Volume IX - Annexes 5.15 - 5.20

Note: This translation has been prepared by the Registry for internal purposes and has no official
character
14689
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO
(DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO v. UGANDA)
SECOND PHASE
QUESTION OF REPARATION
MEMORIAL
OF THE
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
VOLUME 9
(Annexes 5.15 to 5.20)
September 2016
[Translation by the Registry]
LIST OF ANNEXES
Volume 9
Annexes 5.15 to 5.20
Annex Page
5.15 Kes Hillman Smith, Fraser Smith, Amube Ndey, Mbayma Atalia, Jean Mafuko,
Paulin Tshikaya, Giningayo Panziama and John Watkin, Garamba National
Park and reserves — general aerial counts 1998, 2000, 2002 & 2003 and
evaluation of the effects of the civil wars on the ecosystem
1
5.16 UNESCO, World Heritage in the Congo Basin, 2010 2
5.17 David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, Dead or Alive? Valuing an Elephant, n.d. 67
5.18 UNEP and UNWTO, Tourism — Investing in energy and resource efficiency,
2011
67
5.19 UNWTO, Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching
Tourism in Africa, 2015
67
5.20 DRC, Directorate for Forest Management and Resources and Ministry of the
Environment and Sustainable Development, Projet TerraCongo — Protocole
méthodologique de l’évaluation du couvert forestier national de référence en
République démocratique du Congo, May 2015
67
ANNEX 5.15
Kes Hillman Smith, Fraser Smith, Amube Ndey, Mbayma Atalia, Jean Mafuko,
Paulin Tshikaya, Giningayo Panziama and John Watkin, Garamba National
Park and reserves — general aerial counts 1998, 2000, 2002 & 2003
and evaluation of the effects of the civil wars on the ecosystem
- 1 -
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA
Et DOMAINES DE CHASSE
GENERAL AERIAL COUNTS 1998, 2000, 2002 & 2003 AND EVALUATION OF
THE EFFECTS OF THE CIVIL WARS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
RECENSEMENTS AERIENS GENERAUX DE 1998,2000, 2002 & 2003 ET
EVALUATION DES EFFETS DES GUERRES CIVILES SUR L'ECOSYSTEME
Ke.s HilJman Smith, Fraser Smith, Amube Ndey, Mbayma Atalia
Jean Mafuko, Paulin Tshikaya, Giningayo Panziama & John Watkin
Version Fran~aise traduite par Jean Bigirimana Mugabushaka
ZSI.J llVING COMUllVATIOH
Garamba National Park and Surrounding Reserves
Park National de la Garamba et Zones Annexes
4°R
Sclle(DL)
0 •
I
S0°E
~ Major Rlvers
c:::::::::::l RMeres Px1ncipa1es
Elt;;;!~
r=i Streams
c:::...._J Rulsseaux
Mam.Roads E3 Routes Prmdpales
c::-=, Secondary Roads
c:__::J Routes SecondaJrea
EEll!El National Park
~ Park National
~ R.csetves
L::.::;;;..J Doma1nes de Chane
29°B
1------------L.,.._-----....!!!~~~~~~~=-~==---==---==---==:.--==--===-__.:=:x:;;..._.;;:;:;;;;;;.-.._~----------
- -
• " N • I ~ C
• "- • • 11 I ,, I 11 I 11 I •• I ,, I •• I •t l ,, l 11 nltttnlHl~lnlnl~l~l~L•l~l"LNID
~UCZRl&IIDIIIT o&Jf&ILU. DV PAIICI JfATIONM.o DII LA C1A11A1DA IIT DOMAl!fU DII C'IIAIH
~CM.JIAID.II. IIIATIONAL PAIIK, G&IIIIIIAL OOIJNT
I "
.!L....1!
•
u
N
117
1::1:1·
..
n
24
u
112 21 ::,: I: l
2D
11
'
11
17 ,,
"
••
,a
u !.. .... I
"
II
- - - - -
LOW DENSITY
To ... ••• 1'!(10km2
MECIUM DENSITY
770111,
Tot,ij .,. • t92!lkm2
.· ._.:::.:\}::::::::;:t:\::i:::\::1;:11t::):j:\}> HIGH DENSITY j'1~;::~t
ToUII •• • 220Cb,2
· · · · · ...... .. :.:-:)Utitl:?\\:t
OVERALL
llO!'io•U•
n•YTnn-•
Total •• • 151" km2
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTHOIH lC'l'ION
OAUAMUA NA'l'IONAI, PAHK
AND UHSl~HVMS
Gl<.:Nl<.:HAI, AJt~HIAI,, COUNTS 1008, 2000, 2002 & 200:1
General all species aerial censuses of the Garamba National Park and surrounding Domaincs de Chasse are
carried out as part of the ecosystem monitoring programme. This is a report of the counts carried out in May
1998, June 2000, May 2002 and May 2003, with discussion on the status of the ecosystem and the effects of
the civil wars during this period.
l11c Garamba National Park (4,900 km2) is situated between 4° and 3° north and 29° and 30° east in the north
east of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It is surrounded on three sides by reserves, the Domaines
de Chasse Azande, 2,892 km2 to the west, Gangala na bodio, 2,652 km2 to the south, and Mondo Misa, 1,983
kni2 to the cast. All these areas were counted. On the north east, within Sudan, the park is bordered by the
Lantoto game reserve. l11is area was not included, due to the political situation.
The park is situated within the sudano-guincan savanna biomc. The southern two thirds of the park comprises
long grass savanna dominated by Loudetia arundinac.:ca with HJparrhenia species. The reserves arc
dominated by a complex of deciduous Combretum woodland and gallery forest. Within them is limited human
settlement and gold mining.
l11e first aerial census of the area was carried out in l 976 (Savidge cl al 1976) by an F AO project. Since then
the ecosystem has been censused in l 983 during a survey of northern white rhinos (Ceratotherium simum
colloni) (I lillman et al 1983) and since 1984 as part of the Garamba National Park Project. (Hillman Smith
1990, Smith et al 1993).
l11c counting technique and basic analysis has remained standard throughout, based on the systematic aerial
sample count method described by Norton Griffiths (l 978) and Jolly Method 2 analysis (In Norton Griffiths
1978 ), but the process of analysis has varied. Analysis is now carried out with a system developed using the
commercial software programme Quattro pro 4 (Borland 1992) for the 1993 count (Watkin et al 1995). The
method of counting and analysis as applied at Garamba has been written up as a handbook (Hillman Smith
et al l 995) to guide Jong term standard application of the technique in the monitoring progranunc at Garan1ba.
We hope it may also contribute a few guidelines for easy analysis of aerial counts elsewhere.
A UTM (universal transverse mcrcator) compatible system of coordinates, which was based on the transect
lines used since the 1983 count has been used to locate all animal and habitat observations since 1983 and all
law enforcement monitoring observations since I 992. In conjunction with the establislm1ent of a geographic
information system (GIS) at Gararnba in I 993, this has now been expanded to cover the surrounding reserves
and is maintained as the basis for the positioning of the flown transects. A Garmin global positioning system
(G PS) was used to navigate the transects and sub-units. The GIS programme ldrisi has been used in mapping
the vegetation cover.
2
!
]!
'Pare National de la Garamba·1
RECENSEMENT GE'.'lERAL 1998
TRANSECTS
C 5 ~a 15 20
Kilcmeters
>-J ' -3> t8-25
l~'-:F!-#----~-"-"-------·-----_-·--_--·-·--"- --'S_-~-~_.?... > -_<';: '~16t-= ~-2\44- - t5A -2-l
115+~'1,_2±2-1-
1-!-24-
tJA-2-!
~ --.- -~ :.;;(--13-21
j{; - r:;;.;/~ - )3 i._...:.'"\ i._.t
I
il
II
I
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Counting method
The counting method is the standard aerial systematic reconnaissance flight (srf) using parallel transect
sampling as dcscri bed by Norton Griffiths (1978) and widely used for aerial counting of wildlife and livestock.
Heights, strip widths and general application of the method have been relatively standard throughout the series
of counts. Analysis is carried out usingjolly's method ii (Norton Griffiths 1978) in the spreadsheet programme
quattro pro, and shaded vegetation mapping uses the gis programme idrisi.
Aircraft:
Pilot:
Cessna 206, 9Q-CBR
Fraser Smith
Front seat obs.: Kes Hillman Smith
1998 2000 2002 2003
Middle seat obs.: Mbayma Atalia
Mafuko Girineza
Mbayma Atalia Amube Ndey Amube Ndey
Giningayo Panziama Giningayo Panziama Paulin Tshikaya
Rear seat obs.: Amube Ndey Amube Ndcy
Giningayo Panziama
Serge Iliabo
Mambo Marindo
Training & analysis
Analysis design: John Watkin & K.HS,,
re-design for EW transect re-<Jrientation K H.S & Kerin Adcock
Analysis:
Amube Ndcy, Kes H. Smith, Mbayma Atalia,
based on Hillman Smith et al ( 1995) and Watkin et al ( 1995)
Census zone; Garamba National Park
Total area 4,900 km2
Timing:
For greatest accuracy in population estimation the period Ap ri 1 to mid June, just after the start of the
long wet season offers best visibility. The grass is short and the air is cleared by the rain. The
preparation, calibrations and counts reported here were carried out in May or in one case June.
Stratification:
The count was stratified in relation to animal distribution. Very few anmials remain in the north and
central sectors and these are flown at by transects spaced at 5 km apart. The southern sector is where
over 90% of the animals are currently distributed. This was flown at 2.5 km spacing for greater
accuracy. Sub-units are spaced at 5 km, as measured by OPS. The stratification that has been
adopted since 1993 is based on the elephant distribution observed in 1993, which is known to reflect
the elephant distribution over the preceding ten years, is as follows. The count boundaries are based
on sub-unit boundaries rather than those of the park and reserves. Hence they are slightly larger than
the actual boundaries:
park:
Low density:
Medium density:
High density:
5,500 km2
1,400 km2
14 transects, 55 sub-units
1,925 km2
12 transects, 77 sub-units
2,200 km2
16 transects, 88 sub-units
domaines de chasse: 9,600 km2
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
37 transects, 384 sub-units
The counts reported here since the first war in DRC have included only the park as the objectives have been
a rapid assessment of the status of the park, and fuel has always been a limiting factor.
At the start of the project transect used to be flown north south also with 5 km sub-units. In order to mare
accurately and correctly analyse a stratified count, since 1998 the transects have been flown east-west with
the sub-unit divisions east west. The grid system and method of analysis remain the same and the counts
therefore continue to be comparable
Equipment:
King radar altimeter, Garmin global positioning system (gps) , marker rods, tape recorder per
observer, tapes and batteries, stopwatch, data sheets, computer for analysis.
Fibreglass fishing rod blanks mounted on a support fitting designed for the wing strut were used as
marker rods.
Duties of crew
Pilot:
piloting the aircraft, navigating to the ends of transects and along transects using gps, calling out
transects and sub-units at 5km intervals based on the data sheet subunits. The gps was preprogrammed
with the beginning and end waypoints of the transects, which are listed in the table gps
waypoints.
Front seat observer:
recording the time and speed of each transect and maintaining the transect summary sheet (in annex).
Within each sub-unit recording height a.g.l. from the radar altimeter and habitat factors as defined
below. (Fso data sheet in hillman smith et al 1995)
Middle seat observers:
counting and recording into the tape-recorders all animal species and signs of human occupancy, as
listed on the table: code des especes, that are seen within the strips. On return from each flight the
observations are transcribed onto rso data sheets (example in hillman smith et al 1995). The middle
seat observers also noted the habitat in which the animals were seen. Cameras were available, but
were only used on two occasions for large groups of buffaloes and of houses.
Rear seat observers:
the rear seat observers made the same observations as the middle seat observers. There were three
main values to the second row of animal observers: comparison of the two data sets to verify and
improve the data and to enable other methods of analysis to be applied, back-up if a tape-recorder
fails and training. To make the first two objectives valid, the strip widths were adjusted to be as near
as possible to covering the same strip on the ground as seen by the middle observers. Their strip
markers were cords stretched from the wing struts to the tail.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample intensity:
sample intensity: 8-10% Low, 15-20% high
transect spacing - low 5km
high 2.5 km
sub-unit spacing: 5 km
target flying height: 350' a.g.l.
Overall mean actual flying height 347' a.g.l.
Target strip width: 400 -500 m total.(200-250 metres each side)
Strip widths are prcsct according to Norton Griffiths (op.cit.) and calibrated by flying at different heights over
markers spaced at 20 metre and 100 metre intervals on the airstrip, simultaneous with radar altimeter
readings. Observers count the numbers of spaces between markers included within the strip widths, to
calculate the observed widths. These passes were carried out both during training, before counting began and
at the beginning and end of each counting flight. The results, analyzed and plotted in quattro pro 4.0 arc shown
in the graph calibrations, and were used combined with measured altitudes per sub-unit to calculate strip
widths for each transect and sub-unit. On the basis of this the combined strip widths for middle seat observers
are calculated per sub-unit and the sample areas per sub-unit are calculated and used in the calculation of
population estimates from animals of each species seen per sub-unit:
Transects:
Transects are spaced at 5 km intervals in the low and medium intensity zones and at 2.5 km in the
high intensity southern zone. They are flown east/west as shown on the map projected transect
lines. The co-ordinates for the start and end points of each transect flown alternately north and south
arc given on the table gps way points in annex. Subunit were at 5 km intervals as measured using the
gps and is used, sub-unit boundaries are located in multiples of 5 km from the end waypoint, using
the tables of transect and subunits in Annex.
Species:
Animal species were counted by both middle and rear seat observers, as listed on the table: codes des
especes. Signs of human habitation and land use were also counted. Elephant and other species
carcases are classified as:
I. Fresh, with flesh present
2. Recent bones, with rot patch present
3. Bones white, no rot patch
4. Bones grey old
(Douglas-hamilton & hillman 1981)
in this high rainfall, high scavenger density environment, fresh recognisable rot patches remain for
· a considerably shorter time than in cast africa. Carcases monitored have usually remained at stage
2. less than two months.
Habitat factors :
Within each sub-unit the front seat observer recorded the height a.g.l. as measured by the radar
altimeter and estimates percentages of the following habitat parameters in units of l 0% intervals:
tree cover, as percent of sub-unit
tree greenness as percent of trees present
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Analysis
bush cover, as above
bush greenness, as above
grass cover, as above
grass greenness, as above
long old grass, as percent of grass present
burn, as percent in sub-unit
water availability,
0 = none
I ""available to humans and livestock
2 = limited availability
3::::;; unlimited availability
4 = running water
5 = floods
agriculture, as percent in sub-unit
Vegetation zones are classified within each sub-unit.
Analysis was carried out in quattropro according to the method described in detail in Watkin et al ( 1995) and
Hillman smith et al (1995). The method is based on entering the animal and habitat observations and the
altitudes per sub-unit onto separate versions of a spreadsheet, which is laid out like a map of the census zone,
in which each cell represents a subunit. This was printed directly, to map the distribution of animal
observations, and with conversion, to map density distributions. Habitat data was entered in the same way.
To produce the shaded mapping it can be transferred to idrisi. The overlay map of the park and reserves was
created in arcinfo and they were combined in coreldraw.
A graph of strip width calibrations was created in quattro and the resulting regression applied to the map of
altitudes per sub-unit. This enables transect width correction per sub-unit, as opposed to an average applied
to whole transects as previously. Superimposition of this on the map of animal observations calculates the
densities. Within the map spreadsheet the transect and strata totals arc summed and these data were
transposed to a second spreadsheet, which was laid out with the fornmlac from Jolly (1969) and Norton
Griffiths ( 1978) for calculating population estimates and confidence limits. This is printed directly with the
details of the observed nwnbers, stratified population estimates and confidence limits.
Results
Distribution maps in the spreadsheet formats are given for each species for each of the count years. These
are followed in each set by the tables calculating population estimates and Standard Errors and 95 %
Confidence limits for each species. Signs of threat, ie carcasses and poaching camps arc mapped for each
year.
Vegetation parameters are mapped for one year. Tree cover is dense in the north of the park and relatively
dense in the Domaine de Chasse, but very sparse in the south of the park due to the effects of fire and
elephants. Bush cover is increasing further and further south each year as the elephants and other large
manunals are pushed down or poached out from the north and now even from the centre of the park
The summary table gives population totals and stratified totals, densities and biomasses for the period 1976
until l 995, before the war . The weights used to calculate the biomasses were those used by savidge et al
( 1976), haltcnorth & diller ( 1977) and d'huart ( 1978). A second summary table gives the situation since then.
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Methods
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS WITH EVALUATION OF TRENDS AND
THE STATUS OF THE ECOSYSTEM
The aerial survey manual for Garamba National Park, based on the standard methods developed during the
1993 census was applied throughout as guidance and training manual. However since 1998 the transects
ha\'e been flown cast west instead of north south in order to make more accurate the stratified analysis. The
sub-w1it cells remain the same.
TI1e front scat observer has been standard since 1983. This therefore minimises errors due to observer bias.
I [owner the two midtlle scat obscn•ers have varied over the four year pcrio<l, and have included Guy
Mhayma, the late Jean Mafuko. Jerome Amube, Giningayo Panziama and Paulin Tshib.aya. The rear scat
positions have been nsed for training. Practice and training was given by both estilllating and cow1ting
from digital photos of butralos, elephants and hippos, but the need to estimate large groups because the
observers arc not su.1Iiciently practiccd with cameras to use them, is a potential source of bias.
Animal numlJcni and tliHtrilJution o,·cr time in relation to external events
/listorietil
Table l gives the large mammal numbers from aerial census from l 976, when the FAO project eudcd
through 1983 before the Gammba project started, to 1995, before the civil war. Table 2 gives nwnbcrs since
the first war. from l 998 to 2003. 111c graphs Figs.3 and 4 summarise the trends of key species. Pie chmts
indicate the biomasses a11d relative species numbers for the two periods.
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA
LARGE MAMMAL NUMBERS 199~
Warthog
!82••>
Walerbuck
{2100)
Kob
(11?<!1
tiartebeesle
lfflffi)
(117~2)
(28713 I
-.Nil. -....
111·n·.•.Ltl
1"97D
53000
1%' .• cl
53::;12
DC
1 e:900 I
,~h~ :
. P<-RC
,,s I
5862 \
1 ~ti6 I
!'\HC NATIO~ \I IIE I.A c;AH-\f\ll\A ET !J0"1.\l:\l:S !JI: UL\SSI'.
WILlll.ll'E "<lH•IIILllS. Mli.llllll.S DES A'-1~1.H'X l'!"h · 19~5
l~lHA rrc 1 clH'l•u
1100 I 7180 ! n5o I 3680 I
::50 2300 I ,330 I ~10
175 I 1250 i 221s I 1e:i I
765 I lJ& i a5;; I 1s, I
2321 I s·.2 I 142G l 1C7 I
448 I 37S2 j 1224 I 56B I 175 I
C I o I D 2 · 8 I 0 j
,01 I
HU.--\'\
350 1 3340 i
,~ .. o i
91 1117 i
2~ 1
0 1 404
o:
140 I
I
100 I
91 I
•e5 I
nl
I
109 I
,, I
31 I
LHI.IUI HYE,;, Ul"S-llht·~·
Jso I 4'
15C ] 50
·.7 I
,s2 I u\
j .53 I 3J I 44
D D
fC3 I 69 38 I
'..£'...:. .__,,_~. -~~----=2c::.s·=-·,: .:s:....:1._ __ _:1_-:;;::_3 T-~2~s~1.:.'-i:_ __ .:_-:~2::.:22~i __1 '...:7~o~s-ii _- '..:n:'..:2~~+--...2n=:.!s~i ___ .!!.3.:_~..:_ __ J9~J~3~ __! n~_ ___J __ __ 12~3E_o~i __~ 63~1 __! _!15~7~ __ :
: DC ___ ---·=-"·_·' --;--1 ___ .:_::;_o'Tl __~ c-;l __. :.•::98::..+[ __.. :..7..:.5-fl __ _c6~5:,:&.J! __. .:..;~3:._.;.. __~ o~i_ __~ 6~6:....[\------=---c....:.j __J .2~5_/i ___ :·.::.°"..;l ___ iC'._Jl~---.!OLl_l __
3.:;;5] ,,:I 1;,sel ~sc,I se;I .s5i 135\ 20! :,4~1 ·:;l 2ci g::;, 4el 1211
1~0& 1_sbc.::e:.......:.. ___ ,------,.----+----___:.,l ____ .l...__ __ _..;_ ___ 1l_', ____ ...:_ ___ ...:_ ___ _: ____ Jl ___ l! ___ l~ ___ J.._ _
.PM,:' ---'--=3:1c£:l. I. ::;7---.--28-.51= +-----i------;----.;._--~--~-___;--___.:.-----1I ..--_;_--_!._--_;__-
3~6 i nos I
:DC:
I
3423 I 967 ;
Cc j
JB i
J2 !
I
13 51
I
-----,---..:.3~0!>:.:5:.:5-,-----=3..:.".:..7_'_ __1 .:.:c:.:2--:J~:_ _~ 6~73~8c...:_ __ -3::::·~•::4--'-----.:.:11c..:1.::3 _~ --:..:·5:..;,..i __ ,so-,-__~ i5_;,_2_, ____. .:.75=-----~1:.::2c::.o..,.i_ __.. ::!>..::C _____- --'_ ____ ;__ _
=;.Jg\ ::: 1 a\ :;-:,_..1 t; •~&S"· .... 1 ,..., ·,5~i ,;::;: .;.5;
8::': .. i;I ·, .. ~•. ;;.F .:~;. ( .. •. -, 1 "·'-~...:~,. ~---, ~, I -- ·--~-------_:::~..:..:.:--:.._,-___ __::__..:c--'-___ ::_:..:_:..:...._ __:-:..:_·::_·.:_:_ __ _c:.":._' '':'_;__ __ ..::.:CC:.:0:...:_, __.; ;'_>.:_• ;__ __ :-::_;:·o:. :
DC
--- -1111..
1 75
-....
3&01
?t3~ !
-...
6601 I
3~33
-
1 c!>C ! ~71 I B1
Cl
, ec i
-----... ---
5c0~ I 58 :
3& !
----
O--. iI
\07 !
105 I
..-
C'
0 l4 I 14 i
o I
i7 I
- - ---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Between the F AO Project and the Garnmba project most large manunal nwnbers dropped dramatically with
heavy poaching. This also changed the distribution of the most valuable species, elephants and rhinos, who
were eliminated from the north and remained concentrated in the better protected south of the park. The
Garamba Project/JZCN partnership was able to eliminate the conuncrcial poaching of elephants and rhinos
but a continuation of poaching in the north of the park for meat maintained their Wtequal distribution and
they did not move back to reppopulate the centre or north. As the elephants increased they tended to move
out more into the wooded Demaine de Chasse at night (Hillman Smith et al)
'r...r. -ill11,t~ l':!!ZI nt!"ll'l-,S
-~UIN-!l'M---liw-tiu,, E:::,3~~ IJt.MOCJAl'K'"ll:bl"'l}HUC
ortvi/00
!l.Ot'ttn!RN
~ut)AN
The north of the park is on the Sudan border and it is easy for poachers to cross. Elephant and rhino nwnbers
rose through the first few years of the project, doubling in eight years, (Fig & Table l), but buffaloes which
remained widely distributed throughout the park became the main meat prey species in the north and centre
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of the park.. Because of this, buffalo numbers have declined steadily tJ1roughoul the project. but they acted
ns a buffer to the more voluablc species.
~~:::;1,,·d for rile Dc,clop,.,cnl or \bn•11:en,cnt Unit• 11, I (;•y~,nhR N•lfnnol rnk •nd In lh" 1in1nn,ndln1t; Reo.,Yve~
1 - ll•m:11• Srtl~t-~111
- Rrf'lt1.-.:- -n• ... fl'
. \fl"ln« !lciivN•••
- rtrp+i1ott1 ni .. rl"1atll-t,
- A~ffl"t:N- fhl"I':"
~ R rf'",rt,;-,j\l r"'-.rM111,
11\-...,.--tl ....... 1,, l' ...... "
('U"'." 1<,11~1
O•M"1,.,i.,c,-_..~
1A,-..wil....,m
\M11.y P.1'111
(;.,_;.,....+~I ....... 11, l.'r-,u•l
1u ... ,i-1111,
r,." f, ... -,.-r+o ,,..->-'I'•
flrtM ,.,.._,..,.,.,-Loi~
(l~l-1~1-
l'•f,;,,I M,~,..,ri111'"1•1
,,,- ·-·-----~-~---~------~- ---------------- -----
J'l,e effect,; of 1Mrs
111 l 99 l the Su<lanese civil war 1110\'cd south, as tJ1e town of Maridi. just across the bor<lcr from Garambn.
was taken by the Su<lan Peoples· Liberal ion army. Arms and amnnmition become wi<lcly available and
about 80,000 refugees were sell led cast and west of the reserves surrounding the park. SPLJ\ camps were set
up adjacent to the border an<l well nm1cd and trained militia or ex-militia became the nini11 source of
poachiHg pressure. as evi<lcnccd by the law enforcement monitoring (LEM) results tFig.4).
Commercial ment poaching was the mai11 driving force. Most active a11li-poachi11g cOort was concenlratcd in
the centre of the pmk where the prey species and the poachers were coneentmted. In 1hc south, where lhe
elephants and I hinos were wncc11t1ate<l, there was very litllc poaching before the civil wnrs. Most palrulling
focused on r11011i10.-ing an<l on seeking m1y signs of incursions and on rcse.irch. However the strength and
arms of the SPL/\ militia. their lo11g periods of inaction away from the Sudanese front line and the market
for meat in the nrca. meant that meat punching increased in inlensily, with poacher groups increasing in size
;md opcraling with heavier weapons. including grenades and rocket law1chcrs. Despite extreme effmts, the
guards could 1101 completely stop this poaching and the front line of poaching gradually moved south
thnmgh the paik. as lhc LEM maps show. Major efforts were being made lo raise higher levels of funds.
amnmnition i11H.l to b1 ing in 1mini11g an<l support. bul in 1996 the first lwo rhinos were lost lo 1xiad1ing.
Towards the cml ur I 996, the civil Liberation war began in the then Zaire.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1--------------------------------,
j,, I _,r-,Tc
/
~' :· ... r .. ; . -\.,.--,...,
•)
! , ..
,•
----- -- ... ------ -\
·--------------------------------~'
Poaching Camps & armed contacts 1993
R·-·.
'' ' 1-,•I, r· . , ...
I ·--------------------------------~
Anned contacts 1998
In 1997 the Liberation war forces reached Garamba, the guards were disanned and anti-poaching was forced
to stop for several months. The poachers took advantage of the situation and moved into the high
concentration southern sector. The figures of poaching per unit search effort (per I 00 patrol days) show how
the intensity of poaching increased significantly in the first war (Fig.5).
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pan: National dt!' la C.sramba
BRACONNAGE/POACHING 1993-2001
As Tnule 2 shows. over half Lhe elephants, buffaloes and hippos were killed at this time and an aerial survey
of the soulhcm sector in l 997 showoo fresh carcases and occupied poachtng camps widely distributed.
Mnjor efforts uy the ICCN and project personnel in Garamba, Kinshasa and internationally re-established
anti-poaching, evalunted the situation, obtained clearance for training and back-up and began re-equipping
aud re-activating the couservation operations.
Table 2 Impact of the wars 1996/97 and 1998 to present
Especes 1995 SE 1998 SE 2000 SE 2002 SE 2003 SE
PopulaUon Pop Pop. Pop. Pop.
calculation calc. Cale. Cale. Cale
~---------- -------- -------~ I--- -- ----~I ----
5,963 1,184 6,948 1995
Elephant 11,175 3,670 5,874 1,339 6,022 1,046·
Buffalo 25,242 6,299 7,772 2,063 13,115 3,066 13,281 3,930 14,480 4231
Hippopotamus 3,601 1,299 786 207 967 485 948 787 3,036 1191
Giraffe 178 108 144 73 118 64 62 13 62 75.4
Waterbuck 1,680 669 1,382 433 1,058 363 797 316 421 210
Hartebeest 2,819 590 1,685 398 1,065 218 1,139 232 1,224 260
Kob 6,601 1,495 6,505 1,558 3,902 984 3,587 991 6,235 2121
Warthog 5,606 1,261 4,765 668 1,075 213 990 254 769 155
-
Roan Antelope 81 78 8 7 57 67
----- ----
- . ·-- -·-----·--·-···· - --~--- ---·-··- ··-----
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fig.: Identities of poachers
P .N.Garamba
Braconniers et ldentites
1)/r?.J Sudanesa • S•C D Congolese
In August 1998, the second civil war began. This time guards were not disarmed and although the senior
staff and project personnel had to leave, the guards themselves continued patrolling and law enforcement
monitoring and as soon as possible the project back paid them in relation to this. However, with Uganda
being linked to the rebel forces holding the area, and the Ugandan links with the SPLA it became very JWch
easier for the Sudanese to move across the border semi-officially. The refugee camps were raided. In
August 1999 a group of SPLA came across into the Domainc de Chasse Mondo Missa to tl1e cast of the park
and began recovering weapons and "deserters". At first this had a positive effect on reducing poaching and
in December park forces and local autltorities joined them for a mixed operation supported by the project to
recover more weapons. Agreement was given for a second two montl1 operation in 2000. It delayed for
several months and in the meantime, according to patrol reports, the local people were harrasscd for food by
tl1e SPLA in tltc area and many moved away from their homes and fields. The official mixed operation
involved support from the project in tenns of vehicles, fuel and rations and although it was only for an
agreed period of two months, at the end of which they were supposed to return to Sudan and continue a more
limited trans border collaboration, the park warden at the time built houses for them close to the park border
in tl1c Domaine de Chasse in DRC to the east. TI1ey therefore did not want to move back to their side of the
border even though the project was unable to support tl1is kind of activity in the long term, in one area out of
the park, to the detriment of the conservation activities within the park. The SPLA have remained there
ever since, demanding support from the park or threatening to wipe out the animals if this is not given.
Representation has been made to all the concerned autltoritics and the park's position has been made
officially clear, but the tl1reat remains and has in 2003 become extremely serious.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60000 T I.,.,
50000 f-.
40000 r w
-gioooo
:, z
20000
10000 · -
P.N.Garamba
Large Mammal Populations 1983-2003
.. ------····
\,,
-••c•••••••••l"l••••
················-------"'l;·········
- - - - - -- - - - -. - - - -. -- -·. - . - . - - -·.. . ~'\" .. - - - - - ..
a•••••••••••• ••J
I
""
----------.,,.-;
'1'11 !
• • • • • • • •• •• 0 T • ---- 0 • -•••• ••••• ---~;!!II!';-~•,. • 0 0 • • • •'-..• 0 0 ·or•• • 0 • • • • • • • 0 0 C • •
-T- "· -----.--.-------- _____ ,:: ____-_____-_-_-_- _ -- ' .... :.::::: ..· . __ 1111:···::.· __ .. - ·'
! - i 0 , . i I ' I I , 1 I :
19aJ 904 98!J 900 9871988 98!l gga 99119921993 994199!l 99f19971996 ~cxxzoo t:tool!ooJ
Years
· • Elephants .,, Buffaloes
C11llent tremls
As noted above, although the poaching front line had been moving south through the park under wcssnre
from Sudan, while it was still largely for meat and while buffaloes and oll1cr species were available in 1he
ccmre of ll1e 1,ark, the rhinos and elephants in llie south were relatively secure. During the most active
phases of the wars, in early 1997 and late 1998, the poachers were able to penetrate the southern sector, but
at times thal the guards were able to operate more effectively, they were able lo push tltcm back. TI1e most
350 ·
300
250
Q)
lt:=
~200
CJ
150
100
50
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA
Rhino & Giraffe 1983-2003
I 35
I -----·--------···- "j
--- --- ---·- , 30
,.
......... /."' --·-·· ······· !l/\~ -_,t/ . . . :· /\. .... . .......... .
...
.,i
I
I 25
.i
: 20
15
...
•. 10
' ' !
···•·.;···:.:1
I I I I 5
2001 2003
i I I I ! I I I I I
1903 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
- • NWRhinos • Giraffes
0
C
.c: a:::
striking result of recent aerial surveys has been the almost complete lack of large manmmls in the central and
northern sectors of the park . TI1e series of maps of buffalo distribution over time demonstrate this
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
effectively. As these have been the main prey species for meat poaching. all the attraction for poachers for
either meal or rhino horn and ivory is focussed in the southern sector. The pressure is serious. In response
the guards prefer to go on patrol in very large groups, which halves or quarters the cover of the area and
makes them easy to detect. In addition, witlt the key poachers now established close to tlte park in the
Domaine de Chasse, they no longer have to make camps to smoke meat before travelling l 00km back to
Sudan, but can move in and out in a day
Recent patrol reports indicate that tlte trend since May has been to kill elephants for ivory and leave tl1e
meat which also means that many more elephants can be killed in a short space of time. In Jw1e and July
there have been tltrce instances of guards being attacked in their camps, including the new radio relay station
which is at Km 15 the very centre of the southern sector and only 15 km from Nagero, the park head~
quarters. It is urgent that guards receive effective training, back up and leadership. that more young guards
are recruited and trained and that an effective strategy is developed and followed. A rhino and poaching
rcccc survey of the southern sector will be carried out in August.
