sustainable forest management, mitigation then taught their neighbours the community-based natural resource manage- same methods. Thus, after the initial skills ment, human-elephant conflict mitigation, and transfer, replication can occur with minimal eco-tourism development. WWF's GAA Unit on-going input. in Gland, and the relevant contact points in National Organizations, will be consulted to In addition, the WWF elephant projects are help identify potential opportunities. In likely to stimulate other donors and organiz- collaboration with WWF Programme Offices, ations to complement WWF investments. relevant embassies will also be approached within elephant range states to identify govern- The work of the AEP is also inherently sust- ment small grants that could be accessed at ainable since efforts will be made to create an that level. enabling policy environment for elephant conservation. Awareness raising actions are In the long-term, range states need to seek aimed at ensuring broader understanding and sustainable financing mechanisms for more buy-in to conservation goals. effective, large-scale and long-term funding of elephant conservation. Pilot schemes, such as It is hoped that full implementation of the the Trust Funds being developed for trans- WWF Species Action Plan for African ele- frontier conservation areas in central Africa, phants will result in a long-term, sustainable need to be replicated elsewhere. improvement in the capacity of African nations and their people to manage and conserve 7.10 PROGRAMME SUSTAINABILITY elephants. It will therefore represent a signify- cant contribution towards ensuring elephants Throughout the programme, all activities will still roam the continent for centuries to come. focus on building local capacity (in government institutions, local authorities, NGOs, CBOs and communities) and on ensuring sustainability. This will be achieved by focussing on training and lessons sharing, and on empowering governments and local comm.- unities to make their own informed decisions about management of their elephant populations and their broader natural resource base.

Protected area work will put emphasis on training and management systems that will last long after any WWF support has finished. All field activities involving communities will use locally available materials and efforts will be made to help people establish income- generating activities to continue the HEC and CBNRM work long after project completion. In addition, successful HEC mitigation and effective CBNRM will improve people's livelihoods and allow them to reinvest in future development of these schemes.

A large emphasis of the SAP is placed on working with not only national government wildlife management agencies but also with community-based organizations and with © WWF-Canon / Martin HARVEY 34 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 ANNEX 1: ACRONYMS USED IN IRDNC Integrated Rural Development THE TEXT & Nature Conservation (Namibian NGO) IUCN The World Conservation AED African Elephant Database Union (IUCN/SSC AfESG) KAZA Kavango-Zambezi AEP African Elephant Programme (Transfrontier Conservation (WWF) Area) AEWG African Elephant Working LIFE Living in a Finite Group Environment (WWF Project) AfESG African Elephant Specialist MIKE Monitoring the Illegal Killing Group (IUCN Species of Elephants (CITES) Survival Commission) NGO Non-governmental AMP Africa & Madagascar organization Programme (WWF NW North-west International) PA Protected area CAECS Central African Elephant PAC Problem animal control Conservation Strategy PAME Protected area management CAMPFIRE Communal Areas effectiveness Management Programme for PFA Project Finance Analyst Indigenous Resources (WWF) CAR Central African Republic PRA Participatory rural appraisal CBNRM Community-based Natural SADC Southern Africa Development Resource Management Community CBO Community-based SAECS Southern African Elephant organization Conservation Strategy CITES Convention on International SAP Species Action Plan (WWF) Trade in Endangered Species SFM Sustainable forest of wild fauna and flora management CHF Swiss francs SSC Species Survival Commission DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid (IUCN) DRC Democratic Republic of TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Congo Area DSS Decision-support system TRAFFIC Trade Records Analysis for EAP Ecoregion Action Programme Flora and Fauna in Commerce (WWF) (WWF/IUCN) EDG Environment & Development TRIDOM Trinational Park of Dja- Group Odzala-Minkebe ETIS Elephant Trade Information UNDP United Nations Development System (CITES) Programme FSC Forest Stewardship Council UNEP United National Environment FY Financial year Programme GAA Government aid agency USA United States of America GSP Global Species Programme WMA Wildlife management area (WWF) WWF World Wide Fund for Nature HDI Human Development Index (World Wildlife Fund in (UNDP) Canada and the USA) HEC Human-elephant conflict IEC Information-Education- Communications

35 E ll e p h a n t R a n g e ii n A f r ii c a

10°W 0° 10°E 20°E 30°E 40°E 50°E

40°N 40°N

30°N 30°N

20°N 20°N W e s t t A ff rr ii c a

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E a s tt!P e rr n !PASMARA ! ! ! ! !

!P ! KHARTOUM NIAMEY A ff rr ii c a !P ! ! BAMAKO ! ! !P NDJAM! !EN! !A! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P !P !P BISS!A!U ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! OUAGADOUGOU! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ADDIS 10°N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10°N !P ! ! ! ! ! ABUJA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ABABA !P !P CONAKRY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! FREETOWN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! YAMOUSSOUKRO! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P MONROVIA !P !P PORTO NOVO ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LOMÉ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ACCRA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! BANGU! I! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! YAOU! N! D! E! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MOGADISHU ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LIBREVILLE !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! 0° ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0° ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !KAMPALA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NAIROBI ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! P! KI!G! ALI ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! BRA!ZZ! !A!VI!LLE! !P! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !C! ! !e! ! n! ! !tt! !rr! !a! ! l l ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! KINSHASA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !A ff rr ii c ! a! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DAR ES SALAAM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LUANDA!!P! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10°S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10°S

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P LILO! !N!G! W! !E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LUSAKA !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! HARARE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20°S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20°S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WINDHOEK !P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! GABORONE !P ! ! !P !P !P MAPUTO PRETORIA (Tshwane) MBABANE S o u tt h e rr n A f r i c a 30°S A f r i c a 30°S

10°W 0° 10°E 20°E 30°E 40°E 50°E

0 700 1,400 2,800 km Regional Boundary Elephant Range

International Boundary Known

!P Possible Capital Cities Sources: ! ! ! ! ! ! This map is unprojected. ! ! ! ! ! ! African Elephant African Elephant Database ! ! ! ! ! ! Doubtful ! ! ! ! ! ! Specialist Group Digital Chart of the World Scale is indicative only. WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 ANNEX 3: SUMMARY OF ELEPHANT POPULATION NUMBERS ACROSS AFRICA

Source: IUCN Species Survival Commission African Elephant Status Report 2007 (Blanc et al. 2007).

Sub- Population estimate by category of data quality Sub-regional Range area region Definite Probable Possible Speculative Area (km2) (km2) Central 10,383 48,936 43,098 34,129 5,365,550 975,079 Africa Eastern 137,485 29,043 35,124 3,543 6,182,037 880,063 Africa Southern 297,718 23,186 24,734 9,753 5,973,020 1,305,140 Africa West 7,487 735 1,129 2,939 5,096,660 175,545 Africa TOTAL 472,269 82,704 84,334 50,364 22,617267 3,335,827

NOTE: The population estimates entered in the African Elephant Database range in quality from the identification of individual animals, to uninformed guesses. Therefore, estimates are placed in four categories of increasing uncertainty from Definite to Speculative.

NOTE: The totals for each category of data are derived from pooling variances, so totals do not necessarily match the simple sum of the entries within a category (see Blanc et al. 2007 for more detailed explanation of data categorization).

NOTE: The 37 African elephant range states (by sub-region) are: Central: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea Eastern: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda Southern: Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe. West: Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo.

37 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 ANNEX 4: SUMMARY OF THREATS FACING KEY ELEPHANT HABITAT TYPES AND ECOREGIONS ACROSS AFRICA

For full ecoregion descriptions, maps, biodiversity 2004). Rapid deforestation is an issue of major values and threat assessments see Burgess et al. concern, given the scope of degradation, which (2004), and the “Wild World” website of WWF and started in the 1970s. According to FAO (2001), the National Geographic Society: close to 12 million ha of forests were lost in http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld western Africa from 1990 to 2000. Underlying causes of biodiversity loss in the Upper Guinea A full description of the Elephant Landscapes is forest include poverty, growing human population given in Annex 7. densities and weak environmental governance (CI 2001) ALBERTINE RIFT MONTANE FORESTS Immigration of farmers from the Sahel region into Elephant Landscapes Present: west African forest zones in the 1980s increased x Eastern parts of Maiko/Kahuzi-Biega slash and burn activities, as well as logging, gold mining and hunting (Martin 1991). Anthropogenic This ecoregion contains exceptionally high species pressures for farmland, timber, bushmeat, fuelwood richness because of its central location in Africa, and mineral resources continue to cause forest loss, juxtaposition of habitats, and its altitudinal especially outside reserves (Burgess et al. 2004). zonation. However, most parts of the Albertine Rift As a result, encroachment into elephant habitat forests remain only in protected areas or the most continues in many range states. For example: in inaccessible areas. Elsewhere, most of the land has Côte d'Ivoire, elephant habitat was reduced by 40 been converted to farmland (Burgess et al. 2004). percent during the 1980s, and the elephant The main threat to the remaining forest is clearance population was halved in the same period (Merz & and fragmentation by subsistence farming. Other Hoppe-Dominik 1991); poaching continues in the threats include firewood collection, poaching, country’s protected areas (Schulenberg et al. 1999; uncontrolled fires and invasive species. The Fischer 2005). However, it should be noted that not turbulent recent history of armed conflict in the all resource use by local communities is area has seen many large mammal populations, destructive: a number of indigenous strategies also including elephants, hit hard by poaching. The exist in west Africa that protect certain ecosystems, Maiko-Kahuzi-Biega landscape is one of the six protect certain species, or regulate exploitation (see priority conservation areas in the ecoregion Ntiamoa-Baidu 2001). (Plumptre et al. 2007a) Across the west African savannas most large WEST AFRICAN FORESTS AND SAVANNAS mammals have been locally extirpated by hunting outside of protected areas. In the western Sudanian Elephant Landscapes Present (by ecoregion): savanna ecoregion, habitat is lost to the commercial x Guinean moist forest ecoregion:- Tai, Bia expansion of agriculture and development projects, x West Sudanian savannas:- Park W, Nazinga especially dams (Burgess et al. 2004). In the x Eastern Sudanian savannas:- Northern eastern savanna, the original habitat has been savannas reduced significantly. The main threats are seasonal shifting cultivation, overgrazing by livestock, Many of the elephants surviving in west Africa are cutting of trees and bushes for wood, burning of found in the remaining fragments of the Guinean woody material for charcoal, and uncontrolled Moist Forest Ecoregion, as well as in habitat wildfires (Burgess et al. 2004). Climate change is a remnants in the Guinean forest-savanna mosaic, the further threat as reduced rainfall will reduce the west Sudanian savanna and the eastern Sudanian ability of the ecosystem to recover from overuse. savanna. West African elephants may be among the most threatened by habitat loss and range CENTRAL AFRICAN FORESTS contraction. Elephant range in west Africa was estimated to have shrunk 93 percent between 1900 Elephant Landscapes Present (by ecoregion): and 1984 (Roth & Douglas-Hamilton 1991) and is x Northwestern Congolian lowland forests:- now less extensive than in any other sub-region, TRIDOM, Sangha representing just 5% of the continental range x Northeastern Congolian lowland forests:- estimate (Blanc et al. 2007). Maiko/Kahuzi-Biega, Okapi x Central Congolian lowland forests:- Salonga Forest resources in west Africa are threatened by a x Atlantic Equatorial coastal forests:- Gamba, combination of factors, including agricultural Campo Ma’an expansion, increased collection of fuelwood, overgrazing, fast urbanization, industrialization, Forest ecoregions within central Africa of great drought, civil wars and bush fires (UNEP/NESDA importance to elephants include the northwestern, 38 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 eastern and central Congolian lowland forests, and infrastructure projects being developed in the area the Atlantic Equatorial coastal forests. There are also pose a potential threat to elephant populations incomplete data on elephant densities and habitat and their habitat (Blanc et al. 2004). connectivity for the landscapes in the Congo Basin. However, existing data from certain sites indicate In north-western Namibia, arid adapted elephant healthy elephant populations still survive in the populations occur in the Kaokoveld desert, and in region. neighbouring ecoregions (Namib escarpment woodlands, Etosha Pan Halophytics, Angolan Logging remains the most serious threat to central mopane woodlands) (Blanc et al. 2007). Threats to African forests. For example: most of the north- these ecoregions are limited since there are few western Congolian lowland forest ecoregion and human demands on such arid areas. However, over- the Atlantic equatorial forest ecoregion have been hunting (especially on the Angolan side of the allocated to forestry concessions (Minnemeyer border) remains a threat. Some succulent plants are 2002; Burgess et al. 2004); Cameroon has allocated over-exploited on the escarpments, which are also 81 percent of its forests to concessions (White & experiencing some soil erosion and scarring due to Martin 2002). Although logging is generally off-road tourist vehicles (Burgess et al. 2004). The selective, there are concerns about its sustainability elephants in the area remain vulnerable primarily (Sayer et al. 1992; Minnemeyer 2002). Where due to their small population size and the risk of human population densities are highest, agri- prolonged drought (Blanc et al. 2004). culturalists have colonized some areas. EAST AFRICAN ACACIA SAVANNAS The northeastern Congolian lowland forests face a range of additional threats. Besides logging, there is Elephant Landscapes Present: also mining for gold, diamonds, iron ore and coltan. x Mara These forests are further impacted by small-scale x Tarangire farming and wildlife exploitation associated with x Samburu large-scale human movements as a result of armed conflict in the Great Lakes region and eastern DRC This ecoregion can be divided into northern and (Burgess et al. 2004). Oil exploitation also southern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and continues to threaten key sites in the coastal forests. thickets. Historically, human use of this habitat type However, note that in some parts of the Congo was limited to pastoralist and hunter-gatherer Basin (such as in the Central Congolian Lowland societies. However, now the habitats and species Forest ecoregion) large blocks of forest remain are increasingly threatened by unsustainable water intact and only small areas have so far been lost to use, frequent grassland burning, tree cutting logging or farming (Burgess et al. 2004). (especially for fuelwood and charcoal), and farmland expansion (Burgess et al. 2004). Mining Throughout central Africa, elephants are threatened (e.g. for gold and tanzanite) has also expanded in directly by poaching for meat and ivory (Blake et some areas recently. Elephants in the acacia al. 2007). The logging, mining and oil industries savannas were hit particularly hard by poaching in facilitate poaching and the bushmeat trade by the late twentieth century (Blanc et al. 2004), and providing markets, transport and access to remote there is an ongoing threat to biodiversity in the forests (Burgess et al. 2004). Political instability in ecoregion from unsustainable bushmeat hunting the region has facilitated the influx of arms and (Barnett 2000). Corridors allowing seasonal and ammunitions across the borders leading to high drought-related movements of wildlife, including levels of organized poaching and ivory trade (L. elephants, are declining. For example, since the Usongo, personal communication). 1970s the available corridors between Tarangire National Park and nearby protected areas have DESERTS WITH ELEPHANTS - THE SAHEL decreased from thirty to four (Kahurananga & AND THE KAOKOVELD Silkiluwasha 1997).