30000
25000
20000
15000
-10000
Pare National de la Gnrnmba
Lrnqe Mrnrnnal numbers 19D:)-2003
. ---··· ,-, --··· --- --- --·-·--------·· --~---····------· -------·---··-··--·· ----- -----··--· --·-
- ·----n - - ----------
\
_____ \ _
\
-\-----··· ----------------·------- ------------- ------·----·-------- -
_·\,-------- -·--,----·--
___ - ,.'\-- --- -- -· --- - - - . - ------. ~::_:~~-- ~ _- .- -
--D-- -· ------:-:\:,::> --~- ?--:·~· -~--·'-._::-· ·- .,,:-_"_ .: ::::-:_:__:- :_::_: ·--------------- ------------------ ---- ----- · --- --t:r ----
5000 -----~ 0 --------· _r:: _ ·- 0 ·----··· ····-· -
ll. ~=~- -~?."-"..~ ~
'1995 '1998 2000 2002 2003
Elephant -• · Buffalo ---- Giraffe
• Wo.terbuck Hartebeest -a- Warthog
8
-
Buffalo Distribution in Garamba National Park in 1986
2 1
-
[ I TRAIN a E c T I I I · I , 2 3 .. s s , a 9 1 o 1 , 1 2.1 i \ I I I 311 4 1 5!1 8 71 81 9b O 2 1 2 2
16.8
6
2 5 9
2
- - - - -
5
7
5 4
4UI
91.2 3
2 5 3232
16.8 2 2 6
2 2 9
1 0
6 2 304
259 4 4 16.4 103
1 D 6 4 5 6
114 5 7 4 43.8 4
430 6 3 1 114 1
2 6 7 6 1 163
7 3
5
- - -
1 114 1
6 6
3 29.4
6
15.4
9 - - -
•
- - - - - - -
Buffalo distribution in Garamba National Park 1993
3 1
2 0 2
9 101
6 0 2
6 3 0 2
2 6
2 4
137 3
11508 0200 2 251
5 4 6 7 4 0 3
5 a 11 , 3
2 4 0 6 1 8 4
1 55 0
5 0 4 5 2
2 250 1
3 2
4
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Buffalo Distribution in Garambs National Park in 2003
1 O I< I 11 2 J 1 3 I 1 •II 5 ( 1 8 I 1 711 t 11 B 12 0 \ 2 I 12 2 f 2 3 I 2 412 S 12 BI 2 7 ( 2 BI 2 B] l t ( • 3 1 I 3 2 I J 3 I 3 • I JS I J e I l 7 I I I ' I I I \ l
J 1 -3 0 --
T 2 8 --
~ 2. --
A 2 7 -- Ii 2 8 --
S 2 5 --
E 2 4 -- C 2 3 --
T 2 2 --
S 2 1 --
2 0 -
1 B -1 •
B \
1 30
1 3 Ill
100
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elephants
l11e table and graph of elephant nwnbers since 1976 show the precipitous decline between 1976 and l 984,
with a low of about 4,500 and a time lag in increase as such a slow reproducing species. Nwnbers then rose
exponentially, until they had more than doubled with over l l,000 in 1995. Despite the broad confidence
limits inherent in san1ple counting, the difference was significant at the 5% level (anal. of variance, Cochran
in Norton Griffiths l 978). The graph of elephant and buffalo populations, plotted with equally spaced years
and lines of best fit calculated from the regression, show that the actual slopes of decline and increase were
similar. (r-0.18) both were of the order of 10% per annwn. The overall increase in the elephant population
since the project started was largely due to the elimination of most of the commercial poaching of internal
and external origin. However, the pressure frmn the war across the border in Sudan, exacerbated by the civil
war preventing anti~poaching in early 1997 resulted in a loss of some 5,000 elephants between the counts of
1995 and l 998. Since then elephant nwnbers have remained relatively stable to slightly increasing, but the
recent trends arc of considerable concern and the aerial recces and next large mammal survey will be needed
to assess the degree of effect.
Although the elephant population remained largely concentrated in the better protected south of the park. as
their numbers increased, they increasingly used the woody vegetation in the Domaincs de Chasse at night
(Hillman Smith et al 1995 and Nicholas & Amube 1995) often forming into large groups near the periphery
of the park during the day. In 2003 a large aggregation of smne 800 was seen in May, concentrated in long
grass patches during the day and moving out into the Domaine in the evening. However no elephants are
now found north of the Garamba river in their previous concentration areas. It has been shown, from the
results of counts, general observation and from aerial total counts over fire experiment blocks that elephants
and rhinos favour long old grass for cover. During the war periods a management effort has been made to
maintain mosaics of long old grass with patches of short palatable grass. Their distribution favouring these
areas indicates the value of the long grass in helping to protect the more vulnerable species.
Dead to live ratios from carcase counts were relatively low during these surveys compared with the l dead
to 8 live ratio found in 1983 before the project started. During the recce flight in 1997 carcase nwnbers had
been very high, but by the time of the 1998 sample cow1t reported here, many of those carcases had
disappeared and the lack of new ones indicated how the guards were pushing back the poaching. Carcases
disappear extremely quickly. Rainfall is over 1300 mm per year, aiding rapid breakdown and hyena and
vulture densities arc high. Even elephant carcases can sometimes be so scattered as to be unrecognisable
from the air a week after death. The 12% cover of tennitaria clearings and the tendency of animals to use
tl1em and therefore die in them, togctl1cr with the rapid rate of grass growth also makes it difficult to
distinguish all rot patches for as Imig as in cast africa.
Figures for large mrurunal nwubers and biomasses are expressed as pie charts. 11,e biomass contribution of
elephants to the ecosystem is very striking. l11e relative sizes of the populations of elephants and buffaloes
in 1995 were the san1e as those found in l 976 (savidge et al l 976).
An examination of the tree and bush cover from aerial surveys throughout the project reflects both the
overall reduction in mature trees within the park compared with the surrounding domaines and the advancing
bush regeneration in the north and centre of the park, as the elephant have to a large extent been absent from
this area for over twenty years. This is borne out by the 1976 distribution of elephants throughout the park
compared with the present and by reports of guards, who say there used to be mnny elephants in the north of
the park, and that much of the poaching between 1978 and 1984 was done by guards themselves. The
reductioo of woody vegetation is compounded by the effects of fire. The action of the elephants and the hot
fires is to damage smaller trees. The elephants further prevent regeneration from old rootstocks by selection
for these plants. This leads to dominance by rapidly growing coarse perennial grasses (/oudetia anmdinacea
and hyparrhetmia spp.) that grow over 2 metres tall In addition to competing with the woody regrowth
amongst them, they provide a huge combustible biomass for the hot fires that sweep through, further
destroying that year's regrowth of woody plants that might remain. 11,e management activity of maintaining
mosaics of long and old gross is tl1ercfore doubly important
t2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elephant distribution and use of natural woody vegetation in the domaines de chasse was found to be
positively correlated with proximity to their daytime core distribution, and negatively with distance from
human setllcmcot in the dry season. (Hillman smith et al 1995). This showed that they were not moving out
solely to raid crops, though tltis appeared lo be the human perception of the situation. More recent comments
by guards arc .that elephants arc cscnpi11g from the poaching dangers 1n the park!
Rhuw.'i
A sample count is not adequate for accurate estimation of so small a rhino population. The difference
between seeing 2 or 4 means the difference between population estimates of 27 or 53. We have been
monitoring the rhino population through individual recognition over the years, and a rhino total block count
using individual recognition was done in April each year, with further observalions from rcccc flights. A
minimuin of 28 were accounted for in April and on the basis of earlier observations al least 30 were almost
ccrtninly present With the recent poaclting pressure in the southcm sector, however, several may have been
lost.
Rhino numbers increased exponentially before the wars, doubling in eight years. The kI10W11 population
dynamics through the war periods arc given in the table. Throughout the wars the population has remained
relatively stable and over 12 births were recorded However according to the ralc of reproduction aud the
previously demonstrated rate of increase, the population should be over 60 individuals now, double current
numbers. W c cannot be complacent about relative stability and must do all possible lo improve protection
combined with back up lllcasurcs to avoid Joss of this, the most endangered large manunnl sub-species.
Under the JUCN red list categories of endangered species (IUCN/SSC, 1995), they arc classed as critically
endangered by reason of their low numbers.
The rhinos, like the elephants, arc also found only in the south of the park. They arc al an over all density of
0.003/km2, but a local density of 0.03/kni2. Prior to t.hc war, as the population had been expanding and subadults
i11 partkular had been dispersing, there was more movement north of the Garrunba river. Since 1996,
however, most rhinos vcnluring north of the river have been eliminated.
Home ranges for dominant males average 188.6km2 (124-228). For females the mean is 345km2 (185-492).
mul for sub-ailults 534 km2 ( up lo 786). These ranges arc of the order of 100 time larger than those recorded
for southern white rhinos. Their size may be related to the very low dc11sity of rhinos, which places little
restriction on their movement, but may also be related to the dispersal of available food resources at certain
times of the year. The extensiyc movements of t.he animals, however maximise the chances of cucouutcrs
between different iuilividuals for breeding. The ecosystem has bocn shown to be ideal for them as
demonstrated by rate of breeding. However adequate protection and monitoring is essentinl if they arc to
survive.
JJ11ffalo
Buffalo numbers have fallen steadily throughout and the change in their distribution has been significant.
Buffalo arc the most numerous large manun.als, but contribute less than a third of the biomass of elephants.
However buffalo numbers in 19')5 were approximately half what they were in 1976 and arc closer lo one
quarter in 2003. TI1e difference is significant at the 5% level (d"'2.07,anal.of variance, Cochran in Norton
Griffiths 1978). The graph of buffalo nwnbers shows no significant change between 1976 ani.l 1983.
followeil by a gradual decline, which has steepened in recent years. During the period of the project, buffalo
have been the species most poached for meat. This meat poaching increased in 1994, with large, wcll-anned
groups of sudru1esc causing the majority of it. Buffaloes have now been completely eliminated from the
north and central sectors of the park. This insidious offiake over the years, while ilecrcasing a once
cxtmncly numerous population, had a buffering effect on the protection of the more conuncrcially valuable
species, rhinos ru1il elephants. Now, with all species concentrated in the south, all poaching is also
eonccntrnted thcrc.
(;iraffe
This giraffe population is the only one extant in DRC and probably the only representative of the sub-species
(<,imj]a cameloparda/is congoensis). It is classified as endangered by the IUCN red list categories
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(IUCN/SSC 1995). The northern white rhinos and the giraffes were the main reason for the creation of the
park in 1938 and for its world heritage status in 1981.
The population, however is very small and has been decreasing. This estimate in 2003 is only 62 ± 75. The
woody habitat needed by the giraffe is only found in the north of the park or around the peripheries of the
south or in the Domaiues de Chasse, all areas which arc very vulnerable now. A preliminary study showed
their selection for acacias which are very poorly represented in this ecosystem.
GimlTe were not widely poached because the Az.aude believe that eating their meat confers leprosy,
although their tails arc used by local chiefs. However these beliefs are not shared by the Sudanese, who
form the majority of the poachers now.
Hippos
Sa1nple counting is not ideal for hippos, whose distribution tends to be in local concentrations, leading to
large variations in estimates, and for whom correction factors are needed to allow for those underwater.
However the specialised hippo count carried out in 1988 yeilded figures very similar to the preceding san1ple
count. The graph of the results from all the counts shows a gradual trend of increase from 1976 to 1995.
This is borne out by personal observation that the hippos appear to have been increasing, and by reports from
nagero aud farodje of increasing problems of crop-raiding by hippos. If the correction factor calculated in
1988 was applied to the 1995 there would have bceen over 6,000 hippos. However, as figures since the wars
show, hippos were hard hit by the poaching during the 1997 war. 1be aerial survey we carried out in July
I 997 of the southern sector confirms the reality of this, since the Garamba river was full of dead hippos
floating belly up. Clearly when poachers penetrated as far as the river, they fired fairly indescriminantly at
the hippos, but were w1able to recover all the bodies.
The l 998 figures are lower than the subsequent figures. There are possibly at least three contributing factors
to this: Some hippos may have moved out along the rivers during the major killing of 1997, the other two
reasons may be linked to count biases. After training and discussion and practice with photos, I suspect that
observers were making some allowances for the up:dow11 ratio in their own counting or estimating of very
large dense concentrations. 111e third factor is the shift in count transects from north south to cast west.
Transects north south cross the Garan1bn and Dungu rivers at near right angles. However cast west transects,
that are only spaced 2.5 km apart fly along relatively parallel to the river and slight drifls in course could
easily lead to duplicate counting of some of the large groups. We have tried to check for any obvious
duplications here and lo control for observer bias in counting, but a spcific hippo count would give more
precise figures.
Koh
Apart from an apparent high in 1986, kob appear to have followed a similar pattern to other antelope species,
with a decrease between 1976 and 1983, continuation at a similar level, and an increase again in 1993 and
1995 and a decrease then relative stability since the wars. Observer bias may be one factor in their apparent
fluctuations, and it will be important to try to standardise on observers for several years. They arc distributed
mainly in the high density stratwn, but with several in the medium density and even the low. They were also
seen in parts of the domaincs de chasse. Kob tend to show a certain fidelity to areas where the grass is
generally shorter all year round, for exan1plc on the shallow soils near the nauloloko/eleti confluence and at
bac garamba. 111eir social organisation shows large harem groups, smaller, less coherent female and calf
groups, male groups and "leks", with birth peaks in early dry season nnd breeding peaks in early wet.
Hartebeeste
Hartebeestc were 7750 ,, 1470 in 1983, and down to 1932 ± 146 in 1993. They stayed at a similar level until
a major increase in 1993 and 1995. The difference between the 1991 and 1995 figures was significant
(d=4.9, >5%). They were reduced by about half during the first war of 1997, but since then have remained
relatively stable. They tend to be relatively sedentary and their prefered habitat is on ridge tops of the
savanna grassland (hp).
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Waterbu,:k
Wntcrbuck arc widely distributed throughout the park and domaincs, in association with water courses.
TI1ey did not show a major drop duriug the first war, but numbers have shown a steady decline since then.
Reedb1u:k
Rccdbuck arc uot muncrous. Like most of the antelopes they show a decrease from tltc 1976 figures and an
appmcnt, but insignificnnl rise in 1995. Nwnbers are currc1ttly low. They arc fairly cryptic and not easily
seen wilcss they move. TI1eir dislribution was apparentcly towards the south and east of the park, but they
may have been more difficult to sec in the more bushed north and west. Numbers arc undoubtedly an
undercount.
Roa,,
Roan antelope arc represented by a very small population, which was apparentcly lmger in 1976 (3G(h 530).
There used to be group south of mt kpn7.a, near the kasi, but any that remain rue now only found south of lhc
Gara1nba river. A small group usually occupies the region near to source Nauloko each short grass season.
and apart from that scattered observations are made from time to time. .57+- 67 were estimated in 2003, but
this could be on the high side from chance sightings of several individuals.
/JIHhbuc:k
The population estimate for bushbuck is m1doubtcdly lower than the true population. They arc very cryptic.
preferring relatively thick bush 11cor to water courses. TI1e apparent reduction or lack of increase in numbers
iu tbc last l wo couuts may be associated with lower visibility from a cowit later in the year than previously.
From the groun<l, however they are fairly frequently seen and Nicholas (l 995) fom1d that they were the most
m1111cruus sm,1 II ru1tclopc in the Domnincs.
Oribi
Oribi arc also difficult to sec and arc in low numbers and only 58 were estimated in 200J, though this was
higher than the population estimated of two preceding years. TI1cir population estimate will probably always
be lower thrui U1c actual, since they arc small and not easily seen. Verschurcn in 1989 (j>crs.conun) had n
strong impression that oribi had increased since the 1950s, but he conceded that it might have been t11c effect
of more open \'cgetatiou.
D11iker.J
Population estimates for duikcrs will be minimal, since they are small and not easily seen. Grey duikcrs arc
mainly fou11d within the park. but two were seen outside. Their population estimates do not show si g11ificanl
change over time. Red-flanked duikcrs arc found more in the wooded areas to tltc north of the park and in
the drnnaincs. No ycl low~backed duikcrs were seen on this count. but they have prcYiously been seen from
the llir in wooded areas lo the north and in the domaines de clmsse. Figures within the park were appnrcntcly
higher in the 1993 and 1995 counts despite lower visibility overall. This could be associated with the
increasing woo<ly vegetation in the north.
Warthog
The warthog population has shown a rapid decline since 1995. This may be partly due to poaclting but is
probably largely due lo some other factor like disease. Their populations have always fluctuated widely
over the years. One suggestion mooted by guards for tJ1e previous decline was lion predation, but it was
more likely to be ru1 epidemic. Warthog probably go into their burrows to die and carcases would not oficn
be noted.
Lfon ,mtl hyena
Lion and hyeun arc both relalivcly plentiful predators, but arc not easily cmmtcd by aerial sample counts nnd
their population estimates arc dcfinilcly lower than true values.
Monkey.,, habmms a,1d crocm/iles
No reliance is placed on these population estimates that were based on chance sightings. Crocodiles arc very
p lcnti fu l.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other .vpecies
Some species occur only or more commonly in the domaincs or the very north of the park, such as the
chimpanzee (pan troglodytes) , giant forest hog, bushpig, leopard and two of the duikcr species. Otl1er
valuable species, like bongo (tragelaphus euryceros) have been reported only from the domaines de chassc
(nicholas l 995) and a derby's eland was once observed walking through tl1c park from the domaincs. TI1esc
differences are largely due lo habitat differences as can be seen from the vegetation maps. However, tl1cy
add weight lo tl1e fact that the domaines and park support complementary and different habitats and both
need lo be considered to maiotai11 maximwn biodiversity oflhe ecosystem as a whole.
Vegetation
TI1e vegetation maps plotted in 1995 (Hillman Smith et al 1995a) and recorded but not necessarily plotted
every year on tbe counts, show the clear differentiation between tile wooded reserves and the grassland
savanna of lhe south of the park. The southern half of the park is long grass savanna dominated by loudetia
anmdinacea and hyparrhenia species, witl1 scattered hgelia africana and vitex doniana trees. Relict gallery
forest and riverine trees add further to tile sparse tree cover in the soutll. A few areas of sparse tree savanna
usually dominated by crossopteryx febrifi,ga exist. They appear to be relicts of a more wooded savanna in
the past. They arc not favoured by elephants and arc usually on patches of shallow soil, where the effect of
fire 111ay be less due lo reduced grass cover. Crossopteryx has also been found in Lope reserve in Gabon to
be the relict species remaining in Savanna tlml has in tile past been forested (White L. pers.comm). Areas of
regenerating bush in the centre of the park arc usually dominated by piliostigma thoningii, which is
relatively fire resistant. The interactions of elephants and fire as controlling factors in the maintenance of tl1c
open savannas of the park are dsicussed in the section under elephants. Because the count was done at the
early wet season, the greenness factor was high throughout.
Towards the north of the park the ground rises with rocky kopjes and increasing woodland and galerry
forest. Monodominant patches of lophira lanceolata arc noted and other areas domainated by terminalia
mollis, isoberlinia or anogeissus leocarp11s occur. Tiic domaines support a variety of degrees and types of
woodland and tree/bush savanna. In some areas particularly towards the west, these arc interspersed wiili
dense gallery forest along the water courses. In other areas, particularly to the east and in tile north of the
park, many of the rivers are bounded by papyrus swamp or grassy plains. Over 104 tree species were
recorded by nicholas and ndcy (1995) on their ground transects in tile domaines.
In the south of tl1c domaincs de chasse Gangala na Bodio arc limited areas of secondary forest, and u1 areas.
To the east. just outside the domaines, are some conserved forest patches, which indicate the climax type of
vegetation of tile area when protected. Rainfall averages 1400mm per annum. Most of the region, however
shows the effects of human clearing al some stage in the past. In every case where the bush was being
cleared for new agriculture it was in areas of secondary forest or dense tree bush savanna, the most species
rich stage of this habitat type, or in woodland. There is a positive correlation between tree density and human
tree destruction. TI1e people choose these areas because the soil is more fertile in tl1e forest or woodland.
The selection for these regions of highest biodiversity and very limited extent is having a destructive effect
on the reserves. which would be probably be irrecoverable for several hundred years. Agriculture is not
prohibited in the domaines de chasse, but its current method of slash and burn practice is not compatible
with sustainable use of natural resources. A proper crop rotation system and the use of fertilizers, with
prohibition of tree felling in specified areas is nccdcd if tile few remaining forest patches are to be protected
lo maintain plant and animal biodiversity.
Water availability
Water is not a limiting factor anywhere in the park and reserves, but more swface water appears to be
available in the park. In the reserves more ofit is tied up in transpiration through trees.
Human influences
16
...•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Poaching
There was a wi<lespread dislribulion of poaching camps in 1998, but decreasing numbers since then. A few
canips were seen in the north and central sectors on tl1e Inst count, but as noted previously there is less t1cc<l
for poachers to make meat smoking camps now that tllC)' arc based so close to tile remaining wildlife. On
the 2002 cow1t a small group of poachers in military uniform were fowid close to the eastern border of the
p:-uk drying manioc on the rocks, and they fired at the aircraft.
Poaching is currently extremely brazen, but far more difficult to detect The effects of the wars an<l
instabilily has been mosl marked where it led to disanning of the guards and reduction of tl1eir ability to
co111bat the poaching. As the graphs show, the majority of poaching groups arc largely Sudanese and in the
current si luation in the region weapons and ammunition are readily available. It is urgent that really m~jor
crf cctivc lrniuing an<l leadership is given to the guards, with development of a new strategy of anti-poaching
an<l recruitment an<l training of an adequate numbers of guards that can be fully supported and erfcclivc i11
their work. Nu111bcrs alone arc not the answer.
CONCLUSIONS
There was some loss of most species except buffalo between 1976 and 1983. However tile focus of poaching
during 1hat time appellfs to have been for tile commercially valuable elephants aud rhinos. Both species
proddc<l plcnly of meat in addition to the trophies, if it was required. Since 1984 most species increased
with lhe better protcdion, notably the rhinos and elephants, which have shown high rates of increase, and
waithog. whid1 showed a recent spcclaculnr rise prior to 1995. The exceptions arc buffalo and girafc. Both
hm·e dcclinetl steadily. The buffalo population has dropped overall since 1983. probably as a result of meat
poaching. Although carcase ratios and patrol reports show 110w poaching was brought down lo minimal
levels by the combined action of the project and IZCN, prior to 1991, allcr this lime the elfcct of the war in
atijnccnt Sudan hns been tl1c 111ajor influence on loss of animals and of the protected area of the park. The
main dri vc for poachi11g has been for meat and was hitting the buffalo population.
However the reduction in anti-poaching during the first war led lo major wildlife losses in 1997. Since then
major efforts by the gnnrds and by the project personnel, principally in developing the UNF/UNESCO
project to provide both financial and political support and in keeping up supp011 on the ground, has enabled
co11scrwllion work to continue as far as possible and has held many of the populations relatively stable.
However there have been almost complelc losses of wildlife in the northern and central sectors of the pnrk.
The combined effects of this is that all poaching focuses on the soutll, the proximity of well am1cd poachers
to this area rmd Lhc tran<ls towards ivory and rhino horn poaching put the pmk in c"xtrcme danger. that must
be tncklcd by extreme measures, now that peace is 011 the horizon in the DRC.
ll is important for the sake of the park and its wildlife that sufficient resources ru1d political negotiations arc
mobi lis.ed lo slop the trans-border poaching, and that the poaching is tackled on all fronts, including positi\·c
integration of local people in resource conservation. For Lhc sake of faunal and floral biodiversity and for
long term conservation of the ecosystem and its particularly valuable components. it is important tlint the
pmk and reserves arc considered as a whole in an integrated plan backed with the resources to implement it.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Burri! A., K11lhki K & Douglas- Hamilton 1.(1984) Aerocooot, aerial smvey analysis program manual
Typescript
Douglas-Hamilton I. & Hillman A.KK (1981) Elephant carcasses and skeletons as indicators of population trends.
Low I ..eve! Aerial Sruvey Techniques ILC A Monograph, 113· 12 9
Haltenorth Th. & Diller H (1977) Mammifcres d'Afrique et de Madagascar. Delachaux & Niestle.
HIiiman K., Borner M., Mankoto ma Oybenzo<1, Rogen P., Smith F.(1983) Aerial census of the Garamba National
park, Zaire, March 1983
Hillman Smith K. (1989) Ecosystem Resource Inventory, Gammba National park. Internal doctuncnt.
IUCN/WWf/FZS/IZCN
d'Huart J.P. (1978) Ecologie de l'llylochcre (llylochoents meinertzhageni Thomas) au Pare National des
Virunga. L'Academie Roy.des Sci.d'Oulrc-mer. FFRSA
IUCN/SSC (1995) IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN Publication.
Nh:holas A. (1995) A report on U1e results of line transect work undertaken during the dry and wet scas(ms in
U1c Domaincs de Chasse of Gnramba National Park, north eastern Zaire. 2. Large Mammal abw1dancc and
"
2
distribution in the Domaines de Chasse.
& Amuhe N.(1995) A report on U1e results ofline transect work undertaken during the dry and wet seasons
in the Domaines de Chasse of Garnmba National Park, north eastern Zaire. 1. Elephant distribution, density and
feeding preferences in the Domaines de Chasse.
Norton Griffith! M. (1978) Cow1ting aninmls, AWF handbook 1.
Sa,·idge, J.M. Woodford M.11. and Cruze R (1976) Report on a mission to Zaire, PAO W/KI593 KEN/71/526 -
ZAl/70/001
Smith K, Smith F., Mbayma A. Monungu L.,W11tkln J. de Merode E., Amube N. Eza K. (1993)
Garmnha National Park, General Aerial Count 1993 WWF/FZS/IZCN/llJCN/UNESCO Report
Watkin J. ,de M('n1de E. & Hillm11n Smith K (1995) A simple meilio<l for analysis of aerial sample count
<lata using widely available corrunercial software. (In press, Pachy<lcnn)
Western D (1976) An aerial method of monitoring large mammals an<l thcir cnvirorunent. r AO KEN/71/526 Project
Working Document 9.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We arc extremely grateful to the International Rhino foundation (Ilff) for support lo ourselves an<l U1e running costs of
tl1e project, lo Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS) for the aircrafi, lo ZSLJDmwin Foundation for support to KHS, to
USPWS and tho Elcphant ro,m<lation ,for equipment to the UN Folllldalion/UNESCO to for guards' salaries, training
funds and political un<l diplomatic support. and in particular to the lnstitul Congolese pour la Conservation de la Nature
(lCCN) for the the strong partnership to work together to conserve Garamba National Park an<l its ooiquc species.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA
GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENERAL SYSTEMA TIQUE
GENERAL AERIAL SYSTEMATIC SAMPLE COUNT
Calibration Graphs, Distribution Maps and Population Estimate Calculations
May / Mai 1998
tn
.C.l.)
Q)
-E .-c. "C
"§
a.
·-c: en
P.N.G.RECENSEMENT GENERAL 1998
CALIBRATIONS
450.01,--------------------------.,.-----
400.0
350.0
... ... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
300.0 ...... ... ... ... ... ...
...
250.0
Middle slope
200.0 y=1.095.X + 0
...
150.0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Height a.g.1 (feet)
... Middle seat {L+R) - Regression middle
-------------------·
s u B V N T s
2 3 .. 5 8 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 22 23 24 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3e 37
31 PI\RC HA110NAL OE LA Git.RAMEWGAAAMBA NATlONAL P,t,RK 0 0
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL Af:RW. COUNT, w.l 11198 0 0
T 211 ELEPHI\NT&'El..EPH,t,NTS 0 0
R 28 0 0
A. 'IT 0 0
N 28 0 0
s 25 0 0 0
E 24 0 0 0
C 23 0 0 0
T 22 0 0 0
s 21 0 0
20 0 0
19 0 0
18 0
17,t, 0
17 3 10 13
18" !lO 61
18 14 14
15,t, 3 25 20 48
15 'IT 18 6 49
14A 2 4 30 17 17 5 91
14 1 11 16 18 4 ,11 202
13A 2 21 15 11 16 8 88
13 1 10 1 24 15 84
12A 2 4 14 20 1 55
12 15 5 4 31
11A 9 4 33
11 9
10" 32 0 Total
0 Total
0 Tolal
809 Tolal
809 rou
8
5 ..
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
s u B u N T s
2 3 4 s 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
31 PARC NATIONAt OE LA GARAMBNGARAM8A NATIONAL PARK 350 350 350 300 1350 350
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AE RIEN/GENE RAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 1998 300 250 300 350 400 1200 300
T 29 Al TTTUOE OE VOUFL YING AL TTTUOE 350 350 300 300 350 280 1930 322
R 28 300 2BO 310 300 2BO 300 2010 296
A 27 300 300 340 300 300 300 2160 309
N 26 2BO 300 300 300 280 300 300 300 300 2990 299
s 25 340 320 350 2BO 280 300 310 260 250 300 3010 300 301
E 24 260 350 300 300 280 2BO 300 300 350 280 310 3620 910 302
C 23 300 300 300 300 300 300 280 200 270 300 250 300 280 3400 2430 289
T 22 320 300 300 300 300 280 280 300 300 3300 1210 301
s 21 300 300 300 220 300 320 300 310 3350 305
20 350 350 350 320 320 300 300 3640 331
19 350 350 270 250 200 2890 289
18 350 350 370 320 350 3360 336
17A 320 340 350 300 320 3140 349
17 350 360 300 450 340 3280 364
16A 210 280 300 300 300 2650 294
16 320 340 320 300 300 2750 306
15A 300 320 300 350 240 2760 307
15 2BO 300 300 300 2BO 2710 301
14A 280 250 2BO 300 2BO 3520 293
14 300 300 300 280 290 3720 310
13A 300 320 280 350 300 4710 314
13 300 330 250 330 320 4470 319
12A 350 300 300 350 4260 328
12 300 350 300 250 3630 303
11A 330 300 290 2860 318
11 280 300 300 2700 300
10A 300 2330 291
10 0 0 11700 312 To1
23210 23210 4850 302 To'
52B50 0 0 315 To
7 52850 23210 16550 311 TC
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
\ 2 1al ~ u 8 u N T s
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK 0
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 1998 0
T 29 COBS/KOBS 0
R 28 0
A 27 0
N 28 0
s 25 0 0
E 24 0 0
C 23 4 5 0
T 22 0 0
s 2, 0
20 2
19 4 2 6
18 5 4 12
17A 3 19 1 39
17 2 1 3
16A 3 22 1 14 46
16 32 5 30 86 8 10 2 20 196
15A 21 22 45
15 55 59
14A 1 6
14 36 3 4 114
13A 3 10 19
13 6 23
12A 2 15
12 36 50
11A 103
11 64
10A 32
0 0 a Total Nord
15 15 a T atal Cemre
830 a 0 TOia! Sud
830 15 0 TOTAL
6
5
"
3
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
s u B u N T s
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19
___ ,,.31'-jPARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
---=.:30::;RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AER!AL COUNT. MAI 1998
~T _.. :.249 GIRAFE/GlRAFFE
R 26
27
N
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
11A
11
10A
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - -
22 23 24 25 2e 27 26129 30 31 32 33 34 35 36137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 D
0 0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
CJ
0
7
0 0 0 Total Nord
3 3 0 T ctal C..ntr,
13 0 D Total Sud
13 3 0 TOTAL
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
2 3 4 5 e 7 8
s
11
u
12
, PARC NATION.AL OE LA G.AR.AMB.AIGARAMB.A NATION.AL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENER.Al .AERJENIGENER.AL .AERIAL coum, M.AI 1998
8
5
4
3
2
B
13
- -
U N T
14 15 16 17
s
16
-
19 20
- -
i
21 23 j 24
- - - - - - - - -
25 26 27 29 30 31 32 35 36 37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 a
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
a 0 0 Total Nord
0 0 0 Total Cemn,
0 0 Tot,u Sud
0 0 TOTAL
- - - 2 4 I 5 6 7 8 8 ,o 1~
31 PIIRC NATIONAL OE V, GARAMBAfGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
-u
12
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIIIL COUNT, MAI 1996
28 BUBALESIHARTESEESTES
B
13 -U N
14 15 - - - - - T
11! 17 22 23 24 28 28 30 31 - - - 32 33 35 ae 37 -
a
6
0
3
7
15
1
0
0
11
20
0
24
3
1
25
42
7
4
9
2
3
a 0
32 32
153 0
153 32
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
-
2 Total Nord
0 Total Cen1Je
0 Total SUd
2 TOTAL
-
- - - - - - - -
S U 8 U N T S
2 3 • s e 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,s ,e 11 1s
1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMSAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 1998
e
s
3
2
- - - - - -
22 23124 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
- - - - - -
:.l2 33 34 35 38 37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
0
0
1
1
2
0,
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 Total Nord
4 4 0 Total Centnt
9 0 0 Total Slid
9 4 0 TOTAL
8
5
4
3
2
-7 I 8 g
4
4
4
10
4
e
10
2
4
11 1
1 2
7 3
3 8
24 s
4
10
3
s
18
2
6
8
3
5
14
20
11
5
4
3
g
5
6
10
3 4
2
s
4 8
5 4
1
3
1
3
4
6
- 23 30 32 37
2
2
4
2
0
20
8 20
4 19
2 10
24
12
36
58
101
75
l'l9
65
36
19
8
0
29
572
572
-
0
9
3
2
2
13
0
0
29
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
-
0 TDllll Nord
4 TDllll Cent,e
0 Taal Sud
4 TOT,\L
-
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 s 1 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 1e
__ __,,341 PARC NAllONAL DE LA GARAMBAJGARAMBA NATlON>.L PARK
----"30-"iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 1998
_T __ ~29-"'REDUNCA1REDBUCK
R 28
A 27
N 2e
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - -
22 23 24 26 'Zl
2
- - - -
2B 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 0
0 0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0 0 0 Tomi No
9 9 0 Total C.
6 0 0 Total S.
B 9 OTOTAL
- - - - - - -
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 1'4 15 16 17 16
__ __,3:..,..1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK 0
__ __,30~ RECENSEMENT GENERAL A!:RIENIGENE:RAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 1998 0
~T __ ..:29=,COB DE FASSAM'AlERBUCK 0
R 2B 0
A 27 0
N 26 0
s 2S 0 0
E 24 6 0
C 0 4
T 22 0 •
s 21 0
20 D
19 2 2
16 2 2
1711 3
17 35
1611 2
16 1 3 14
1511 6 6
15 0
1411 14
14 14
1311 10
13 0
12.A. 2
12 0
1111 0
11 15
1011 51
0 0 0 Total Ne
6 6 S Total Q!