Elephant Landscapes Present: EAST AFRICAN COASTAL FORESTS x Gourma x North-west Namibia Elephant Landscapes Present: x Shimba Elephants in Mali are now confined to a single x Matumbi population in the Gourma, an arid area in the Sahel x Eastern parts of northern Mozambique that is part of the Sahelian Acacia savanna ecoregion. Gourma’s elephants are the most More than 20 million people live within the coastal northerly surviving population in Africa, and districts of Kenya, Mozambique, Somalia, and together with Namibia’s elephants, they are the Tanzania. Intense poverty across most of this area most adapted to arid conditions (Blanc et al. 2007). results in high levels of dependence on natural The expansion of human populations into marginal resources (Mugo 2006). areas is increasingly putting elephants into conflict with people. Agricultural irrigation and 39 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

The greatest threat to natural habitats is expanding and light (Misana et al. 1996). Charcoal production agriculture. The coastal soils are of poor quality and is having a major impact, especially close to roads so agriculture takes the form of short-term shifting and settlements. Fires set by people are also taking cultivation, largely for food crops. Charcoal their toll. They are set too often and too late and burning and fuelwood collection is the second result in reduced forest regeneration due to largest threat, especially near large settlements and reductions in seed germination and disturbed along roads. Forests and woodlands are the main seedling survival and growth (Chidumayo et al. source of fuel for the majority of the households in 1996). Mineral prospecting in some sites also eastern Africa (Mugo 2006). threatens an influx of illegal miners and serious environmental degradation (Baldus 2005). Other major direct threats to coastal forests, in descending order of importance as ranked by key In the Baikiaea woodlands to the south of the stakeholders (Mugo 2006) are: uncontrolled fires, miombo belt, timber logging is a threat, as well as unsustainable logging, unplanned settlement, and poaching and the blocking of wildlife migration destructive mining practices. Commercial logging routes, especially by cattle fences (Burgess et al. is a major threat to the newly accessible coastal 2004). Elephant poaching has been very severe in forests of northern Mozambique; mining for many miombo areas. limestone is a particular threat near the coastal cities of Mombassa and Dar es Salaam (Burgess et ZAMBEZIAN AND MOPANE WOODLANDS al. 2004). Elephant Landscapes Present: Throughout eastern Africa, the rate of offtake from x Greater Limpopo the forest is more than the natural regeneration capacity. There is very little investment in Despite the fact that about half of this ecoregion is forestation and reforestation (UNEP 2006b). protected, a steadily growing human population, demanding more land and other finite resources, MIOMBO WOODLAND continues to pose a significant threat to the ecosystem (Burgess et al. 2004). Poaching is Elephant Landscapes Present: common in poorly funded parks. The most x KAZA immediate threat is the land redistribution in x Luangwa Zimbabwe - some protected areas are still occupied x Selous by veterans of Zimbabwe’s war of independence, x Ruaha resulting in rampant poaching, cutting of trees, and x Western parts of northern Mozambique clearing of land for cultivation (Burgess et al. 2004). More than 80 percent of people living in miombo depend on fuelwood and charcoal for cooking, heat

40 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

ANNEX 5: ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS - THREATS FACING AFRICAN ELEPHANTS

Root causes Indirect threats Direct threats

Subsistence needs Demand for meat (local, national)

Revenue generation Poaching Few alternative sources Demand for ivory of protein or revenue (local, national, international)

Inadequate resources/capacity No legal control or enforcement for law enforcement

Demand for land (agriculture, Subsistence needs settlement, development) Habitat loss Commercial and economic Demand for timber, firewood development (local and national) and other NTFPs (including deterioration and fragmentation)

Land-use practices and policies Inadequate habitat protection

Close proximity of villages and Land-use policies and practices fields to elephant habitat

Local over-population Habitat conversion of elephants Human-elephant conflict Increasing human populations Lack of space for elephants

No awareness of effective mitigation measures 41 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

ANNEX 6: ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WWF PRIORITY ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES

CENTRAL AFRICA

Criterion Question Weighting Score and Score Multiplied by Weighting for each Landscape

TRIDOM Sangha Gamba Salonga Maiko N Campo Lac Korup Okapi savannas Tele & Zakouma SUB-REGIONAL RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -

AFRICA RANK 1 2 5 8 12 13 15 18 19 -

A1: Identified Is there an identified threat or Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y threat. management issue facing this elephant population that WWF would be able to help address?

A2: Population Is the elephant population in the Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ? Y Y viability. landscape viable for the long-term (at least 3 elephant generations) if the main threats are reduced or removed?

Are conservation measures likely to Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ensure the survival of adequate elephant habitat in the landscape? A3: Feasibility and Is the political and social climate Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N sustainability. suitable for conservation in this landscape? Does WWF operate in this landscape Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N or plan to operate in this landscape in the next 2-5 years? Does WWF have the capacity to Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N implement elephant work in the landscape? B1: Population Is the population an appropriate size 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 1 3 size, range and for the intervention? (i.e. is the representativeness. population large enough to make an intervention worthwhile?) Is adequate range and habitat available 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 6 2 6 or potentially available following habitat restoration or range expansion?

42 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Is the population significant for that 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 1 3 sub-species or its habitat? B2: Conservation How strong is the political will to 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 impact. conserve the landscape? Does WWF have strong capacity to 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 6 2 6 1 3 operate (ourselves or through partners) and support elephant conservation in this landscape (due to its current or expected presence)? Is WWF's involvement necessary to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 conserve elephants in the landscape (i.e. will we add value)? Are appropriate partnerships with 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NGOs and/or government agencies and/or local people likely to develop or expand in this landscape? Overall, is WWF liable to make a 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 6 2 6 1 3 2 6 conservation impact on elephants in this landscape i.e. can threats to elephants be reduced or removed? B3: Synergies with Is the landscape also important for 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 2 priority ecoregions WWF biome priorities? and other WWF Is there an overlap with WWF 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 1 2 2 4 1 2 strategic priorities. priorities for other priority species?

B4: Elephants as Is the elephant a suitable flagship 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 2 0 0 1 2 flagship species. species for broader conservation issues in the landscape? Will other faunal and floral species 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 benefit from the project? B5: Innovation Is WWF's work in this landscape 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 and catalytic role. likely to have a multiplier effect, leveraging further support or replica initiatives? B6: Cost-benefit Is WWF support for elephant 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 Assessment. conservation in this landscape likely to be cost effective? TOTAL SCORE 26 55 26 55 25 53 23 49 21 44 20 42 21 41 18 38 18 37

43 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

EASTERN AFRICA

Criterion Question Weighting Score and score multiplied by weighting for each landscape

Selous Mara Ruaha Tarangire Shimba Samburu Matumbi Katavi- Rukwa

SUB-REGIONAL RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 AFRICA RANK 4 7 10 14 16 18 A1: Identified Is there an identified threat or Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y threat. management issue facing this elephant population that WWF would be able to help address? A2: Population Is the elephant population in the Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y viability. landscape viable for the long-term (at least 3 elephant generations) if the main threats are reduced or removed? Are conservation measures likely to Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y ? Y ensure the survival of adequate elephant habitat in the landscape? A3: Feasibility and Is the political and social climate Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y sustainability. suitable for conservation in this landscape? Does WWF operate in this landscape Y/N Y Y Y Y Y ? Y N or plan to operate in this landscape in the next 2-5 years? Does WWF have the capacity to Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N implement elephant work in the landscape? B1: Population Is the population an appropriate size 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 6 size, range and for the intervention? (i.e. is the representativeness. population large enough to make an intervention worthwhile?)

Is adequate range and habitat available 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 2 6 or potentially available following habitat restoration or range expansion? Is the population significant for that 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 sub-species or its habitat? B2: Conservation How strong is the political will to 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 impact. conserve the landscape?

44 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Does WWF have strong capacity to 3 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 1 3 0 0 operate (ourselves or through partners) and support elephant conservation in this landscape (due to its current or expected presence)? Is WWF's involvement necessary to 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 conserve elephants in the landscape (i.e. will we add value)? Are appropriate partnerships with 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 NGOs and/or government agencies and/or local people likely to develop or expand in this landscape? Overall, is WWF liable to make a 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 2 6 conservation impact on elephants in this landscape i.e. can threats to elephants be reduced or removed? B3: Synergies with Is the landscape also important for 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 4 1 2 priority ecoregions WWF biome priorities? and other WWF strategic priorities. Is there an overlap with WWF 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 priorities for other priority species? B4: Elephants as Is the elephant a suitable flagship 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 flagship species. species for broader conservation issues in the landscape? Will other faunal and floral species 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 benefit from the project?

B5: Innovation Is WWF's work in this landscape likely 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 and catalytic role. to have a multiplier effect, leveraging further support or replica initiatives?

B6: Cost-benefit Is WWF support for elephant 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Assessment. conservation in this landscape likely to be cost effective?

TOTAL SCORE 25 54 23 51 22 47 20 42 20 39 18 38

45 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

SOUTHERN AFRICA

Criterion Question Weighting Score and score multiplied by weighting for each landscape N NW KAZA Luangwa Greater southern Zambezi Tembe- Moz- Namibia Limpopo Angola - Lower Maputo ambique Zambezi- (RSA-Moz) Zimba- bwe Zambia SUB-REGIONAL RANK 1 2 3 4 5 AFRICA RANK 3 6 9 11 21 A1: Identified Is there an identified threat or Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y threat. management issue facing this elephant population that WWF would be able to help address? A2: Population Is the elephant population in the Y/N Y Y Y Y Y ? Y Y viability. landscape viable for the long-term (at least 3 elephant generations) if the main threats are reduced or removed? Are conservation measures likely to Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ensure the survival of adequate elephant habitat in the landscape? A3: Feasibility and Is the political and social climate Y/N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y sustainability. suitable for conservation in this landscape? Does WWF operate in this landscape Y/N Y Y Y Y Y ? N Y or plan to operate in this landscape in the next 2-5 years? Does WWF have the capacity to Y/N Y Y Y Y Y N N N implement elephant work in the landscape? B1: Population Is the population an appropriate size 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 size, range and for the intervention? (i.e. is the representativeness. population large enough to make an intervention worthwhile?) Is adequate range and habitat available 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 or potentially available following habitat restoration or range expansion? Is the population significant for that 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 sub-species or its habitat? B2: Conservation How strong is the political will to 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 impact. conserve the landscape?

46 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Does WWF have strong capacity to 3 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 1 3 operate (ourselves or through partners) and support elephant conservation in this landscape (due to its current or expected presence)? Is WWF's involvement necessary to 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 conserve elephants in the landscape (i.e. will we add value)? Are appropriate partnerships with 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 NGOs and/or government agencies and/or local people likely to develop or expand in this landscape? Overall, is WWF liable to make a 3 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 1 3 conservation impact on elephants in this landscape i.e. can threats to elephants be reduced or removed? B3: Synergies with Is the landscape also important for 2 2 4 1 2 2 4 2 4 0 0 priority ecoregions WWF biome priorities? and other WWF Is there an overlap with WWF 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 strategic priorities. priorities for other priority species? B4: Elephants as Is the elephant a suitable flagship 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 flagship species. species for broader conservation issues in the landscape? Will other faunal and floral species 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 benefit from the project? B5: Innovation Is WWF's work in this landscape likely 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 and catalytic role. to have a multiplier effect, leveraging further support or replica initiatives? B6: Cost-benefit Is WWF support for elephant 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 4 1 2 Assessment. conservation in this landscape likely to be cost effective? TOTAL SCORE 26 54 25 53 23 47 21 45 16 36

47 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

WESTERN AFRICA

Criterion Question Weighting Score and score multiplied by weighting for each landscape

Tai Park W Nazinga Gourma Bia Comoé (Côte d'Ivoire)

SUB-REGIONAL RANK 1 2 3 4 5

AFRICA RANK 17 23 24 25 26 A1: Identified threat. Is there an identified threat or Y Y Y Y Y Y management issue facing this elephant population that WWF would be able to help address? A2: Population Is the elephant population in the Y Y Y Y Y ? viability. landscape viable for the long-term (at least 3 elephant generations) if the main threats are reduced or removed? Are conservation measures likely to Y Y Y Y Y Y ensure the survival of adequate elephant habitat in the landscape?

A3: Feasibility and Is the political and social climate Y1 Y Y Y Y N sustainability. suitable for conservation in this landscape? Does WWF operate in this Y Y Y Y2 Y N landscape or plan to operate in this landscape in the next 2-5 years? Does WWF have the capacity to Y Y Y Y Y N implement elephant work in the landscape? B1: Population size, Is the population an appropriate size 3 1 3 2 6 2 6 1 3 0 0 range and for the intervention? (i.e. is the representativeness. population large enough to make an intervention worthwhile?) Is adequate range and habitat 3 1 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 0 0 available or potentially available following habitat restoration or range expansion?

1 Political problems still exist in Côte d’Ivoire but WWF continues to operate in Tai with strong government support. Therefore, the political and social climate is not expected to curtail support for elephant work. 2 The only strategic interest for WWF in this landscape is for elephant conservation, since the habitat is outside the organization’s global priorities for ecoregions or habitats.

48 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Is the population significant for that 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 sub-species or its habitat? B2: Conservation How strong is the political will to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 impact. conserve the landscape? Does WWF have strong capacity to 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 operate (ourselves or through partners) and support elephant conservation in this landscape (due to its current or expected presence)? Is WWF's involvement necessary to 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 conserve elephants in the landscape (i.e. will we add value)? Are appropriate partnerships with 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NGOs and/or government agencies and/or local people likely to develop or expand in this landscape? Overall, is WWF liable to make a 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 conservation impact on elephants in this landscape i.e. can threats to elephants be reduced or removed? B3: Synergies with Is the landscape also important for 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 priority ecoregions WWF biome priorities? and other WWF Is there an overlap with WWF 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 strategic priorities. priorities for other priority species?

B4: Elephants as Is the elephant a suitable flagship 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 flagship species. species for broader conservation issues in the landscape? Will other faunal and floral species 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 benefit from the project? B5: Innovation and Is WWF's work in this landscape 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 catalytic role. likely to have a multiplier effect, leveraging further support or replica initiatives? B6: Cost-benefit Is WWF support for elephant 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Assessment. conservation in this landscape likely to be cost effective? TOTAL SCORE 18 36 17 35 17 35 13 29 13 22 0

49 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

ANNEX 7: RANKING OF WWF PRIORITY ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES BY SUB-REGION

Implementation of the strategic framework of objectives and key activities in the SAP will be at a landscape level. As recommended in the 2006 programme evaluation (EDG 2006), a range of activities will be implemented at each landscape (rather than having disparate activities across multiple sites). Initial selection of landscapes was based on factors such as sub-regional importance (for elephant populations and broader biodiversity), known conservation needs, range state management plans, and WWF's interests, capacity and strategic priorities. Landscapes were then assessed and scored against WWF's Criteria for Prioritizing Landscapes (section 5.1). Exam- ples of proposed activities are indicative and in no particular order; they will be refined and expanded when projects are developed with the range state authorities and partner agencies. Population data is from the African Elephant Status Report 2007 (Blanc et al. 2007).

Note: For the purpose of the analysis, landscapes were based around recognized centres of elephant distribution and populations for which data are presented in the latest African Elephant Status Report (Blanc et al. 2007) or which are defined in national or sub-regional management strategies. However, boundaries to each landscape are to be considered flexible at this stage; they will be defined later with input from key local stakeholders as projects and funding proposals are developed. Maps showing the location of each landscape are presented in Annex 8.

Rank Elephant Landscapes and Range States Ecoregion (or grouping of Examples of Proposed or Required Elephant sub-species; Sub- Regional ecoregions) Activities population estimate regional

Central Africa 1 1 TRIDOM - Trinational Park of Dja, Odzala, North-western Congo Basin MIKE, HEC mitigation, corridor Core of largest central Minkebe moist forests management, PA/TFCA management; law African population (includes Boumba-Bek, Nki, Ivindo, Mwagne. enforcement; mitigating impacts of mining Forest elephants Djouah-Belinga) development 46,345 Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Gabon 2 2 Sangha Trinational North-eastern Congo Basin MIKE, monitoring and data management, Forest elephants (includes Dzanga-Sangha, Nouabale-Ndoki, moist forests HEC mitigation, corridor management, 8,393 Lobeke, Mongokele) PA/TFCA management, law enforcement Cameroon, CAR, Republic of Congo 3 5 Gamba Reserve complex Atlantic equatorial coastal Monitoring, HEC mitigation, law enforce- Forest elephants Gabon forests ment; mitigation of oil and gas impacts 11,205 4 8 Salonga Central Congo Basin moist MIKE, HEC mitigation, corridor manage- Forest elephants (includes Lukenie and Sankuru) ment, PA management, diversifying 3,986 DRC community income-generating activities; law enforcement (stopping military poaching)

50 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

5 12 Maiko - Kahuzi Biega Eastern Congo Basin moist MIKE, HEC mitigation, corridor Forest elephants DRC forests and Albertine Rift management, PA management 3,020 Montane forests 6 13 Northern savannas East Sudanian savannas HEC mitigation, law enforcement, MIKE, Savanna elephants (including Faro, Benoué, Bouba-Ndjidah, Waza) PA management 1,735 Cameroon 7 15 Campo Ma'an Atlantic equatorial coastal HEC mitigation, monitoring and law Forest elephants (including Rio Campo) forests enforcement. 600? Cameroon-Equatorial Guinea 8 18 Lac Tele - Lac Tumba Central Congo Basin moist Monitoring, HEC mitigation, corridor Forest elephants DRC forests management, PA management, diversifying Unknown population community income-generating activities; CBNRM; post conflict mitigation 9 19 Korup - Banyang Mbo - Cross River Atlantic equatorial coastal PA management, CBNRM? Forest elephants Cameroon, Nigeria forests 956 - - Okapi North-eastern Congo Basin PA management, law enforcement, MIKE Forest elephants DRC moist forests 2,688 - - Zakouma – Manova – Gounda - St Floris East Sudanian savannas PA management, law enforcement, MIKE Savanna elephants Chad 3,984

Eastern Africa 1 4 Selous Central and eastern miombo HEC mitigation, monitoring, MIKE, law Core of largest east (including Kilombero, Mikumi, Niassa corridors) woodlands enforcement, WMA development African population Tanzania Savanna elephants 71,482 2 7 Mara - Serengeti Acacia-savannas HEC mitigation, PA and corridor Savanna elephants (including West Loliondo and Maswa) management 3,954 Kenya, Tanzania 3 10 Ruaha - Rungwa Central and eastern miombo PA management, law enforcement Savanna elephants (including Piti East) woodlands 36,009 Tanzania 4 14 Tarangire - Lake Manyara Acacia-savannas HEC mitigation, corridor management Savanna elephants Tanzania 1,338 5 16 Shimba Hills East African coastal forests HEC mitigation, local over-population, Savanna elephants Kenya community development/conservation 649 - 228 were trans- located to Tsavo NP in 2005-6 (P. Omondi, personal communication)

51 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

6 18 Samburu - Laikipia Acacia-savannas HEC mitigation Savanna elephants Kenya 5,657 - - Katavi-Rukwa Central and eastern miombo PA management, law enforcement Savanna elephants Tanzania woodlands 5,751 - - Matumbi - Kichi- Tongomba hills East African coastal forests Monitoring, HEC mitigation, law Savanna elephants (Rufiji and Kilwa Districts) enforcement, awareness raising, corridor unknown Tanzania management and sustainable agriculture, Village Forest Reserves and WMAs

Southern Africa 1 3 Northern Mozambique Miombo woodlands Policy, capacity building, HEC mitigation, Savanna elephants (including Cabo Delgado, Niassa, Quirimbas NP) + law enforcement, awareness raising, 15,731 Mozambique East African coastal forests sustainable agriculture, corridor management 2 6 North-west Namibia Kaokoveld desert + Namib Monitoring, HEC mitigation, CBNRM Savanna elephants (the Kunene-Etosha landscape including escarpment woodlands 2,267 neighbouring Omusati and Oshakati regions) Namibia 3 9 Kavango-Zambezi Miombo woodlands (central Complement TFCA work to expand Core of largest African SE Angola, Caprivi Namibia, N Botswana, NW and eastern miombo elephant range, PA management, HEC elephant population Zimbabwe, S Zambia woodlands) mitigation 213,989 4 11 Luangwa Valley Miombo woodlands (central HEC mitigation, CBNRM, PA management Savanna elephants Zambia and eastern miombo 9,446 woodlands) 5 21 Greater Limpopo TFCA Zambezian and mopane TFCA management Savanna elephants South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique woodlands 21,548 - - southern Angola Angolan mopane woodlands Monitoring, HEC mitigation Savanna elephants Unknown - - Zambezi and Lower Zambezi Miombo woodlands (central Complement TFCA work to expand Savanna elephants Zimbabwe, Zambia and eastern miombo elephant range and reduce HEC 22,602 woodlands) - - Tembe - Maptuo Drakensberg montane Corridor management, HEC mitigation Savanna elephants (including Futi corridor) grasslands, woodlands and 367 South Africa, Mozambique forests

52 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

West Africa 1 20 Tai - Grebo Guinean moist forest Policy, law enforcement, MIKE, awareness, Forest elephants (including Goin-Cavally) PA management, habitat protection 353 Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia 2 22 Park W - Eastern Burkina Reserves - Pendjari West Sudanian savanna Policy, habitat protection, HEC mitigation, Core of largest west Park - northern Togo Reserves anti-poaching, monitoring African population (includes Park W, Aires de l'est, Arly, Pendjari, Savanna elephants Koakrana, Kourtiagou, Atakora, Oti Mandori, 4,553 Keran – sometimes called “WAPOK”) Burkina Faso, Benin, Niger, Togo 3 23 Nazinga-Kabore Tambi NP- Red Volta-Doungh Sahel Policy, HEC mitigation, habitat protection Savanna elephants (includes Po-Nazinga-Sisslli, Zabré, Red & and SFM, awareness, PA management 1,200 White Volta-Morago, Mole) Burkina Faso, Ghana, Togo 4 24 Gourma - Sahel Sahel Policy, HEC mitigation, CBNRM, Savanna elephants Mali, Burkina Faso protection, awareness 498 5 25 Bia - Goaso - Djambarakrou Guinean moist forest Policy, habitat protection and management, Forest elephants Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire HEC mitigation, law enforcement, 217 monitoring, sustainable agriculture - - Comoé West Sudanian savanna PA management, monitoring Savanna elephants Côte d'Ivoire 10?

53 ANNEX 8: MAPS SHOWING LOCATION OF WWF PRIORITY AFRICAN ELEPHANT LANDSCAPES IN EACH SUB-REGION

Note: The boundaries of each landscape are indicative. They will be finalized with key stakeholders during the development of landscape conservation programmes.