170 0 0 Total Su
170 a 8 TOTAL
6
5
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S U 8 U N T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 , 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
__ __.,3~1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GAAAM8AIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK 0
__ __::30::,:.iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 1998 0
'"'T __ _,,29::::.iUONIUON 0
R 28 0
A 'V 0
N 26 0
S 25 0 0
E 24 0 0
C 23 0 0
T 22 0 0
s 21 0
20 0
111 0
16 0
17A 0
17 1
16A 0
16 0
15A 6
15 0
14A 0
14 0
13A 0
13 0
12A 0
12 0
11A 0
11 0
10A 0
0 0 0 Total Nor<
0 0 0 Tota!Cen
7 0 D Total SUd
7 0 0 TOTAL
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I I
22 23 I 24 25 26 'Zl 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
S U B U N T s
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
-----=3~1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
__ __,,30~RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENfGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 1998
0
-'T __ ..,,29,e:iCEPI-IALOPHE A FLANC ROUX/RED-FLANKED DUIKER
R 28
0
A 'Zl 0
N 26
0
S 25 0
e 24
0 0
C 23
0 0
T 22 0 0
s 21
0 0
:20 0
19
0
18 0
17A 0
17 0
16A 0
16 0
15A 0
15 0
14A 0
14 0
13A 0
13 0
12A 0
12 0
11A 0
11 0
10A 0
0
0 0 1 Total No1
0 0 0 Total C.•
7
0 0 0 Total SU<
6 0 0 1 TOTAL
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
s u 8 U N T S
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
___ .;::.31.:.JPARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
___ .;::.30"-"RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 1998
-"T_ __ :::.29:e.,CAMPEMENTS BRACONNIERS/POACHINC CAMPS
..:.Ro_ __.:,28"-"0 = Occupe, R = Recent, A = Ancien
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
1 - - - - - - - -
A A
0
A
R
-
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
A
A
A
A
A
RA
R
A A
- -
R
- - - - - -
u B u N
2 3 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 18
PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBNGARAMBA NA TlONAL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT. MAI 1 ll98
BUFFLESIBUFFALOS
}~t - 22 23124 25 31 32 33 3,4 35 - - - - - 36 37
0 0
0 0
a a
a 0
0 0
a 0
0 0 0
0 a 0
0 a a
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3
23
43
91
141
77
22
95
98
133
82
92
90
29
1
8
0 0 o Total Nord
0 0 Total Cenlr<
1028 Total Sud
1028 0 0 1028 TOTAL
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 l! 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
--~31~PARC NATlONAL ~ LA GARAMBAIGARAMSA NATIONAL PARK
__ _,::30::::iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, Ml\11998
_T _ ~29"'ANTILOPE ROUANEIROA.N ANTELOPE
.B..__jl!
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
1g
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
6
5
4
3
2
lowD
Med D
High D 0 0 0
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - -
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
- -
22
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0
- -
23 24 26 27 26 2Q 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 D
D D
0 D
0 D
0 D
D 0
0 0 D
0 0 D
0 D 0
D D 0
D D
D 0
D 0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
D
0 0 D Total I
0 D Totaf I
Total:
D D 1 TOTA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - -
Si:,ii15a:.:;:::,
~t/15\;,f:
l~'..{?148:\~\.:::.
'.Z~\fi?13.-)J-f;··
,1°:,t12af'/t
1if:~~1~~
%[1{f1 t\~;,~;
J\t::1oa"',t:t
18.40
17.19
17.96
14.51
15.06
15.11
14.84
19.27
20.37
25.79
24.47
23.32
19.87
15.66
14.78
12.76
15.0
16.48
19.82
18.62
18.07
18.34
19.93
15.82
2.4
6.57 .
10.57
11.33
11.83
16.37
1.64
4.98
13.30
6.62
12.4
6.57
10.57
11.33
11.83
16.37
18.12
24.80
31.92
24.69
18.34
19.93
15.82
R=oy/oz
Vary
54.7
0.0
4.3
-3.1
GIRAFES
Pop.est(Y) 98.3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0.0
1.3
-0.8
46.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
..... <,'{ :._(/:"; <:~ :: '. O' :_: '~-t'.\:i!PJ'f>RPY~E~ _;:. :t};/... . ..
TOTAL- HfGHST MIO MTfl .LOW NTH TOJ.NTti "TOTAL
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
3 0 0
0 0 0
0.0
0.7
0.5
43.4
STRAT.
0
0
4
1
0
11
4
18
10
1
2
28
7
8
7
3
1538.0
1996.4
0.0
0.0
0.4 0.0
57.5 0.0
TOTAL 7.7 0.0
HIPPOPOTHAMES
144.3 786.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ERR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
STRAT.
TOTAL
786.2
405.3
51.6 ---------------- - - -
__ __,,3;.:.i1 PARC N.t.TIONAI. DE LA GARAMBA/G.t.RAMBA NATIONAL PARK
----::30c::.iRECENSEMENT GENERAL .t.ERIENIGENERAJ. AERIAL COUNT. MAI 1998
T 29 HYENEIHYENA
R 28
" 27
N 26
s 2S
E 24
C Zl
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
17A
17
161\
16
151\
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
- - - - - - - -
T S
16 17 16
-
2
-
22 Zl 24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 Total Nord
0 0 0 Total C..nt
3 0 OTotalSud
3 0 0 TOTAL
- - - - - - - - - -
,~S:i:28 ,;;.:;
\,F:;i27 '\'./
~~i~~~f]~'.]
;i{:~{24:>.);~;
Xl:'t'.t:23 ::{\\,
E~~ 18.40
17.19
17.96
14.51
15.06
15.11
14.84
19.27
20.37
25.79
24.47
23.32
19.87
15.66
14.78
12.76
15.0
~·~t~\J~:~b~Ji;;~ ij~ s:: -~io-~TH ~g:es 0~{~81o;J '~iott-s/-~,o"~il.1R~~ :--. ciff fi?J
16.48
19.82
18.62
18.07
18.34
19.93
15.82
2.4
6.57
10.57
11.33
11.83
16.37
1.64
4.98
13.30
6.62
12.4
6.57
10.57
11.33
11.83
16.37
18.12
24.80
31.92
24.69
18.34
19.93
15.82
R=oy/oz
Vary
54.7
Pop.est.(Y)
12
39
3
46
198
45
59
8
114
19
23
15
50
103
64
32
2.9
2523.2
~8.1
0
0
5
0
0
2
8
0.1
10.1
-11.6
COBES DE THOMAS
6275 230
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 9 0 9
5 3 2 5
0 2 2 4
0 2 2
2 13 13
8 0 0
0
20
20
19
10
24
12
36
58
101
75
69
65
36
19
8
33174.0 267.0
11832.8 566.1
0.1 2.0 0.2
6.3 848.3 24.5
STRAT.
4.9 TOTAL 99.2 -9.6
PHACOCHERES
217 6505 4324 445
a.a
a.a
0.0
a.a
0.0
0
0
ERR
295.0
777.3
0.2
17.6
16.2
478
STRAT.
TOTAL
4769
---------------- - -
- -
f)t,27<:,),>
26 ;'.,
i~:~;!~L:.
s,j\23J .. ;.
b?·'22'fJ.
i\,:;i.21-•;·?.,,
,.p:::2flc<· ;;
%~~:;.19:'\\
\i-,l,]8; ;
%'-)f '31 a< ~
,:,f.~"17":';
c;}~16a/,
:\:L:16> ·
,jf{-:1.Sa-·
>-:/-15.:··
,f;'f,.c14a; ... ·
t:?···44_·, ..... ·
~~?13a,.·,
C/,·13:., ......
,';:12a .. ·
~,t,12:i;
h~=:11a;:
('\,11,'.·,e,
ii·'<,10a ·
t:c '· a t?g~?qu
":;{t~~ '\\· ·.
- -
16.48
19.82
18.62
18.07
18.34
19.93
15.82
18.40
17.19
17.96
14.51
15.06
15.11
14.84
19.27
20.37
25.79
24.47
23.32
19.87
15.66
14.78
12.76
2 .4
5457.7
15.0 2.4
- -
6.57 6.57
10.57 10.57
11.33 11.33
11.83 11.83
16.37 16.37
1.64 18.12
4.98 24.80
13.30 31.92
6.62 24.69
18.34
19.93
15.82
0
0
13
61
14
48
49
91
202
88
84
55
31
33
8
0
1 .
4301.7 77815.0
Sum (Z"y) 15508.4
R=Sy/Sz 2.7
Vary 2672.1
12.4 54.7
97. 1
ELEPHANTS
Pop.est.(Y) 5,874
95% C.Las 0 - - - -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
STRAT.
0.0 TOTAL
0 5,874
-
_;Jtij~~~ifij:~r~i~g~ij£~~~¥s¥~K~
1
3
23
43
91
141
77
22
95
98
133
82
92
90
29
1
8
97474.0
19924.7
3.6
2095.0
88.9
BUFFLES
1,n2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
ERR
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0 0
0.0
ERR ERR
STRAT.
TOTAL
7,772
- - - -
-
?'?iii-::': ~<;.,,g O O O 0
j~lg30),)l 6.57 6.57 0 0 O O
~-\t'.29:<';) 10.57 10.57 0 0 O 0
:,;pc¥.i'28. :,'.:', 11.33 11.33 0 0 0 0
~1J0::27-:. ·; 11.83 11.83 0 0 O 0
Ctt2& .. i ::l 16.37 16.37 0 0 0 0
·t:rw;2s,._<· 16.48 1.64 18.12 o o o o o o
},;;\i:,tf24J:<' 19.82 4.98 24.80 0 0 0 O O O
~f{f23{·/:': 18.62 13.30 31.92 0 0 0 0 0 0
;~*1r22·,s:.::t1 18.07 6.62 24.69 o o o 3 o 3
i".{~121(:}< 18.34 18.34 0 0 0 0
- -
18.40
17.19
17.96
14.51
15.06
15.11
14.84
19.27
20.37
25.79
24.47
23.32
19.87
15.66
14.78
12.76
19.93 19.93 0 0 1 1
15.82 15.82 0 0 O 0
0 1
0 1
0 2
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5457.7 2321.3 745.7 4301.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 10.0 0.0 10.0
15.0 2.4 12.4
- - -
Sum (Z*y} 23.3 0.0
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0
Vary 0.1 0.0
54.7
0.3 0.0
ANTI OPPE ROANNE
Pop.est.(Y)
95% C.L.
95% C.L.as 0 - -
8
14
187 -
0
0
ERR -
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
ERR -
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
ERR -
STRAT.
TOTAL
8
179.4 74.1 0.0 94.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.4 1.3 0.0 0.7
1.1 -2.1 0.0 1.9
GUIB HARNACHE
68 61 0 58
STRAT.
TOTAL
187
18.40
17.19
17.96
14.51
15.06
15.11
14.84
19.27
20.37
25.79
24.47
23.32
19.87
15.66
14.78
12.76
15.0
16.48
19.82
18.62
18.07
18.34
19.93
15.82
2.4
R=oytoz
Vary
12.4 54.7
Pop.est.M
1
0
0
11
20
0
24
3
1
26
42
7
4
9
2
3
0.5
149.6
19.8
BUBALES
1,156.7
1
0
6
0
3
7
15
0.3
29.0
-23.5
491.0
0.0
0.7
2.2
37.5
0.2
19.6
STRAT.
5.2 TOTAL
492.0 1,685.2
0
6
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
35
2
14
8
o
14
8
10
0
2
0
0
15
51
4692.0 40.0 0.0 72.0
2687.2 150.6 0.0 406.9
0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1
200.7 5.1 0.0 4.4
STRAT.
-18.6 -3.8 0.0 10.6 TOTAL
WATERBUCK
1,239.8 122.8 0.0 231.5 1,362.6
------- ------- ------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA
GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENERAL SYSTEMA TIQUE
GENERAL AERIAL SYSTEMATIC SAMPLE COUNT
Calibration Graphs, Distribution Maps and Population Estimate Calculations
June/ Juin 2000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
600
-(/)
Q)
.'..-.
a> 500
-E I
I-
0
s
a.. 400
a::
I-
(I)
0 w z
CD 300
~
0 u
200
200
•
....
....
250
Pare National de la Garamba
SURVEY JUNE 2000- CALIBRATIONS
•• • t •
• t •
.... • .... •
• •
300 350 400
HEIGHT (Feet a.g.1.)
•
450 500
-
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
s
11
--~3.1. .. .. PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
B
13
___ 30__,RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT. JUIN 2000
-~T_ _29 _,SUPERFICIE ECHANTILLONNEE / SAMPLING AREA
R 28
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
LowD
MedD
High D 4.58 7.88 7.5 16.5 18
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.58 7.88 7.5 16.5 18 - - - - - - -
u
14
16.3
1.94
18.2
N
15
4.09
29.3
2.53
35.9 -
16
T
17
s
18 19 22 23 25 26 I 21 28 I 29 I 30 31 ! 32 I 33 ! 34 I 35 I 36
1.92 1.92 1.92
2.26 1.92 1.92
1.92 1.94 1.92 2.85 1.92 1.83
2 1.92 1.92 1.89 1.92 1.86
1.92 1.92 1.92 1.94 1.92 1.94
1m1m1~1m1~1m1~1m1m1~
1.97 1.94 1.97 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.97 1.94 1.89 2.53 2.19..._ _ __,
1.75 1.92 1.89 1.83 1.64 1.92 1.72 1.92 1.7 1.78 1.89 1.89 2.85 1.87 1.94
1.92 1.92 1.78 1.92 1.86 1.94 1.94 2 2.14 1.92
1fil 1~1~1fil 1$1~1$1~1~
1.94 1.89 1 .92 1 .92 1 .92 1.83 1.92 1.97
1.97 1.92 1.94 5.8 11.9 11.5 11.4
11.1 11.3 13.3 13.4 13.2 13.3 13.9 13.7 14.2
28.9 30.9 31.4 31.6 29.8 25.2 26.1 20.4 1.78
1.92 0 0 0 1.59 0 0 2.33 0
41.9 42.3 46.6 46.9 46.5 44.3 51.8 48 27.4
11.1
11.3
0
22.5 - - - - -
7.62 7.42
9.84 8.54
0 0
17.5 16 -
1.97 1.92
1.83
8.95 5.75 5.69 3.75
0 0 0 0
8.95 5.75 5.69 3.75 - - 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 - -
37
0
0 -
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
$ 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
7
6
5
4
3
2
LowO
Me<J D
HighD
Dorn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
Total o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - -
9
$
10 11
U B U N
12 13 14 15
I T S
16 17 18 19 20 21
360 350 355 350
~i@ii; 360 355 360 350
320 350 345 335 300 350
350 350 325 350 340 355
350 335 345 350 360 340
345 350 350 350 335
335 340 345 350 355
325 355 360 355 345 340
345 350 355 330 345 350
350 350 325 345 325 340
350 355 350 330 360 355
365 360 355 350 355 350
355 350 355 355 375 325
370 350 350 355 350 330
365 345 350 355 335 360
340 340 350 350 350 370
355 345 315 350 355 350
335 360 365 345 360 345
350 350 380 365 330 355
330 355 340 330 350 355
350 350 355 360
365 355 345
320 350
370 350
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
340 330 340 350 330 325
350 350 360 355 345 375 400
315 350 310 325 345 345 380 330 355
355 365 390 350 350 370 365 360 360 350
360 345 345 330
350 360 360
350 340
360 350 355 1060 2125 2085 2090 1805 1380 1355 1495 1040 1040 685
705 2020 2070 2425 2440 2405 2425 2455 2510 2505 2060 1755 1430
795 1415 1370 2995 3240 2835 5220 5225 5605 5590 5595 5305 4545 4620 3560 325
o o o o o 355 375 350 o o o 290 o o 425 o o o o o o o o
795 1415 1370 2995 3240 3190 6300 7595 7675 8375 8385 8355 8030 9200 8580 4920 3865 3135 2785 1495 1040 1040 685
- - - - - - - - - - -
32 33 34 35 36 37
o
0
0
0 -
o
0
0
0 -
0
0
0
0
-
s u
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
B
13
__., ;:;3-'-i1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
---"'30-=-tRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL. COUNT, JUIN 2000
T 29 ELEPHANTS
R 28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
3
1 9
5 4
15 24
LawD
MedD
High D 0 5 82 21 45
Dom 0 0 ·O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 82 21 45 - - - - - - - -
u
14
24
3
12
11
50
0
50
N
15
15
2
13
3
5
0
38
0
38 -
I
16
40
9
13
1
6
4
0
81
0
81
T
17
14
1
29
10
41
17
1
1
25
0
165
0
165 -
s
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
3 22
47 1
9
6 16 27 7 6
18 50
15 20 4 23
7 7 10 4
13 4 2
27
5
6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105 85 116 82 65 5 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 85 118 82 65 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - -
-
s u
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
----=3..:.i1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
----=30!!JRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
_.:..T_~29~BUFFLES18UFFALOES
--.:R:...:._--=2!!i6 COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
LowO
Mede
High D
Dom 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 - - - ERR 33 ERR 292
0 a 0 0 0 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 0 a 0 0 ERR 33 ERR 292 - - - -
u
14
202
N
15
20
103
0 ERR
202 ERR -
I
16
60
15
T
17
2
153
81
12
s
18
27
10
4
2
1
19 20 21
50
2 10
250 3 71
1 17
60 5
2 2
270 218 4
2 61 1 2
5 5
0 0 a
0 a 0 0 0 0
350 255 105 584 81 96
0 0 0 0 0 0
350 255 105 584 81 96 - - -
22 I 23 I 24 25
1
4
a a 0 0 0 0
0 a a a 0 0
5 0 0 0
0 0 0 a 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 a - - -
28 I 29 I :io 31
0
0
a
0
0
0 -
0
a
0
a
0
0 -
32 I 33
0
0
0
0
0 -
34
0
0
0
0 - 0
a
C
C -
s U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 8 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
__ ____,,3"-11 PARC NATIONAL DE lA GARAMBNGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
--~30..,RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, ~2000
_T _ --"2c.c.i9 DENSITE D'ELEPHANTS/ELEPHANTS DENSITY
R 28
_A _ ~2ZJ
N
s
E
C
T
s
I
26'
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
9
8
6
5
4
3 -1
LowD
Med D
High D
Dom
Total
0
0 - -
0 0 0 a 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -
0 31 5 111
0 2.69 0 a
0 2.69 31 5 111 - -
7 36 a 56
2.87 051
14 7
4.64 5 22 8.23
0
0 0 0 0
23 1 24 10 2 25 7 88.1 56 7 36 6
0 0 9 42 0 0 0 0
23 1 24 19.6 25 7 88.1 56 7 36.6 - - -
22 23
1 61 11.6
24 2 0 53
47
1.67 3.93 3.87
26.9
2.29 12.9
1 77
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 4 431 351 1.98 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 47 4 43.1 351 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a - - - - - - - - - -
-
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
s
11
u
12
B
13
____3-- 11 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
------"3~0 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
_..;.T_---=-29::.iCOBE DE THOMASIKOB
_R_----"2~8 COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
4
3
2
LowD
MedO
High D
Dom 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 ERR 35
0. 0 0 0 ERR 0 ERR 0
0 0 0 0 ERR 0 ERR 35 - - - -
u
14
15
0
15 -
N
15
3
31
35
5
2
2
10
70
80
16
13
1
0
157
0
157
T
17
2
0
93
0
93 -
s
18
22
114
5
0
199
0
199
19
0
0
195
0
195 -
20 21
39
8
0 0
0 0
106 60
0 0
106 60 -
22 23 I 24 I 25 ! 26 27
2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 32 29 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 32 29 0 0 0 - - -
28 29 I 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10
s
11
u
12
B
13
___ ::<_31-'-IPARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBNGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
___ .::,:3D"'RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
~T _ -=:29"-JOENSITE OES BUFFlESIBUFFALOES DENSITY
R 28
A 27i
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A1
16
15A
15
:
10A
LOWD
Med D
HlghO
Dom 0 a 0 0 a a a a Total a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 - - - - -
0
a 17.7
a 17.7 -
0
0
D
522
15 2 0 57
31.8
47.1 52.8
53.5 a
101 52.6 -
u
14
N
15 16 22 23 24
1 59
052
265
14 9 051
5 15 1 44 5 15
266 144
053 81 6 287
129 1 57 38 2 0 54
0 51 8 63 2 25
ssa 435 144
058
6 26
31 3
1 59
145 117
1 44 31 4 0 52
35 4 0 79 2 52 2 57
0
0 0 0 0
35.4 079 182 137 56.3 307 a 2.12 0 0 a a
35.4 291 182 137 56.3 307 - - -
D
D
39.4
a
39 4
2 69
0 51
a
0
511
0
51 1 -
D
D
2.79
D
2.79
0
a
0
0
0 -
26 27 28 :29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 a a 0 0 a a 0 0
0 0 0 a
0 a
0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -
-
2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10
s
11
u
12
B
13
--1!j PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
~RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JU1N 2000
~RHINOCEROS I RHINOS
COMPTAGE OtRECT
~
N 26
~
E 24
~
.r.....____n_
s 21
Lowe
MedO
HtghO 0 ERR ERR
Dom 0 0 0 0 ·o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 ERR ERR - - - - - - - 0
0
0
u
14
N
15
0 ERR
0 0
0 ERR -
I
16
0
0
0
0
T
17
-
0
0
0
0
s
18
0
0
0
0 -
0 0
a 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 -
22 23 I 24 ! 25 26 27
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 a - - -
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 I 35 I 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
s
11
__ ___.3'--'-'1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBIVGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
__ .....,30:.::., RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
_T _ -=29.c.iDENSITE DES COBES I KOBS DENSITY
T 22
$ 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
7
6
5
4
I
I
~
LowD
MedD
High D 0 0 5.92
Dom a 0 a a 0 0 0 a 0.43 a a 054
Total a 0 0 a a 0 a 0 043 a 0 6.45 - - - - - - -
B
13
7.93
0
7.93
u
14
5.74
0
5.74
N
15
0.53
1.59
16.4
18.5
2.69
1.74
1.3
27.2
37 1
64.3 -
16
655
0.54
0
18.3
0
18.3
T
17
1.44
2.58
9.13
0
13.2
0
13.2 -
s
18
11.3
58.7
2.69
0
72.7
0
72.7
0.54
16.2
3 55
0
0
25.5
0
25.5 -
21.9
4.5
0 0
a 0
282 4.5
0 0
28.2 H -
0.55
1.94
0 0 a a a
0 0 0 0 0
2.49 15 a 0
0 0 0 0 a
2.49 15 a 0 0 - -
29 30 31 32 35 36 37
0 a 0 0 a 0
0
0 a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a a 0 a a a a a a a a - - - - - - -
- -
Pare National de la Garamba
SURVOL SECTEt'R RHINO
Avril/April 2000
0
D
4 6 8 10 12
Kilorneters
Site PM/WH Site
Rivers/rivieres
Roads / pistes
Rhinos femelles
Rhinos males
Carcasses elephants
r r
___ .. ,! ...
.. --·-~
+
.i ,,._-_, .
())
:J
,J ...
.--.,....-.
',_,-T•
·.. +·
·~·~. +
'• .. ~. +
+
."·
C:
+
'·,.-.
.-....... ".- ..
.. ~ r,
. '
-
s
2 I 3 I ~ I 5 I s l 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 11,
u
12
~ PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAiGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
----22)RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT. JUIN 2000
T 291 DENSITE DES RHINOS I RHINO DENSITY
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 251
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
UA
14
13AI
131
12A:
12
11A
11
10A
~
.5_
!
1
__2 ,
LowD
MedO
HlghD
Oom a a 0 a 0 0 0 a a 0 a 0 0 a Total 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - -
a
13
a
a
0
u
14
0
a
a -
N
15
a
0
a
16
0
0
a
a
T
17
0
0
0
a -
s
18 19 I 20 I 21
0 a a
a 0 a a
a C a 1.59 a C a a
a C a 1.59 - -
22
a
0
a
0
0
23 24 25 26
a 0 a a
a 0 a 0
0 a a
a 0 a a
0 a 0 a - -
27 28 29 I 30 31 32 331~ 35 I 36 37
a a 0 0 0 0 a
a a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0
0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 - - - - - - -
s
2 3 4 ~ 8 7 8 9 10 11
__ ___,,3~1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMB.AJGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
__ _..,30"'lRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAJ.. AERIAL COUNT. JUIN 2000
_T _ -=29""IDENS1TE DES HIPPOS/ HIPPOS DENSITY
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
\SA
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
\2A.
12
7
6
5
4
3
2
LOWD
Med D
HlghD
Dom 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - -
B
13
0
0
0
u
14
0
0
0 -
N
15
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
T
17
-
0
0
0
0
s
18 19 20 21
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 4.98 326
0 0 0 0
0 0 4.98 32.6 - -
22
0
0
0
0
0
23 26 27 28
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1.81 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
\.81 0 0 0 0 0 - - -
29 30 3\ 32 33 34 37
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 - - - - - -
-
s
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-----.c.3~1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
B
13
----=30~ RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERlEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
T 29 HIPPOPOT AMES/ HIPPOS
R 28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
LowD
MedD
HlghD
Dom 0
0 ERR ERR 63
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·4 0
Total 0 0 0 0 o· 0 0 0 0 D ERR ERR 63 - - - - - - -
u
14
N
15
0 ERR
0 0
0 ERR -
I
16
0
7
0
7
T
17
0
8
0
6 -
s
18
0
9
0
9
0
0
31
0
31 -
0 0
0 0
23 27
0 0
23 27 -
22 23 I 24 25 26 27
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
7 D 1 0 0 0 - - -
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 D 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D 0 - - - - -
s u B u N T s
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 331 ~ 35 36 37
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBNGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERA!. AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT. JUIN 2000
T 29 OENSITE OES BUBALES I HARTEBEEST OENSITY
R 28
D55
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
1.44
T 22
s 21
20
0.51
19
18,
17A 1.51
17 3.13
16A
16 0.52
15A
15 154 1.57
1~ 0.55 4.57
14 645 1 57
13A 5.29 2.9 9.39
13 252 6.83 2.29 3.76
12A 2.87 4.33 4.28
12 2.69
11A 1.44
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
LowO
MedO 0 0 0 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HighQ 0 0 0 1.44 0 0.51 0 0 0 1.8 053 0 0 0 0 3.13 0 4.89 0 163 11 14.3 8.69 20.8 4.05 0 0 0 Oom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.15 0 0 0 3.13 0 5.44 0 16.3 11 15.6 0 0 869 21.3 4.6 0 0 1.8 0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
s u
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
B
13
__ ____::c3-'-'1 PARC NATIONAL DE lA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
--~30~RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
~~T~-2~9~BUBALES1HARTEBEESTS
_R_~28c..iCOMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
17A
17
16A
Lowe
MedO
High D
Dom D 0 0 0 0
Total D D 0 0 0
0
0 - - - - 0 ERR ERR 6
0 0 5 0 0 0 0
0 0 5 0 ERR ERR 8 - - -
u
14
N
15
0 ERR
0 1
0 ERR -
I
16
0
9
0
9 -
T
17
8
12
10
2
0
30
0
30
s
18 19 20 21 22 I 23 ! 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
2
2
3
3 3
1 9
3
5 18
5 13 4 7
8 8 8
5 4
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0
53 50 43 55 8 D 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 53 52 43 56 9 0 0 2 1 0 D D D 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 - - - - - - - - - -
2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10
s
11
u
12
___ .::.31'-IPAAC NATIONAL DE tA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
----=30~RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
_T _ ~29"-' DENSITE DES GUIBS HAANACHES I BUSHBUCK DENSITY
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
3
2
LowD
Med D
High D
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o - - - - - -
0 D 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 -
B
13
o
o
0
u
14
0
0
0 -
N
15
0
0 44
044
T
16 17
0
0
0
0 -
0
0
0
0
s
18
0.57
o
o
0
0
0.52
0
0.52
0
0
052 -
0 54
o 55
o o
0 0.54
0.55 0
0 0
0 55 0.54 -
24
0.53
D 0.52 0
0 0 0
053 0 0
0 0 D
0.53 0.52 0 -
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0.55
0 0 0 D55 0 0 o 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 - - - - - - - •
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10
s
11
u
12
B
13
__.. .....;;3""-11 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
---=30=-iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUlN 2000
_T~......a;2.a.i9 GUIB HARNACHES I BUSHBUCK
--'R..;;..__-=2=-i8 COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
S 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Lowe
MedO
HlghO
Dom 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 - - - - - 0 ERR ERR
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ERR ERR - - -0
0
0
u
14
N
15
0 ERR
0 1
0 ERR -
18
0
2
0
2
T
17
-0
0
0
0
s
18
0
0
0
0
19
-
0
1
0
0
1
20 21
0 0
0 1
1 1
0 0
1 2 -
24 25
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 - -
28 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - •
1~ u B u N T s
2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3.6 37
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAJGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
T 29 DENSITE DES REDUNCA/ REEDBVCK DENSITY
R 28
A 'E
N 26
0.54 s 25
E 24
0.52
C 23
0.57
T 22
s 21
0 52
20
1 «
19
18
17A 0 55
17
16A
16
15A 051
15
14A 1 59
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
LowD
Mad D 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 High D 0 1 « 0.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 051 0 0 055 0 0 0 Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 59 0 0 0 051 0 52 0 198 052 0.54 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 D: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S U 8 U N I T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
__ -...:::3.:..J1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
----=30~RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
T 29 REDUNCA/REEDBUCK
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
LowD
MedD
HighD 0 ERR ERR
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR ERR
- - - - - - - -
2
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 ERR 2 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ERR 2 0 0 1 2 0
- - - -
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - -
s
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11
----"3'-'--11 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBNGARAMBA NA TIONAI. PARK
u
12
__.. ......::30c::J RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 20C10
~T _ _,,29e:.J DENSITE DES OURIBI I ORIBl DENSITY
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A.
15
14A
14 1.74 13.A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
LowD
MedD
High D 0 0 1 74
Dom 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 74 - - - - - - -
B
13
0
0
0
u
14
-
0
0
0
N
15
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0 -
T
17
0
0
0
0
s
18
0
0
0
0 -
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
1.15
1.15
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1.15 1.15 0 0 0 a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oo
00
00
oo
00
00
00
00
00
OOO
m m ;:c ;o
;l;I O ;o
m m
;l;I ;o
;i;io;:c
OOO
OOO
m m
;l;I ;o
;o O ;l;I
0000
0000
0000
00000
l\.]Qf,.,)00
AOAOO
00000
00000
00000
00000
oo 00
00 00
00 0
00 a
00 0
00 0
00 0
00
00
00
00
00
.j. ................................. ...... ..... ~WA~G~m~o~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~mm
mGOOOOOOOOONONOOONOO
0 0 a
a a
a, a a
-1-1-1-1
91HHr
a
a
oo ~ o m oo z > ;:c ~
0 a 0
a 0
a 0 a
,".'
a
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
""' ~ ~ 0
C
;:c
le
0 i
a a a
0 a a
!!'l
;:c
m
0
~ m ;::
~
·Gl mz
m
~
)>
m
;l;I
ffi
~ mz
!ll )> .--
)>
m
;l;I ;.-;-
§
-~
'C- z
~
a
a
~
"ll
)>
;:c
0
z
)>
:t
0 z
.)->-
0
m
i;
G)
)>
;o
)>
;::
~ :,,.
~ ;::
CD
)>
z
~
0 z .:,-,-.
"ll
)>
;l;I
;,;:
a
a
"'
"'
"'
0
,".'
s
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11
--~3~1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAJGAAAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
--~30.c..i RECENSE~ENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT. JUIN 2000
~T __ ~29cc.;DENS1TE DES WATERBUCK I WATERBUCK DENSITY
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
7
6
5
4
3
2
LowD
Med D
High D
Dom 0 0
0 0 5 99
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0.54
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0.43 0 D 6 53
- - - - - - -
B
13
2 44
0
2.44
u
14
054
0
0.54
-
N
15
1.59
21.2
1.71
28.3
30
16
3 42
2.69
3.42
391
0
7 33
T
17
1.57
0
328
0
3 28
-
s
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
1.59
161
0.53
053
1.66 3 55
0.53
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 159 0 1.61 0 1.74 0 0.51 0 0
0 4.16 5.52 0 5.11 2.63 0.56 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.75 5.52 1 61 5.11 4.37 0 56 0.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
s u
2 3 .C 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12
B
13
----=3-'-11 PARC NATIONAL DE lA GARAMBAIGAR.AMBA NATIONAL PARK
----=30.=.. RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
T 29 COBE OEFASSA/WATERBUCK
R 28
A 27
N 28
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
7
6
5
4
3
2
L0',\10
MedO
High 0
Dom 0 0 0 0
0 ERR ERR
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 ERR ERR - - - - - - - -
3
5
0
5
u
14
N
15
4
3
2
40
1 ERR
·o 53
1 ERR -
16
8
5
6
55
0
61
T
17
3
0
13
0
13 -
s
18 19 20 21 22 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
2 2
3
1
3 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0
8 9 19 10 9 6 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 11 19
0 0 0 0 0 13 g 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - •
2 3 4 5 6
s
11
u
12
__ _..,,3'-'j1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
--~30-.c, RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
~T __ -=29cc, DENSITE DES PHACOCHERES / WARTHOG DENSITY
R 26
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12 1 44
B
13
u
14
11A 5 11 0 52
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
LowD
Med D
High D
Dom
0 0 1.44 0.52 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.44 0.52 0
- - - - - - - -
N
15
56
1.94
7.74
16
T
17
212
s
16
417
0.53 2.44
22
0.52
13 0.54
0.51 1.66
056 O 53
0.54 1.54
115 13 3 27
23
04 464 0.51
2.67 1.8 3.76
1 61 0 53 1 52
114 3 41
25 9.33
0 0
3 64 12.7
-
0 69 0.36
3.62
2.52
214
, 54
4.17 0 0 0
0.53 0 2 44 054 0.52
159 592 7.41 5.75 16.4
0 0 0 0 0
165 10.1 985 6.26 16.9
0
0
4.17
0
4.17 - - -
24
0.54
0.54
0
D
0
054
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 - - - - - - - •
T
R
A
N
s
E
C
T
s
LowD
MedD
HighD
Dom 0 0 0 0 0
Ta1al 0 0 a 0 0
- - - -
0 0 a 0
0 0 0 0
- -
u
12
0 ERR ERR
0 0 0
0 ERR ERR
B
13
1
a
1
- -
u
14
0
0
0
N
15
ERR
2
ERR
-
I T
16 17
2
2
2
15
0
17
. :·~·. :·..:: :·
4
2
2
6
20
0
26
-
s
18
2
5
3
1
47
0
48
19
3
6
0
40
0
48
-
20 21 22 23 I 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 I 37
4
3
6
1 9
4 2 7
3
2 1
7
4
0 0 0 0 1 a 0 0 a 0
4
0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 D a
22 22 31 B D D
0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 26 23 32 0 a 8 1 a 0 D 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0 a a
- - - - - - - - -
s
2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I a I 9 I 10 I 11
u
12
~
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENERAL. AERIENJGENERAI.. AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
DENSITE DES LIONS J LION DENSITY
R 2ll
A 'l]_
N 1§.
s ~
E ~
C 23
T 22
s l!.