CentralCentral Africa Africa

2 1

4 3

WWF Priority Elephant Landscapes in Central Africa: 1: TRIDOM - Trinational Park of Dja, Odzala, Minkebe 2: Sangha Trinational 3: Gamba Reserve complex 4: Salonga Rivers & lakes 5: Maiko - Kahuzi Biega

MapMap adapted adapted from from Blanc Blanc et et al. al. 2007, 2007, courtesy courtesy of of thethe IUCN/SSC IUCN/SSC African African Elephant Elephant Specialist Specialist Group 54 Group Eastern Africa

2 5 4

WWF Priority Elephant Landscapes in Eastern Africa: 1: Selous 2: Mara-Serengeti 3: Ruaha-Rungwa 4: Tarangire-Lake Manyara 5: Shimba Hills Rivers & lakes

4 1

3 2

WWF Priority Elephant Landscapes in Southern Africa: 1: Northern Mozambique 2: North-west Namibia 3: Kavango-Zambezi 4: Luangwa Valley Rivers & lakes 5: Greater Limpopo

Map adapted from Blanc et al. 2007, courtesy of the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group 56 West Africa

2 3

WWF Priority Elephant Landscapes in West Africa: 1: Tai - Grebo 2: Park W - Eastern Burkina Reserves - Pendjari Park - northern Togo Reserves 3: Nazinga-Kabore Tambi Rivers & lakes NP- Red Volta-Doungh 4: Gourma - Sahel 5: Bia - Goaso - Djambarakrou Map adapted from Blanc et al. 2007, courtesy of the IUCN/SSC African Elephant 57 Specialist Group WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 ANNEX 9: PLANNING progress along the way to achieving the Objective TERMINOLOGY (previously SAP milestones) x Objectives will usually The following table explains the planning relate to changes in the scope, terminology used by WWF's Species Action extent and magnitude of threats Programmes since 2006. (pressure reduction) SAP Activities x Actions taken, usually on a one year basis and Term Description closely linked to the SAP Vision (or Timeframe: 25-50 years x operational budget, in order long term goal) x Relates to the species throughout its range to achieve the relevant x Is the same for the SAP target and its sub-components x These are our (sub-SAPs or projects) immediate “responses” to a SAP Goal x These are true impacts at threat the biological level x Do not need to be x Defines the scope/focus of articulated in the SAP the work: i.e. priority Annual work plan (including population, landscape, or all activities) required for each ecoregion individual SAP (or its sub- x Defines what WWF and its components) implementation partners x Must be directly tied to are doing the available, identified budget x Should relate to realistic funding levels x Timeframe should be well defined, usually lying between 5 and 10 years x Goal does not need to be SMART but needs at least one mandatory, measurable direct or indirect indicator on the status of the species Categories of x Thematic groupings of Objective targets by methods or tools (previously (reflecting the nature, expertise Standard and strength of the participating Objectives) organizations) x Policy x These are not SMART x Habitats because they are describing x Populations processes x Incentives x But they require one key x Awareness indicator on threat reduction level SAP Objectives x Backbone of a SAP: to be (previously SAP delivered within specified time Targets) x Performance of SAPs (and their co-ordinators) to be judged against it x Must be grouped according to Categories of Objective x Must be SMART - i.e.: Specific (who, what, where, when, how, etc.); Measurable (quantifiable); Achievable (within known constraints, considerations and assumptions); Relevant (pertinent to the objective or goal for which it has been selected); Time-bound (determined time- © WWF-Canon / Martin HARVEY frame for the target's achievement). x Must have indicators/measurement of 58 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

ANNEX 10: OUTLINE PROGRAMME BUDGET, JANUARY 2007 TO DECEMBER 2011

Item Cost (CHF) FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 TOTAL 6 mo 12 mo 12 mo 12 mo 12 mo 6 mo 5 years Delivery on Objectives 1.1 The development and application of policies and legislation that create an 50,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 950,000 enabling environment for elephant conservation facilitated in 13 range states by 2011 2.1 Elephant habitat conserved effectively in order to increase range and 200,000 400,000 500,000 500,000 400,000 200,000 2,200,000 connectivity between populations (including transboundary populations) in 14 landscapes by 2011 3.1 Illegal killing of elephants reduced by at least 30% in 12 landscapes by 200,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 200,000 2,000,000 2011 3.2 Illegal trade in major elephant product markets reduced by at least 50% in 90,000 120,000 120,000 100,000 100,000 75,000 605,000 9 African states and 2 Asian states by 2011 4.1 Human-elephant conflict reduced by at least 40% in pilot sites in 18 60,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 180,000 60,000 1,020,000 landscapes by 2011 4.2 The livelihoods of people living alongside elephants are improved 150,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 150,000 1,500,000 through economic development activities linked to wildlife conservation in 20 landscapes by 2011 5.1 Public support for, and participation in, elephant conservation increased 50,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 950,000 in 20 landscapes by 2011 through increased awareness of policies, laws, options and benefits Co-ordination Costs Staff costs:- co-ordinator, administrator, 40% comms officer, PFA time 60,000 194,000 194,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 948,000 Operating budget:- office running, travel, meetings, etc 30,000 90,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 50,000 460,000 Admin fees (12.5% as per WWF Standards) 111,250 268,000 280,500 280,000 260,000 129,375 1,329,125

TOTAL 1,001,250 2,412,000 2,524,500 2,520,000 2,340,000 1,164,375 11,962,125

Budget Notes: This budget provides an outline of expected costs if new initiatives are started to address all SAP objectives. It is broken down into WWF financial years (FY) which run from July to June. Expenses will be reduced if projects are integrated into existing initiatives. Funds for the budget will be raised within the WWF Network, with matching funds from external donors and partners.

59 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

ANNEX 11: PROGRAMME FRAMEWORK

SAP VISION: In 25 years time, forest and savanna elephants continue to roam across Africa in landscapes where people and wildlife flourish alongside each other.

SAP GOAL: By 2017, protection and management of key African elephant populations and their habitats in 20 landscapes is improved

Indicators of Goal: Area of known elephant range; Area of elephant habitat cover; Elephant population numbers

OBJECTIVES AND KEY ACTIVITIES

NB: Objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. The full name of each target landscape is provided in Annex 7. Target landscapes are indicated for each objective but final implementation may occur in alternate landscapes, depending on evolving data, situations and opportunities.

Category of 1. POLICY. 2. HABITATS 3. POPULATIONS 4. INCENTIVES 5. AWARENESS Objective To improve relevant To ensure the To ensure adequate protection and biological To generate mutually beneficial incentives To create awareness policy and necessary extent, management of populations for the co-existence of people and species and influence legislation in all integrity and adverse attitudes and sectors and at all functioning of behaviour levels critical habitats [quantity, quality, management]

SAP 1.1 The development 2.1 Elephant habitat 3.1 Illegal killing of 3.2 Illegal trade in 4.1 Human-elephant 4.2 The livelihoods 5.1 Public support Objectives and application of conserved elephants reduced by major elephant conflict reduced by of people living for, and participation policies and effectively in order at least 30% in 12 product markets at least 40% in pilot alongside elephants in, elephant legislation that to increase range and landscapes by 2011 reduced by at least sites in 18 are improved conservation create an enabling connectivity 50% in 9 African landscapes by 2011 through economic increased in 20 environment for between populations states and 2 Asian development landscapes by 2011 elephant (including states by 2011 activities linked to through increased conservation transboundary wildlife conservation awareness of facilitated in 13 populations) in 14 in 20 landscapes by policies, laws, range states by 2011 landscapes by 2011 2011 options and benefits

60 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Targets of Target range states Target landscapes Target landscapes Target states Target landscapes Target landscapes Target landscapes Objectives would include: include TRIDOM, include: TRIDOM, include: include: include: TRIDOM, include: TRIDOM, Burkina Faso, Sangha, Gamba, Sangha, Gamba, Angola, Cameroon TRIDOM, Sangha, Sangha, Gamba, Sangha, Gamba, Cameroon, CAR, Salonga, Maiko, Salonga, Maiko, CAR, Côte d'Ivoire, Gamba, Selous, Salonga, Maiko, Salonga, Maiko, Congo, Côte Selous, Mara, Selous, Ruaha, DRC, Mozambique, Mara, Ruaha, Selous, Mara, Selous, Mara, d'Ivoire, DRC, Ruaha, Northern Northern Nigeria, Senegal Tarangire, Shimba, Ruaha, Tarangire, Ruaha, Tarangire, Gabon, Kenya, Mozambique, Mozambique, Sudan. Northern Shimba, Northern Shimba, Northern Mozambique, South KAZA, Greater Luangwa, Tai, Park China, Japan Mozambique, NW Mozambique, NW Mozambique, NW Africa, Tanzania, Limpopo, Tai, Park W, Nazinga Namibia, KAZA, Namibia. KAZA, Namibia. KAZA, Zambia, Zimbabwe W, Nazinga Luangwa, Greater Luangwa, Greater Luangwa, Greater Limpopo, Tai, Park Limpopo, Tai, Park Limpopo, Tai, Park W, Nazinga, W, Nazinga, W, Nazinga, Gourma, Bia Gourma, Bia. Gourma, Bia

Indicators of Number of states Area of habitat cover Trend of illegal off Levels of ivory trade Level of conflict Benefits derived Perceived progress with appropriate take in major markets (fields raided, area from elephants: importance of against SAP policies, legislation Area of habitat of crops lost, people - household incomes conservation to local objectives and action plans under protection Law enforcement Number and volume hurt, infrastructure - PA gate receipts) people effectiveness per of ivory seizures destroyed) Number of range PA Management unit effort Number of people states adhering to effectiveness (as Financial costs of engaged with WWF Conventions & measured by HEC (cost of crops projects and MEAs scorecards) and infrastructure implementing WWF lost) tools and methods Number of companies with Number of elephants environment policies killed in PAC operations

Assumptions/ - Range state - Range state - Range state - Governments - Communities - Governments and - Increased Risks governments governments governments demonstrate political willing to work with local communities knowledge of continue to continue to continue to support will to stop ivory HEC methods and prepared to assign elephant issues demonstrate a demonstrate a anti-poaching forces moving illegally on participate in project responsibility for causes people to commitment to the commitment to the - Economic and to the international activities elephant issues to change their conservation of conservation of political stability in market - Continued individuals attitudes and elephants and their elephants and their range states of - Support from commitment by - Local people behaviour habitats habitats intervention judiciary, police and wildlife authorities accrue benefits from - Media continue to - Governments and - Protected areas and - Support from customs for to mitigate HEC community-based be receptive to local communities corridors large judiciary and police enforcing wildlife - Rotational use of a wildlife/natural elephant-related

61 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

support elephant enough to maintain for enforcing trade regulations diversity of resource stories conservation viable herds of wildlife regulations - Governments strategies avoids management strategies and plans elephants in target - Range state continue support for significant elephant schemes - Governments landscapes governments CITES ETIS habituation to local - Governments and willing to change - Economic and committed to - Economic and deterrents local communities laws to improve political stability in protecting elephant political stability in support elephant elephant/wildlife/ range states of habitat range states of conservation habitat conservation intervention intervention strategies and plans - Governments willing to devolve land-use rights to local people for CBNRM/SFM

Key x Help revise x Promote the x Train and equip x Monitor domestic x Develop new x Support imple- x Establish and Activities national legislation creation of new anti-poaching staff ivory markets and field and policy mentation of implement an to adapt to international and (e.g. park guards, lobby for study tools for improving CBNRM schemes Information, national environ- transboundary community game recommendations to HEC monitoring (taking account of Education, ment conventions protected areas (to guards) to increase be implemented in and mitigation lessons learned Communications and multi-lateral expand elephant area and frequency Africa and Asia x Field test modern from existing (IEC) campaign on environment range, increase of surveillance x Train and equip methods for HEC programmes) where elephant issues with agreements, and to habitat protection coverage law enforcement monitoring and local people benefit target groups provide an enabling and reduce local x Monitor anti- officers (e.g. mitigation, and from wildlife in (including CBOs, environment for over-population) poaching success customs, police) to measure impacts of elephant range school children, elephant conser- x Improve per unit effort monitor and tackle HEC mitigation on x Conduct feasibility media, users of vation (e.g. HEC manage-ment x Develop illegal wildlife trade local livelihoods studies and elephant products mitigation, effectiveness in PAs capacity for MIKE and help implement x Replicate implement pilot within and outside CBNRM, benefit and TFCAs imple-mentation the CITES Action successful HEC projects in wildlife- Africa, and key sharing, ivory trade (including reduction and provide support plan for the control pilot projects in based tourism to decision-makers controls, trans- of logging, mining, for regular of domestic trade in remaining priority provide revenue for e.g. civil servants, boundary harmoni- hunting and settle- population censuses ivory in collab- landscapes local people local government zation) ment) x Support the oration with x Train wildlife x Establish officials, judiciary) x Collaborate with x Conduct studies development and TRAFFIC management appropriate private x Building on UNEP and CITES into elephant operation of key x Improve imple- authorities and local sector partnerships traditional beliefs in the development movements and elephant databases mentation of ETIS people in HEC to enhance opp- and relationships and implementation habitat use across (e.g. African and data reporting mitigation ortunities for local between people and in African elephant seasons to identify Elephant Database, in range states in x Develop pro- communities to elephants, raise range states of a corridors required MIKE) to provide collaboration with grammes with realise tourism awareness on the framework for for connectivity and information on TRAFFIC benefits importance of