20
19
1S
17A
"---T7
16A
16
B
13
u
14
15A1 t·~~ •. -:::.:·•·~~%:::-:.:~~·:><~·:-:-·:-•..::::+-..:«~::::·=-~·~.::::-·i~:::-.... ~ ..... :: .. w.~.:·•i:&:·;;.:~i.Y·:«·.-ht=-=-: . ~::;:: :·<·····-·: ... :..-.:J
15
14A
tt
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
_'IOA
7
6
5
4
3
2
LowD
Meet D
HighD
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - -
N
15 16
1.54
0
0 1 54
0 0
0 1 54
T
17
0
0
0
0 -
s
1a
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0 -
37
2:2 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - •
1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 1~
---.::.31"-lPARC NATIONAL DE LAGARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
B
13
----=30~RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
""'"T_ __ ,,29,:.iLIONS I LIONS
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
-----1:::..i:::,r#t.~rr
-
7
6
5
4
3
2
lawD
MedD
High D
Dom
Total
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
9
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0 ERR ERR 0
0 0 0 0
0 ERR ERR D - -
u
14
0
D
D
N
15
ERR
0
ERR -
I
16
D
1
0
1
T
17
0
0
0
0 -
s
18
0
0
0
0
19
0
D
1
0
1 -
20 21
0 0
D D
1 0
0 D
1 0 -
22 23 I 24 25 26
D 0 D 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
D 0 0 0 0 - -
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - -
__ _..,,3c..i1 PARC NATIONAL OE LAGARAMBAIGARAMBANATIONAL PARK
-----=30=iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL ~RIAL COUNT. JUJN 2000
-'-T _ ..::29!'JDENS1TE DES HYENES I HYENA DENSITY
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
Lc,,v D
MedO
HighD
Dom 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 043
Total 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 043 0 0 0
- - - - - - -
B
13
0
0
0
u
14
0
0
0
N
15
-
0
0
0
16
0
a
0
0
T
17
-
0
0
0
0
s
18 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1.81 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1.81 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - -
2 3
4 5 S U S 7 8 9 10 11 12
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
u
14
-T-~ 30!!.IRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
...,_ _E29~HYENE/HYENA
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
Lowe
MedO
HlghO 0 ERR ERR 0
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ERR ERR 0
- - - - - - - -
N
15
0 ERR
0 0
0 ERR
I
16
-
0
0
0
0
T
17
0
0
0
0
s
18
-
19 20 21 24 27 28 29 30 31 I 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - -
5 6 7 8 S U B
31 PA 9 ,o 11 12 13
-----"c!.J RC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT
~T _ __,,29~CARC , JU!N 2000
R 28 ASES BUFFLESS/ BUFFALO CARCASSES, STAGE 3
~--....e.,ei
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
4
3
2
1
LawD
Mec!D
High D
0cm 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 ERR ERR
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ERR ERR
- - - - - - -
0
0
0
u
14
N
15
0 ERR
0 0
0 ERR
-
I T
16 17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
s
16 19 20 21 22
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 1
- -
23 24 26 .27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 D
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0 0 0 Tollll
0 0 Total
2 Total
2 0 0 2 TOT~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - -
•
2 3 4 5 6 7
s u B u N I T
8 9 10 11
s
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA CJARAMBAfGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 20 21 I 20 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT JUIN 2000
T 29 CARCASES INCONNUSI CARCASSES UNKNOWN. ST AGE 3 '
0 0
0 0
R 20 0 0
A 27 0 0
N 28 0 0
s 25 ~~?\:·
E 24
0 0
0 0 0
C 23 0 0 0
T 22 0 0 0
s 21 0 0 0
20 0 0
19
0 0
18
17A
0 0
0
17 0
16A 0
16
15A
15
14A
0
0
0
0
14
13A
0
0
13 0
12A 1
12
11A
0
0
11 0
10A 0
10 0
0 0 0 Total 0 0 Total Total~
0 0 1 TOTAL
4
3
2
LowD
MedO
H;gh D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oom 0 0
0 ERR ERR
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TOlal
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ERR 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 ERR ERR 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ERR
0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S U B U N I T S
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
-----"'3..:..i1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
__ ----c.30.=..iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
-'T_ _.. :::2=-i9 CARCASES ELEPHANTS/ELEPHANT CARCASSES STAGE 3
R 28
A 27
N 28
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
S 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
LowD
MedD
HighD 0 ERR ERR
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR ERR
- - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0 ERR 1 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ERR 1 1 - -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - •
s u
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-----=3:..:..i1 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
----=30= RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUtN 2000
-'T'----"'29~ CAMPEMENTS BRACONNIERS / POACHERS CAMP
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
LowO
MedD
HighD 0 ERR ERR
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 ERR ERR - - - - - - - -0
0
0
u
14
N
15
0 ERR
0 0
0 ERR -
I
16
0
0
0
0
T
17
-
0
0
0
0
s
18 19 20 21
CBAICBR
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 - -
22 23
CBA CBA
2CBA
CBAICBR
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 -
26 27
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 - -
28 29 30 31 32 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C - - - - -
S U B
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
----=3c.:..i1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GAAAMBA NATIONAL PARK
----=30..::.1RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
.T.._ _- =2~9 CARCASES ELEPHANTS/ELEPHANT CARCASES STAGE 4
R 28
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
l.oNO
MedO
HighO 0 ERR ERR
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ERR ERR
- - - - - - - -
0
0
0
u
14
N I T S
15 16 17 18
0 0
0 ERR 3 3
0 0 0 0
0 ERR 3 3
0
1
0
1
- - -
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 4 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - •
8.62 8.62 0 0 0
12.38 12.38 0 0 0
13.50 13.50 0 0 o
13.44 13.44 0 0 0
18.90 18.90 0 0 0
19.97 2.19 22.16 0 0 0 0 0
21.85 6.66 28.51 0 0 0 0 0
23.50 15.30 38.80 0 0 0 0 0 0
22.75 7.45 30.20 0 0 0 0 0 0
21.42 21.42 0 0 0 0
20.75 20.75 0 0 0 0
20.90 20.90 0 0 0 o
19.00 0 1
16.86 55 50
17.87 94 28
17.61 38 22
17.83 83 20
18.10 68 387
17.14 103 180
22.33 58 98
22.69 21 66
29.29 24 184
28.51 50 44
25.19 54 492
25.50 191 160
18.63 47 173
17.75 39 100
17.83 2 8
543747.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
44138.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
R=Sy/Sz 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vary 2115.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 19365.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
17.9 1.5 20.5 84.5 STRAT. STRAT.
16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 156.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL
ELEPHANTS BUFFALO$
Pop.est(Y) 5,896 0 0 0 5,896 12,804 0 0 0 12,804
--------------------
9::fi,28!}?1'.,
~!£'.t2i}3ti<
i:}dltaai.:-==~::'·
~~·~;;:2$;c:_t -~,
t![;::='24{<'{
·>'>~.,23:;2;::,'
'i::}'S::22.{f,-:;
!{;';)~l£:i"
~y~i:2{)::;.';t:,
Vi\)~<:,(<
tttJSJ<,
/Ai17-& ~.::
=~\\17:'s":. ·
c:-.:;.{(1.5a,;>'.
t{~:=:_16f : --:
~;_:----1-Sa::;_-,:
-::_~:/J5>;:::
t4ai~'
:,,"::.?_·:.,14:,',:-_.
,_> 13a<s':
f:13:<c-;<::
12a-,>-;:
t;c,i 2:/F ."
0'i /:j 1 i:[;'(::,
,:,2}i11~};-
'-7''-: 108";\:,
19.00
16.86
17.87
17 61
17.83
18.10
17.14
22.33
22.69
29.29
28.51
25_ 19
25.50
18.63
17.75
17.83
17.9
19.97
21.85
23.50
22.75
21.42
20.75
20.90
1.5
8.62
12.38
13.50
13.44
18.90
2.19
6.66
15.30
7.45
104.
980_6
20.5
8.62
12.38
13.50
13.44
18.90
22.16
28.51
38.80
30.20
21.42
20.75
2090
R=Sy/Sz
Vary
84.5
Pop.est.(Y)
SE(Y)
95% C.L.
95% C.Las 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
2
42
1
24
148
36
48
7
31
5
0
1
51
63
89
16
64. 0.0
43632.0 00 0.0
10670. 8 0.0 0.0
1.7 0.0 0.0
1583.4 0.0 0.0
-69.1 0.0 0.0
COBS
3,587 0 0
990.8 0.0 0.0
2021.2 00 0.0
56_3 0.0 0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
1
0
6
10
15
33
34
24
14
10
7
0
0
163.
3573.0
3957.7
0.0 0.5
00 127.5
STRAT.
0.0 TOTAL 38.3
HARTBEEST
0 3,587 1,037
0.0 990.8 222.4
00 1941. 9 453.8
0.0 54.1 43.8
0
0
2
3
0
2
0
17.0
156.8
0.0
1.7
-3.9
90
51.2
104.4
115.6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0.2
0.3
12
9.9
20.1
170.9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
2
0
18.0
223.2
00
1.1
4.8
99
38.4
78.3
78.7
STRAT.
TOTAL
1,139
231.66
454.05
39.87 --------------------
8.62 8.62 0 0 0 0
12.38 12.38 0 0 0 0
13.50 13.50 0 0 0 0
13.44 13.44 0 0 0 0
18.90 18.90 9 9 0 0
19.97 2.19 22. 16 1 0 1 0 0 0
21.85 6.66 28.51 5 0 5 0 0 0
23.50 15.30 38.80 0 0 0 0 0 0
22.75 7.45 30.20 0 0 0 0 0 0
21.42 21.42 4 4 0 0
20.75 20.75 4 4 15 15
20.90 20.90 3 3 7 7
19.00 4 2
16.86 2 7
17.87 4 17
17.61 10 0
17.83 10 0
18.10 13 5
17.14 6 40
22.33 3 0
22.69 7 15
29.29 5 3
28.51 4 0
25.19 2 8
25.50 18 0
18.63 34 0
17.75 11 17
17.83 9 48
.0 26.0 1 .0
2226.0 148.0 4858.0 274.0 0.0
2858.6 566.2 3022.9 457.5 0.0
R=Sy/Sz 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1
Vary 64.4 4.3 13.5 8.0 214.5 34.1 0.0 19.7
17.9 1.5 20.5 84.5 STRAT. STRAT.
-5.9 -13.5 8.5 1.2 TOTAL -22.7 -19.3 0.0 -1.0 TOTAL
1111 ARTHOG WATERBUCK
903 219 106 323 1,228 1,030 284 0 274 1,314
95% C.L. 398.6 198.6 174.3 245.7 459.5 725.5 462.1 0.0 393.4 908.72
95% C.L.as 0 44.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.4 70.4 162.8 ERR 143.8 69.14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
1
19.97 0 0 0 0
21.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 23.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 22.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.42 0 0 0 0 20.75 0 0 0 0 20.90 0 0 0 0 19.00 0 0 16.86 0 0
17.87 0 20
17.61 0 0 17.83 0 1 tMtf :··==wt 18.10 0 0 /Ilt=1!lliiW 17.14 0 0 :':::/(1:~:;!\:: 22.33 0 6 I':\'/'11:5'."l' 22.69 0 87 he:Uiifo~=t, 29.29 3 4 ;,::\i:<:1):ltiii: 28.51 0 9 lt}.Zi/1\ 25.19 0 3 25.50 0 4 18.63 0 12 17.75 0 2 17.83 0 0 332.1 151 .1 104.2 255.3 3.0 00 0.0 0.0 148.0 0.0 1.0 1 0 7163.0 3272. 1 980.6 6028.1 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8276.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
Sum (Z•y) 87.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3293.9 0.0 13.4 13.4
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 04 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vary 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 460.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 17.9 1.5 20.5 84.5 STRAT. STRAT.
1 .7 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 14.B 0.0 0.3 -0.7 TOTAL
RHINOS HIPPOS
Pop.est.(Y) 19 0 0 0 19 941 0 12 12 953
1111111'.
) 16. 1
95% C.L. 34.1 0.0 0.0 00 32.8 992.5 0.0 20.1 25.3 954.08
95% C.L.as 0 178.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 171.8 105.4 ERR 171 .0 203.7 100.10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
5.75 5. 5 0 0 0
8.62 8.62 0 0 0
12.38 1238 0 0 0
13.50 13.50 1 1 0
13.44 13.44 0 0 0
18.90 18.90 1 1 1
19.97 2.19 2216 0 0 0 0 0
21.85 6.66 28.51 0 0 0 1 0 1
23.50 15.30 38.BO 0 1 1 0 1 1
22.75 7.45 30.20 1 0 1 0 0 0
21.42 21.42 1 1 1 1
20.75 2075 0 0 2 2
20.90 20.90 0 0 0 0
19.00 0
16.86 1 0
17.87 0 0
17.61 1 0
17.83 0 1
18.10 0 0
17.14 1 2
22.33 1 0
22.69 0 0
29.29 0 0
28.51 0 0
25.19 0 0
25.50 0 0
18.63 0 0
17.75 0 0
17.83 0 0
332.1 151.1 104.2 255.3 4.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 6.0
7163.0 3272.1 9B0.6 6028.1 4.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 8.0
Sum (Z*y) 73.9 44.2 32.4 122.8 71.1 84.8 18.9 149.1
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vary 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4
17.9 1.5 20.5 84.5 STRAT. STRAT.
-0.6 -1.2 0.1 1.5 TOTAL -0.8 -3.2 -0.2 2.0 TOTAL
BUSHBUCK REEDBUCK
Pop.esl(Y) 25 26 35 62 87 25 52 24 75 101
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
- - -
19.00
16.86
17.87
17.61
17.83
18.10
17.14
22.33
22.69
29.29
28.51
25.19
25.50
18.63
17.75
17.83
19.97
21.85
23.50
22.75
21.42
20.75
20.90
332.1 151.1
7163. 0 3272.1
17.9 1.5
5.75
8.62
12.38
13.50
13.44
18.90
2.19
6.66
15.30
7.45
104.2
980.6
20.5
,, .,. ; ,i'4:4~~;l\fZNi;·~->:,',':~~rt,b:~~,i~1i:;,: :~ti:.J;;I&'· t_~
5.75 0 0
8.62 0 0
12.38 0 0
13.50 O 0
13.44 a a
10.00 a o
22.16 a a o a
20 51 a o a a
38.80 a a o a
30.20 o a o a
21.42 o o a
20.~ o a a
20.90 a o o
0 a
0 0
0 0
0 a
3 a
0 a
0 a
0 a
0 a
0 1
a 2
0 0
0 0
0 a
a 0
a a
255.3 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0
6028.1 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0
Sum (Z•y) 53.5 0.0 0.0 a.a 86.3 0.0
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vary 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 a.a
84.5 STRAT.
-0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 1.6 0.0
LION HYENA
Pop.esl(Y) 19 0 0 0 19 19 0
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
0
a
0.0
a.a
0.0
a.a
a.a
a.a
0
a
0
a
a
0
a
a
a
a
0.0
a.a
0.0
0.0
a.a
a.a
0
STRAT.
TOTAL
19
- - - - -------------
0
0
a
0
0
0
19.97 0 0 0 0
21.85 0 0 0 0
23.50 0 0 a o
22.75 o o 0 0 0
21.42 0 0 0 0 0
20.75 0 0 0 0 o
20.90 0 0 0 0 0
19.00 0 a 0
16.86 0 0 1
17.87 2 0 0
17.61 0 0 0
17.63 0 o 4
16.10 0 1 0
17.14 2 1 3
22.33 0 1 1
22.69 2 0 0
29.29 0 2 3
26.51 0 0 0
25.19 0 0 1
25.50 0 0 4
18.63 0 0 0
17.75 0 0 0
17.83 0 0 1
332.1 151.1 104.2 255.3 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7163.0 3272. 1 980.6 6028.1 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 00 0.0 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sum (Z"y) 115.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 116.1 0.0 a.a 0.0 394.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vary 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
17.9 1.5 20.5 84.5 STRAT. STRAT. STRAT.
-0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL ~lliii; RIBI ELEPHANTS CARCASES, STAGE 3 ELEPHANTSC CASES,STAGE
Pop.est.(Y) 38 0 0 0 38 32 0 0 0 32 114 0 0 0 114
:\i\;~i~it\ SE(Y) 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 13 4 0.0 a.a 0.0 13.39 33.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.59
95% C.L. 38 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.25 66.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.84
95% C.L.as 100.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.9 65.9 ERR ERR ERR 82.55 59.9 ERR ERR ERR 57.51
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I •
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA
GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENERAL SYSTEMATIQUE
GENERAL AERIAL SYSTEMATIC SAMPLE COUNT
Calibration Graphs, Distribution Maps and Population Estimate Calculations
May / Mai 2002
·,a
-------------- Garamba General census, May 2002
P .N.Garamba, Recensement Aerien 2002
- CALIBRATIONS
800
.-. 700 U)
..,Q..._.),
E 600
....c..,
"'C
"§ 500
c.
300
200
Ill
•
•
.......
~
~
.i..--- • •
111
-
250
-
I
I
1
•
• I • • ..i.
••• ~
•
~
l-•
I • • I
~ ! •
• •-, •• l
• II T
I
300 350
a.g .I (ft)
•
.. ~
v
~- • ill
- --
•
400 450
-------------------·
I
I CALIBRATION, May 2002
No Alt agl Strip Width Regression Output:
1 330 470 Constant 131.8018 220 380 383.137
2 315 580 Std Err of Y Est 80.24209 225 380 390.39
I 3 370 600 RSquared 0.436305 240 360 412.149
4 290 525 No. of Observations 47 240 300 412.149
5 270 460 Degrees of Freedom 45 250 340 426.655
6 270 530
270 560 455.667
I 7 320 560 X Coefflclent(s) 1.23E+OO 270 460 455.667
8 350 450 Std Err of Coef. 0.2090577828 270 530 455.667
9 350 590
290 525 484.679
10 320 450
290 420 484.679
I 11 270 560 Y=M.X+C 300 400 499.185
12 350 480
300 420 499.185
13 320 470 Y = 1.23380318303919 X + 131.801796597442 300 700 499.185
14 390 720 not used - eliminated 500/600 anomolous reading 300 650 499.185
I 15 310 460
310 580 513.691
16 300 400
310 460 513.691
17 300 420 Regression Output: 315 580 520.944
18 380 560 Constant 64.00504 320 580 528.197
I 19 425 620 Std Err of Y Est 77.10593 320 510 528.197
20 390 600 R Squared 0.48747 320 450 528.197
21 300 700 No. of Observations 46 320 560 528.197
22 300 650 Degrees of Freedom 44 320 520 528.197
I 23 330 540
320 470 528.197
24 360 680 X Coefficient(s) 1.4506150141 325 460 535.45
25 420 660 Std Err of Coef. 0.2242389917 330 540 542.703
26 320 520
330 470 542.703
I 27 400 660
340 750 557.209
28 400 620 Y= 1.4506 . X + 64.005 340 610 557.209
29 340 750
350 640 571.715
30 220 380
350 590 571.715
I 31 320 510
350 450 571.715
32 360 540
350 600 571.715
33 340 610
350 480 571.715
34 350 640
350 620 571.715
I 35 430 660
360 540 586.221
36 350 600
360 540 586.221
37 360 540
360 680 586.221
38 225 380
370 600 600.727
I 39 250 340
380 560 615.233
40 240 300
390 600 629.739
41 240 360
390 720 629.739
42 290 420
400 620 644.245
I 43 310 580
400 660 644.245
44 325 460
420 660 673.257
45 320 580
425 620 680.51
46 350 620
430 660 687.763
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
s
11
u
12
---~31'-IPARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
-~--":30'-"-iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2002
-'T __ --=29~SAMPLING AREA
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
5
4
3
2
LowD
Med D
High D 2.93 8.79 14.6
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.86 2.79 0 5.43
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.86 5.72 8.79 20 - - - - - - -
B
13
23
0
23
u
14
20 7
0
20.7 -
N
15 16
T
17
s
18 19 22 \
2.93
3.08
3.08
2.93
23
2.93
2 86
3.22
2.86
3.22 2.86 293
3.08 3. 15 2.93 3.22 2. 79 3
2 86 2.71 3.22 3.08 2.71 3
24 25 26 27 28 29 :30 31
2.71
3 22 3.22
2.5 2.86 2.86 2.86
2.93 '.l.22 2.79 3.58
3 2.86 2.79 2.79
3 3 3.08 3.37
286 2.79 293 2.93 2 5 2.86 2.86 2.86 293 2.64 293 286 25 3
3 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2 64 293 286 264 2.93 3 2.86 2.93 2.86
2.86 3.08 2.79 3.22 3 293 2 79 25
2.86 2.5 2.93 2.86 2.86 2.79 2.5 2.79
2.79 2.86 286 286 2 86 2 86 2.79
2.79 2.71 2.79 2.86 2.93 2.86 3
2.86 2.5 2.86 2.64 2.93 2.28 2.93
3.08 3 3.08 2.86 2.86 3 3
2.71 2.86 2.5 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86
293 2 71 2 86 337 264 2.71 3
2 79 3 2.86 2.86 2.93 2.86 2.93
2.86 2.5 286 2.86 2 86 2.86 2.86
2.86 3 3.08 2.64 3 2 86 2 79
3 2.86 2.86 2.5 3 2.71 2.86
3 15 2.93 6.44 8.58 17.8 17.4 15.2 11.5 12.6 11.3 8.87 8.72 5.64
8 43 16.8 20 203 20.2 20 19.6 20.2 20.1 16.7 14.8 10.7
20 42.8 41.6 41.8 42 6 43.2 36.6 37 28.7 2.71 0
266 8.72 0 0 0 0 3.08 908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46.6 60 58.4 61.8 66 663 661 74.3 66 7 40.2 31.9 263 233 11 3 887 8.72 5.64 - - - - - - - -
32 33 3"' 35 36 37
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - •
-
s u B u N I T s
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
:io RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
T 29 AL TTTUDE DE VOL / FttGHT AL TTTUDE
R 2B COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26 390 360
s 25 330 400
E 24 360 360 300
C 23 350 350 350 350
T
s
22
21
20
l.cwO
MedD
HlghD
Dorr ERR
Tota ERR
-
380 340 400 370
:300 360 350 350
340 350 350 350 350
340 330 340
360 300 350
380 370 380
330 350 300
360 330 350
340 370 350
350 300 350
350 370 380
370 350 350
350 350 340
350 380 320
:300 250 250
360 300 360
3BO 370
330 350
340 :300
370
380 360
343 342 350 355.7 354
ERR 350 350 341 353 353 358 349 338 340 347.3 353
ERR ERR •·- ERR ERR ERR ERR 360 ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 360 357 O ERR O ERR
ERR ERR _. ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 35,9 350 227 ERR 273.3 ERR
- - - - - - - -
400
380
350
320
380
340
350
400
350
34(
360
368
Z2 23 2, I 25 I
360 360 330
380 350 400
380 400 300
360 350 360
350 380 370
340 370 370
330 370 370
350 350 360
360 350 320
340 300 350
300 340 350
340 380
370
360
370
350
370
380
350
340
350
350
350
350 365 355
341 353 351
3"8 352 330
373 ERR ERR
353 ERR ERR
350
400
350
370
350
320
360
340
374
340
0
ERR
ERR
- -
28 27 2B 29 30 31 32 I 33 34 35 36 37
350 350
340 450
340 340
380 420
360 300 350
360 350 300 370 400
370 350 360 350 350 350
352. 5 390 345 363 357 345 0
364 325
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR
- - - - -
350 350
383 382.5
355 355
377 3n 1
359 3568
378 378
35( 350 352
348 357 351.3
350 351 350.e
351 350 350.4
337 337.3
351 350.9
357 357
338
3007
34(4
356.7
355.e
34(4
350
3491
3"8.3
352
3393
353.8
354.8
356.7
333.3
334(
367 Tota.Ii
349 Total•
345.5 Total:
3"8.5 349 381 352.9 TOTA
- - -
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
s
10 11
U B U
12 13 14
N I T S
15 16 17 16 22 Zl
----"3"-11 PARC NA TlONAL DE LA GARAMBAJGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
----"30~1 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MA y 2002
T 291 BUFFLES I BUFFALOES
~"'"""''°·=
~
T 221
~ 161
17Aj
171
16A
131 1~1
~
-
10
31
21
LowO
MedO
High D
Dom
Toi.I
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
27
9 23
100
12 5
16 152
160
7
:268
193 60
5
0 0
0 Zl9 342 214 199 49-4 548
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 239 342 214 199 494 548
- - -
30
3
46 5 59
120
60 80
6 13
5 4 150
6
4 16 2 5
7 334
2 S
135
30 70
6
3
6
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 6
87 334 351 531 153
0 0 0 0 0
67 334 351 531 161
- -
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
a
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
32
-
0
0
0
33
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
37
0
0
0
30
8
143
152
241
42
337
293
74
610
575
283
100
10:2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
8
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
8
0
T"
To
2992 To
2992 6 0 :lOCO TC
- - •
S U B U N I T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
---"'3.'"!1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
___30 "-I RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, JUIN 2000
T 29 ELEPHANTS/ELEPHANTS
R 28
A 27
N 28
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A 14 3 22
17 40 1 47 1
16A 29 9
16 2 9 10 6 16 27 7 6
15A 18 50
15 41 15 20 4 23
14A 13 17 7 7 10 4
14 1 1 13 4 2
13A 3 13 1
13 9 24 6
12A 4 3 3 4 27
12 24 12 25 5
11A 11 s 6
11
10A
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 II 10 11 12 13 14 l5 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 26 27 26 29 I 30 31 32 33 3'I 35 38 37
31 PARC NATIONAL DE U\ GARAMBAIGAAAMBA NATIONAL PAAK
0 Q
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
0 0
T 29 BUFFLES I BUFFALOES
a a
R 28 Clbser,.,ateur Gauche/Lelt ob9eMir
0 Q
" 27
0 0
N 26
0 Q
s 25
0 Q Q
E 24
a 0 0
C 23
0 0 Q
T 22
a Q 0
s 21
a 0
20
8 8 6
19
18 0 Q
17A a
17 30 30
18A 3 3 6
16 26 Z7
15,A 23 23
15 100 60 161
14A 5 10 6 21
14 4 150 180 158 13A 283
13 2 18 2 25
12.A 250 8 324 581
12 82 2 1BS
11A a
11 0
100
0
0 0 Tot
6 Toi
1~ Toi
1~ 6 0 1612 TO
4
3
2
1
LowD
MedD Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 Q
High D Q 0 0 Q Q 0 6 Q Q 0 0 Q
Q Q 0 29 324 201 101 362 m 5 119 l32 266 15 3 Q Q Dorn 0 Q Q 0 Q 0 Q Q Q Q 0 Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q 0 29 324 0 Q 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q 0 0 Q 0 201 101 362 200 5 119 332 266 23 3 0 Q Q 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10
s
11
-----"3"41 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
B
13
u
14
----==30::::iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAJ/MAY 2002
_T __ --=29~DENS1TE DES ELEPANTS I ELEPHANTS DENSITY
..R. c.__...=28;,COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
17A
17
1SA
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
7
6
5
4
~
LOWD
MedD
High D
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TCCal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
0 0 0 27.1 43.9
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 271 43.9 - - -
N
15
55
23.3
78.3
16
0.37
579
2.48
8.87
1.36
2.84
1.2
0 35
0
23.6
0
23.6
T
17
0.4
0.35
9.16
3.4
136
0.37
0
15.1
0
15.1 -
s
16
0.35
255
1.32
4.97
7.98
722
18.2
0
733
0
73.3
19
035
0.92
6.32
5.56
19
3.96
2.48
1.99
2.24
1H
165
0
0
42.5
0
42.5 -
20 21
0.43
4A2
2.13 14.9
5.32 9.86
2.84
2.48 4.35
557 11.7
1.n
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
78 51 7 31.9 4.26 0
0 0 0 0 0
76 51. 7 31.9 426 0 - -
26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - -
s u B u N I T s
29 I 30
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 22 23 24 :25 28 27 28 31 32 33 34 36 36 37
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GAAAMBNGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
0 0
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAi.. COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
0 0
T 29 BUFFlES/BUFFALOES
0 0
R 28 ObMMtiaiir Oroit I Right Obaerwer
0 0
A 71
0 0
N 28
0 0
s 25
0 0 0
E 24
0 0 0
C 23
0 0 0
T 22
0 0 0
s 21
0 0
20
0 0
19
18 0 0
17A 0
17 0
16A
45 5 5Q 0
11! I! 118
16A
9 120 129
15 80 80
14""
12 5 3 21
14
152 5 5 179
13A 8 10
13
7 2 2 3
49
12A 18 1 10 29
12
111 eo 4 388
11A 5 135
30 70
283
11 103
10A 2
10 1
: l!~t 0 0 Tot
0 Tot
7 1388 Toll
8 1388 a 0 1388 TO"
5
4
3
2
1
LawD
MedD 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q a 0 0 0 0 a
HlghO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 18 13 96 132 249 82 215 19 285 138 0 0 0 Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tccat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 18 13 118 132 249 82 215 19 285 138 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21
s u B u N T s
3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,e 17 18 23 2.& 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARI< 0 ERR
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL lo.ERJENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002 0 ERR
29 DENSITE DES BUFFLES I BUFFALOES DENSITY 0 ERR
28 CCMPTAGE DIRECT 0 ERR
27 DERR
26 0 ERR
25 0 0 ERR
24 D 0 ERR
23 0 0 ERR
22 0 0 ERR
21 0 ERR
20 2.92 2.92 2.92
0 ERR
0 ERR
1.65 1.65 1.65
1.85 1.65 329 1.85
1-19 18.3 1.54 21.9 2.4 43.3 8.87
3.27 7.82 42.6 53.7 17.9
35.S 21.3 28.4 85.5 21.4
.&.26 1.7 2.4 4.81 15.1 3.03
53.9 1.77 1.59 55.7 .·.-~·,_-. :,;:,.;:~·:· . ·:>\ 122 15.3
83.9 2.13 105 20.8
2.44 1.52 0.88 27.1 451
122 118 240 601
67.2 24 o.es 200 22.3
1,88 100 18.7
1.65 27.7 9.22
37 12.3
0.4 0.4
10 D 0 O ERR Total Nord
292 2.92 0 ERR Total Cerm
1082 0 O ERR Total Sud
7 1082 2.92 0 ERR TOTAL
e
5
4
3
2
LowD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MedO 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.92 0 0 0 0 0
HighO 0 -17.3 1.39 38.8 37.e 32.9 174 215 22 110 123 183 S8.8 1.14 0 0
Com 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 473 1.39 38.8 37.8 32.9 174 215 22 110 123 183 112.7 1.14 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
s u B u N T s
3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 Z7 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LJ\ GARAMIWGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
0 0
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENEAAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2002
29 DENSl'ra OE COBES I COB DENSITY
0 0
28
0 0
Z7
0 0
26
0 0
25
0 0
24
a 0 0
0 0 0
0.35 a 33 0.6!! 0 0.68
22
21
0.47 0 0.47
20
0 a
0 0
1.22 0.76 8.19 1.76 0 0
6.65 13.5 13.5
1 0.37 5.68 0.35 0.7
733 7.33
221 1.49 1.65
9.1!8 8.86
6.66 2.8 035 14.1 14.1
0.35 0.35 2.45 20.3 20.3
13.3 6.02 6.02
30.2 30 2
437 32.2 3:2.2
1.4 S4.3 S4.3
368 3.ea
a.ea 068
0.33 233 2.33
4.42 86.4 86.4
12 1 121
n1 74.1
6.41 6.41
a 0 0 0 Total No«I
1.15 1.15 0 1.15 Total Cen1
375 0 0 375 Total Sud
375 us 0 Jn TOTAL
5
4
3
2
L.owo
MedD a 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
High D a ea 4.2 18.4 163 362 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 035 a a 033 0.47 Dom 17 111.4 55 5 20 13 7 51 962 14.1 21.6 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
1.n 0 123 0 0 296 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.45 4.2 30.7
0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 16.3 36.2 411.11 16.4 555 20 13.7 51 9.62 14.1 22.2 0 0 0.33 0.47 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 ll
s
10 11
31 PAAC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
B
13
30 RECENSEMEN'T GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
29 COOEIKOB
28 COMPTAGE DlRECT
'Zl
25
24
23
22
21
20
U N I
14 15 18
.t;"
{t ,.,,';.
T
17
s
18 24 25
Jf(;:·t---;;-3----:;----~----,--,---------l: 3 2 24 4
LowD
MedD
Hi1JhD
Dom
Total
-
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
5
0
5
.-::..-\-:-\:
,:~,~~~ ~
32 35 3
2
2
5 39 102 16Q 142
0 0 0 0 2
5 39 102 16{1 144
I
38
6
20
0 0
52 154
0 0
52 154
19
14 2
3 32
8
7
12
4
11
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 O 1
51 39 146 26 e6 62
0 0 0 0 O 0
51 39 146 26 86 63
- - - - - -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
26 27 28
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
-
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
30 31
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
34
0
0
-
0
0
0
a
37
0
0
-
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 a
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
a 0 0
2 0 2
0
a a
a 0
0 a
37
2,
26
66
60
17
85
83
153
10
2
5
240
35
202
22
0 a Total N<
3 Total C.
100,ol Total&
100,ol 3 0 1067 TOTAL
- - -
s u B U N T s
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
------'3'-'-11 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
------'~"'-IRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN.IGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2002
--'T __ -=2~9 DENSITE DE GIRAFE/GIRAFFE DENSITY
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
LowD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MedD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HiQhD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 0.36 0.47 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 036 0.47 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
2 3 4 5 e 7 II 0 10 11 12 13 14 1S 18 17 18 22 23 26 27 28 29 1 30 31 32 33 34 l :is 38 ,1
31 PARC NATIONAL OE lA GARAMBAIGAAAMBA NATIONAL PARK 0 0
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT. MAI/MAY 2002 0 0
T 29 BUFFlES / BUFF ALOES 0 0
R 28 ~r Gauche/left~
A '11
:;.:.{,-~.x·: .. ·-~
a 0
0 0
N 28 a 0
s 2S a 0 0
E 24 0 0 0
C 23 0 0 a
T 22 0 0 0
s 21 0 0
20 e 11
1;
18
17A
0 0
17 30
0
11!A 3 3
30
18
26
e
151\ 23
TI
1S
100 00
23
14" 5 10 e
1a1
4 ,so
21
158
180 283
2 1e 25
2SO e 324 se,
82 2 1139
0
0
100
0
0 0 Tc1B
a Tota
1604 Tota
1804 e 0 1812 TOT
4
3
2
1
l.owO
MedO 0 0 0 0 a 0 0
HlghO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Com 0 0
0 0 0 29 324 201 101 3e2 2911 s 8 0 0 a 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
119 332 256 1S
Total 0
0 D D 0 0 0 D
3 a 0
a 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 D 29 a 0 0 0 0 a 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 201 101 3e2 2911 s 110 332 256
0 0 0 0 0 D D D 0
23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - •
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
--..::.3"'11 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
0 0
__ ..::.30"'-IRECENSENENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
0 0
_T_ _29 -tHIPPOPOTAMES I HIPPOS
0 0
R 28
0 0
A 27
0 0
N 26
D 0
s 25
0 0 0
E 24
0 0 0
C 23
0 0 0
T 22
0 0 0
s 21
0 0
20
0 0
___19
0 0
18
17A 0 0
17 2 39 6 16A
16
42
15A 8
15
87 7
14A
11
14 21
13A 11
0 0
48 48
42 42
6 8
98 98
45 45
37 37
39 39
13 3 3
12A 3 9 12
38 38
35 35
11A 60
11
4 4
197 197
10A 39 39
10 4 4
9 0 0 0 0 Total Nord
8 0 0 0 0 Total Centre
7 635 0 0 635 Total Sud
835 0 0 635 TOTAL
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
T
R
A
N
s
E
C
T
s
-
s u
2 3 4 s e 1 8 s 10 11 12
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
u
14
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAJ/MAY 2002
29 GIRAFFE/ GIRAFE
28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
lowD
MedD
HlghO 0 0 0 Don 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - -
4
0
4
N
15
0
2
2
I
16
-
0
2
0
2
T
17
:-:~!\~::
0
1
0
1
s
18
-
19 20 21 ! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - -- - - •
T
R
A
N
s
E
C
T
s
-
s u
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARPMBAIGARM1BA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
u
14
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERlEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAl/MAY 2002
29 RHINOCEROS BLANC I WHITE RHINO
28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
LowO
MedO
High D 0 0 0 Don 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Toti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - -
N I
15 16
2
0
2
0
2
0
2 -
T
17
s
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 I 32 33 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - -•
s u B u N T s
2 3 4 5 I! 7 I! 9 10 11 12 13 1 ... 15 16 17 16 22 23 2 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMSA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN.IGENERAL AERlAl. COUNT, MAI 2002
0 0
DENSITE DES HIPPO/ HIPPOS OENsn'Y 0 0
26 0 0
Z1 0 0
26 0 0
25 0 0
24
0 0 0
23
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.67 0 0
12.2 3.5 0.7 0.67 0.67
0.34 493 16.4 16.4
26.6 5.37 5.27 5.27
061 32 32
0.33 0.61 0.61
12.2 725 n.s
5.25 16.4 16.4
2.66 5.62 562
0.47 3.01 3.01
30.4 30.4
1.4 1.4
9.27 9.27
17.1 17.1
13.5 13.5
0 0
0 0 0 0 T ctal Non:t
0 0 0 0 Total Cent!'
224 0 0 224 T atal Sud
224 0 0 224 TOTAL
4
3
2
LowD
MedO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dom 0 0 a 0 0 0.47 0 1.85 0 2.28 6.05 37.6 21.1 24.4 35 0.7 38.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 n.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0.47 D 185 74.4 8.05 37.6 211 24.4 a 0 0 0 D 0 0 3.5 07 36.9 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 D 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 3 4 5 8 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
31 PARC NATlONAL OE LA GARAMBMlAAAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSa£NT GENERAL AERlENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
29 BlJBAl.E I HAATE8EESTE
2!1 COMPTAGE CIIRECT
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
LowO
MedO
HighO
Dom
Tatar
-
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
(J
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
29
0
29
1
0,
-
11
0
11
15 18
12 7
4
3
17
1
9 32
0 0
9 33
-
17 18
2
1
12
3
7
3
12 18
8
0
0 1 2
10 28 29
0 0 0
10 71 31
-
3
13
8
0 0
0 0
2 24
0 0
2 24
-
22
1
0
0
0
1
23
1
0
7
7
0
14
-
24
8
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
-
26
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
28
-
D
0
0
29
D
0
0
30
-
D
0
0
31
0
0
0
32
0
0
0
-
33
0
0
34
0
0
35
-
0
0
38
0
0
37
0
0
-
12
0
0
3
24
1
8
0
21
111 ,e
1
48
9
2
0
0
163
163
-
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
15 0 15
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
2 2
2 2
Total N
19 Tclal C
Total 5
19 183 TOTAL
- •
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 13 1,t 15 111 17 111 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 I ZT 28 29 ~ I 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PAR!( ~J~ 0 0
RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2002
0 0
29 OENSITE OE BUB.A.LEIH.A.RTEBEESTE DENSITY
-~/"f::: 0 o
,.;.:..'·
,:}< o 0
o 0
0.36 0.38 0.36
25 o 0 0
24
2.45 2.n 5.18 0 5.16
23
0 0 0
22
0 0 0
21
0 0
20 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.36 036 0.72 0.72
-'.2 4.2 ,t.2
0 0
1.111 0 0
C 2.51 1.16 1.16
0.35
6.26 826
1.4 1.49
0.35 0.35
3.26 3.26
2.45 0 o 4.55 149 1.22 7.35 7.35 2.8 623 623 6.81 0.34
0.34 7.15 7.15
0.34 0.34
16.4 16.4
3.06 3.06
0.61 0.61
0 0
0 0 0.36 0.36 Total Nore
ll.11 6.6 0 611 TOia! Cert
58.6 0 0 58. 6 Total Sud
511.6 6.6 036 65.6TOTAL
5
4
3
2
lowO
MedO 0 0 0 0.36 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0
High D
0.36 0 0.3e 0.7 0 0 0 2.45 2.n 0 0 0 0 3.15 0 0.72 3 0 12.11 3.11 9.01 10.2 O.B9 8.84 0 2.47 0 0 0cm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.15 0 0.72
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 12.11 3.11 9.37 10.9 0.89 8.84 0.38 492 2.73 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
T
R
A
N
5
C
T
5
-
5 U
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GAAAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
u
14
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAl,1,MY 2002
29 GU1B HARNACHE / BUSHBUCK
28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
27
26
25
23
22
21
LowD
MedD
HlghD
DolT
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tot, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 - - - - - - -
N
15
1
0
1
I
16
0
4
1
5 -
T
17
0
1
0
1
s
18
0
3
0
3 -
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - -
s u u N
1~ I T s
30 131
2 3 '4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 22 23 24 25 2e 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 36 37
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBA/tiARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
0 0
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AEAIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2002
0 0
29 DENSITE DE GUIB I 9USHBUC1< DENSITY
0 0
28
0 0
27
0 0
2e
0 0
25
0 0 0
24
0 0 0
23
1.CKI 0.7 1-79
22
0.35 0 0.35
21
0.7 0.7
20
0.36 0.36
0 0
0 0
0.33 0.33
0.61 0.81
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.89 0.69
0.7 0.7
0 0
1.3 13
0 0
0.33 0.33
0.37 037
0.36 0.36
0.81 o.e1
0 0 0 0 Total Nonj
2.5 2.5 0.7 3. 2 Total Cent
5.7 0 0 5.7 Total SUd
5.7 2.5 0.7 89TOTAL e
5
4
3
2
LowD
MedD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0
HighD 0 0 0 0 0.7 078 0.36 0 0.35 0 0 0
0 0 0 034 0 0.37 1.52 0.47 1.14 0 0 0 0.7 0.35 0 0 OCJm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TObll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 0 0.37 1.85 0.47 1.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.78 ,.oe 0.35 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10
s
11
31 PARC NAllONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PAAK
u
12
B
13
u
14
30 RECENSSMENT GENERAL AER1ENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
T 29 CEPHALOPHES I GREY ANO RED-FLANKED DUIJ<ER
R 28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
S 25
e 24
C 23
T 22
S 21
20
Lowe
MedO
HlghO °TC"II"II 00
-
0
0
a o
0 0
-
0 0 0
0 0 0
-
0
a o
0 0
-
o o 1 a
a o o o
0 0 1 0
- -
0
0
0
N
15
0
0
0
1
16
-
0
0
a
0
T
17
s
16
a a
o a
a o
o a
-
22
o a o a
o a a a
1 0 0 0
o o a 1
1 0 0 1
23 I 24
a
0
1
a
1
- -
25
a o
o a
a o
0 0
a o
-
26 26
0 0 0
0 1
0 0 0
a 1 o
-
a
0
a
-
31 33 34 35 36 37
a a o
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
-
0
0
-
0
a
0
0
-
0
0
0 0
0 a
a a
0 0
0 a
0
0 0 0
a 0 a
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
a 0
0
0
0
1
a
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
a
0
0
0 Talall
Td:all
2 Talal!
2 4 TOTAi
-- - •
s I u
2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 8 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I n 12
11.tPARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
u
14
N
15
301 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAJ/MAY 2002
~REDUNCAIREEDBUCK
COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
~ T 22 mM+t:mttwMmttlllli.{ilLi\ifl~l~~~iii~~~:~j~]~I
s 21
LowD
MedD
HlghD 0 0 0 2 0 0
Don 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
To~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,Q 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 - - - - - - - -
16
1
0
1
T
17
0
0
0
0 -
2
s
18
1
2
0
3
4
2
0
9
0
9 -
1
0
1
2
0
3
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
2
3 2
2
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 3 2 D 0 0 0
1 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 4 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - •
s u B u N T s
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENl'GENERAL AERIAL COONT, MAJ 2002
T 29 OENSITE DE REDUNCA/REEOBUCK DENSITY
R 28
031
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
0.35 076
T 22
1.77 0.81
s 21
20
0.35 0.35
0.34
1.4 0.88
0.67
0.81
0.35
033
0.47
0.68
0.33 0.35
LowO
MedD 0 0 0 0 0 o 0.31 o 0 0 0 0 o 0
HlghO 0 068 0 0.35 0 0.35 0.69 0.76 1.77 0.81 0 o 0 0 Dom 0.35 0 0 033 0 0.67 3.22 0.82 0.35 088 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Total 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.68
0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0.35 0 0 0.33 0 1.02 3.22 1.17 1.04 1.64 1.77 0.81 0 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10
s
11
__ ____,,,3-'.11 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
B
13
u
14
N
15
I
16
T
17
__ __,,30"'-IRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
T 29 WATERBUCK
R 28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 28
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
9·
8 :• ..
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
LowD
MedD
HighD
Dom 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 - - - -0 0 0
0 0 0 -
0
0 0
0 0 -
5
0
5
5
0
5 -
9
0
9
2 25
0 0
2 25
11
7 3
0 0
7 14
6
0
0
6 - - -
s
18
0
1
0
1
19
0
0
6
0
6 -
20
0
0
4
0
4
21 I 22 23
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 43 26
1 0 0
3 43 26
24
- -
0
2
0
0
2
25
0
0
0
0
0
26
-
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
28
-
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
30
-
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
32
-
0
0
0
33
0
0
34
-0
0
35
0
0
36
-0
0
37
0
0 -
S U B U N I T s
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
T 29 PHACOCHEREIWARTHOG
R 28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
s 25 ;1~~~~~; 2
E 24
C 23 2
T 22
s 21 6 3 3
20 3 2
2 4 1
4 2 5
1 3
3
2 3
3
3 4
4 2 9
10 2
2 2
1
10 6 7 2
4
2
LowD 0 D D D D D D D 0 2 D D D D
MedD 9 D 3 2 2 6 1 0 4 D 0 D
HlghD D D 0 22 8 5 3 7 20 7 30 21 6 41 24 D 0
Don D D D 0 0 D D D 0 D D D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D 0 0 D D D D D 0 0 D 0 D D D D
Tole D D D D 0 D 0 0 D D D 22 8 5 3 18 20 10 32 23 12 42 24 4 D 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 D D 0 D D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
s I u
2 I 3 I 4 I s I s I 7 I e I 9 I 10 I 11 12
~PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
u
14
N
15
301 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENJGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
Ll!JOURIBI /ORIBI
~COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
LowD
MedD
High D
Dorr 0 0 0
Tot5 0 0 0 - - -
0 0 0
0 0 0 -
0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 - - - -
I
16
2
0
2
T
17
0
0
0
0 -
s
18 19 20 21 \ 22 23 1-:;j
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 1 0 - - -
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - •
S U B U N I T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
31 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AER1EN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
T 29 LION
~ COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
LowO
MedD D D D 0 D D D 0 D D D D D D
High D D D D D D D 0 DD D D D D D 0 D D D D D Don D D 0 D D 0 3 D D D D D D 0 0 D D 0 D 0 0 D D D D D 0 D D D 0 D Tota 0 D D D 0 D D 0 D 0 D D D D D D D D D D 0 D D 0 D 0 0 D D D D D D D D 0 3 D D D D D D D 0 0 0 0 0 D D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10
s
11
u
12
B
13
u
14
__ _..,3cc,1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
--~30-C--JRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
-'T __ -""2-'-19 DENSITE DES WA TERBUCK / WA T ERBUCK DENSITY
-'-R-'---"2""8 CDMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
C 23
T
s 21
20
19
18
HA
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
5
4
3
2
LowO
Med D
High D 0 1.75 0 68 1.71
Dom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0.68 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 1.75 136 1.71
N
15
2.58
0
258 - - - - - - - -
16
0
4.85
4.85
T
17
3.95
1.77
0
572 -
s
16 19
0.47
2.15 0
0 0.47
0 0
2.15 0.47 -
20 21
1.49
0 0
0 0
2 15 1.86
0 0
2 15 1.86 -
22 \ 23 24 25
28
6 45
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 068
0.72 16 4 97 0
0 33 0 0 0
1.04 16.4 9.7 068 - -
26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - -
2 3 4 5 8 7 e 9 10
s
11
__ __,3'-'-11 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBIVGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
B
13
u
14
__ -.=.30::.iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
""T __ .;;;29-::.iDENSITE DE PHACOCHERES I WARTHOOS DENSITY
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
LowO
MedD
High D
Dom 0 o o 0 o o o 0
Total o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
o
0 - - - - - -
o 0 1.76
o o o
0 0 178 -
035
033
0.68
o
068
1.77
1.77
o
1.77 -
N
15 16
T
17
s
18 19 20 21 22 \ 23 24 25 al
J;~1tni1ii1l:
063 033
1.24 149
177 0.7
0.7 1.4 033
1 63 07 1 76
033 1
1.22
068 0 89
1.49
1.22 14
1.4 0 76 3
4.65 0.74
07 07
0.35 0.38
4.69 1.86 2.39 063
0.34 1.4
0.74
0 0 0 0 0 0
4.76 o 1 24 0.7 0.63 2 1 o 33 0 1.83
0 243 86 2.64 11.8 7 13 2 07 15 1 10.1 o
o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7.19 8.6 387 12.5 7.78 4.16 154 10.1 1.83 - - - - -
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0.68
0 0 o 0.68 0 0 0 0
0 0 o
0
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
0 o 0 0.68 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o - - - - - - -
s u
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
u
14
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
T 29 CAMPEMENTS BRACONNIERS / POACHERS CAMPS
~ COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
S 21
20
Lowe
MedD
High D
Don 0 0 0 0
Toti; 0 0 0 0 - - -
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
N
15
0
0
0
I
16
0
0
0
0 -
T
17
0
0
0
0
s
18
0
0
0
0 -
19
0
0
0
0
0
22 23 24 25 26 27
CBA
CBA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -
28 29 30 31 I 32 33 34 35 36 37
Key
CBA : Campement bracniier ancien/Old poachers camp
CBR: Campement braconnier recenl/ Recent poachers camp
CBO: Campement braconnier occupe/Occupied poachers camp; 0 _,
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - -
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
s
10 11
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA.'GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
B U
13 14
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
T 29 CARCASSES D'ELEPHANTS / ELEPHANT CARCASES
~ COMPTAGE DIRECT
A 27
N 26
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
S 21
20
LowO
MedD
HlghD
Don
Toll;
0
0 - - 0 0
D 0 -
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 D 0 0 - - -
0 0 0 0 1
0 D 0 0 0
0 0 D 0 1 - -
N I
15 16
0
0 0
0 0
0 0 -
T
17
0
1
0
1
s
18
0
0
0
0 -
D D D D
0 0 0 D
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 D 0 - -
D D 0 D
D 0 D 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 - -
32 33 34 35 36 37
D D D 0 D 0
0
0 0 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - •
T
R
A
N
s
E
C
T
s
-
s u
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LAGARN.1BA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
B
13
u
14
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERALAERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
29 CARCASSES INCONNUES / UNKNOWN CARCASES
28 COMPT AGE DIRECT
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
LowD
MedD
High D Don 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tou; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - -
N
15
0
0
0
I
16
0
0
0
0 -
T
17
0
0
0
0
s
18
1
0
0
1 -
22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - -
T
R
A
N
s
E
-
s u B u
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL i'ERIENIGelERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI/MAY 2002
29 CARCASSES/CARCASES
28 COMPTAGE DIRECT
V
26
25
24
LowD
MedD
High D
Dorr 0
Tota O
-
0
0
0 O
0 0
-
0
0
0
a
-
a
a
0
0 0 a o
-
0 0 0
o a o
0 0 0
-
0
a
0
-
N
15
0 0 a o
a o
I
18
0
0
0
0
-
T
17
ES3
a
a
0
0
s
18
US3
0 0 0
a o a a
o o a o
a o o a
o a o o
- -
22
US3
23
o a
0 0
o a
0 0
a o
-
24 25 26
a o a
a o a
0 0
o a a
a a o
-
'Z1 28129130
0
0
0
a
-
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
0
-
31 32 33 I 34 35
a
0
0
a
a
a
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
3CI
0
0
37
0
D
-
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
0 0
-
0 0
0 0
a 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
a 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 Tc,tal II'
Total C
Tc:,talS
0 0 TOTAL
- •
2 3 5 8 7 8 9 10
s
11
u
12
--~3.....,.1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
--~30"'--1 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT. MAI 2002
_T _ ~2"'"-19 COUVERTURE D'ARBRES / TREE COVER
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
18A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - -
B
13
u
14
-
N
15 16
4
5
2
3
2 1
3 2
3 2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
T
17
s
3
3
3
3 3
2 2
2
1
2
1
2
1
-
22 \ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
7 8 7
7 7 8 7
6 4 4 3 7 6
3 2 3 6 4
2 2 2 2 3 3
2 2 2 2 ---2- ~-2 2 2
4 3 2 3
3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4
3 4 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
2
1
2 2 1 1
1 1 2 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 2 1
1 1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
\
\
1
1
1
1
- - - - - - - - - •
s
2 3 4 5 8 7 6 9 10 11
----=3"-11 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
u
12
----=30:::..iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT. MAI 2002
..;.T_ _.. .,,2.:<.j9 LONGUE HERSE I LONG GRASS
R 28
A 27
26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
18A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
7
8
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - -
9
13
u
14
-
N
15 16
-
T
17
s
18
-
24 25 28 27
- - - -
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
- - - - - •
s u B u
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
:!11 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBI\/GIIAAMBA NATIONAL PARK
30 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERl£N/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2002
___l2 COUVERTURE O'ARBUSTES I BUSH COVER
28
27
2tl
25
21
20
10
8
7
8
5
4
3
2
LowO
~D
High D
Dom
Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
- - - - -
1 3 2 5 1
13 5 0 8 0 0
6 8 3 8 5 1
- -
N T s
15 16 17 16
13 13 7 6
8 4 6 6
7 7 4 4
6 5 3 J 4 3
6 4 8 4 4 3
4 5 4 4 4 2
3 J 3 3 3 2
5 4 J 2 2 2
4 2 3 1 1
3 2 3 1
2 3 , 0
4 2 0 0
1 1 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 D
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 3 1 2
3 3 J
B 7 13
, 11 28 35 27 27 22 13 13 4 5 4 1
24 113 0 0 0 0 7
25 42 36 39 40 38 43
- - -
22 23 24 25
2 2 4
J 3 2
6 6 4 5
5 6 3 5
7 6 7 8
5 4 3 4
5 5 4 4
2 2 2 3
3 2 2 3
J 2 3 5
2 2 2
2 2
17 27 24 22
19 17 20 24
2 27 4 0
9 0 0 0
47 71 48 .oUl
- -
3 5
4 5
5 6
5
4
4
J
17
22
0
39
3
8
5
19
22
0
41
26 2S 30 31
7.__ __ ...
e
e
25
0
25
e
16
0
16
5
e
17
0
17
8
11
0
11
- -
32 33 3" 36 37
6 2.67
9 2.25
2S 4.83
35 5
44 13.29
53 5.3
50 7 5.18
55 15 467
42 47 4.13
55 23 4 68
39 3.55
3:2 291
26 2.8
20 2
13 1.63
9 1
e 0.89
5 0.56
3 033
4 0.44
10 0.83
6 0.5
11 0.73
6 043
2 0.15
7 0.54
3 0.33
16 1.78
25 3.13
0 o 1713 4.39 Total Nor<
301 301 92 4.01 Total C..111
148 0 0 0.95 Total S~d
148 301 :170 2.4 TOTAL
0
0 0 0 0 o 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - •
12.38 12.38 0
17.37 17.37 0 21.39 0 21.39 0 1
20.45 20.45 0 0 30.62 30.62 0 0
28.88 2.86 31.73 3
0
0 3 0 0 33.94 8.72 42.66 0 0 0 6 6 34.30 22.94 57.24 0 2 2 0 34.38 11.43 45.81 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 30.43 30.43 12 12 0 31.52 31.52
0
5 5 4 29.09 29.09
4
27.57
7 7 10 10
11 0 26.82 4 1 25.36 7
26.16 12
13
26.09 0
10
25.36 4
19
25.73 0
17 8 31.37 21 8 34.16 11 42 43.10 11 9 38.93 26
37.52 2
6
37.60 21
7
26.16 9
0 0 24.64 3
24.71 12
1 11
1 1.
2925.0 152.0 1.0 153.0
4486.6 620.6 21.4 694.4
R=Sy/Sz 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 Vary 54.4 20.5 0.0 13.9 114.5 15.8 0.2 9.9 37.6 5.9 59.2 187.1 STRAT. STRAT.
12.8 -37.7 -3.5 1.8 TOTAL 20.4 -24.2 0.6 2.8 TOTAL
ARTHOG ATERBUCK
Pop.est.(Y) 737 237 16 243 990 614 175 8 176 797
SE(Y) 162.0 195.7 7.7 159.3 25 .2 235.8 161.4 9.8 134.0 315.75 95% C.L. 330.5 399.2 15.7 325.1 498.2 480.9 329.3 20.0 273.4 618.88 95% C.L. 44.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.3 78.4 187.9 256.3 155.5 77.67 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
- - -
27.57
26.82
25.36
26.16
26.09
25.36
25.73
31.37
34.16
43.10
38.93
37.52
37.60
26.16
24.64
24.71
481.3
15040.7
37.6
-
28.88
33.94
34.30
34.38
30.43
31.52
29.09
222.5
7109.8
5.9
-
8.58
12.38
17.37
21.39
20.45
30.62
8.58
12.38
17.37
21.39
20.45
30.62
31.73
42.66
57.24
45.81
30.43
31.52
29.09
''1(11111\ta~; .·:. ; ijtaltllii{III~ :~:·,
2.86
8.72
22.94
11.43
156.7 379.3
2341.3 13309.4
Sum (Z*y
2
13
50
58
31
127
150
142
167
108
123
177
102
53
51
1
13 5.0
167617.0
43825.3
R=Sy/Sz 2.8
Vary 3524.4
59.2 187.1
204.4
Pop.est.(Y)
ELEPHANTS
5,983
- 95% C.L. 2415.7
95% C.L. 40.4 - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0 -
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0 -
0.0
b.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0 -
STRAT.
TOTAL
2321.0
38.8 -
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
30
6
143
152
241
42
337
293
74
610
575
283
103
102
1
2992.0 8.0
1113056.0 64.0
100824.0 252.1
6.2 0.0
36903.5 9.1
721.6 -8.9
UFFALOS
13,210 70
8012.4 229.2
60.7 326.9 - - -
~ . --~,.:-~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
8
0
0.0 8.0
0.0 64.0
0.0 252.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 4.9
STRAT.
0.0 -0.1 TOTAL
0 67 13,281
0.0 195.7 7703.62
ERR 292.2 58.01 - - - •
12.38 12.38 0 0 0 17.37 0 17.37 0 0 0 0 21.39 21.39 0 0 0 0 20.45 20.45 0 0 0 0 30.62 30.62 0 0 0 0 28.88 2.86 31.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.94 8.72 42.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.30 22.94 57.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.38 11.43 45.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.43 30.43 0 0 0 0 31.52 31.52 0 0 0 0 29.09 29.09 0 0 0 0 27.57 0 0 26.82 0 0 25.36 0 0 26.16 0 0 26.09 0 3 25.36 0 0 25.73 0 0 31.37 4 0 34.16 0 0 43.10 0 0 38.93 0 0 37.52 0 0 37.60 0 0 26.16 0 0 24.64 4 0 24.71 6 0
0.0
0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 78.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 Vary 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.6 5.9 59.2 187.1 STRAT STRAT. -3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL GIRAFFE LION
Pop.est.(Y) 62 0 0 0 62 13 0 0 0 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 89.1 35.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.02
0.0 0.0 0.0 144.2 267.3 ERR ERR ERR 256.85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8.
12.38 12.38 17.37 0 17.37
21.39 0 21.39
20.45 0 20.45
30.62 0 30.62
28.88 2.86 1 31.73 0 a 0 33.94 8.72 42.66 0 15 15 34.30 22.94 57.24 2 a 0 34.38 11.43 45.81 1 a 0 30.43 30.43 a 0 0 31.52 31.52 a 2 2 29.09 29.09 a 2 2 27.57 37 12 26.82 21 0 25.36 26 0 26.16 66 3 26.09 60 24 25.36 17 1 25.73 85 8 31.37 83 0 34.16 153 21 43.10 10 16 38.93 2 18 37.52 5 1 37.60 240 48 26.16 35 9 24.64 202 2 24.71 22 0 481.3 222.5 156.7 379.3 1064.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 163.0 19.0 1.0 20.0 15040.7 7109.8 2341.3 13309.4 148496.0 5.0 a.a 5.0 4205.0 233.0 1.0 234.0
Sum (Z*y 32138.9 103.0 0.0 160.3 5501.2 630.3 30.6 791.8
R=Sy/Sz 2.2 a.a 0.0 a.a 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1
Vary 5182.7 0.6 a.a 0.4 169.6 30.2 0.2 16.9 37.6 5.9 59.2 187.1 STRAT. STRAT.
8.9 -1.7 0.0 6.0 TOTAL 39.9 -14.9 1.7 14.5 TOTAL
COB HARTBEEST
Pop.est.(Y} 4,698 26 0 25 4,724 720 166 8 187 894
SE(Y) 1672.3 29.3 0.0 22.2 1672.6 277.7 205.7 9.4 169.7 385.13 95% C.L. 3411.5 59.7 0.0 45.4 3278.2 566.6 419.6 19.2 346.1 754.86 95% C.L. 72.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.4 78.7 252.0 245.7 206.7 84.44
--------------------
12.38 12.38 0 0 17.37 0 0 17.37 0 0 0 0 21.39 21.39 0 0 1 1 20.45 20.45 0 0 0 0 30.62 30.62 0 0 0 0 28.88 2.86 31.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.94 8.72 42.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.30 22.94 57.24 3 2 5 3 0 3 34.38 11.43 45.81 1 0 1 5 0 5 30.43 30.43 2 2 0 0 31.52 31.52 1 1 2 2 29.09 29.09 0 0 1 1 27.57 0 6 26.82 1 2 25.36 2 2 26.16 0 0 26.09 0 0 25.36 0 1 25.73 0 1 31.37 2 1 34.16 2 0 43.10 0 0 38.93 3 0 37.52 0 3 37.60 1 4 26.16 1 0 24.64 1 0 24.71 2 0 481.3 222.5 156.7 37 . 15.0 7.0 2.0 9.0 · 20.0 11.0 1.0 12.0 15040.7 7109.8 2341.3 '13309.4 29.0 15.0 0.0 31.0 72.0 390 1.0 40.0 Sum (Z•y 463.2 229.7 0.0 424.4 615.2 366.9 21.4 514.3
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vary 1.0 1.3 0.0 2.1 3.1 3.6 0.2 2.4 37.6 5.9 59.2 187.1 STRAT. STRAT. 0.8 -6.0 -3.5 12.7 TOTAL 0.9 -8.2 0.6 12.3 TOTAL BUSHBUCK REEDBUCK
Pop.est.(Y) 66 61 16 75 143 88 96 8 100 193
SE(Y) 22.7 47.0 7.7 52.2 52.8 40.5 9.8 55.2 102.56 95% C.L. 46.3 96.0 15.7 106.6 103.5 82.6 20.0 112.7 201.02 - - - - - -95% -C.L. -70.0 -0.0 -0.0- 0.0- 72-.3 -93.5 256.3 112.2 104.42 -
27.57
26.82
25.36
26.16
26.09
25.36
25.73
31.37
34.16
43.10
38.93
37.52
37.60
26.16
24.64
24.71
481.3
15040.7
37.6
28.88
33.94
34.30
34.38
30.43
31.52
29.09
12.38
17.37
2139
20.45
30.62
2.86
8.72
22.94
11.43
12.38
17.37
21.39
20.45
30.62
31.73
42.66
57.24
45.81
30.43
31.52
29.09
222.5 156.7
7109.8 2341.3 13309.4
5.9
Sum {Z*y
R=Sy/Sz
Vary
59.2 187.1
Pop.est.(Y)
SE(Y)
95% C.L.
95% C.L.
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
2
0
0
0
10.0
28.0
377.8
RHINO
0.0
1.5
5.1
44
25.6
52.3
118.5 --------
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
2
47
118
224
2
202
42
16
8
82
4
27
139
35
0
0.0 0.0 0.0 948.0 0.0 0.0 00
0.0 0.0 00 137220.0 0.0 0.0 00
0.0 0.0 0.0 26490.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 00 2.0 0.0 00 0.0
0.0 00 0.0 5403.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
STRAT STRAT.
0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL -135.1 00 0.0 0.0 TOTAL
HIPPOS
0 0 0 44 4,186 0 0 0 4,186
0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 1786.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1786.80
0.0 0.0 0.0 50.3 3645.1 00 0.0 0.0 3502.12
0.0 0.0 0.0 113.9 87.1 ERR ERR ERR 83.67 - - - - - - - - - - - -
12.38 12.38 1 1 ·17.37 0 0 17.37 0 0 0 0 21.39 21.39 1 1 1 1 20.45 20.45 0 0 0 0 30.62 30.62 0 0 0 0 28.88 2.86 31.73 1 0 1 1 0 1 33.94 8.72 42.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.30 22.94 57.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.38 11.43 45.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.43 30.43 0 0 0 0 31.52 31.52 0 0 0 0 29.09 29.09 0 0 0 0 27.57 0 0 26.82 0 0 25.36 0 0 26.16 1 0 26.09 0 0 25.36 0 0 25.73 0 0 31.37 0 0 34.16 0 0 43.10 0 0 38.93 1 2 37.52 0 0 37.60 0 3 26.16 0 0 24.64 0 0 24.71 0 0 1 .0 1.0 1. .0 2341.3 13309.4 2.0 13.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Sum {Z*y 65.1 190.7 28.9 21.4 53.1
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 0.0 00 0.0 Vary 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 37.6 5.9 59.2 187.1 STRAT. STRAT. 0.3 -1.6 0.3 -2.7 TOTAL 2.7 -1.6 0.6 -0.9 TOTAL
GREY AND RED-FLANKED DUIKER ORIBI
Pop.est.(Y) 9 9 16 25 33 22 g 8 17 39
SE{Y) 7.8 14.3 12.7 20.9 20.6 19.3 14.3 9.8 16 8 3090 95% C.L. 15.8 29.1 25.9 42.7 40.4 39.4 29.1 20.0 34.2 60.56 95% C.L. 179.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.6 178.5 332.0 256.3 204.5 156.66 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' c- ~ ...