62 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 reviewing national to improve anti- elephant numbers, x Investigate the stakeholders from x Establish pilot conserving wildlife policy poaching patrols poaching levels and sustainable use of all levels for the projects that use elephants. x Develop, x Establish land poaching impacts. DNA markers and national "vertically appropriate and x Raise awareness implement and use plans for other tools to integrated" sustainable agri- among ivory monitor partici- elephant corridors identify sources of management of cultural practices in buyers, sellers and patory land use between protected illegal ivory and HEC (concentrating elephant habitat to carvers about plans with areas to maximize improve ETIS not only on field- increase farmers' legislation relating stakeholders to connectivity, reporting level mitigation yields and profits to trade in elephant conserve buffer prevent x Identify the measures but also but reduce conflict products. zones and corridors encroachment and impact of the encompassing with elephants x Raise awareness and reduce HEC reduce HEC bushmeat trade on relevant higher- x Set up of local people x Support the x Develop elephants and level policy issues community-based living alongside elaboration, initiatives with the develop initiatives such as compen- schemes to diversify elephants of key implementation and private sector to to curb the problem sation, land use income-generating opportunities monitoring of 3 monitor and reduce (especially in C. planning, land activities away from relating to wildlife sub-regional the impacts of Africa). tenure, and extractive or illegal management (e.g. elephant manage- extractive industries equitable benefit activities such as tourism, HEC ment plans (central, (mining, logging, sharing hunting and logging mitigation support, southern, western) agribusinesses, etc) x Organize x Implement etc) and 8 national on elephants and workshops and participatory rural x Monitor elephant manage- their habitats - disseminate appraisal system for community views ment plans including promotion publications to monitoring lively- and opinions (in (Cameroon, CAR, of best practices and encourage the hood benefits target groups) on Congo, DRC, SFM in logging transfer and sharing directly accrued by elephant manage- Gabon, Kenya, companies of experiences, local people from ment and conser- Mozambique, x Provide tools expertise, skills and CBNRM/SFM and vation to measure Tanzania) ensuring (e.g. best practice knowledge on HEC other revenue the impacts of the transboundary guidelines) for between sites, generating schemes IEC work collaboration is management of countries, sub- x Assess lessons x Provide promoted. TFCAs and regions and learned from communications x Lobby for the integration of local continents. revenue-generating tools (website, integration of sub- people into PA projects linked to newsletters, regional plans into management elephants and brochures, position sub-regional x Conduct climate disseminate results statements, planning processes vulnerability to people involved simplified (e.g. CAECS into assessments for with developing explanations of Plan de Conver- elephant popu- new initiatives. wildlife laws etc) to gence for the Congo lations in Africa and allow others to Basin; SAECS into use the results to replicate IEC

63 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

SADC and TFCA develop and campaigns, and development) and implement climate facilitate the allocation of change adaptation implementation of government funding strategies for sub-regional IEC for implementation landscapes campaigns on x Develop and identified as being elephants and key implement at high risk management issues cooperative agree- x Use appropriate (over-population, ments between scorecards to HEC, etc) states for conser- measure protected vation and manage- area management ment of trans- effectiveness boundary elephant x Develop joint populations habitat protection x Support initiatives with development of forest and appropriate policies freshwater for addressing local conservation over-population of programmes and elephants by explore options for promulgating WWF using schemes such positions, as Payment for disseminating Environmental existing technical Services guidelines on x Implement translocation and monitoring system local over- with partners to population, and assess regularly the helping develop and level of habitat test non-lethal tools. cover and habitat quality in target landscapes.

64 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

ANNEX 12: OUTLINE PROGRAMME MONITORING PLAN

Note: Monitoring costs will be built into the overall AEP co-ordination budget and individual project budgets. A full monitoring plan with baseline data will be compiled by the AEP Co-ordinator in 2007.

Information Indicators Methods/sources Location When From who Used by who Baseline data Desired result Needs

Goal By 2017, elephant populations and their habitat cover are stable or increasing in 20 landscapes.

What is the Area of known AfESG database 20 top priority Every 2-3 IUCN/SSC AEP Co- Baseline population data Increase or stablilization status of elephant range landscapes. years AfESG ordinator; available for sites in all of known range elephant Project landscapes, but quality habitats and Area of Remote sensing Project executants variable. Increase or stablilization elephant elephant of habitat cover teams; Forest of are of habitat cover populations? habitat cover departments Data for additional sites, and habitat cover data, to be Elephant Range state Wildlife collected and analysed in Increase or stablilization population population departments; first year. of total elephant numbers censuses; MIKE project population across survey data managers; landscapes MIKE

Objective 1.1 The development and application of policies and legislation that create an enabling environment for elephant conservation facilitated in 12 range states by 2011

What progress Number of Government Burkina Faso, Assessed Government AEP Co- Database of existing More countries implement is being made states with Ministries Cameroon, every year Ministries; ordinator; Sub- legislation, policy and policies that provide towards appropriate CAR, Congo, Programme regional and action plans in target range enabling environment for creating a policies, Côte d'Ivoire, Offices Country states to be compiled in mid elephant conservation; suitable legislation and DRC, Gabon, Representatives 2007 enabling action plans Kenya, environment for Mozambique, elephant Number of Government South Africa, Government More range state adhere to conservation? range states Ministries; Tanzania, Ministries; Conventions and adhering to Convention Zambia, Convention Multilateral Environment Conventions & Secretariats Zimbabwe Secretariats Agreements MEAs

65 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Information Indicators Methods/sources Location When From who Used by who Baseline data Desired result Needs Number of Company Partner More companies have companies with reports; Partner companies environmentally-friendly environment meetings policies and practices policies

Objective 2.1 Elephant habitat conserved effectively in order to increase range and connectivity between populations (including transboundary populations) in 14 landscapes by 2011

Is elephant Area of habitat Remote sensing TRIDOM, Every 2-3 Project AEP Co- Very limited baseline data. Increase or stablilization habitat being cover of habitat cover; Sangha, Gamba, years teams; Forest ordinator; Full assessment of available of habitat cover; conserved Salonga, Maiko, departments Project data to be conducted in mid effectively? Selous, Mara, executants; PA 2007 and data collection to Area of habitat Government Ruaha, Northern Government Managers start soon afterwards. Increase in area covered under decrees for new Mozambique, environment by PAs protection PAs; KAZA, Greater ministries Limpopo, Tai, PA PAME Park W, PA Increase in PAME Management assessments Nazinga Managers; effectiveness Project (as measured Executants; by scorecards)

Objective 3.1 Illegal killing of elephants reduced by at least 30% in 12 landscapes by 2011

Are anti- Trend of illegal MIKE survey TRIDOM, Annually Wildlife & AEP Co- Baselines available for sites Decrease in incidents of poaching efforts off take data; Sangha, Gamba, PA auth- ordinator; in 9 landscapes. poaching; Decrease in in target Salonga, Maiko, orities MIKE; Project number of illegally killed landscapes Selous, Ruaha, Project executants; PA Full assessment of available elephants. having an Northern Executants managers; Law data to be conducted in mid impact? Mozambique, enforcement 2007 and data collection to Law MIKE reports; Luangwa, Tai, Wildlife & teams start soon afterwards. Improved efficiency of enforcement Law enforcement Park W, PA auth- anti-poaching patrols effectiveness patrol reports Nazinga orities MIKE; per unit effort Project Executants

66 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Information Indicators Methods/sources Location When From who Used by who Baseline data Desired result Needs

Objective 3.2 Illegal trade in major elephant product markets reduced by at least 50% in 9 African states and two Asian states by 2011

Are the illegal Levels of ivory Domestic ivory Angola, Annually TRAFFIC AEP Co- Recent markets data Decrease in scale of ivory markets trade in major market studies; Cameroon ordinator; available for 7 states. domestic ivory markets; being markets CAR, Côte TRAFFIC; controlled? d'Ivoire, CITES Seizure data in last ETIS Number and ETIS reports DRC, TRAFFIC; Secretariat; report to CITES (May Reduction in number and volume of Mozambique, CITES Law 2007): volume of ivory seizures ivory seizures Nigeria, Senegal Secretariat enforcement Sudan. authorities Full assessment of available China, Japan data to be conducted in mid 2007 and data collection to start soon afterwards.

Objective 4.1 Human-elephant conflict reduced by at least 40% in pilot sites in 18 landscapes by 2011

Is HEC being Level of HEC monitoring TRIDOM, Annually Project AEP Co- Baseline HEC data Reduced levels of conflict reduced across conflict (fields (using standard Sangha, Gamba, Executants; ordinator; available for sites in x target raided, area of protocols) at each Selous, Mara, Wildlife Project landscapes: landscapes? crops lost, project site; Ruaha, authorities executants; PA people hurt, Tarangire, managers; Law Full assessment of available infrastructure Shimba, enforcement data to be conducted in mid destroyed) Northern teams and 2007 and data collection to Mozambique, wildlife start soon afterwards. Financial costs HEC NW Namibia, Project authorities Reduced costs of conflict; of HEC (cost monitoring; KAZA, Executants; of crops and Participatory Luangwa, PRA infrastructure rural appraisals Greater consultants lost) Limpopo, Tai, Park W, Number of Wildlife Nazinga, Wildlife Fewer elephants shot on elephants killed authority reports Gourma, Bia authorities PAC operations in PAC on PAC operations

67 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Information Indicators Methods/sources Location When From who Used by who Baseline data Desired result Needs

Objective 4.2 The livelihoods of people living alongside elephants are improved through economic development activities linked to wildlife conservation in 20 landscapes by 2011

Are local Benefits Participatory TRIDOM, 2007 then Project AEP Co- Baseline data needs to be Increased household people and derived from rural appraisals at Sangha, Gamba, every 2 executants; ordinator; collected in the first year. incomes from elephant- protected areas elephants each project site Salonga, Maiko, years PRA Project related projects; Increased benefiting from (household showing Selous, Mara, Consultants; executants; PA willingness of local elephant incomes; PA household Ruaha, Taran- PA Managers managers; people to support conservation? gate receipts) incomes and gire, Shimba, N conservation attitudes; PA Mozambique, management NW Namibia. authorities KAZA, Luangwa, Greater Lim- popo, Tai, Park W, Nazinga, Gourma, Bia.

Objective 5.1 Public support for, and participation in, elephant conservation increased in 20 landscapes by 2011 through increased awareness of policies, laws, options and benefits

Are more Perceived Participatory TRIDOM, 2007 then Project AEP Co- Baseline data needs to be More people with positive people importance of rural appraisals at Sangha, Gamba, every 2 executants; ordinator; collected in the first year. attitudes towards elephant supporting conservation to each project site Salonga, Maiko, years PRA Project conservation elephant local people showing attitudes Selous, Mara, Consultants executants; PA conservation and practices; Ruaha, Taran- managers; through gire, Shimba, N improved Number of Project reports on Mozambique, Project More people actively attitudes and people engaged community-based NW Namibia. executants; involved with WWF behavioural with WWF work KAZA, project activities responses? projects and Luangwa, implementing Greater Lim- WWF tools popo, Tai, Park and methods W, Nazinga, Gourma, Bia.