12.38 12.38 0 0 0 0
17.37 17.37 0 0 0 0
21.39 21 39 0 0 0 0
20.45 20.45 0 0 0 0
30.62 3062 0 0 0 0
28.88 2.86 31.73 0 0 0 0 0 0
3394 8 72 42.66 0 0 0 0 0 0
34.30 22.94 57.24 0 0 0 0 0 0
34.38 11.43 45.81 0 0 0 0 0 0
30.43 30.43 0 0 1 1
3152 31.52 0 0 0 0
29.09 29.09 0 0 0 0
27.57 0 0
26.82 0 0
.•,:,T
~ ... -. 25.36 1 0
26.16 0 0
26.09 0 0
25.36 1 0
25.73 0 0
31 37 0 1
34.16 0 0
43.10 1 0
38.93 2 0
37 52 0 0
37.60 0 0
26.16 0
24.64 0
24.71 0
Suitt~o 15040.7 7109.8 2341.3 13309.4 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 rn
;J:\\>d. Sum (Z*y 171.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.4 30.4 0.0 30.4
R=Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vary 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
37.6 5.9 59.2 187.1 STRAT. STRAT.
1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 0.1 -1.3 0.0 -0.1 TOTAL
ELE CARCASES UNKNOW CARCASES
Pop.est.(Y) 22 0 0 0 22 4 9 0 8 13
.0 4
95% C.L. 27.1 0.0 26 1 11.7 28.8 00 24.5 3807
95% C.L. 122.9 0.0 118.1 264.2 329.0 ERR 293.2 288.89
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA
GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENERAL SYSTEMATIQUE
GENERAL AERIAL SYSTEMATIC SAMPLE COUNT
Calibration Graphs, Distribution Maps and Population Estimate Calculations
May / Mai 2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P.N.Garamba Aerial Count 2003
Mid seat observers Calibrations
700 ·~------------------------
100 · ···;·····---------······---------·-------···-------------··--······---·····---·-··-·-·······--···--····--
o-~+++l-l-H4+++H-++H4+++H-l-l-H4+++++l-l-H+H+l+l4+l-+++++·Hf+-H+H-++Hf+H+++tt
200 230 240 250 290 300 310 320 330 350 3IO 370 370 310 3IO 390 .00 410 4IO
Height agl (feel) ·
Regression Output:
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Obseivations
Degrees of Freedom
X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.
y=mx+c
0.87003
0.105812
218.1045
59.65976
0.480829
75
73
y= 0.87003 *all+ 218.1045
2 3 5 6 7 8 9
s
10 11
U B U
12 13 14
N T S
15 16 17 18
---"3-"-11 PARC NATIONAL CE LA GA.RAMBA/GA.RAMBA NATIONAL PARK 370 370 350
___30 _,RECENSENENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
_T_~29-"-IAL TITUCE CE VOL (en pillds) I FLIGHT ALTITUDE (in feet)
380 350 300 360...._ _ __,
. 355 370 360 320 360 350
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
121\
12
11A
11
10A
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - -
365 390 375
355 350 350 385
390 370 350 360 345 350 360 350 360 365
· 415 410 350 360 360 350 345 325 355 350
350 360 370· 375 350 350 350 375 310 350
365 375 335 360 310 350 390 350 370
355 365 330 350 365 330 355 350 365
340 350 365 335 350 325 365 360
380 350 360 350 370 350 355 360
345 345 330
350 365 350 350 375 350 360 350
345 350 350 340 340 350 320 350
355 360 350 370 350 330 340 370 '
340 345 355 350 350 355 330 350
350 350 340 355 350 345 345 345
350 350 350 355 350 350 350 350
350 350 350 350 360 360 370 380
320 330 340 320 350 400 350 370
380 350 340 350 350 350 340 360 350
350 350 350 330 350 340 350 380 350
355 360 340 370 350 350 350 360
350 340 350 350 370 340 360 350
350 350 330 330 350 350 400 350
360 400 350 350 370 350 350 345
350 350 365 370 350 350 355 340
370 350 380 350 355 345 345
- - - - -
350 350
-
383 363
343 343
353 353
373 373
363 363
360 360
345 362 345 360
345 350 350 355 348 35'(
350 300 355 365 355 35'( 352
353 366 356
351 351
360 360
344 344
360 360
345 345
351 351
346 346
349 349
349 349
358 358
359 359
356 356
354 354
355 355
348 348
358 358
358 358
354 354
357 357
359 359 Total Nord
354 354 353 354 Total Centre
35'( 354 Total Sud
354 35'( 357 355 TOTAL
- - - - - - - •
1 I 2 I 3 I • I 5 I 8 I 1 I a I g I 10 I ~ I g I 183] ~1 f5l 1~l{1l~al w I 20 21 22 23 24 zsl2elvlzel291~1Ml321~1341~1381v
31 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA. NATIONAL PARK - 2.7 2.7 2.61 8.01 8.01 ~ RECENS1i1IENT GENERAL AERIEN/OENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2D03 2.88 2.61 2.4 2.88 10.32 1032
T 29 SAMPlE AREA PER SUB-UNIT 2.83 2.7 2.88 2.48 2.88 2.81 15.74 15.74
R 28 ECHANTILLONAGE PAR SOUS UNITE _J - 2.68 2.63 2.88 2.83 2.68 2.79 2.72 1B.99 18.99
A 27 2.83 2.7 2.61 2.83 2.61 2.81 2.86 16.68 18.68
N 26 2.79 2.7 2.81 2.88 2.59 261 2.88 2.81 2.88 2.68 26.57 26.57
s 25 2.9 2.87 2.61 2.88 2.!Ml 2.61 2.59 2.5 2.63 2.61 2.59 26.B!i 2.59 29.24
E 24 2.88 2.88 2.61 2.88 2.7 2.72 2.81 2.61 2.61 2.72 2.44 2.61 2.59 2.61 2.e1 31.62 7.82 39.-4-4
C 23 2.81 2.66 2.72 2.55 2.88 2.44 2.61 2.70 2.61 27 2.81 2.81 2.61 2 ... 2.83 2.68 31.60 21.08 .. 1.!12
T 22 2.61 2.83 2.88 2.53 2.61 2.68 2.53 2.63 2.61 2.88 2.61 2.68 2.S6 2.7 2.74 2.61 31.<19 10.1 .. 42.22
s 21 2.57 2.57 2.61 2.68 2.55 2.61 2.5 2.68 266 2.7 2.66 28.61 26.81
2D - 2.74 2.74 2.81 2.88 2.61 2.7 2.61 2.63 2.66 2.63 2.61 2922 2922
19 2.81 2.59 2.59 2.53 2.57 2.61 2.61 2.57 2.57 2.61 25B7 25.87
18 2.81 2.83 2.81 2.68 2.81 2.61 2.72 2.61 2.66 2.61 26.57 26.57
17A 2.S6 2.59 2.81 2.61 2.57 2.57 2.61 2.46 2.61 ...._
17 2.53 2.83 2.66 2.61 2.7 2.61 2.53 2.57 2.7
23.32 23.32
23.54 23.54
16A 2.57 2.57 2.59 2.63 2.61 2.61 2.63 2.53 2.61 23.37 23.37
18 2.66 2.81 2.61 2.57 2.63 2.81 2.59 2.59 2.59 23.47 23.47
15A 2.57 2.81 2.81 2.61 2.83 2.81 2.61 2.81 2.61 23SO 23.50
15 2.61 2.61 2.81 2.61 2.61 2.ot 2.66 2.7 2.74 1,4A - 2.83 2.B3 2.7 2.88 2.48 2.53 2.57 VIS 261 2.B3 2.81 2.7 I
1 .. 2.7 2.81 2.61 2.B3 2.74 2.81 257 2.61 261 2.61 2.57 2.88 2.61
23.B2 23.82
31.84 31.84
31.88 31.88
13A I 2.811 2.74 2.61 2.53 2.83 2.61 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.53 2.81 2.57 2.61 2.74 2.61 3948 39.48
13 I 2.571 2.7 2.81 2.81 2.68 2.88 2.83 2.88 2.57 2.7 2.81 2.61 2.61 2.88 38.99 38.B9
12A. I 2.61 2.4 2.81 2.57 2.1 2.81 2.57 2.61 2.61 2.7 2.57 2.88 2.61 3394 33.84
12 I 2.61 2.74 2.74 2.66 2.74 2.81 2.61 2.53 2.53 2.81 2.81 2.83 261 34.45 34 ... 5
11A 2.81 2.66 2.83 2.81 2.81 2.7 2.61 2.61 2.50 2.61 23.84 23.84
11 2.88 2.81 2.61 2.66 2.7 2.61 2.61 2.83 2.57 23.69 23.69
10A 2.66 2.7 2.61 2.74 2.61 2.63 2.59 2.59 2.61 21.14 21.1•
10 0.00 0.00 98.32 98.32 T otlll Nord
9
8
1
0.00 205.26 42.20 238. 72 T otlll Cantre
444.39 D.00 0.00 444.39 Total Sud
444.39 20526 1,40.52 779.43 TOTAL
6
5
4
3
2
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
-
31
30
29
26
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
6
5
4
3
2
s u 8 u N
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
PARC NATIONAL DE lA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
ELEPHANT
2
18
2
5 3 2
10 5 14
2 7 13 16
2 2
25 10 7
5 2 16 13
2 11
- - - - - -
T s
16 17 16
3 3
59 13
7 65 10
7 18
24 12 45
14 2 13
19 7
16 26 29
23 1 21
3
6
-
4
6 1
10 17
17
9 8
24 39
16 22
24 6
-
21
24
214
6
17
3
16
16
26
7 5
29
16
2
32 ,
- -
4
0
0
6
40
152
331
70
163
48
116
157
122
129
97
16
1453
1453
- - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4
0
0
6
40
152
331
70
163
46
116
157
122
129
97
18
0 0 0 Total Nord
0 0 0 Total Centre
0 0 1453 Total Sud
0 0 1453 TOTAL
- - -
S U B U N T s
2 3 4 5 a 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
--..c.31'-IPARC NATIONAL DE lA GARAMBNGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
___30 '-IRECENSENENT GENERAL AERJEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
_T_~29'-'-, BUFFLES /\BUFFALOES
R
A
s
E
C
T
s
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17A
17
1SA
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
90
80
2
2
7
3
- - - - - - - -
81
5
130
13 131
85
s
2
5 2
230
100 7
- -
181
122
208
200
- - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
D 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
81 61
2 2
5 5
501 501
466 466
296 296
418 418
162 162
15 15
427 427
303 303
274 274
50 50
43 43
0 0
0 0 0 o Total Nor
0 0 0 0 Total Cer
3024 0 0 3024 Total Sue
3024 0 0 3024 TOTAL
- - -
S U B U N T S
t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
--~3--11 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
--~30-'--lRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
~T---=29-"-IC08ES1KOBS
R 26
A 27
N 2tl
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19 4
18
17A 7 6
17
16A 5
16 3
15A 74
15 105 60
14A 22
14 142
13A
13
12A
12
11A 2
11
10A
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - -
2
3
3
1 2 19
2
19 67 4
2
8
12
2 16
-
3
19
72
6
11
1
-
2
130
3
- - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0 2
2 0 2
3 0 3
0 0 0
2 2
7 7
5 5
19 19
1113 113
80 80
259 259
6 8
74 74
i66 166
96 96
294 294
18 16
16 16
49 49
19 19
70 70
11 11
12 12
0 0 1 1 Total Nord
21 21 0 21 Total Centre
1304 0 0 1304 Total Sud
1304 21 1 13.26 TOTAL
- - - •
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
__.. :;3-'-'1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
__ ..:;30=-iRECENSENENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
"'"T_ _..;;;;29.a..iGIRAFFE
R
A
N
s
E
C
T
s
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
13 13
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 Tota Nord
0 0 0 O T Ola Cent re
13 0 0 13 Tota Sud
13 0 0 13 TOTAL
- - - -
2 3 4 5 s 7 e e 10 ,
5
, ~ 1
8
3 ~ : 1s : : 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 I 21 20 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
__.: =.3-'-11 PAR:C NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GAR:AMBA NATIONAL PAR:K
---=-30=-lRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
'"'T---=29~R:HINOCER:0S
R: 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - -
2
2 2 1
- - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 2
5 5
1, 1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
0 0 0 o Tota Centre
9 0 0 9 Total Sud
9 0 0 9 TOTAL
- - - -
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9
s
10 11 ~ : ~ 1: 18 ;7 1: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26127 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36137
___3-- 11 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA.IGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
___30 --IRECENSBIENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
..T.... ----=29~BUBALES1HARTEBEESTE
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
18A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
9
8
7
B
5
4
3
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
5 0 5
0 0 0
0 0 0
9 9
0 0
24 24
0 0
18 18
a 8
14 14
17 17
4 4
32 32
24 24
17 17
12 12
51 51
19 19
15 15
25 25
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
39 39 0 39 Total Centre
256 0 0 256 Total Sud
256 39 0 295 TOTAL
- - - -
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 6· 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
__., ,3c:..i1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAJGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
---=30~ RECENSEME.NT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
...aT_ _:29:.iGUIB HARNACHE / BUSHBUCK
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
2 2
0 0
0 0
3 3
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
0 0 0 O T olal Centre
13 0 0 13 Total Sud
13 0 0 13 TOTAL
- - - -
2 3 4 5 B 7 8 9
S U B U N
1 D 11 12 13 14 15
__ ""3°"'1 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
---==30=-iRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
_T_~29"iCEPHALOPHES I OUlKERS
R 28 CER&CEG
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
HA
17
1BA
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
16 ;7 1: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26127 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
D 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
1 1 0 1 Total Centre
1 0 0 1 Total Sud
1 1 0 2 TOTAL
- - - -
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18
--~3_...1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
--~30~RECENSENENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
~T--=29~REDUNCAIREEDBUCK
R 28
A 27
N 26 2
S 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
S 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - -
32 33 34 35 36 37
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
4
- - - - - - - -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2 2 Total Nord
O 1 Total Cemre
0 4 Total Sud
2 7 TOTAL
- - -
U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
s
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26127 28 29 30 31 132 33 34 35 38137
---=-3.ci1 PARC NATIONAL oe LA GARAMBNGARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
---=-30::.iRECENSENENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
_T_~2~9 ANTlLOPE ROUANE / ROAN
R 26
A 27
N 26
s 25
e 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
16
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
8
7
8
5
4
3
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
12 12
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
0 0 0 o Total Centre
12 0 0 12 Total Sud
12 0 0 12 TOTAL
- - - -
s U B U N
2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
---.c.3--i1 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
__ ..c.30"-IRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
_T_~29-'-'0URIB1 I ORIBI
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - -
: :8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26127 28 29 30 31 132 33 34 35· 38 37
0 0
D 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
D 0
0
0 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
1 1
0 0
D 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
1 1 2 2 Total Centre
5 0 0 5 Total Sud
5 1 2 7 TOTAL
- - - - - - - - - - - -
U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9
s
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21
__ ..:;,31~PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
__ ..::30=-iRECENSENENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
_T_ _____29 "1WA TERBUCK
R 26
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20 2
19
18 2 3
17A 2
17
2 2
15A
16
2
15A
15
14A 2
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
9.
a·
7
8
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 4 0 4
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2
3 3
3 4 4
5 5
3 3
16 18
2 2
2 2
1 1
2 2
1 1
35 35
3 3
0 0
3 3
2 2
0 0
11 11
22 22
0 0 0 O Total Nerd
13 13 0 13 Total Centre
110 0 0 110 Total Sud
110 13 0 123 TOTAL
- - - - - - - - - -
U B U N T S
4 5 6 7 8 g
s
10 " 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
---=3-'-11 PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
__ ..:30.=.iRECENSEfllENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
_T~-"29~PHACOCHERE/WARTHOG
R 28
A 'Z7
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
9
B
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
32 33 34 35 ~ 137
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 3 3
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
2 2
2 2
1 1
11 11
14 14
22 22
12 12
12 12
7 7
10 10
19 19
14 14
4 4
4 4
14 14
17 17
3 3
1 1
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
4 4 3 7 Total Centre
165 0 0 165 Total Sud
165 4 3 172 TOTAL
- - - - - - -
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
__ _=:3.!.J1 PARC NATIONAL OE lA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
---=30~RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
....,T_--::29=.iLION
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
7
8
s
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
0 0 0 0 Total Centre
2 0 0 2 Total Sud
2 0 0 2 TOTAL
- - - -
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
__ ..:;31.:.iPA.RC NATIONAL DE LA GA.RAMBAIGA.RAMBA. NATIONAL PARK
__ ..:;30:,iRECENSEIIENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, .i 2003
-'T--=29::.iCROCOOILE ~ VARANr I CROCODILE A.NO MONITOR
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 0 0
2 0 0
0 Total Nord
- -
o Total Centre
2 Total Sud
2 TOTAL
- •
S U B U N T S
2 3 4 S 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18
---=3c:..i1 PARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
__.. ;:30:.::a RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2G03
-'T'--__,29~ f'OTAMOCHERE f BUSH f>IG
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
- - - - - - - - -
I
26127 28 29
- - - -
30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 7
0 0 0 0 Tcllll Nerd
0 0 0 0 T ctal Centra
7 0 0 7 Tclal Sud
7 0 0 7 TOTAL
- - - - - - -
S U B U N T $
2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26127 2B 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
__.. ;;;.3-'-11 F'ARC NATIONAL OE LA GARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL F'ARK
---=-30-=-lRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERlEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAJ 2003
_T_--=2~9 ANCIENNES CARCASSES INCONNUES
-'-R'----=2-=-lB OLO UNKNOWN CARCASSES
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
16A
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
3
0
3
0
0
1
0
2
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 O Total Nerd
12 0
12 0
-
O O Total Centre
0 12 Total Sud
0 12 TOTAL
- - -
S U B U N T S
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
---=3-'-11 F'ARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBAIGARAMBA NATIONAL F'ARK
___30 ---IRECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIEN/GENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
_T_-"'29::.iBABOUI N I BABOON
R 28
A 27
N 26
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
s 21
20
19
18
17A
17
1SA
16
15A
15
14A
14
13A
13
12A
12
11A
11
10A
10
9
B
7
6
5
4
3
2
- - - - - - - - - - - -
32 33 34 35 36 37
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 7
9 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 Total Nord
0 0 0 0 Total Centre
20 0 0 20 Total Sud
20 0 0 20 TOTAL
- - - - - - - -
s u B U N T
4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
----"3-'<1 PARC NATIONAL DE LAGARAMBA/GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
----=3c::.i0 RECENSEMENT GENERAL AERIENIGENERAL AERIAL COUNT, MAI 2003
""'T---"2~9 CAMPEMENT BRACDNIERSIPOACHING CAMPS
R 28
"'-A'"----=2~7 0 = OCCUPIED / OCCUPE
..:..N=------=2:::..6 A= ANCIEN / OLD
s 25
E 24
C 23
T 22
S 21
20
19
6
5
4
3
2 - - - - - - - -
: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26127 28 29 30 31 132 33 34 35 36 37
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2CBO
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
CBA
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 O Total Nerd
0 0 0 o Total Centre
0 0 0 0 Total Sud
0 0 0 0 TOTAL
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
26 57
2332
23.54
23 37
23.47
2350
23.82
31.84
3166
3946
36 89
33.84
3445
23 84
23.69
21.14
44439
12662.49
34.6
-
26.65
3162
31.60
31 49
28.81
29.22
25.87
205.26
205.26
0.00
205.26
5.7
-
1 8.01
10.32 10.32
15.74 15.74
1B.99 18.99
18.66 18.68
26.57 2657
259 29.24
7 B2 3944
21.06 41.92
10.74 42.22
98 32
42.20
D.00
14052
446
2881
2922
25.87
98.32
236.72
444.39
77943
R=Sy1Sz
Vary
125.2
Pop.est.(YI
-
... . El.EPIWITS
HG! S1\.t MD NlH LOW
4
0
0
8
40
152
331
70
163
48
116
157
122
129
97
18
14530
247453.0
41474.2
33
7700.2
6,1143
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
00
00
DO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
-
. ,. lUFFAI..Oi!819UFFLES'.'.'•"''·' • •C:,/(;?'?/'·''t(!;;·:-" .•
TOT.imnotAL· HIGHsl'i-1 wio,mi Low NTH ,or.NTH· TOTAL., HG\s
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
D
-
0
D
D
0
D
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
0.0
00
00
0.0
0.0
00
SW.AT.
TOTAL
0 6,948
.0 1995
00 39106
O.D 56 3
-
1
81
2
5
501
466
296
416
162
15
427
303
274
50
43
0
30240
11142800
B8056.5
68
361!!2.9
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
OD
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
SW.AT
TOTAL
14,480
4 1
0.0 8292 76
0.0 57.35
- -
19
113
BO
259
8
74
166
96
294
18
16
49
19
70
11
12
1304.0
223866.0
35117.0
29
7839.3
-73 4
6,235
-
2
2
3
0
2
7
5
21.0
95.0
602.9
0.1
5.3
-231
200
0
0
D
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
1.0
16 7
10
12
19 4
DO
-
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DO
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
SW.AT.
TOTAL
0 6,441
- - - -
GIRAFFES , ,, ·'t91>POPOTMI~· '.···"·,
HIGH S1i-t MID NtH LOW lOT.NTii TOTAi. ·-lritAL HIGHS11i MIONTlHOW 101'.tmt ltltAl·,
B.01
10 3.2 1032 0 0 0 0 0 0
1574 15 74 0 0 0 0 0 0
1B 99 16 99 a 0 0 a 0 0
1866 18.6B 0 a 0 a 0 0
26 57 2657 0 0 0 0 0 0
26.65 2.59 29.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31.62 7 B2 3944 0 0 0. 0 0 a a 0 0
3160 21 06 41 92 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0
31.49 10.74 42.22 0 0 a 0 0 a a 0 0
28.81 28.81 0 0 0 0 0 0
2922 29.22 0 0 a 0 a 0
2587 25.B7 0 0 D a 0 0
26.57 0 0 D
2332 D D 0
23.54 D 0 48
23 37 13 0 42
23.47 a 0 6
23.50 0 0 98
23.82 0 2 45
311:14 D 5 37
3166 D 1 39
39.46 0 , 3
36.89 0 0 38
33 84 0 a 35
34 45 D a 4
23.84 D D 197
2369 0 0 39
2114 D 0 4
, Total 444.39 20526 98.32 96 3.2 13.0 DO DO 0.0 9.0 00 00 DO 635.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Si.I,~ 1286.2.49 20526 42.20 236.72 1690 0.0 0.0 DO 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61663.0 0.0
0.00 0 DO 44439 303.B 0.0 DO 0.0 277 9
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.D 0.0 16587.5 00 0.0 0.0
205.26 140.52 779.43
R=SylS~ 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vary 10.6 0.0 OD 0.0 1 7 0.0 DO 0.0 2430 8 0.0 0.0 0.0
34.6 57 446 125.2 STRAT STRAT.
-3.B 0.0 00 00 00 0.0 DO TOTAL 0.0 00 0.0 TOTAL
Pc,p.eat(Y)
58.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 2334.2
134 77 0.0 0.0 0.0 769
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
lO'T.NTH TOTAL
J ··;.f<~r:·-·:·iJON··,::· ... ; --\ ·.
H8U1H MID lffit Low· 10'T.N1H TOTAL
10.3.2 0 a 15.74 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 18.99 a 0 0 0 0 0 1868 0 a 0 a 0 0 26.57 0 0 0 0 0 a 26.65 2 5-9 4 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 31.62 713.2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 31.60 21 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 31.49 10.74 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 2881 2 0 a 0 0 0 29.22 3 0 2 0 0 0 25.87 4 0 2 0 0 0 26.57 5 1 0 23.32 3 11 0 23 54 18 14 0 23.37 2 22 0 23.47 2 12 0 2350 1 12 0 23.82 2 7 0 31.134 1 10 0 3186 35 19 0 39.46 3 14 0 36.89 a 4 0 33134 3 4 0 34.45 2 14 0 23.134 0 17 0 2369 11 3 2 21.14 0 1 0 444.39 205.26 96.3,2 96.32 68.0 13 a 0.0 a.a 165.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 D.O 0.0 12862.49 20526 42.20 236.72 1740.0 45.0 00 0.0 2323.0 a.a 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 444.39 2400.7 355.4 0.0 0.0 4592.2 110.2 a.a 0.0 47.4 00 0.0 00 205.26 140.52 779.43
R~5y,1Sz 02 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.-4 D.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 Vary 83.7 3.5 0.0 0.0 41.4 1.0 00 0.0 03 0.0 00 0.0 34.6 5.7 44,6 125.2 SlRAT. 5-mAT STRAT. 24 -17.9 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 0.6 43 -3.3 0.0 TOTAL -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL
Pop.aat.(Y) 421 124 0 0 544 788 38 37 0 11&4 18 0 0 0 10
1 1 1 1 1 1. , 1. 95"4 C.L. 428.7 175.8 00 0.0 445.2 316.1 79.0 245 0.0 313.95 23.8 0.0 0.0 22 7 95"4 C.L. 10"1.9 00 a.a 0.0 81.8 40.1 0.0 00 0.0 36.32 2471 0.0 0.0 2374
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. ::·,··· ··,··au!MU!S i HARTEBEEST ~18 HARNACffE 18U8HBUCK · . . ' ; CEPHALOPHES IDUIKERa -· ' ' -• :
HIGH SlK MD NTH LOW lOT.NTH lOTAL lOTAL HIGH$TH MllHfflt LOW lOT.liffl'I 'SOTA&..
10.32 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.74 0 0 0 0 0 0
18.99 0 0 0 0 0 0
18.66 0 0 0 0 0 0
2657 0 0 0 0 0 0
2665 2.59 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31.62 7.82 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31.60 21.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31.49 10.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28.B1 9 0 0 0 1 0
2922 0 0 0 0 0 0
25.B7 24 0 0 0 0 0
26.57 0 0 0
23.32 16 0 1
2354 8 0 0
23.37 14 2 0
23.47 17 0 0
23.50 4 0 0
23.82 32 0 0
31.84 24 5 0
31.66 17 0 0
3946 12 0 0
36.89 51 0 0
3:3.84 19 1 0
34.45 15 2 0
23 84 25 0 0
2369 0 0 0
21.14 0 3 0
444.39 205.26 98.32 98.32 256.0 39.0 0.0 0.0 130 a.a 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
12662.49 205.26 42.20 236.72 6734.0 6830 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.00 444.39 7603.4 1064.9 0.0 0.0 372.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 28.6 0.0 0.0
.-.. -~~ .r(.(r 205.26 140.52 779.43
R%Sy/Sz 0.6 0,2 o.o 0.0 0.0 a.a 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vary 175.9 77.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
34.6 5.7 44.6 1252 SlRAT. S1RAT.
0.0 0.0 00 0.0 TOTAL -03 co TOTAL
POp.NL(YI a 0 82 5 10 0 a f4
) .1 .0 1
95% C.L. 571.5 726.2 o.o 0.0 667.8 68.5 o.o 0.0 0.0 65.84 11.8 0.0 0.0 296
95% C.L. 46.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.7 110.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.91 247.3 00 0.0 208.8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' CARCASSESCATSM CROCODILES . - .. , '"~ .... ~.:~:; -~- :· ',_;
HK;H $TH MD NTH LOW l'OT.NTH TOTAL HIGH SlH MID tfflt LOW NTH TOT.NTHI TOTAL. 'TOTAL
10.32 0 0 D 0 0 0
15.74 0 a a 0 D 0
1899 D D 0 0 D 0
1S6B 0 0 D a 0 0
2657 a D 0 D D 0
2665 2.59 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0
3162 7 61 a 0 0 D D 0 0 0 0
31.60 21 06 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0
3149 10.74 0 0 0 D D a 0 0 a
26.81 a 0 D 0 0 a
29.22 0 0 D 0 0 0
25.67 0 0 D a 0 0
26 57 3 0 D
2332 a 0 0
2354 0 0 D
23.37 1 1 0
23.47 0 0 0
23.50 2 D 0
23.S2 0 D 0
31.64 4 , 0
3166 0 D 0
39.46 0 D 0
36.89 2 D 0
3364 a D 0
34.45 0 0 0
23.64 0 a 0
23.69 0 0 0
2114 0 a 7
44439 205.26 98.32 98.32 120 0.0 00 0.0 2D 00 DO DO 7 D 0.0 0.0 00
12B62.49 205.26 4220 236.72 340 0.0 00 a.a 20 0.0 0.0 OD 49.0 0.0 0.0 a.a
OOO 0.00 44439 351.2 00 0.0 0.0 552 0.0 0.0 a.a 148 D 00 00 0.0
205.26 140.52 779.43
R~Sy/Sz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 0.0 00 0.0
v.-y 1.7 00 0.0 0.0 01 0.0 OD a.a 3.1 00 00 0.0
34.6 5.7 446 125.2 STRAT STIVIT
1.2 a.a 00 -0.0 0.0 0.0 OD TOTAL 0.0 0.0 101; L
Pop.ast(Yl D D ,01 33 D 0 0 33
( D.
95%CL. 59.6 00 0.0 0.0 57.3 16 0 0.0 0.0
95%C.L 103.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.8 167 6 0.0 0.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
26 57
23.32
23.54
23 37
23.47
23.50
23 62
31.64
31 66
3946
36.69
33.64
34 45
2364
23.69
21 14
44439
12B62 49
346
26 65
31.62
31.60
31 49
28 e1
29.22
25.87
205 26
205 26
0 00
205 26
57
- -
. IU!OUNCA I REEDBUCK ·
HIGH STH MD NTii LOW TOT.NTH TOTAL
10.32
15.74
18 99
1668
26 57
2 59
7.82
21 06
10.7.11
9632
4220
0.00
1.110.52
4.11.6
98.32
236 72
44439
779.43
R%Sy1Sz
Very
125.2
Pop.est.(Yl
(
95% C.L.
95% C.L.
- -
0
1
0
D
2
D
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
D
4.0
6.0
107.2
00
0.3
13.4
27.3
142.7
0
0
1
0
D
0
0
1 0
1.0
31 6
0.0
0.1
-05
1
26.2
0.0
-
0
0
0
D
2
D
0
0
0
20
4.0
53 1
0.0
0.7
37
36 5
0.0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DO
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
STRAT
0 0 TOTAL
0.0
0.0
-
ANTEt.Ol'E ROUANE /ROAN .' .. · ·. . . ' OURl!i I ORlilt '..:
HIGH Sll-1 MID NTH LOW NTH TOT:ffllt TOTAL HIGH SlH MD N111 I.OW
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
12 0
14.110
4.112 7
0.0
90
137.3
239.3
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
00
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
DO
0.0
00
00
00
00
00
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
00
00
131.94
22994
-
2
0
0
1
0
0
D
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5.0
7.0
1450
0.0
04
28.0
116.9
-
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
10
1.0
29.2
0.0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-2.2
16.4 o_o
-
0
0
D
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
0.0
0.0
00
DO
-
STRAT
TOTAL
- - -
- - -
26.57
23.32
23.5"1
23.37
23.47
2350
23.82
31.84
31.El6
39.46
36.89
33.84
34.45
23.84
2369
21.14
444.39
12862.49
34.6
-
2665
31.62
31.60
31.49
28.81
29.22
25.87
205.26
205.26
0.00
205.26
5.7
-
10.32
15.74
18.99
1866
26.57
259
7.62
2106
10.74
98 32
42.20
OOO
140.52
44.6
8.01
10.32
15.74
18.99
18.68
2657
29.24
39.44
41.92
42.22
28.81
29.22
25.87
9832
236.72
444.39
779.43
R~Sy/Sz
VBI y
125.2
Pop.nt.(Y)
()
95% C.L.
95% C.L.
0
0
0
0
7
9
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
D
0
20.0
146.0
511.1
0.0
8.1
-3.0
- -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
-
0
0
0
D
0
D
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
D
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
STRAT
0.0 10TAL
0.0 130.2
0.0 136:
-
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
2.0
55.2
0.0
01
-0.D
16.0
1678
-
0
D
0
0
D
0
0
00
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
DO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
-
15.40
181.02
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
7
7.0
49.0
146.0
0.0
3.1
-3.1
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
STRAT.
TOTAL
4.
0.0 79.9
0.0 236.8
- - - -
•• •• • .II ....
A
• ,I
al
al
..&
PARC NATIONAL DE LA GARAMBA, RECENSEMENT GENERAL
PILOT SUMMARY SHEET
Survey ........... Garamba N. P. General large mammal systematic sample survey
Oates: From .. 14 May 2003 To: 18th May 2003
Pilot.. ... Fraser Smith .......................... . Aircraft .... 90-CBR C 206 ................ .
DATE TAKE OFF LAND HOURS PURPOSE FUEL
14.5.2003 15:40 16:05 0. 4 Calibrations
15.5.2003 08:2 5· 10:50 2.4 Transect 31-26
15.5.2003 16:08 17:38 1.5 Transects 25-24
16.5.2003 08:22 11:20 2.8 Transects 23-18
16.5.2003 16:02 17:52 1.8 Transects 17 A-16 '
17.5.2003 08:10 10:37 2.5 Transects 15A-13A
17.5.2003 16:29 17:25 0.9 Transects 11-10A
18.5.2003 08:20 10:45 2.4 Transects 13A-11 A
4 days 14.7 Hrs@55Lit/hr = 808.51it
,
.. ,
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRANSECT SUMMARY
SURVEY. General systematic large mammal survey
DATES: From.14 May 2003 ....... To.18 May 2003 .............•........... Aircraft .. C206 90-CBR. .................... .