68 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 ANNEX 13: BIBLIOGRAPHY 2007. Forest elephant crisis in the Congo Basin. PLoS Biology 5: e111. Blanc, J.J., Barnes, R.F.W., Craig, G.C., Douglas- Alers, M.P.T, Blom, A., Sikubwabo Kiyengo, C., Hamilton, I., Dublin, H.T., Hart, J.A. & Thouless, Masunda, T. & Barnes, R.F.W. 1992. Preliminary C.R. 2005. Changes in elephant numbers in major assessment of the status of the forest elephant in savanna populations in eastern and southern Africa. Zaire. African Journal of Ecology 30: 279-291. Pachyderm 38: 19-28. Alexandre, D.Y. 1978. Le rôle disséminateur des Blanc, J.J., Barnes, R.F.W., Craig, G.C., Dublin, H.T., éléphants en forêt de Tai, Côte d'Ivoire. La Terre et Thouless, C.R., Douglas-Hamilton, I., & Hart, J.A., la Vie. 32: 47-72. 2007. African Elephant Status Report 2007: An AfESG 2003. Statement on the taxonomy of extant Update from the African Elephant Database. Loxodonta, December 2003. IUCN/SSC African IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group. Elephant Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya. IUCN, Gland & Cambridge. Araujo, M.B., Cabeza, M., Thuiller, W., Hannah, L. & Blanc, J.J., Thouless, C.R., Hart, J.A., Dublin, H.T., Williams, P. H. 2004. Would climate change drive Douglas-Hamilton, I., Craig, G.C. & Barnes, R.F.W. species out of reserves? An assessment of existing 2003. African Elephant Status Report 2002: An reserve-selection methods. Global Change Biology Update from the African Elephant Database. 10: 1618-1626. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group. Auzel, P. and Wilkie, D.S. 2000. Wildlife use in northern IUCN, Gland & Cambridge. Congo: hunting in a commercial logging concession. Brown, G. & Henry, W. 1993. The viewing value of Pp 413-426. in J.G. Robinson & E.L. Bennett, elephants. Pp. 146-155 in B. Barbier (ed.), Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Economics and Ecology: New Frontiers and Sust- Columbia University Press, New York, USA. ainable Development. Chapman and Hall, London, Baldus, R.D. 2005. Mineral prospecting in the Selous UK. Game Reserve and its dangers to rhino conservation. Brugière, D., Badjinca, I., Silva, C., Serra, A. & Barry, Pachyderm 38: 101-105. M. 2006. On the road to extinction? The status of Barnes, R.F.W. 1993. Indirect methods for counting elephant Loxodonta africana in Guinea Bissau and elephants in forests. Pachyderm 16: 24-30. western Guinea, West Africa. Oryx 40: 442-446. Barnes, R.F.W. 1996. The conflict between humans and Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E. & da Fonseca, elephants in the central African forests. Mammal G.A.B. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting Review 26: 67-80. tropical biodiversity. Science 291: 125-128. Barnes, R.F.W. 1999. Is there a future for elephants in Burgess, N., D'Amico Hales, J., Underwood, E., West Africa? Mammal Review 29: 175-199. Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Itoua, I., Schipper, J., Barnes, R.F.W. 2001. How reliable are dung counts for Ricketts, T. & Newman, K. (eds.) 2004. Terrestrial estimating elephant numbers? African Journal of Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A Conser- Ecology 39: 1-9. vation Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC, Barnes, R.F.W., Craig, G.C., Dublin, H.T., Overton, G., USA. Simons, H. & Thouless, C.R. 1999. African Elephant Chapman, L.J., Chapman, C.A., & Wrangham, R.W. Database 1998. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 1992. Balanites wilsonia: elephant dependent Barnes, R.F.W., Dubiure, U.F., Danquah, E., Boafo, Y., dispersal? Journal of Tropical Ecology 8: 275-283. Nandjui, A., Hema, E.M. & Manford, M. 2006. Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S & Liska, J.O. 1993. Tool use by Crop-raiding elephants and the moon. African wild and captive elephants. Animal Behaviour 46: Journal of Ecology 45: 112–115. 209-219. Barnett, R. (ed.) 2000. Food for Thought: the utilization Chidumayo, E.J., Gambiza, J. & Grundy, I. 1996. of wild meat in eastern and southern Africa. Managing miombo woodlands. Pp. 175-194 in B. TRAFFIC, Nairobi, Kenya. Campbell (ed.), The Miombo in Transition: Bell, R.H.V. 1984. The man-animal interface: an Woodlands and Welfare in Africa. Centre for Inter- assessment of crop damage and wildlife control. Pp. national Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. 387-416 in R.H.V. Bell & E. McShane-Caluzi (eds.) Chiyo, P.I., Cochrane, E.P., Naughton, L. & Basuta, G.I. Conservation and Wildlife Management in Africa. 2005. Temporal patterns of crop raiding by elephants: US Peace Corps, Malawi. a response to changes in forage quality or crop Bell, R.H.V & Clarke, J.E 1984. Funding and financial availability? African Journal of Ecology 43: 48-55. control. Pp 543-555 in R.H.V. Bell & E. McShane- CI 2001. From the Forest to the Sea: Biodiversity Caluzi (eds.) Conservation and Wildlife Management Connections from Guinea to Togo. Conservation in Africa. US Peace Corps, Malawi. International, Washington DC, USA. Blake, S. 2002. The Ecology of Forest Elephant Cobb, S. & Western, D. 1989. The ivory trade and the Distribution and its Implications for Conservation. future of the African elephant. Pachyderm 12: 32-37. PhD. Dissertation. University of Edinburgh, Cochrane, E. P. 2003. The need to be eaten: Balanites Edinburgh, UK. wilsoniana with and without elephant seed dispersal. Blake, S. 2005. Long-term System for Monitoring the Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 579-589. Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) - Central African Comstock, K.E., Georgiadis, N., Pecon-Slattery, J., Roca, Forests: Final Report on Population Surveys (2003- A.L., Ostrander, E.A., O'Brien, S.J. & Wasser, S.K. 2004). Wildlife Conservation Society, Washington 2002. Patterns of molecular genetic variation among DC, USA. African elephant populations. Molecular Ecology 11: Blake, S. & Hedges, S. 2004. Sinking the flagship: the 2489-2498. case of forest elephants in Asia and Africa. Conser- Comstock, K.E., Ostrander, E.A. & Wasser, S. K. 2003. vation Biology 18: 1191-1202. Amplifying nuclear and mitochondrial DNA from Blake, S., Strindberg, S., Boudjan, P., Makombo, C., African elephant ivory: a tool for monitoring the Bila-Isia, I., Ilambu, O., Grossmann, F., Bene-Bene, ivory trade. Conservation Biology 17: 1840-1843. L., de Semboli, B., Mbenzo, V., S’hwa, D., Bayogo, R., Williamson, L., Fay, M., Hart, J. & Maisels, F. 69 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Conrad, N.J. 2003. Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from EDG 2006. Evaluation of the WWF African Elephant southwestern Germany and the origins of figurative Programme 2001-2005. Final Report. Environment art. Nature 426: 830-832. & Development Group, Oxford, UK. Courouble, M., Hurst, F. & Milliken, T. 2003. More Eggert, L.S., Rasner, C.A. & Woodruff, D.S. 2002. The Ivory than Elephants: domestic ivory markets in evolution and phylogeography of the African three west African countries. TRAFFIC International, elephant inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequence Cambridge, UK. and nuclear microsatellite markers. Proceedings of Cumming, D.H.M., du Toit, R.F. & Stuart, S.N. 1990. the Royal Society of London B 269: 1993-2006. African Elephants and Rhinos: Status Survey and Eltringham, S.K. & Malpas, R.C. 1980. The decline of Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switz- elephant numbers in Rwenzori and Kabalega Falls erland. National Parks, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology Cumming, D. & Jones, B. 2005. Elephants in Southern 18: 73-86. Africa: Management Issues and Options. WWF – Entwistle, A.C. & Dunstone, N. 2000. Future priorities SARPO Occasional Paper Number 11. WWF, for mammalian conservation. Pp. 369-387 in A.C. Harare, Zimbabwe. Entwistle and N. Dunstone (eds.), Priorities for the Damschen, E.I., Haddad, N.M., Orrock, J.L., Tewksbury, Conservation of Mammalian Biodiversity: Has the J.J. & Levey, D.J. 2006. Corridors increase plant Panda Had Its Day? Cambridge University Press, species richness at large scales. Science 313: 1284- Cambridge, UK. 1286. Ervin, J. 2003. WWF Rapid Assessment and Prior- de Beer, Y., Kilian, W., Versfeld, W. & van Aarde, R.J. itization of Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM) 2006. Elephants and low rainfall alter woody Methodology. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. vegetation in Etosha National Park, Namibia. Journal Eves, H.E. & Ruggiero, R.G. 2000. Socio-economics and of Arid Environments 64: 412-421. the sustainability of hunting in the forests of northern Debruyne, R. 2005. A case study of apparent conflict be- Congo (Brazzaville). Pp 427-454 in J.G. Robinson & tween molecular phylogenies: the inter-relationships E.L. Bennett (eds.), Hunting for Sustainability in of African elephants. Cladistics 21: 31-50. Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, New Delsink, A.K., van Altena, J.J., Grobler, D., Bertschinger, York, USA. H., Kirkpatrick, J. And Slotow, R. 2006. Regulation Fage, J.D. 1969. A History of West Africa: an of a small, discrete African elephant population introductory survey. Cambridge University Press, through immuno-contraception in the Makalali Cambridge, UK. Conservancy, Limpopo, South Africa. South African FAO 2001. State of the World’s Forests 2001. Food and Journal of Science 102: 403-405. Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, DG Ecological Consulting 2003. National Policy and Rome, Italy. Strategy for the Conservation and Management of Fischer, F. 2005. Elephants in Côte d'Ivoire - a warning Elephants in Botswana. Department of Wildlife and for west African conservation. Pachyderm 38: 64-75. National Parks, Gaborone, Botswana. Unpublished Galanti, V., Preatoni, D., Martinoli, A., Wauters, L.A. & draft cited in Blanc et al. 2007. Tosi, G. 2006. Space and habitat use of the African Direction de la Faune, de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture elephant in the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem, 2004. Stratégie nationale de conservation et de Tanzania: implications for conservation. Mammalian gestion des éléphants au Niger. Ministère de Biology 71: 99-114. l’Hydraulique, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte Gillingham, S. & Lee, P.C. 2003. People and protected contre la Désertification, Niamey, Niger. areas: a study of local perceptions of wildlife crop- Douglas-Hamilton, I. 1987. African elephants: population damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous trends and their causes. Oryx 21: 11-24. Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oryx 37: 316-325. Douglas-Hamilton, I., Bhalla, S., Wittemyer, G. & Goheen, J.R., Keesing, F., Allan, B.F., Ogada, D. & Vollrath, F. 2006. Behavioural reactions of elephants Ostfeld, R.S. 2004. Net effects of large mammals on towards a dying and deceased matriarch. Applied Acacia seedling survival in an African savanna. Animal Behaviour Science, 100: 87-10. Ecology 85: 1555-1561. Douglas-Hamilton, I., Michelmore, F. & Inamdar, A. Goodwin, H.J. & Leader-Williams, N. 2000. Tourism and 1992. African Elephant Database. UNEP, Nairobi, protected areas – distorting conservation priorities Kenya. towards charismatic mega-fauna? Pp. 257-275 in Draulans, D. & Krunkelsven, E.V. 2002. The impact of A.C. Entwistle and N. Dunstone (eds.), Priorities for war on forest areas in the Democratic Republic of the Conservation of Mammalian Biodiversity: Has Congo. Oryx 36: 35-40. the Panda Had Its Day? Cambridge University Press, Dublin, H.T., Milliken, T. & Barnes, R.F.W. 1995. Four Cambridge, UK. Years After the CITES Ban: illegal killing of Hakansson, N.T. 2004. The human ecology of world elephants, ivory trade and stockpiles. IUCN, Gland, systems in East Africa: the impact of the ivory trade. Switzerland. Human Ecology 32: 561-591. Dublin, H.T. & Niskanen, L.S. (eds.) 2003. IUCN/SSC Hall, J.B. & Swaine, M.D. 1981. Distribution and African Elephant Specialist Group Guidelines for the Ecology of Vascular Plants in a Tropical Rain in situ Translocation of the African Elephant for Forest. Forest Vegetation in Ghana. W. Junk Conservation Purposes. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands. Dudley, N., Hurd, J. & Belokurov, A. 2005. Towards an Hanks, J. 2000. The role of Transfrontier Conservation Effective Protected Areas Network in Africa. WWF Areas in southern Africa in the conservation of International, Gland, Switzerland. mammalian biodiversity. Pp. 239-256 in A.C. Dudley, N. & Stolton, S. (eds.) 2003. Running Pure: the Entwistle and N. Dunstone (eds.), Priorities for the importance of forest protected areas to drinking Conservation of Mammalian Biodiversity: Has the water. World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Panda Had Its Day? Cambridge University Press, Conservation and Sustainable Use. WB, Washington Cambridge, UK. DC, USA and WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Hannah, L. 2003. Regional biodiversity impact assessments for climate change: a guide for protected area 70 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