AREAS .... Garamba National Park (5,000 km2)
Nominal flying height... .... 350 ........ .feet Target strip width (L+R) ...... 500 ................ metres
Pilot.. .......... Fraser Smith.......... FSO .............. Kes Hillman Smith
RSO L.M. Amube Ndey RSO R.M ..... Paulin Tshikaya
RSO L.R. Serge lliabo RSO R.R ...... Mambo Marinda
Z ··············-··················· N ·········-·-·-············ n· -··············
TRl.\l"JS DIR ORDER !DATE SUBUNITS FRCM-TO DISTANCE TIM::: SPEED
FLCWN (l<m) (mir.:;~ {k~hl
_.,
31 W-E 1 15.5.03 3 22-24 15 4.5 200
30 E-W 2 15.5.03 4 25-22 20 6.38 188
29 W-E 3 15.5.03 6 22-27 30 9.42 191 .
28 E-W 4 15.5.03 7 27.;: 1 35 11.18 188
27 W-E 5 t5.5.03 7 21-27 35 11.08 190
26 E-W 6 15.5.03 10 27-18 50 16.25 185
25 W-E 7 15.5.03 11 18-28 55 17 194
24 E-W 8 15.5.03 15 30-16 75 25 180
23 W-E 9 16.5.03 16 16-31 80 27.2 176
-
22 E-W 10 16.5.03 16 31-16 80 24.38 197
21 W-E 11 16.5.03 11 16-26 55 17.6 187
20 E-W 12 16.5.03 11 15-25 55 16.12 205
19 W-E 13 16.5.03 10 15-24 50 15.25 197
18 E-W 14 16.5.03 10 24-15 50 14.1 213
17A W-E 15 16.5.03 9 15-23 45 15.1 179
17 E-W 16 16.5.03 9 23-15 45 11.57 233 --
16A W-E 17 16.5.03 9 15-23 45 15.25 177
16 E-W 18 16.5.03 9 23-15 45 13.18 205
15A W-E 19 17.5.03 9 15-23 45 14.58 185
15 E-W 20 17.5.03 9 23-15 45 13.26 204
14A W-E 21 17.5.03 12 12-23 60 19.04 189
14 E-W 22 17.5.03 13 23-11 65 19.4 201
13A W-E 23 17.5.03 15 9-23 75 23.29 193
13 E-W 26 18.5.03 15 23-9 75 24 188
12A W-E 27 18.5.03 13 10-22 65 20 195
12 E-W 28 18.5.03 13 23-11 65 19 205
11A W-E 29 18.5.03 11 12-22 55 17.4 190
11 E-W 24 17.5.03 9 20-12 45 14.45 187
IOA W-E 25 17.5.03 9 12-20 45 14.22 190
Trans.tot.km 1505 AVQ kph 193
.I COUNT EAST-WEST WAYPOINTS
.I EAST NORTH
-29 31.84957 4 37.94531 31-22
-29 39.96121 4 37.94466 31-25
.I -29 42.66391 4 35.24904 30-26
-29 31.84957 4 35.25033 30-22
-29 31.84989 4 32.55535 29-22
-29 48.06996 4 32.55246 29-28
.I -29 48.06449 4 29.85877 28-28
-29 29.14204 4 29.86263 28-21
-29 29.14204 4 27.16797 27-21
.I -29 48.06352 4 27.16379 27-28
-29 48.05902 4 24.47010 26-28
-29 21.03007 4 24.47815 26-18
.• 1 -29 21.03007 4 21.78317 25-18
-29 50.76011 4 21. 77352 25-29
-29 56.15972 4 19.07307 24-31
:.1 -29 15.62145 4 19.09109 24-16
-29 15.62145 4 16.39612 23-16
-29 58.85984 4 16.37584 23-32
1.1
-29 58.85727 4 13.68118 22-32
-29 15.62113 4 13.70114 22-16
-29 15.62017 4 11.00616 21-16
-29 45.34312 4 10.99683 21-27 : I -29 42.63849 4 8.30314 20-26
I• -29 12.91714 4 8.31248 20-15
-29 12.91231 4 5.61750 19-15
I I -29 39.93031 4 5.61010 19-25
1. -29 39.92903 4 2.91512 18-25
-29 12.91264 4 ·2.92252 18-15
I ,I -29 12.93291 4 1.57487 17A-15
-29 37.24789 4 1.56876 17 A-24 • -29 12.91264 4 0.22754 17-15
ii -29 37.22600 4 0.22175 17-24
.. ROUTE SOUTH 4 -29 37.22472 3 58.87443 16A-24
I -29 12.91264 3 58.88022 16A-15
-29 12.91264 3 57.53289 16-15
-29 37.22472 3 57 .52678 16-24
I -29 37.22343 3 56.17945 15A-24
-29 12.91264 3 56.18524 15A-15
-29 12.91264 3 54.83792 15-15
-29 37.22343 3 54.83180 15-24
I -29 37.22182 3 53.48190 14A-24
-29 4.80904 3 53.49220 14A-12
.. -29 4.80871 3 52.14487 14-12
I -29 37.22150 3 52.13457 14-24
-29 37.21957 3 50. 78209 13A-24
-28 56.70544 3 50.79787 13A-9
I -28 56.70576 3 49.45054 13-9
-29 37.21924 3 49.43477 13-24
-29 34.51654 3 48.09130 12A-23
I -28 59.40621 3 48.10289 12A-10
-28 59.40621 3 46.75556 12-10
-29 34.51654 3 46.74365 12-23
I -29 29.11339 3 45.40180 11A-21
-29 4.80743 3 45.40759 11A-12
-29 4.80743 3 44.05994 11-12
-29 29.11339 3 44.05447 11-21 .I -29 29.09151 3 42. 70553 1 OA-21
..,,., A "701"\/iO 'l .A "l "7-1 .. "]-t'l .. .n I',. 1.,,
P.N.Garamba RECENSEMENT GENERAL 2003 Centre .. 1998,2000,2002,2003
24 E-W .· 23 W-E 22 E-W 21 W-E I 20 E-W 19 W-E 18 E-W
0/attl<ml Subunit Dlatll<ml Subunit D/:st11cm1 Subunit 0/stlkml Subunit Dtatr>m/ subunit Olat/kmi Subunit D/stn., .... 1 Subunit :
aoto 24-31 E ··,f(BO;;:, · start 23-16 goto 22-32 ·;·:55: •' start 21-16 aoto20-26 i50\f, start 19-15 aoto18-25
75 start 24-30 :.· .. 75::. • .17 80 start 22-31 50 · 17 55 start SU 25 45 . ·:/.< 16 ·. · ···45 : start 18-24
70 29 :70 · . 18 75 30 45 18 . 50 24 40 ~ 17.: · 40 23
65 28 65 . . 19 I 70 29 40 19 I 45 23 35 >18 : 35 22
60 27 60 · 1.··. 2,0 i 65 28 35 20 40 22 30 I • .. '-19 : 30 21
55 26 55 21 : 60 27 30 21 35 21 25 20 25 20
50 25 . ··50 I : : 22 I 55 26 25 : ·. 22 I 30 20 20 21~ •20 19
45 24 45 ·. . 23 50 25 20 23 i 25 19 15 -· 22 _ 15 18
40 23 \ifti ·_40 _;r, ::, 24 45 24 15 24 20 18 10 · · 23 · .• · · · 10 17
35 22 If-· 35,i,;; -· 25 40 23 I 10 . ·.: 25 15 17 5 '
···. 24 · '5 16
30 21 '<C:30h> I.·'--< 26 35 22 5 ·. 26 10 16 . o"•: end 19-25 ::~-- . 0 end 18-15
25 20 \./ 7: 25 ;I')c ·' 27 30 21 .. ·,,,o ";\";,, · end 21-27 5 15 ·-.:···-2 ·: r-:-, _..:- ,.:; : .
20 19 -:-},\) 20J~t •.c:,28 25 20 l\:•\-:o:) : >: 0 end 20-15 . .t<~ -,:·.:_·.,:_>,:-. -.
15 18 · ._, -15,~::\ . ::: · 29 20 19 .;::. '<i. : .
. . <. . .. : . 1··.: .. :
10 17 • .10,- •.::,,,:JO 15 18 I'.<,:'.'· '. ·. .. ·. ·.···•· .· .
5 16 5 :::::: - ·-~ :-31 10 17 .::.Cc>/'7:; '; __ .: ',: • • . : .' .. '.' :.,
': -' :
0 end 24-16 ::,·· O,· ·-- end 26-32 5 16 .:::'> ;,: : ' .• t_·_-,, .. -- ··:-.: :::·-.
.:
. -, ... , ',:._; :--;-:;".··.,, 0 end 22-16 ' ,. : : '.,':;.i·; . ·-;::··:.-·-·: : .·
.
•.
. . . . . ·_ .
', ·-.- .. . .. · ·.
··,
---- -- -- -- -- -- ----------- ------_..- -·- -----
P.N.Garamba RECENSEMENT GENERAL 2003 Sud 1998 2000.2002 2003
17A W-E 17 E-W 16A W-E 16 E-W 15A W-E 15 E-W 14A W-E
DlstlJcml · Subunit DlstfkmJ Subunit DlstfkmJ Subunit D1stf1unl Subunit Dlst/Janl Subunit Dlstlkml Subunit Dlstiiiml Subunit
,' 45 ... start17A-15 aoto 17-24 45 start16A-15 aoto 18-24 45 start15A-16 goto 15-24 '.{'-50.'1• start 14A-12
,.< 40 16, ,·.: 45 start 23 40 16 45 start 23 40 16 45 start 23
.· ;,· 35. ', .. 17: ·.· .. · 40 22 35 17 40 · 22 35 17 40 22
. ':>30 18 35 21 30 18 35 21 30 18 35 21
25 19 30 20 25 19 30 20 25 19 30 20
.: ::20 . ,, 20 · 25 ~19 20 20 25 19 20 20 25 19
· ... ·. 15 . 21 · , 20 18 . 15 · 21 20 18 15 21 20 18
· ,· 10 . ·.·: 22::: 15 17 10 22 15 17 10 22 15 17 · ·.:.< 25 · ... · .,; 19.
·•·' 5 · .. 23 10 16 5 23 10 16 5 23 10 16
·• "'·· o· .. · ...•. end17A-24 5 16 0 end18A-24 5 15 0 end15A-24 5 15
.. · ,.:, ... ·. 0 end 17 -15 0 end 18-15 0 end 15-15
I····. ·,.:''\· .· ·., :_.•: .· . · ...
•.,:'>•:·.· :· .. · :,.·:: .. ·
. ')·> •·'
P.N.Garamba RECENSEMENT GENERAL 2003 Sud 1998,2000,2002,2003
14A W-E 14 ·E-W 13A W-E 13 E-W 12A W-E 12 E-W . 11A W-E
Dlstflunl Subunit Dlst(km} Subunit Dlst(km) Subunit , Dfst(kmJ Subunit Dlst(km) Subunit DlstOunJ Subunit DlstOun> Subunit
60 start 14A-12 goto 14-24 75 start 13A-9 goto 13-24 65 start 12A-10 I goto 15-23 45 start 11A-12
55 13 60 start 23 70 10 70 start 23 60 11 65 start 22 40 13
50 14 55 22 65 11 c5 22 55 12 60 21 35 14
45. 15 50 21 60 12 60 21 50 13 55 20 30 15
40 16 45 20 55 13 55 20 45 14 50 19 25 16
35 17 40 19 50 14 50 19 40 15 45 18 20 17
30 18 35 18 45 15 45 18 ·'35 •.· 16 40 17 15 18
·. 25 19 30 17 40 16 40 17 30 17 35 16 10 19
20 20 25 16 35 17 35 16 25 18 30 15 5 20
15 · 21 20 15 30 18 30 15 20 19 25 14 a end 11A-21
10 22 15 14 25 19 25 14 15 20 20 13 cont 5km 21
5 23 10 13 20 20 20 13 10 21 15 12
0 ern:114A-24 5 12 15 21 15 12 5 22 10 11
... 0 wpt 14-12 10 22 10 10 a end 12A-23 5 10
cont5km 5 23 5 9 0 end 12-10
0 end13A-24 0 end 13-9
.. 11 · E-W 10A · W-E
Dlst(I<m) Subunit Dlst(km) ····Subunit
goto 11-21 .· 45 start 10A-12
45 start 20 40 · .13 ·.
40 19 35 14
. 35 18 30 15
30 17 25 16
25 16 20 17
20 15 15 18
15 14 10 19
10 13 5 20
5 12 a end 10A-21
0 end 11-12
.................. .,. .,..,..,_.,_.._
ANNEX 5.16
UNESCO, World Heritage in the Congo Basin, 2010
- 2 -
WORLD HERITAGE IN
THE CONGO BASIN
- 3 -
2
Published in 2010 by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
7, Place Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP France
Tel: 33 (0) 45 68 15 71
Fax: 33 (0) 45 68 55 70
E-mail: [email protected]
© UNESCO, 2010 All rights reserved
World Heritage in the Congo Basin
Text and layout: Conrad Aveling
Supervision and coordination: Guy Debonnet
Special thanks for maps and other background information to: Rene Beyers,
Steve Blake, Pauwel Dewachter, John Hart, Bruno Hugel, Bas Huijbregts,
Peggy Julien, Yvette Kaboza, Kathryn Knight, Jean-Christophe Lefeuvre,
Joel Masselink, Leila Maziz, Nathalie Valanchon, Bas Verhage, Carlos de
Wasseige, Bède Lucius Moussavou Makanga, Minnie Wong, Stephane Le
Duc Yeno.
Photographs kindly provided by: Marleen Azink & Jeffry Oonk, Romain
Beville, Alain Billand, Simon J. Childs, Tim Collins, Sylvain Gatti & Florence
Levréro, Kim Gjerstadt, John & Terese Hart, Reto Kuster, Stéphane
Louembet, Gustav Mabaza, Alex Marin, Richard Parnell, Jean-Pierre
Vande weghe, WWF-Gamba.
- 4 -
3
WORLD HERITAGE IN
THE CONGO BASIN
- 5 -
4
Front cover: A mosaic of lowland rainforest and savannah in the southern part of
Salonga National Park, DRC.
This page : A lake of molten larva in the crater of Nyaragongo volcano, Virunga
National Park, DRC.
Photos © Kim S. Gjerstad
SUMMARY
Preface……………………………….. 7
The World Heritage Convention…… 9
The global importance of the Congo
basin forests …………………………. 10
World Heritage in the Congo basin… 15
Biodiversity conservation in regions of
armed conflict. Protecting World Heritage
Sites in the DRC ………………. 17
Setting the stage for new World Heritage
Sites in Central Africa. The Central
African World Heritage Forest Initiative
(CAWHFI) …………………….…….. 39
Integration of World Heritage activities
into national and regional conservation
policies……………………………….. 58
Perspectives …………………………. 60
- 6 -
5
- 7 -
6
The moist forests of central Africa represent the world’s second largest area of tropical rainforest after the Amazon . It is one of the last regions in the
to continue undisturbed. A forest elephant could, in theory, move from the Albertine Rift to the coast of Gabon without leaving the forest.
- 8 -
7
PREFACE
The central African humid forests,
covering an estimated surface area of
roughly 1.62 million km², constitute
one of the world’s most important
natural heritages. They contain a large
proportion of the world’s biodiversity,
they play a central role in climate regulation
and carbon sequestration and
they are home to over 30 million forest
dwelling peoples who depend on
the innumerable environmental products
and services that the forests provide.
The immense natural riches of central
Africa, particularly its timber and mineral
resources, are also seen as important
components of the countries’ economic
growth and development.
However if they are to contribute in a
sustainable manner to the nations’
social and economic welfare, wise
management of these resources will be
essential and a fully representative network
of well managed protected areas
will be a critical element in this process.
The vast majority of the central African
forests have remained, until quite
recently, relatively untouched by large
scale human activities such as mechanized
logging and mining largely because
of the difficulties of access. Industrial
logging, for example, was confined
largely to the coastal area. However
the situation is now changing rapidly
as more and more of the central
African forests are attributed as logging
concessions and an increasingly
dense network of new roads spreads
out through the forest block. Figures
presented in the 2008 Congo Basin
State of the Forests Report indicate
that 32% of the exploitable dense humid
forests in central Africa have already
been attributed. In Equatorial
Guinea, Gabon, CAR and Congo-
Brazzaville the figures are particularly
high with between 77% and 93% of
world where vast areas of interconnected rainforest allow biological processes
Vegetation cover image © Joint Research Centre, EC
- 9 -
8
the exploitable forests already attributed. Opening up of the forest brings with it many
threats. Not only is the forest structure disturbed by the logging activities itself (felling, road
building, logging camps) but the influx of people into the newly opened areas in search of
employment and other economic opportunities leads to biodiversity impoverishment
through increased rates of deforestation for agriculture and commercial exploitation of non
timber forest products, particularly bushmeat. Local indigenous communities are also often
severely disrupted in the face of this “open access” onslaught on their natural resources.
While a fully a representative network of protected areas is a central pillar for biodiversity
conservation in central Africa it is increasingly recognized that a more global landscape approach
is also necessary so that gene flows, ecosystem processes and local livelihoods can
be sustained in the mosaic of multiple use zones that link the networks of protected areas.
Only in this way can the protected areas avoid becoming isolated pockets of biodiversity.
This booklet describes how the UNESCO World Heritage Convention is contributing to
this process through the reinforcement of existing protected areas and the promotion of
key landscapes where clusters of protected areas can be linked through sound landscape
management.
Francesco Bandarin, Director,
World Heritage Center, UNESCO
Currently approximately 18.5
million ha of central Africa’s
forests, some 10% of the surface
area of humid forest block,
have been designated as protected
areas. Eight World
Heritage Sites exist in Central
Africa (shown in red), 6 in the
tropical forest zone and 2 in
the savanna zone to the north.
1. Gounda-St. Floris National
Park
2. Dja Wildlife Reserve
3. Lopé-Okanda National
Park
4. Salonga National Park
5. Kahuzi-Biega National
Park
6. Virunga National Park
7. Okapi Wildlife Reserve
8. Garamba National Park
Six of Central Africa’s World
Heritage Sites have been placed
on UNESCO’s list of the
World Heritage in Danger.
- 10 -
9
THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
T he World Heritage Convention, is an international agreement adopted by the
General Conference of UNESCO in 1972 and is founded on the premise that
certain places on Earth are of Outstanding Universal Value and thus are part of
the common heritage of humankind. In August 2009, there were 186 States Parties
to the Convention, making it a globally recognized legal instrument.
In order to ensure their safekeeping for future generations, countries are encouraged to
identify natural and cultural sites of Outstanding Universal Value for inclusion in the World
Heritage List. By nominating these sites, countries take on a commitment before the international
community to preserve and manage them for current and future generations. The
World Heritage List comprises 890 sites (as of June 2009) in 146 countries, of which 176
are natural sites and 25 are designated for both their natural and cultural values. Sometimes
referred to as the “Nobel Prize for Nature”, the List comprises some of the most spectacular
natural places on earth. Natural World Heritage sites protect currently almost 180 million
ha of land and sea and account for 11% of the world’s protected areas’ surface area.
World Heritage sites protect important refuges of threatened or rare plant and animal species,
large-scale ecosystems where on-going ecological processes that are important for the
BOX 1 HOW ARE WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES INSCRIBED?
For a property to be nominated a country must first undertake an inventory of its significant cultural and natural properties
(known as a Tentative List). From this list, it can then nominate a site for inscription, by submitting a detailed Nomination File
which describes why the site is deemed of “Outstanding Universal Value” The nomination is then evaluated by the International
Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) for cultural sites and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) for natural sites. These advisory bodies make their recommendations to the World Heritage Committee which
meets once a year to determine whether the nominated properties can be inscribed in the World Heritage List.
To be considered of Outstanding Universal Value, a site must meet at least one of the 10 natural and cultural criteria to be eligible
for inclusion on the list. In the case of natural heritage the following criteria apply:
Criterion vii :to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
Criterion viii : to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life,
significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic
features;
Criterion ix : to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the
evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and
animals;
Criterion x : to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity,
including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or
conservation.
A nominated natural heritage property must also meet a number of conditions relating to its integrity. This requires assessing
the extent to which the property:
includes all elements necessary to express its Outstanding Universal Values,
is of adequate size to ensure complete representativity of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance
and
suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.
Furthermore, sufficient legal protection and management measures have to be in place to guarantee the conservation of the
values for which the site is proposed for inscription. In other words the property must justify its uniqueness and demonstrate
that the necessary protection and management structures are in place to safeguard its integrity and unique values.
- 11 -
10
very survival of the planet are preserved including some of the most outstanding geological
features or natural phenomena. The Convention has thus become an extraordinarily important
international instrument for in situ nature conservation.
World Heritage sites are our common heritage, to cherish and to respect. Their disappearance
would be an irreplaceable loss to humanity. In spite of their global recognition, many
sites are threatened by the impacts of unsustainable development, excessive tourism pressure
or war and conflict. The UNESCO World Heritage Centre therefore monitors their
status closely with the assistance of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN). In case of serious imminent threat, a site can be inscribed on the List of World
Heritage in Danger. Currently 15 natural sites are listed as endangered, including all five of
the DRC’s World Heritage sites. There are currently only 7 World Heritage sites in Central
Africa, six of them in the moist forest zone of the Congo basin. One of them, the Ecosystem
and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda in Gabon, is a mixed natural and cultural
World Heritage site. Several other areas of outstanding natural importance exist in
Central Africa but most of them do not yet meet the criteria for inscription in the list of
World Heritage properties.
THE GLOBAL IMPORTANCE
OF THE CONGO BASIN
FORESTS
The moist forests of central Africa represent the
world’s second largest area of tropical rainforest
after the Amazon. Stretching over 2.000 km from
the Atlantic coast of the Gulf of Guinea to the
highlands of the Albertine Rift in the east of the
Democratic Republic of Congo they cover a surface
area of about 1.62 km² shared between 7
countries – Cameroon, Central African Republic,
Congo Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and small areas of Nigeria
and Angola – with roughly half lying within
the DRC. Over 80% are guineo-congolean forests,
with two areas of afro-montane forests 2.000
km apart in Cameroon and the Albertine Rift of
eastern RDC. Although this vast forest block is
commonly referred to as the Congo basin, strictly
speaking it is spread over several watersheds
(Congo, Sanaga, Ntem, Ogooué, Nyanga, Niari
and Kouilou) but with the Congo River watershed
covering by far the largest area. Roughly two
thirds of the central African moist forests are
drained by the Congo River and 50% of these
forests fall within the DRC.
Like the Amazon, but unlike the forests of southeast
Asia or west Africa, the forests of the Congo
basin form an essentially uninterrupted forest
block. Unlike the Amazon however, where most
of the forests lie just above sea level, roughly 80%
The okapi is one of 28 mammal
species endemic to the
DRC. This strange forest
giraffe, which clearly shows its
savannah origins, is the evolutionary
result of intermixing of
savannah and forest species in
the evolutionary whirlpool of
the Congo Basin, as wet and
dry periods succeeded one another
over millions of years.
Photo © Kim S. Gjerstad©
- 12 -
11
of the Congo forests lie between 300 and 1.000m above sea level. Average annual rainfall is
between 1.600 and 2.000 mm, although along the coasts between Cameroon and Gabon
annual rainfall is much higher (3.000 to 11.000 mm). The cycle of climate changes over the
past 2 million years has had a profound influence on the forests of the Congo basin. In response
to expansions and contractions of the polar ice caps, cool dry periods have alternated
with warmer, humid periods, causing the forests to shrink and expand. During drier
periods, the forests were reduced to a series of scattered refuges situated along the Atlantic
coastal mountain ranges, the highlands of eastern DRC, and along the gallery forests and
swamps associated with the Congo River. These so called forest refuges acted as reservoirs
of forest species in periods of forest contraction and as the forest fragmented and expanded,
forest and non forest species were repeatedly intermixed in a kind of “evolutionary
whirlpool”. The Okapi, the DRC’s endemic forest giraffe, is a spectacular example of a forest
species clearly displaying its savanna origins. Today these areas are characterized by
higher levels of biological diversity and endemism than in the rest of the Congo basin forests.
Overall species diversity of the central African forests is high, although not as high as the
Amazon or south-east Asia. However what makes these forests particularly interesting is
that much of the fauna and flora is found nowhere
else in the world and this is true not only at the species
level but also at the genus and even family levels. The
lowland forests contain around 10.000 higher plants,
of which 30% are endemic (including 9 endemic families),
while the afro-montane forests contain around
4.000 species, of which 70% are endemic (including 2
endemic families). Several endemic and charismatic
mammals live in the central African forests including
the okapi, bongo, fishing genet, gorilla and bonobo
and many of the small primates and duikers are also
unique to these forests. In addition to the endemic
Congo peacock the forests contain at least 5 bird families
endemic to Africa. Amphibian, reptile and fish
diversity are also high although all three groups are
relatively poorly known and new species are regularly
discovered. In the DRC alone over 1.000 species of
freshwater fish are known.
In addition to its importance in terms of species diversity
and endemism the Congo basin is one of the last
regions in the world where vast areas of interconnected
rainforest allow biological processes to continue
undisturbed. A forest elephant could, in theory,
move from the Albertine Rift to the coast of Gabon
without leaving the forest. The Congo basin is also a
gigantic carbon sink and as such plays a vital role in
regulating the planet’s greenhouse gases. Lastly it has a
dominating influence on local weather patterns since
over 50% of the rain that falls on the central Congo
basin comes from evaporation and evapotranspiration
from the forest itself.
Some 30 million people, belonging to over 150 different
ethnic groups, live in the central African rainfor-
A young Bakota boy in
Mbomo, near Odzal a
Koukoua National Park in
Congo celebrating « Likinda »,
the traditional circumcision
ceremony. Over 150 different
ethnic groups live in the central
African rainforests.
Photo © C. Aveling
- 13 -
12
ests. Vestiges of human occupation in
some sites (for example the Ecosystem
and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-
Okanda) go back 400.000 years, although
these people were probably living mostly
on the forest fringes in the mosaic of
savannas and forests created by the fluctuating
global climate. It is not known
exactly when humans started living permanently
in the forest but it is thought
that the forest dwelling semi-nomad
pygmy hunter-gatherers have been living
in the forests for the past 20.000 years
and that Bantou farmers started penetrating
the forest from the north-west
about 4.000 years ago. Over the millennia
relatively complex relations of interdependence
built up between the huntergatherers
and the Bantou farmers, the
hunter-gatherers providing meat, fish and other forest products for the farmers, and the
farmers providing much needed extra sources of carbohydrates for the hunter-gatherers.
These relationships still exist today although increasingly pygmy groups are becoming more
settled.
Traditional agricultural practices in the central African forest have evolved on the basis of
slash and burn with relatively long fallow periods between forest clearance (>25 years).
Given the generally poor fertility of the soils in most of the central African forests slash and
burn agriculture, combined with a continuing dependence on the forests’ natural resources,
has been an appropriate survival strategy for forest dwelling peoples. However this traditional
way of life can only remain sustainable as long as population densities remain low.
Over large areas of the Congo basin, where population densities are below 2 inhabitants/
km², traditional agriculture still predominates. However, where population densities are
rising, particularly in settlements along roads and around towns and villages, fallow periods
are shortening and characteristic halos of forest degradation, with associated problems of
soil fertility, are beginning to appear. With the development of economic activities (in particular
industrial extractive industries such as logging and mining), and the creation of increasingly
dense road networks along which human settlements become established, these
Chimpanzee and crocodile,
both protected species, on sale
in Lambarene bush meat
market, Gabon. The increasingly
widespread phenomenon
of “open access” to natural
resources is leading to impoverishment
of wildlife populations
through overhunting for the
bushmeat trade.
Photos © S. Louembet (below) &
C. Aveling (right)
An Mbuti net hunter in the
Ituri forest, Okapi Wildlife
Reserve. Semi-nomad pygmy
hunter-gatherers and Bantou
agriculturalists maintain complex
relations of interdependence.
Photo © Kim S. Gjerstad
- 14 -
13
halos of forest clearance coalesce to form ribbons of forest degradation which fragment the
remaining forest blocks. This process of forest degradation is further exacerbated when
rural populations begin commercializing the forest products (eg bushmeat and other non
timber forest products) to supply neighboring urban centers. Unfortunately these same
populations are the first to be affected by the negative impacts of this process of forest degradation.
The shifting patterns in human distribution over the past 30 years have had profound socio
-cultural and socio-economic influences on rural populations. New, and often less sustainable,
ways of extracting and commercializing natural resources have been introduced and
the increasing mix with immigrants often brings conflicts with traditional systems of natural
resource management. The increasingly widespread phenomenon of “open access” to forest
resources is leading to natural resource depletion and this is exacerbated by the uneasy
cohabitation of traditional and normal land tenure systems throughout much of the central
African forests. The impact of civil strife and war in the Congo basin, occasionally causing
massive movements of refugees, has created further strains on traditional land tenure structures
and natural resource management systems.
Currently approximately 22.96 million ha of central Africa’s moist forests, some 14% of the
surface area, have been designated as protected areas. Sizes of protected areas vary considerably,
from a few hundred ha to 3.3 million ha (Salonga National Park, a World Heritage
site). However while species diversity is high in the Congo basin forests, densities of species
are relatively low and for this reason most of the protected areas, except the very largest
and best protected, are probably not large enough to ensure the long term conservation of
the full range of species and biological processes. This has led to a shift in conservation
A mosaic of fallow fields
and mature forest in a
lightly populated area of
northern Congo Republic.
In the generally poor soils
of the central African
rainforests traditional slash
and burn agriculture is
sustainable only as long as
population densities remain
low (< 2 inhabitants/
km²) and fallow periods
remain greater than 25
years.
Photo © C. Aveling.
- 15 -
14
strategies in recent years with an increasing emphasis on a landscape approach to conservation.
The idea here is to enhance the ecological integrity of protected areas and their surroundings
by addressing conservation management issues in the multiple-use zones that
link them. The strategy is to manage the impact of human activities, through for example
sustainable forestry management and community-based natural resource management, in
such a way that gene flows and ecosystem processes are maintained across the landscape, so
that protected areas are prevented from becoming isolated, and often unsustainable, islands
of biological diversity.
Since most ecological landscapes lie astride international boundaries a regional approach to
conservation goes hand in glove with the landscape approach. In 2000 a major priority setting
workshop, involving over 160 national and international conservation scientists, was
organized by WWF in Libreville to identify the most important sites for biodiversity conservation
in central Africa. Some of these sites fell within the existing network of protected
areas, but many others were outside protected areas. These sites were then regrouped
within a series of vast and relatively intact landscapes on the basis of their biological representativity,
the viability of the wildlife populations, and the integrity and resilience of their
ecosystems and ecosystem processes.
The landscape concept was integrated as a central pillar of the COMIFAC’s (Commission des
Forêts d’Afrique Centrale) strategic Convergence Plan which emerged from the 1999 Yaoundé
Heads of State Summit on sustainable forest management. The landscape concept is now
embraced by the majority of the conservation partners currently active in the region within
the framework of a major international partnership known as the Congo Basin Forest Partnership,
(CBFP).
BOX 2. CONGO BASIN FOREST PARTNERSHIP
The partnership brings together the 10 member states of the COMIFAC, donor agencies, NGOs, scientific institutions and
private sector representatives. It currently has 45 members who share the commitment to enhance communication and
coordination among the members and to create synergies between their respective projects, programs and policies, in support
of the COMIFAC Convergence Plan.
Governments
Belgium, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea,
European Commission, France, Gabon, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, South
Africa, Spain, United Kingdom, United States of America.
International Organizations:
African Development Bank, COMIFAC, FAO, Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification,
GRASP (Great Apes Survival Partnership), International Tropical Timber Organisation, Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, World Bank.
NGOs and research groups:
African Wildlife Foundation, Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Conservation International, Forest
Trends, IUCN, Jane Goodall Institute, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Resources Institute (WRI), WWF International.
Private sector:
American Forest and Paper Organisation, Inter-African Association of Forest Industries (IFIA), International Technical
Association for Tropical Timber (ATIBT), Society of American Foresters
source: http://www.cbfp.org
- 16 -
15
The CBFP (Box 2) was launched at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development
in Johannesburg, 2004. It is an association
of 45 governmental and nongovernmental
organizations, including
UNESCO, active in the Congo basin
whose aim is to coordinate programs and
policies of the different partner organizations
in order to improve the coherence
and effectiveness of their programs for the
sustainable development of the Congo Basin’s
forest ecosystems. In particular the
partnership aims to promote programs that
improve biodiversity protection and governance
and raise the standard of living of
the region’s inhabitants. Strengthening of
the COMIFAC institutions and aligning
CBFP activities with those of the COMICAF’s
strategic Convergence Plan (Box 3)
are central to CBPF’s strategy.
The partnership is governed through a facilitation process provided by one of the partners
for a set period. The first facilitator was the USA (2003-2004), followed by France (2005-
2007) and now Germany (2008-2009).
WORLD HERITAGE IN THE CONGO BASIN
G iven the global importance of the central African rainforests in terms of their
species diversity and their sheer size as large intact ecosystems, it is surprising
that so few forest sites have achieved World Heritage status (map, page 8).
Currently there are only six forest World Heritage properties in the Congo
basin forest, all of which fall within one or other of the 12 priority CBFP forest landscapes.
Four of them are in the DRC (Virunga, Kahuzi-Biega, and Salonga National Parks and the
Okapi Wildlife Reserve1), one in Cameroon (Dja Wildlife Reserve) and one in Gabon
(Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda). Furthermore the four DRC
sites have been inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger since the late 90s because
of the threats to the sites resulting from the civil war. As for the other central African
countries, the Congo Republic, Central African Republic and Equatorial Guinea2, do not
have World Heritage properties in the forest zone2 despite harboring some of central Africa’s
most spectacular and biologically important forest sites. The forests of the islands of
the Gulf of Guinea (São Tomé, Príncipe and Bioko) are also not represented in the World
Heritage list despite being of immense biological importance because of their high levels of
endemism.
The central African forests are therefore a high priority for UNESCO’s World Heritage
Centre and a number of activities have been developed over the past decade aimed at i)
protecting sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, ii) identifying new potential
sites and iii) improving the management standards of potential sites so that they can
meet the World Heritage criteria for inclusion of the World Heritage List.
BOX 3. THE 10 PILLARS OF THE COMIFAC
CONVERGENCE PLAN
1. Harmonization of forestry and fiscal policies
2. Knowledge of the forest resource
3. Ecosystem management and reforestation
4. Biodiversity conservation
5. Sustainable development of forest resources
6. Development of alternative activities and poverty reduction
7. Capacity building, stakeholder participation, information
and training
8. Research and development
9. Development of funding mechanisms
10. Regional cooperation and partnerships
Source: http://www.biodiv.be/comifac2
1 DRC’s fifth World Heritage
site, Garamba National Park,
is situated in the savanna zone
in the north east of the country.
2 Equatorial Guinea is not yet
a signatory to the World Heritage
Convention
3 CAR’s Manovo-Gounda-St
Floris National Park is located
in the savanna zone in
the north of the country. It is
also on the list of World Heritage
in Danger.