managers. Pp 233-242 in L.J. Hansen, J.L. Biringer Kamdem-Toham, A., Adeleke, A.W., Burgess, N.D., & J.R. Hoffman (eds.), Buying Time: A User’s Carroll, R., D’Amico, J., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D.M. Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to & Some, L. 2003. Forest conservation in the Congo Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Basin. Science 299: 346. Change Programme, Berlin, Germany. Kangwana, K. 1995. Human-elephant conflict: the Hannah, L., Midgley, G.F., Lovejoy, T., Bond, W.J., challenge ahead. Pachyderm 19: 11-14. Bush, M. Lovett, J.C., Scott, D. & Woodward, F.I. Kingdon, J. 1997. The Kingdon Field Guide to African 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in a changing Mammals. Academic Press, London, UK. climate. Conservation Biology 16: 264-268. Kortland, A. 1984. Vegetation research and the Hart, B.L., Hart, L.A., McCoy, M. & Sarath, C.R. 2001. “bulldozer” herbivores in tropical Africa. Pp 205-226 Cognitive behaviour in Asian elephants: use and in S. Sutton, T.C. Whitmore & A.C. Chadwick (eds). modification of branches for fly switching. Animal Tropical Rainforests: Ecology and Management. Behaviour 62: 839-847. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Hawthorne, W.D. & Parren, M.P.E. 2000. How important Boston. are forest elephants to the survival of woody plant Langbauer, W.R. 2000. Elephant communication. Zoo species in Upper Guinean forests? Journal of Biology 19: 425-445. Tropical Ecology 16: 133-150. Laurance, W.F., Croes, B.M., Tchignoumba, L., Lahm, Heltberg, R. 2001. Impact of the ivory trade ban on S.A., Alonso, A., Lee, M.E., Campbell, P. & poaching incentives: a numerical example. Ondzeano, C. 2006. Impacts of roads and hunting on Ecological Economics 36: 189-195. Central African rainforest mammals. Conservation Hoare, R.E. 1995. Options for the control of elephants in Biology 20: 1251–1261. conflict with people. Pachyderm 19: 54-63. Laursen, L. & Bekhoff, M. 1978. Loxodonta africana. Hoare, R.E. 1999a. Determinants of human-elephant Mammalian Species, no. 92, 8 pp. conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Leader-Williams, N. 1994. The cost of conserving Ecology 36: 689-700. elephants. Pachyderm 18: 30-34. Hoare, R.E. 1999b. A Standardized Data Collection and Leader-Williams, N. & Albon, S.D. 1988. Allocation of Analysis Protocol for Human-Elephant Conflict resources for conservation. Nature 336: 533-535. Situations in Africa. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Leader-Williams, N., & Dublin, H. 2000. Charismatic Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya. megafauna as “flagship species”. Pp. 53-81 in A.C. Hoare, R.E. 2000. African elephants and humans in Entwistle and N. Dunstone (eds.), Priorities for the conflict: the outlook for coexistence. Oryx 34: 34-38. Conservation of Mammalian Biodiversity: Has the Hoare, R.E. 2001. A Decision Support System for Panda Had Its Day? Cambridge University Press, Managing Human-Elephant Conflict Situations in Cambridge, UK. Africa. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Lee, P.C. & Graham, M.D. 2006. African elephants Group, Nairobi, Kenya. Loxodonta africana and human-elephant interactions: Hoare, R.E. & du Toit, J.T. 1999. Coexistence between implications for conservation. International Zoo people and elephants in African savannas. Conser- Yearbook 40: 9-19. vation Biology 13: 633-639. Linnell, J.D.C., Andersen, R., Kvam, T., Andren, H., Hocking, M., Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. 2000. Evaluating Liberg, O., Odden, J. & Moa, P.F. 2000. Effectiveness: A framework for assessing the Conservation of biodiversity in Scandinavian boreal management of protected areas. IUCN, Gland, forests: large carnivores as flagships, umbrellas, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. indicators or keystones?. Biodiversity and Hunter, N., Martin, E. & Milliken, T. 2004. Determining Conservation 9: 857-868. the number of elephants required to supply current Loveridge, A.J., Hunt, Murindagomo, F., & Macdonald, unregulated ivory markets in Africa and Asia. D.W. 2006. Influence of drought on predation of Pachyderm 36: 116- 128. elephant (Loxodonta africana) calves by lions IUCN 2003a. Strategy for the Conservation of West (Panthera leo) in an African wooded savannah. African Elephants. Updated Version. IUCN/SSC Journal of Zoology 270: 523-530. African Elephant Specialist Group, Ouagadougou, Maisels, F., Keming, E., Kemei, M. & Toh, C. 2001. The Burkina Faso. extirpation of large mammals and implications for IUCN 2003b. Action Plan for the Management of montane forest conservation: the case of the Kilum- Transfrontier Elephant conservation Corridors in Ijim Forest, North-west Province, Cameroon. Oryx West Africa. L. Sebogo & R.F.W Barnes (eds.). 35: 322-331. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group, Malcolm, J.R., Liu, C., Neilson, R.P., Hansen, L. & Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Hannah, L. 2006. Global warming and extinctions of IUCN 2005. Stratégie Régionale pour la Conservation endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. des Eléphants en Afrique Centrale. IUCN/SSC Conservation Biology 20: 538-548. African Elephant Specialist Group, Ouagadougou, Malima, C., Hoare, R. & Blanc, J. 2004. Systematic Burkina Faso. recording of human-elephant conflict: a case study in IUCN 2006. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. south-eastern Tanzania. Pachyderm 38: 29-38. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Mansourian, S. & Dudley, N. 2005. Challenges for forest Joubert, D. 2006. Hunting behaviour of lions (Panthera landscape restoration based on WWF's experiences to leo) on elephants (Loxodonta africana) in the Chobe date. Pp 94-98 in S. Mansourian, D. Vallauri & N. National Park, Botswana. African journal of Ecology Dudley (eds). 2005. Forest Restoration in Land- 44: 279-281. scapes: Beyond Planting Trees. Springer, New York. Kahurananga, J. & Silkiluwasha, F. 1997. The migration Mansourian, S., Vallauri, D. & Dudley, N. (eds). 2005. of zebra and wildebeest between Tarangire National Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond Planting park and Simanjiro Plains, northern Tanzania, in Trees. Springer, New York, USA. 1972 and recent trends. African Journal of Ecology Mapaure, I. & Campbell, B.M. 2002. Changes in 35: 179-185. Miombo woodland cover in and around Sengwa Wildlife Research area, Zimbabwe, in relation to 71 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

elephants and fire. African Journal of Ecology 40: Ministère des Eaux et Forêts 2004. Stratégie de Gestion 212-219. Durable de Eléphants en Côte d'Ivoire. Programme Martin, C. 1991. The Rainforests of West Africa: ecology, 2005-2014. Ministère des Eaux et Forêts, Abidjan, threats, conservation. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Côte d'Ivoire. Switzerland. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 1999. Martin, E. 2005. Northern Sudan ivory market flourishes. National Strategy for the Management of Elephants Pachyderm 39: 67-76. in Mozambique, National Directorate of Forests and Martin, E. & Milliken, T. 2005. No Oasis: the Egyptian Wildlife, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural ivory trade in 2005. TRAFFIC International, Cam- Development, Maputo, Mozambique. bridge, UK. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 2005. Martin, E. & Stiles, D. 2000. The Ivory Markets of Africa. Action Plan for the Management of Elephants in Save the Elephants, Nairobi, Kenya. Northern Mozambique. P.J. Stephenson (ed.). Martin, E. & Stiles, D. 2002. The South and South East National Directorate of Forests and Wildlife, Asia Ivory Markets. Save the Elephants, Nairobi, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Kenya. Maputo, Mozambique. Martin, E. & Stiles, D. 2003. The Ivory Markets of East Ministry of Environment and Forestry 2000. Regional Asia. Save the Elephants, Nairobi, Kenya. Workshop on the Management of Forest Elephants in Martin, E. & Stiles, D. 2005. The Ivory Markets of Central Africa. Ministry of Environment and Europe. Save the Elephants, Nairobi, Kenya, and Forestry, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Care for the Wild International, London, United Ministry of Environment and Tourism 2005. Species Kingdom. Management Plan: Elephants (Loxodonta Africana). McCarty, J.P. 2001. Ecological consequences of recent Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, climate change. Conservation Biology 15: 320-331. Namibia. Unpublished draft cited in Blanc et al. McComb, K., Moss, C., Sayialel, S. & Baker, L. 2000. 2007. Unusually extensive networks of vocal recognition in Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources African elephants. Animal Behaviour 59: 1103-1109. 2003. National Policy and Action Plan on Elephant McComb, K., Reby, D., Baker, L., Moss, C. & Sayialel, Management in Zambia. Ministry of Tourism, S. 2003. Long-distance communication of acoustic Environment and Natural Resources, Lusaka, cues to social identity in African elephants. Animal Zambia. Behaviour 65: 317-329. Minnemeyer, S. 2002. An Analysis of Access to Central McPherson, M.A. & Nieswiadomy, M.L. 2000. African Africa’s Rainforests. World Resources Institute, elephants: the effect of property rights and political Washington DC, USA. stability. Contemporary Economic Policy 18: 14-26. Minnemeyer, S. & Selig, L. 2004. Drivers of forest loss Meester, J. & Setzer, H.W. 1977. The Mammals of in west and central Africa. Pp 91-93 in N. Burgess, J. Africa: an identification guide. Smithsonian Institute D'Amico Hales, E. Underwood, E. Dinerstein, D. Press, Washington DC, USA. Olson, I. Itoua, J. Schipper, T. Ricketts, and K. Merz, G. & Hoppe-Dominik, B. 1991. Distribution and Newman (eds.), Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and status of the forest elephant in the Ivory Coast, West Madagascar: A Conservation Assessment. Island Africa. Pachyderm 14: 22-24. Press, Washington DC, USA. Milledge, S. & Abdi, M. 2005. A model for Africa: Misana, S., Mung’ong’o, C. & Mukamuri, B. 1996. Ethiopia’s efforts to close unregulated domestic ivory Miombo woodlands in the wider context: macro- markets in Addis Ababa. TRAFFIC Bulletin 20: 119- economics and inter-sectoral influences. Pp. 73-99 in 128. B. Campbell (ed.), The Miombo in Transition: Milliken, T., Burn, R.W., Underwood, F.M. & Woodlands and Welfare in Africa. Centre for Sangalakula, L. 2004. The Elephant Trade International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Information System (ETIS) and the Illicit Trade in Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J.B., da Fonseca, Ivory: A report to the 13th meeting of the Conference G.A.B. & Olivieri, S. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots and of the Parties to CITES. UNEP, Geneva, Switzerland. major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting Milliken, T., Pole, A. & Huongo, A. 2006. No Peace for conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12: Elephants: unregulated domestic ivory markets in 516-520. Angola and Mozambique. TRAFFIC International, Moritz, C. 2002. Strategies to protect biological diversity Cambridge, UK. and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Beddington, J.R. 1993. The Systematic Biology 51:238-254. exploitation of elephants for the ivory trade: an Mtui, D. & Owen-Smith, N. 2006. Impact of elephants historical perspective. Proceedings of the Royal (Loxodonta africana) on woody plants in Malolotja Society of London, series B 252: 29-37. Nature Reserve, Swaziland. African Journal of Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche Ecology 44: 407-9. 2005. Stratégie de conservation de l’éléphant au Mubalama, L. & Bashige, E. 2006. Caught in the Benin. Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de crossfire: the forest elephant and law enforcement in la Pêche, Cotonou, Benin. a region of political instability, eastern Democratic Ministère de l'Environnement et des Ressources Republic of Congo. Pachyderm 40: 68-78. Forestières 2003. Stratégie pour Conservation des Mugo, K. (ed.) 2006. The Eastern Africa Coastal Forests Populations d'éléphants au Togo. Ministère de Ecoregion: Strategic Framework for Conservation l'Environnement et des Ressources Forestière, Lomé, 2005-2025. WWF-EARPO, Nairobi, Kenya. Togo. Myers, N. 1993. Tropical forests: The main deforestation Ministère de l'Environnement et du cadre de Vie 2003. fronts. Environmental Conservation, 20: 9-16. Stratégie et Programme de Gestion Durable des Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Eléphants au Burkina Faso. Ministère de Fonseca, G.A.B & Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity l'Environnement et du cadre de Vie, Ouagadougou, hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853- Burkina Faso. 858.

72 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Naughton, L., Rose, R. & Treves, A. 1999. The Social Parker, G.E. & Osborn, F.V. 2001. Dual season crop Dimensions of Human-Elephant Conflict in Africa: a damage by elephants in eastern Zambezi Valley, literature review and case studies from Uganda and Zimbabwe. Pachyderm 30 49-56. Cameroon. Report to the Human-Elephant Conflict Parren, M.P.E., de Leede, B.M. & Bongers, F. 2002. A Task Force, African Elephant Specialist Group, proposal for a transnational forest network area for Nairobi, Kenya. elephants in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Oryx 36: 249- Naughton-Treves, L. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop 256. damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Plotnik, J.M., de Waal, F.B.M. & Reiss, D. 2006. Self- Uganda. Conservation Biology 12: 156-168. recognition in an Asian elephant. Proceedings of the Nelson, A. Bidwell, P. & Sillero-Zubiri, C. 2003. A National Academy of Sciences 103: 17053–17057. review of humane elephant conflict management Plumptre, A.J., Davenport, T.R.B., Behangana, M., strategies. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Kityo, R.,. Eilu, G., Ssegawa, P., Ewango, C., Meirte, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. D., Kahindo, C., Herremans, M., Peterhans, J.K., Newmark, W.D. 1996. Insularization of Tanzanian parks Pilgrim, J.D., Wilson, M., Languy, M. & Moyer, D. and local extinction of large mammals. Conservation 2007a. The biodiversity of the Albertine Rift. Biology 10: 1549–1556. Biological Conservation 134: 178–194. Noss, R.F., Quigley, H.B., Hornocker, M.G., Merrill, T. Plumptre, A.J., Kujirakwinja, D., Treves, A., Owiunji, I., & Paquet. P.C. 1996. Conservation biology and & Rainer, H. 2007b. Transboundary conservation in carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. the greater Virunga landscape: Its importance for Conservation Biology 10: 949-963. landscape species. Biological Conservation 134: 279- Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker's Mammals of the World. 287. Sixth Edition. The John Hopkins University Press, Poole, J.H., Tyack, P.L., Stoeger-Horwath, A.S. & Baltimore & London. Watwood, S. 2005. Animal behaviour: elephants are Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. 2001. Indigenous versus introduced capable of vocal learning. Nature 434: 455-456. biodiversity conservation strategies: the case of Roca, A.L., Georiadis, N., Pecon-Slattery, J. & O’Brien, protected area systems in Ghana. Pp 385-394 in W. S.J. 2001. Genetic evidence for two species of Weber, L.J.T. White, A. Vedder & L. Naughton- elephant in Africa. Science, 293: 1473-1477. Treves (eds.), African Rain Forest Ecology and Roe, D., Leader-Williams, N. & Dalal-Clayton, B. 1997. Conservation.: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Take Only Photographs, Leave Only Footprints: The Yale University Press, New Haven, USA & London, Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism. Wildlife UK. and Development Series No. 10, International Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., Zeba, S., Gamassa, D.-G. M., & Institute for Environment & Development, London, Bonnéhin, L. 2000. Principles in Practice: Staff UK. observations of conservation projects in Africa. Roth, H.H. and I. Douglas-Hamilton. 1991. Distribution Biodiversity Support Program, Washington DC, and status of elephants in West Africa. Mammalia USA. 55: 489-527. Nzooh, Z., Usongo, L., Loomis, M. & Tchamba, M. Said, M.Y., Chunge, R.N., Craig, G.C., Thouless, C.R., 2005. Monitoring radio-collared forest elephants Barnes, R.F.W. & Dublin, H.T. 1995. African (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) in southeast Cameroon Elephant Database 1995. Occasional Paper of the African Elephant Update 5: 2-8. WWF, Gland, IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 11. IUCN, Switzerland Gland, Switzerland. O’Connell-Rodwell, C.E., Rodwell, T., Rice, M. & Hart, Sayer, J.A., Harcourt, C.S. & Collins, N.M. 1992. The L.A. 2000. Living with the modern conservation Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests: Africa. paradigm: can agricultural communities co-exist with Macmillan Publishers, Basingstoke, UK. elephants? A five-year case study in East Caprivi, Schulenberg, T.S., Short, C.A & Stephenson, P.J. (eds.) Namibia. Biological Conservation 93: 381-391. 1999. A Biological Assessment of the Parc National Olson, D.M. & Dinerstein, E. 1998. The Global 200: a de la Marahoué, Côte d’Ivoire. RAP Working Papers representation approach to conserving the Earth’s 13. Conservation International, Washington DC, most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation USA. Biology 12: 502-515. Schuyt, K. 2005. Payment for environmental services and Omondi, P., Bitok, E. & Kagiri, J. 2004. Managing restoration. Pp 166-170 in S. Mansourian, D. Vallauri human-elephant conflicts: the Kenyan experience. & N. Dudley (eds). 2005. Forest Restoration in Pachyderm 36: 80-86. Landscapes. Beyond Planting Trees. Springer, New Osborn, F.V. 2002. Capsicum oleoresin as an elephant York. repellent: field trials in the communal lands of Schweitzer, A. 1922. On the Edge of the Primeval Forest. Zimbabwe. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 674- Adams & Charles Black, London, UK. 677. Shambaugh, J., Ogelthorpe, J. & Ham, R. 2001. The Osborn, F.V. & Parker, G.E. 2002. Living with Elephants Trampled Grass: Mitigating the impacts of armed II: a manual for implementing an integrated conflict on the environment. Biodiversity Support programme to reduce crop loss to elephants and to Program, Washington DC, USA. improve livelihood security of small-scale farmers. Sheil, D. & Salim, A. 2004. Forest tree persistence, Mid-Zambezi Elephant Project, Harare, Zimbabwe. elephants, and stem scars. Biotropica 36: 505–521. Osborn, F.V. & Parker, G.E 2003. Towards an integrated Sitati, N.W. & Walpole, M.J. 2006. Assessing farm-based approach for reducing the conflict between elephants measures for mitigating human-elephant conflict in and people: a review of current research. Oryx 37: Transmara District, Kenya. Oryx 40: 279-286. 80-84. Sitati, N.W., Walpole, M.J. & Leader-Williams, N. 2005. Parker, I.S.C. & Graham, A.D. 1989. Men, elephants and Factors affecting susceptibility of farms to crop competition. Symposia of the Zoological Society of raiding by African elephants: using a predictive London 61: 241-252. model to mitigate conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 1175-1182.

73 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

Sitati, N.W., Walpole, M.J., Smith, R.J. & Leader- Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Williams, N. 2003. Predicting spatial aspects of UNEP 2006a. United Nations Environment Programme human-elephant conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology Global Environment Outlook: Geodata Portal. 40: 667-677. http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/ accessed 24 August 2006. Skarpe, C., Aarrestad, P.A., Andreassen, H.P., Dhillion, UNEP 2006b. Africa Environment Outlook 2: Our S.S., Dimakatso, T., du Toit, J.T., Halley, D.J., Environment, Our Wealth. United Nations Environ- Hytteborn, H., Makhabu, S., Mari, M., Marokane, ment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. W., Masunga, G., Modise, D., Moe, S.R., UNEP & NESDA 2004. Rapport sur l’Etat de Mojaphoko, R., Mosugelo, D., Motsumi, S., Neo- l’Environnement en Afrique de l’Ouest. United Mahupeleng, G., Ramotadima, M., Rutina, L., Nations Environment Programme and Network for Sechele, L., Sejoe, T.B., Stokke, S., Swenson, J.E., Environment and Sustainable Development in Africa, Taolo, C., Vandewalle, M. & Wegge, P. 2004. The Nairobi, Kenya. return of the giants; ecological effects of an Valeix, M., Fritz, H., Dubois, S., Kanengoni, K., increasing elephant population. Ambio 33: 276-282. Alleaume, S. & Saïd, S. 2007. Vegetation structure Spinage, C.A. 1994. Elephants. T. & A.D. Poyser, and ungulate abundance over a period of increasing London, UK. elephant abundance in Hwange National Park, Stephenson, P.J. 2004. The future for elephants in Africa. Zimbabwe. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23: 87–93. Pp 133-136 in N. Burgess, J. D'Amico Hales, E. van Aarde, R.J & Jackson, T.P. 2007. Megaparks for Underwood, E. Dinerstein, D. Olson, I. Itoua, J. metapopulations: Addressing the causes of locally Schipper, T. Ricketts, and K. Newman (eds.), high elephant numbers in southern Africa. Biological Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A Conservation 134:_ 289-297. Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Washington van der Linde, H., Oglethorpe, J., Sandwith, T., Snelson, DC, USA. D. & Tessema, Y. 2001. Beyond Boundaries: Stephenson, P.J. (ed.) 2005. African Elephant Update Transboundary natural resource management in sub- Number 5. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Saharan Africa. Biodiversity Support Program, Stephenson, P.J. & Newby, J.E. 1997. Conservation of Washington DC, USA. the Okapi Wildlife Reserve, Zaire. Oryx 31: 49-58. Waithaka, J. 2001. Elephants as seed dispersal agents in Stiles, D. 2004. The ivory trade and elephant Aberdares and Tsavo National Parks, Kenya. conservation. Environmental Conservation 31: 309- Pachyderm 30: 70-74. 321. Wasser, S.K., Shedlock, A.M., Comstock, K., Ostrander, Struhsaker, T.T., Struhsaker, P.J. & Siex, K.S. 2005. E.A., Mutayoba, B. & Stephens, M. 2004. Assigning Conserving Africa's rain forests: problems in African elephant DNA to geographic region of protected areas and possible solutions. Biological origin: applications to the ivory trade. Proceedings of Conservation 123: 45-54. the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 14847- Sukumar, R. 2003. The Living Elephants: Evolutionary 14852. Ecology, Behavior and Conservation. Oxford Western, D. 1989. The ecological role of elephants in University Press, New York, USA. Africa. Pachyderm 12: 42-45. Surovell, T., Waguespack, N. & Brantingham, P.J. 2005. White, A. & Martin, A. 2002. Who Owns the World’s Global archaeological evidence for proboscidean Forests? Forest Tenure and Public Forests in overkill. Proceedings of the National Academy of Transition. Forest Trends, Washington, DC, USA. Sciences, USA 102: 6231-6236. Wildlife Division 2000. Strategy for the Conservation of Taylor, R.D. 1994. Elephant management in Nyaminyami Elephants in Ghana. Wildlife Division, Forestry District, Zimbabwe: turning a liability into an asset. Commission, Accra, Ghana. Pachyderm 18: 19-29. Wildlife Division 2001. Management Plan for the Taylor, R.D. (ed.) in prep. Draft Southern African African Elephant in Tanzania.. Wildlife Division, Regional Elephant Management Strategy. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Unpublished draft cited in Tchamba, M.N. 1996. History and present status of the Blanc et al. 2007. human/elephant conflict in the Waza-Logone region, Wilkie, D.S., Sidle, J.G., Boundzanga, G.C., Blake, S. & Cameroon, West Africa. Biological Conservation 75: Auzel, P. 2001. Defaunation or deforestation: 35-41. commercial logging and market hunting in northern Theuerkauf, J., Waitkuwait, W.E., Guiro, Y., Ellenberg, Congo. Pp. 375-399 in R. Fimbel, A. Grajal & J.C. H. & Porembski, S. 2000. Diet of forest elephants Robinson (eds.), The Impacts of Commerical Logging and their role in seed dispersal in the Bossematie on Wildlife in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Forest Reserve, Ivory Coast. Mammalia 64: 447–460. Press, New York, USA. Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., Wing, L. & Buss, I. 1970. Elephants and forests. Wildlife Beaumont, L.J., Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., Monographs 19: 1-71. de Siqueira, M.F., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, Wittemyer, G., Douglas-Hamilton, I. & Getz, W.M. L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A.S., Midgley, G.F., 2005. The socioecology of elephants: analysis of the Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M.A., Peterson, A.T., processes creating multitiered social structures. Phillips, O.L. & Williams, S.E. 2004. Extinction risk Animal Behaviour 69: 1357-1371. from climate change. Nature 427: 145-148. WWF 1997. Conserving Africa’s Elephants: Current Thomsen, J. B. 1988. Recent U.S. imports of certain pro- Issues and Priorities for Action. WWF, Gland, ducts from the African elephant. Pachyderm 10:1-5. Switzerland Thouless, C. (ed.) 1999. Review of African Elephant WWF 1998. Elephants in the Balance: Conserving Conservation Priorities. A working document of the Africa’s Elephants. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group. WWF 2001. African Elephant Programme: Programme Second Edition. IUCN/SSC AfESG, Nairobi, Kenya. Document. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. UNDP 2005. Human Development Report 2005. United WWF 2006. Species and People: Linked Futures. WWF, Nations Development Programme, New York, USA. Gland, Switzerland. UNEP 1989. The African Elephant. UNEP/GEMS Environment Library Number 3. United Nations 74 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011

75 WWF SPECIES ACTION PLAN - African Elephant 2007-2011 1986 Panda s y mbol WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature World mbol WWF - ( Formerl y World Wildlife Fund ) “WWF” and “livin © WWF-Canon / Martin HARVEY gp lanet” are Re

WWF is one of the world's largest and most experienced independent WWF International conservation organizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global g network active in more than 100 countries. Avenue du Mont Blanc istered Trademarks 1196 Gland WWF's mission is to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment Switzerland and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by: - conserving the world's biological diversity Tel: +41 22 364 9111 - ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable Fax: +41 22 364 9268 - promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. www.panda.org