- 17 -
16
To meet these challenges UNESCO has established an innovative alliance between UN
agencies, national authorities and locally experienced international NGOs, each organization
bringing its own network, experience and expertise to the partnership:
National governments have protected area networks, but often lack effective management
structures on the ground due to lack of capacities and resources;
International NGOs bring their conservation experience, organizational capacities,
training resources and core funding to support and strengthen the protected areas on
the ground;
UNESCO uses the World Heritage Convention to leverage political support for
biodiversity conservation through its permanent contact with State Parties and mobilizes
funding from bilateral, multilateral and nongovernmental organizations to support
the development and protection of key sites.
UNESCO’s central African forest agenda is currently being implemented through two major
initiatives: a programme of emergency support to the DRC World Heritage properties
entitled Biodiversity in Regions of Armed Conflict: Protecting World Heritage Sites in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo launched in 2000, and the Central African World Heritage Forest Initiative
(CAWHFI) launched in 2004 and targeting three transboundary landscapes in Gabon,
Congo Republic, Cameroon and CAR.
The central African forest
landscapes include protected
areas and the multiple use
zones that surround them
and /or link them. The strategy
of the landscape approach
to conservation is to manage
conservation and development
activities across the landscape
in such a way that the integrity
of ecological processes is preserved.
The landscapes are:
1. Monte Alén-Monts de
Cristal
2. Gamba-Mayumba -
Conkouati
3. Lopé-Chaillu-Louesse
4. Dja - Odzala - Minkebe
(TRIDOM)
5. Tri-National de la Sangha
(TNS)
6. Léconi-Batéké-Léfini
7. Lac Télé-Lac Tumba
8. Salonga-Lukenie-Sankuru
9. Maringa-Lopori-Wamba
10.Maiko-Tayna-Kahuzi
Biega
11.Ituri-Epulu-Aru
12.Virunga
Source : OFAC
- 18 -
17
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN REGIONS OF
ARMED CONFLICT
Protecting World Heritage Sites in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo
T wenty years of civil strife and economic collapse, followed by a full blown civil
war have placed all five of the DRC’s World Heritage properties (four forest sites
and one savanna site) under severe pressure from human activities, particularly
from large-scale poaching for the ivory and bush meat trades, illegal logging and
mining and illegal settlements. Between 1994 and 1999 all five sites were placed on the List
of World Heritage in Danger. In response to this crisis UNESCO’s World Heritage Center
brought together an alliance of conservation partners to provide emergency aid to these
sites. The partners included the national protected areas agency l’Institut Congolais pour la
conservation de la Nature (ICCN), and a group of international conservation NGOs all of
whom had a proven track record of work on the ground.
The original partnership included the World Wide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Conservation
Society, Gilman International Conservation, Milwaukee Zoological Society, the International
Rhino Fund and the International Gorilla Conservation Programme4 as well as the
German bilateral aid agency GTZ and the Belgian government. The program, entitled Biodiversity
in Regions of Armed Conflict: Protecting World Heritage in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
was launched in 2000 at the height of the civil war with funding from the United Nations
Foundation and the Government of Belgium, and provided critical support to enable these
sites to maintain their values and integrity at a time when four of the sites found themselves
in rebel-held territory and almost all bilateral and multilateral aid partners had temporarily
withdrawn from the country. Other NGOs have since joined this partnership (Fauna and
Flora International, London Zoological Society, Frankfurt Zoological Society, African
Parks Foundation, African Conservation Fund, IUCN) and the second phase of the program
has also received funding from Italy. Discussion for a third phase are currently underway
with contributions from Belgium and Spain.
4 The International Gorilla
Conservation Program is a
coalition of three partners:
African Wildlife Foundation;
Fauna and Flora International;
World Wide Fund for
Nature)
The long period of conflict in
the DRC has seriously threatened
the integrity of the country’s
protected area network.
Between 1994 and 1999 all
five of the DRC’s World
Heritage Sites (in red) were
placed on the list of World
Heritage in Danger.
- 19 -
18
S alonga National Park is the largest protected area of dense humid forest on the African
continent, so managing this vast area with less than 200 park staff presents
enormous challenges for ICCN. Travel in and around the park is on foot or by
pirogue and simply visiting all the patrol posts can take up to 3 months! Transferring
a poacher to the nearest tribunal involves a 200 km journey on foot or by bicycle.
The park comprises lowland guineo-congolean rainforest dominated by leguminous species
from the Caesalpinacea family, mixed with large areas of swamp and riverine forest. Mineral
rich forest clearings (“botoka njoku”), which attract large mammals particularly elephants,
also occur. To the south of the park, areas of forest/savanna mosaic add to its floral diversity.
While overall biodiversity is not as high as the Atlantic forests to the west or the Alber-
SALONGA NATIONAL PARK
Salonga National Park at a glance
Status National Park (1970); World Heritage List (1984 - criteria vii and ix);
World Heritage Site in Danger (1999)
Coordinates 1°00'-3°20'S, 20°-22°30'E
Surface area 33,346 km²
Altitude 350 – 700 m
Terrestrial Ecoregions Eastern Congolian Swamp forests; Central Congolian lowland forests
Aquatic Ecoregions Central basin
UNESCO’s site partners MZL, WCS, WWF
- 20 -
19
tine Rift forests to the east, this is more than offset by the fact that its sheer size means that
it has the potential to harbour very large assemblages of the species that do occur there.
The presence of two endemic primate genera (the bonobo and the marsh monkey), as well
as an endemic species (the Salonga monkey) and several endemic sub-species of primate,
make this an important protected area bio-geographically. Its vast size also makes it hugely
important in terms of climate regulation and carbon sequestration.
Human population densities are low in this remote area, averaging around 2,4 inhabitants/
km². Exploitation of the area’s natural resources accounts for over 95% of human activities
(agriculture, fishing, hunting, non-lignite forest products (NTFPs). The socio-economic
collapse brought on by the past 20 years of conflict has made local populations ever more
dependant on natural resource exploitation as an economic activity. Two populations live
within the park’s boundaries. The Kitwalistes, a religious sect, took refuge in the northeastern
part of the northern block in the 70s and have remained there, essentially beyond
the reach of the law, ever since. They currently number between 3.000 and 4.000. In the
southern block the Iyaelema, belonging to the Mongo group, who refused to leave their
ancestral lands when the park was created, currently occupy 8 villages and number about
2.340 inhabitants. Their presence is tolerated by the parks authorities who have a tacit
agreement with them about the scope of activities permitted.
Despite its size and apparent inaccessibility recent
surveys have shown that wildlife populations have
been depleted during the period of political instability.
The large navigable rivers in fact provide
easy access for poachers and armed groups, including
uncontrolled elements of the army, to
penetrate deep into the park to hunt for ivory and
bushmeat. Massive quantities of bushmeat from
Salonga National Park are now finding their way
to distant markets in Kinshasa and Katanga province
where they fetch prices up to 10 times higher
than in the villages and camps around Salonga.
However a wildlife survey report published by
WCS in 2006 estimates that bonobo numbers are
still relatively healthy, with a population estimate
of 14,800.
The vegetation in the Salonga National Park is dominated by species from the Caesalpinacea family mixed with large areas of swamp and riverine forest. To the south areas of
forest/savannah mosaic add to the floral diversity of the park. Photos © Kim S. Gjerstad
Human populations rely heavily
on exploitation of natural
resources in this remote area.
Fishing accounts for 65% of
household revenues around the
Salonga National Park.
Commercial hunting has also
increased dramatically.
Photo © J.T Hart
- 21 -
20
S ituated along the Albertine Rift, the
Virunga National Park is arguably the
most spectacular protected area in Africa.
From freshwater lakes, to active volcanoes,
savannas, dry forests, dense humid forests,
afro-tropical alpine meadows and snow-capped
mountains it is tempting to suggest that the only
biomes that are missing in the PNV are the desert
and the sea. The first park in Africa, it was created
in 1925 to protect the mountain gorillas of the
Virunga volcanoes and was later extended northwards
to include the Rwindi grassland plains,
Lake Edward, the dense humid forest of the Semiliki
valley and the snow-capped Ruwenzori
Mountains. Virunga National Park is contiguous
with 6 other national parks in neighbouring countries
(Volcans in Rwanda; Mgahinga, Bwindi,
Queen Elizabeth, Ruwenzori and Semliki in
Uganda) which act as reservoirs for commonly
shared wildlife species, a vital consideration in
times of war. Both Bwindi and Ruwenzori are
also World Heritage Sites.
The enormous variety of habitat types means that
Virunga has by far the greatest diversity of fauna
and flora in the DRC. Of the 2,077 plant species
recorded in the park 230 are endemic to the Albertine
Rift mountains. In an area representing
only 0,3% of the total surface area of DRC, the
Virunga is home to over half of the DRC’s mammal
species (218 out of 415 species, including 22
primate species) and two thirds of its bird species
(706 out of 1094 species, of which 25 are endemic
to the Albertine Rift). In addition to the world
famous population of mountain gorillas, comprising
700 individuals shared between DRC, Uganda
and Rwanda, Virunga is unique in that it also harbours
a small population of a second subspecies
of gorilla, Grauer’s gorilla, on Mount Tchiaberimu.
Chimpanzees also occur in several sites in
the park. Before the war gorilla and chimpanzee
viewing was the basis of a flourishing tourism industry
in the park, generating up to half a million
dollars per year in park entrance fees. Between
2008 and 2009 the gorilla sector was occupied by
FDLR rebel forces. However despite initial fears
for the survival of the gorilla population, the rebels
appeared to have understood the economic returns of keeping the gorillas alive since in
the early stages of their occupation they were reported to be running tourist excursions!
Recent surveys in the VNP have also confirmed the presence of one of the DRC’s other
VIRUNGA NATIONAL PARK
Virunga National Park at a glance
Status National Park (1925); World Heritage site (1979 -
criteria vii, viii, x); World Heritage site in Danger
(1994); Ramsar Site (1996)
Coordinates 0°55'N -1°35'S and 29°10 - 30°00'E
Surface area 7,900 km²
Altitude 798 – 5,119 m
Terrestrial Ecoregions Albertine Rift montane forests; East Sudanese savanna
Aquatic Ecoregions Rift Valley lakes, Albertine Rift mountains
UNESCO’s site partners WWF, LZS, IGCP (a consortium of FFI, WWF
and AWF), FZS, ACF
- 22 -
21
charismatic large mammal endemics, the
Okapi, which had not been seen in the
park for over 50 years.
Virunga National Park is particularly vulnerable
to pressure because of its geographic
location and its shape. The park is
over 200km long with nearly 1,000km of
border. In addition the fertile volcanic
soils of the region support one of the
highest human population densities in
Africa (as high as 600 inhabitants/km² in
some areas), of which 80% are engaged in
permanent agriculture and 5% in fishing
on the Lakes. However the last decade of
civil war has seen a dramatic increase in
incursions into the park accompanied by
massive scale poaching for the bushmeat
trade. Hippos in the central sector of the park declined from 23,000 in 1989 to less than
500 today, and most of the plains species (elephant, buffalo, and antelope) have declined
sharply as well. Fishing villages have mushroomed along the shore line of Lake Edward
and fish production is declining through overfishing. This is a particular concern since of
the 80 species of fish described from Lakes Edward and George, 60 are endemic.
Clearance of the forest, particularly in the larva plains around the two active volcanoes, to
supply fuel wood and charcoal for the burgeoning city of Goma, is a massive threat to the
integrity of the southern sector of the park and is proving particularly difficult to eliminate
because of the many interest groups involved. These include military, local authorities, and
even some of the park staff themselves.
Finally increasing interest in the oil and gas reserves under the Albertine Rift in Uganda
and DRC, for which several exploration permits are awaiting Presidential approval, represents
yet another threat to the integrity of the complex of protected areas shared by
Uganda, DRC and Rwanda.
Virunga National Park is
contiguous with several protected
areas in neighbouring
Uganda and Rwanda. Once
peace returns to eastern Congo
wildlife populations, including
the charismatic flagship species,
should be able to recover
through a process of repopulation
from the neighbouring
protected areas.
Photo © Kim S. Gjerstad
An exceptional diversity of landscapes including volcanoes, snow-capped mountains, dense forests, savannahs, rivers and lakes makes the Virunga National Park one of the
most biologically diverse ecosystems in Africa. Photos © Kim S. Gjerstad (left), C. Aveling (centre and right)
- 23 -
22
O riginally created in 1970 to protect the montane habitat of the Grauer’s gorilla,
a subspecies endemic to DRC, the park was later extended to cover the lower
altitude forests to the west. Today the park covers 6,000 km². The great altitudinal
range of (from 600m to 3,300m) covered by the park is rare for a forested
protected area in Africa. Almost everywhere else in Africa the mid-altitude forests
have been cleared for agriculture and ranching. The land around the highland sector of the
park is heavily populated with densities of up to 300 inhabitants /km², their main activities
being permanent agriculture and livestock. To the west, in the lowland sector, population
densities are less than 30 inhabitants/km². Here subsistence slash and burn agriculture
dominates although recently many people have abandoned agriculture in favour of artisanal
KAHUZI-BIEGA NATIONAL PARK
Status National Park (1970, extended 1975); World Heritage site 1980 (criteria
vii, viii, x); World Heritage site in Danger 1994
Coordinates 1°36’ – 2°37’S and 27°33’ - 28°40’E
Surface area 6,000 km²
Altitude 700 – 3308 m
Terrestrial Ecoregions Northeastern Congolian lowland forests
Afro-montane forests of the Albertine Rift
Aquatic Ecoregions Upper Congo, Albertine Rift mountains
UNESCO’s site partners GTZ, WWF, WCS
- 24 -
23
mining activities (gold, diamonds, coltan, tin).
Situated within the species-rich Albertine Rift the forests of Kahuzi-Biega National Park
have exceptionally high floral diversity with 1,171 recorded species, of which 145 are endemic
to the Albertine Rift. In addition to the low and mid-altitude closed canopy moist
tropical forests a number of other important habitat types occur including extensive bamboo
forests, swamp forests, peat bogs, and afro-alpine fern forest and meadows. This floral
diversity is matched by a high faunal diversity with 136 mammal species (with 15 Albertine
Rift endemics) and 335 bird species (with 29 Albertine Rift endemics).
The civil war has had a devastating effect on wildlife in Kahuzi-Biega National Park with
widespread poaching to supply Bukavu’s burgeoning bushmeat trade during the 90’s. By
2003 the highland sector of the park had lost more than 95% of its elephant population and
about 50% of its gorilla population, including several of the habituated families used for
tourism. Recently completed surveys in the lowland sector also confirm that wildlife populations
appear to have been badly hit. However no species have been lost and there is every
reason to believe that populations can recover once ICCN recovers control of the area.
Until recently the presence of armed bandits, rebel militias, and army deserters, many of
whom are involved in the bushmeat trade and illegal mining, made much of this area a “nogo”
zone for ICCN. However the situation is now improving slowly, although settlements
and land clearance for agriculture in the narrow corridor linking the highland and lowland
sectors of the park remains a serious problem.
Tourism based on gorilla
viewing was pioneered in the
1970s in Kahuzi-Biega National
Park . Gorilla viewing
has now become a multimillion
dollar business in the
three countries of the Great
Lakes region that share the
remaining mountain gorilla
populations.
Photo © Simon J. Childs
- 25 -
24
T he Okapi Wildlife Reserve is situated in the Ituri forest to the west of the Albertine
rift and covers almost 14,000 km² of lowland and mid-altitude forest, with
extensive areas of mono-dominant Gilbertiodendron forest. As its name suggests it
was created to protect the habitat of the Okapi, DRC’s most intriguing endemic
mammal (photo page 10). This strange forest dwelling giraffe was described to the explorer
OKAPI WILDLIFE RESERVE
Okapi Wildlife Reserve at a glance
Status Wildlife Reserve (IUCN cat II National Park), World Heritage
site 1996 (criterion x), World Heritage site in Danger
1999
Coordinates 1°00’-2°42’N and 28°02’- 29°08’E.
Surface area 13,726 km²ha
Altitude 500 – 1,000 m
Terrestrial Ecoregions Northeastern Congolian lowland forests
Aquatic Ecoregions Uélé, Central basin
UNESCO’s site partners GIC, WCS
- 26 -
25
Stanley by the Mbuti pygmy inhabitants as he
passed through the Ituri forest in the 1860’s
but it was not until 1901 that scientists collected
and described this species. Later studies
confirmed that the Okapi, so unlike any
other forest species, has a very limited distribution
and is confined to north eastern DRC.
There are several other spectacular and endemic
species in the OWR including the
rarely seen Congo peacock, the aquatic fishing
genet and the giant genet. Over 90 mammal
species are recorded from the reserve
including the highest number of primates of
any single forest block in Africa (13 diurnal, 4
nocturnal - Virunga has more species but
dispersed over several habitat types). These
include chimpanzees but, interestingly, not
gorillas even though the Ituri forest is contiguous
with other forested areas where gorillas are found. In the north of the reserve spectacular
granite inselbergs tower above the forest canopy and are home to a number of plant
and animal species specially adapted to this micro-habitat.
The area covered by the OWR has been occupied by man since at least the Stone Age. The
earliest occupants were probably the Mbuti and Efe semi-nomads who currently number
around 30,000 in the landscape. The status of Reserve rather than National Park for this
area ensures that these semi-nomad groups are able to maintain their traditional way of life
in the forest. The area has remained, until relatively recently, one of the most lightly populated
areas of north east DRC. However the past 30 years has seen a steady immigration of
people leaving the overpopulated highlands to the east in search of new agricultural land.
This is now one of the key threats to the area as it has led to increased pressure on the Ituri
forest through forest clearance for agriculture, and increased hunting. It has also led to conflict
between resident ethnic groups and the newcomers.
During the civil war Epulu was the front line between the warring parties. The breakdown
in law and order during the 90’s provided the opportunity for thousands of itinerant miners,
as well as elements from the Ugandan army, to enter the forests of eastern DRC to extract
timber and mine for gold, diamonds and coltan. Temporary mining camps composed
of miners, their families, hunters, itinerant
traders and other hangers-on appeared all
over the forest. The effects on wildlife were
devastating as the mining camps became
centres for the commercial bushmeat and
ivory trades. Fortunately the situation has
improved considerably since 2007 when
ICCN managed to regain control of 95% of
the Reserve and, with the support of administrative
and traditional authorities, closed
down most of the mining camps. Elephant
poaching has also been brought under better
control through more effective surveillance
and improved collaboration with the
armed forces and administrative authorities.
Inselbergs in the north of the
OWR are home to a number
of plant and animal species
specially adapted to this microhabitat.
Photo © Reto Kuster
A male bongo, Africa’s largest
forest antelope species, in a
forest clearing (edo) in the
OWR.
Photo © Reto Kuster
- 27 -
26
E stablished in 1938, Garamba is of particular importance in the DRC’s network
of protected areas as its geographic situation at the northern limit of the forest /
savannah mosaic zone gives it a unique mix of forest and savannah plant and
animal species. The southern part of the park is predominantly grassland savannah
with scattered trees. Along the Dungu and Garamba rivers, there are mosaics of riverine
galleries, forests and thickets. Further north the vegetation is mainly mixed woodland,
dense dry forests and riverine and small swamp forests. In contrast, the surrounding hunting
areas are predominantly dense bush savannahs, mixed woodlands and forests.
Garamba’s flagship mammal species is the highly endangered northern white rhino whose
last remaining population was, until very recently, confined to Garamba National Park.
Garamba is also famous for its large population of elephants which display morphological
characteristics that are intermediate between the forest and the savannah forms. Other
purely savannah species include the Congo giraffe - an endemic subspecies occurring only
GARAMBA NATIONAL PARK
Garamba National Park at a glance
Status National Park (1938); World Heritage site (1980 – criteria vii, x); World
Heritage site in Danger (1996)
Coordinates 3°45' - 4°41'N, 28°48' - 30°00'E
Surface area 4,920 km² surrounded by three hunting reserves (Azande, Mondo-Missa,
Gangala na Bodio) totaling 10,000 km²
Altitude 710m to 1,061m
Terrestrial Ecoregion Northern Congolian forest-savanna mosaic
Aquatic Ecoregion Uélé
UNESCO’s site partners IRF, WWF, FFI, APN
- 28 -
27
in Garamba, the roan antelope and the hartebeest.
Typical forest mammal species found in the extensive
areas of gallery forest include the chimpanzee, 8
small primates (baboons, colobus and guenons), 3
duikers, the bongo, red river hog and giant forest
hog.
The traditional inhabitants of this region are the
Azande people who practice subsistence agriculture
and hunting. Population densities are not high
(about 4 inhabitants / km²) but the social dynamics
and security of the region have been adversely affected
not only by the DRC wars but also by the
wars in the neighbouring countries of Sudan and
Uganda. At the beginning of the 1990s the war in
Sudan resulted in the displacement of some 80,000
refugees to camps to the east and west of the park, and well armed and organised Sudanese
militias have frequently targeted the park for poaching of bushmeat, ivory and rhino horn.
Since 2005 the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army rebels frequently use DRC to avoid the
Ugandan army and in January 2009 staged a raid on the park destroying vital equipment
(valued at 1.6m$US) and killing ten people, including ICCN staff and family members.
As a result the park has seen significant declines in its wildlife populations. In 2006 elephant
and buffalo numbers were estimated at 3,800 and 8,000 respectively, compared with 11,000
and 25,000 respectively in 1995 and 20,000 and 50,000 respectively in the late 70’s. There
are also serious concerns about the survival of the world’s last population of northern white
rhinos. In 2004, when approximately 10 individuals remained, a proposal was made for the
translocation of a breeding group of five individuals to a safe haven but the idea was rejected
at the last minute by the DRC government in the face of opposition from the local
community. By 2006 there were only 4 known individuals, and none have been seen since.
There have been no sightings since November 2007 and it is possible that the sub-species is
now extinct.
Most of the wildlife is currently concentrated in the southern section of the park which is
the only area where ICCN is still able to maintain a minimum level of surveillance. However
as the security situation improves and ICCN, with the support of its conservation partners,
gradually regains control of the north of the park, wildlife numbers are expected to
recover. In March 2006 an aerial survey, covering
4,400 km² of the southern part of GNP and
parts of the neighbouring hunting domains, was
conducted by the IUCN African Rhino Specialist
Group on behalf of the African Parks Foundation
who have been managing the Garamba National
Park under contract to ICCN since September
2005. While the survey only covered
about one third of the Garamba ecosystem the
results showed encouraging signs of recovery
with respect to the elephant, buffalo and hippo
populations. There was also a significant improvement
in the ratio of old to new carcasses
(many more old carcasses than new carcasses)
indicating that poaching pressure has been reduced.
Garamba National Park
contained, until recently, the
last remaining population of
the northern white rhino. No
specimens have been seen since
November 2007.
Photo © C. Aveling
Rolling grasslands, woodlands
and riverine forests, together
with a plentiful supply of water
makes Garamba National
Park an ideal habitat for large
herbivores, including, elephant,
buffalo and giraffe. There are
signs that the elephant population
has started to recover since
the end of hostilities.
Photos © C. Aveling
- 29 -
28
USING THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
TO ENHANCE INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AND
STRENGTHEN PARTNERSHIPS
PROTECTING THE WORLD HERITAGE SITES IN DRC
DURING PERIODS OF CONFLICT
UNESCO launched its intervention in favour of the five DRC World Heritage Sites at a
time when most development aid agencies had suspended the majority of their activities in
DRC because of the chaos and insecurity caused by the civil war. The World Heritage sites
were in a desperate state, devoid of resources and cut off from their headquarters in Kinshasa.
Four of the sites had fallen into rebel hands and the ICCN field staff found themselves
having to deal with a disparate band of war lords whose least concern was the protection
of these natural World Heritage sites. On the contrary occupation of the sites was
seen as an opportunity to loot the parks’ infrastructures and organise the massive exploitation
of their mineral, wildlife and timber resources. In the general breakdown of law and
order, illegal settlements, mining camps, fishing villages, farms, and cattle ranches mushroomed
inside the parks and there was a real fear that the sites would be irremediably damaged
if emergency action was not taken immediately.
In response to this situation UNESCO’s project strategy was to address the immediate crisis
on the ground by using the World Heritage Convention to raise awareness for protection
of the sites and deliver urgently needed material and technical support on the ground,
while at the same time pursuing more long term objectives (strengthening international
partnerships, retraining of field staff, sustainable funding) in order to prepare ICCN for the
post-war challenges.
In the confused and dangerous situation facing the five World Heritage Sites, UNESCO
was in the unique position of being able to intervene, and most importantly be seen to intervene,
in an entirely neutral capacity both at the international and local levels since all the
countries involved directly or indirectly in the conflict (DRC, Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda)
were signatories of the World Heritage Convention.
DIRECT FIELD SUPPORT TO ADDRESS URGENT THREATS
TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITES
Support on the ground is delivered through a coalition of ICCN’s conservation partners
brought together by UNESCO. These were all organisations with many years of experience
in DRC which had all opted to remain at ICCN’s side in this moment of crisis. In the initial
5-year phase from 1999 to 2004 a major part of this support took the form of cash bonuses
for the unpaid park guards in order to keep them motivated and active in the field. This was
accompanied by the provision of essential equipment such as vehicles, radio communications,
and uniforms, much of which had been lost in the looting. Services such as aerial
surveillance in Garamba and Virunga were also provided. There is little doubt that this direct
support in the form of bonuses and supplies was absolutely critical to ensuring that the
sites survived the war. While it is evident that certain of the values for which the sites were
nominated were degraded during this crisis, with the possible exception of the northern
white rhino, all appear to have survived. It is unlikely that this would have been the case if
- 30 -
29
UNESCO had not intervened. The courage and fortitude of the ICCN field staff and their
NGO conservation partners (who shouldered the considerable risks and costs of delivering
cash and equipment to the sites) were also critical to the success of these early operations.
However, while the parks may have survived the wars between 1999 and 2004, the situation
at the time of the signature of the 2004 peace accords was still highly precarious in all five
sites and emergency actions were still required to deal with site specific issues that had not
been targeted in the initial project design. Therefore in the second phase of the programme
emergency action plans were developed to address urgent threats to the 5 sites. Implementation
is currently on going and will be continued in the third phase.
BOX 5. EMERGENCY ACTION PLANS DEVELOPED FOR DRC’S FIVE WORLD HERITAGE SITES
Threats to the sites Emergency Actions supported by UNESCO
Garamba
National Park
Poaching of rhino, elephant and buffalo by
local hunters and highly armed and wellorganised
horsemen from Sudan.
Isolation and derelict infrastructures
The presence of tens of thousands of Sudanese
refugees in the immediate vicinity of the
park
Gold and diamond mining in the hunting
reserves adjoining the park
Guard training specifically designed to strengthen the rangers’
capacities to confront the paramilitary Sudanese poachers
Infrastructure rehabilitation
Development of a community conservation strategy. Community
initiatives are funded within the framework of co-management
agreements with traditional authorities. Key activities include support
for social infrastructures (health centres, schools….)
Kahuzi-Biega
National Park
Presence of armed militia in lowland sector
rendering much of the lowland sector a nogo
area
Poaching of elephant and commercial hunting
for the bushmeat trade
Mining for coltan, gold and tin
Illegal farming and cattle ranching in the
narrow corridor (Nindja corridor) linking the
highland and lowland sectors of the park
Support to ICCN to strengthen surveillance activities and regain
control over the lowland sector of the park.
Intensive high level awareness raising, communication and participatory
boundary marking to resolve the illegal occupation issue in
the Nindja biological corridor.
Okapi Wildlife
Reserve
Poaching of elephant and commercial hunting
for the bushmeat trade
Mining for gold and diamonds
Immigration into the permanent village enclaves
within the Reserve as a result of the
rehabilitation of the RN4 highway.
Collaboration with military and police authorities to deploy joint
surveillance activities. By 2007 control over most of the reserve had
been recovered, illegal mining camps had been closed down and
military and police involved in poaching, particularly of elephants,
had been removed from the area.
Establishment of a system to monitor and control immigration into
the legally recognised village enclaves within the Reserve along the
main RN4 highway.
Elaboration of an updated management plan. Immigration into the
Reserve, and resource use within the Reserve by Bantou and Pygmy
semi-nomad communities, are specifically addressed.
Salonga
National Park
Poaching of elephant and commercial hunting
for the bushmeat trade
Collaboration with military and police authorities to deploy joint
surveillance activities to combat elephant poaching.
Virunga
National Park
Illegal occupation of the park, particularly
along the western shore of lake Edward
Illegal charcoal making in the dry forests of
the southern sector
Poaching of large mammals, particularly
hippo, in the central and northern sectors of
the park.
Participatory park boundary marking followed by voluntary evacuation.
By the end of 2008 some 70.000 people had voluntarily moved
out of the park. (note that the UNESCO project is part of a coalition
of agencies contributing to the voluntary evacuation initiatives).
Support for the development of alternatives to the use of charcoal.
- 31 -
30
STRENGTHENING CAPACITIES
Years of neglect, followed by the devastating effects of the civil war had eroded the institutional
capacities of ICCN and left it in a dangerously weak position to face the post-war
challenges. The project therefore focused on three key areas:
Strengthening law enforcement and monitoring systems in order to improve the
effectiveness of ICCN’s surveillance activities
Assessing the post-war conservation status of the sites, and establishing biomonitoring
and information management systems
Modernising ICCN’s approach to conservation by introducing new concepts of
community conservation.
Strengthening law enforcement and monitoring systems
As from 2002 a major effort has been placed on guard training. The initial phase took place
in Garamba NP, organised by the African Field Ranger Training Services based in South
Africa. A group of the most promising elements were selected to become future trainers.
Between 2005 and 2006 further extensive training was then organised in Virunga by FZS
and LZS (with additional EC emergency funding) using Ishango as the operations base.
BOX 6. RANGER BASED MONITORING
Ranger-based monitoring is an essential tool for park managers to monitor
what is going on in their parks. It enables them to adjust management strategies
as a function of the information gathered by the rangers on patrol. Historically
park rangers in the DRC have always been required to produce patrol
reports but the information has usually been poorly exploited, because it was
rarely recorded in a sufficiently systematic manner and because the park managers
never had the time or resources to analyse the data adequately. All too
often the result has been piles of unread paper reports gathering dust on the
floor of an overstretched park warden’s office!
Modern computer and GPS technology, however, has changed all that. Detailed
geo-referenced observations can now be simply recorded in the field
and entered into GIS systems for rapid analysis. One such system, MIST
(Monitoring Information System), is being successfully employed in the DRC’s
Virunga National Park and the Okapi Wildlife Reserve. Information generated
is enabling park managers to obtain up to date (almost real time) information
on threats to the park which enables a more efficient deployment of their
ranger force. MIST enables surveillance effort (spatial distribution, man-days
of patrol), and its effectiveness in controlling illegal activities and protecting
target species, to be monitored continuously.
In the TRIDOM and Gamba-Mayumba-Conkouati landscapes data recording
in the field has been taken a step further by using CyberTracker technology*
to record detailed geo-reference observations directly onto a hand-held computer
(PDA, or smart phone as they are commonly referred to) using the tactile
screen. The data can then be downloaded directly into a GIS system without
going through the time consuming, and error prone, process of manual
data entry. CyberTracker also speeds up the data recording step as paper and
pencil are not required in the field.
* www.cybertracker.org
Spatial distribution
of patrols in the
OWR, between
July and December
2008
Elephant dung encounter
rates interpolated from
CyberTracker collected
line transect data in
Loango National Park.
- 32 -
31
Guards from all sites were trained. Training focused on leadership, wildlife law, law enforcement,
conflict resolution, paramilitary skills and vehicle maintenance.
Law Enforcement Monitoring (LEM) is now a universally accepted management tool for
protected areas, particularly in Africa where poaching is often a major threat to park integrity.
LEM enables park managers to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of its surveillance
activities by monitoring conservation “effort” (man-days of surveillance, spatial distribution)
and relating this to levels of illegal activities in the park. The project elaborated a
standardised LEM system for all the sites, trained the personnel and provided the GPS and
computer equipment to enable all data collected to be geo-referenced and integrated into
GIS data bases on site.
Establishment of bio-monitoring and information management systems
Status surveys: Having lost control of considerable areas of the sites during the wars it was
essential to assess the status of the areas in order to understand the scale of the damage
done and target post-conflict conservation measures. Bio-monitoring teams were trained
and surveys conducted wherever the security situation permitted. The bio-monitoring activities
were coordinated by the WCS Wildlife Inventory Unit in collaboration with the
MIKE programme (Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants), the International Rhino Fund and
African Parks northern white rhino monitoring activities. In some cases, such as the lowland
sector of Kahuzi-Biega the security situation prevented the completion of surveys. In
others, such as Salonga and the Okapi Wildlife Reserve it was possible to cover the entire
area, although not without considerable difficulties and delays for logistical and security
reasons. Although the results show widespread impoverishment of wildlife populations
(Box 7) the situation is not without hope. With the exception of the northern white rhino
no species appear to have disappeared and the general situation indicates that recovery can
be ensured if strong conservation measures can be maintained.
Information management: Management of data relating to protected areas is of fundamental
importance. Not only does good data management provide protected managers with information
essential for planning their management activities, but it also enables parks to communicate
more effectively with local, national and international stakeholders. Surprisingly a
significant gap was the existence
of accurate maps of the sites. As a
first step the project established
accurate base maps of all the sites.
This work was piloted by two Belgian
Universities (Louvain Catholic
University and Gent University
with the support of the Belgian
Federal Science Policy Office).
In parallel the project set about
designing and implementing a
protected areas information management
system known as SYGIAP
(Système de Gestion de l’Information
des Aires Protégées). Equipment
has been provided, operators
trained and data, particularly
site-based LEM data, has started
to flow into the system from the
sites (Box 6).
Everywhere else the Congo
basin forest elephants have
suffered intensive poaching for
the international ivory trade.
Civil and military authorities
are often involved.
Photos © Reto Kuster
- 33 -
32
BOX 7. THE VALUE OF LONG TERM DATA FOR MONITORING POPULATION TRENDS.
Using a standardised methodology ICCN and WCS bio-monitoring teams have been able to show the impact of the war on wildlife
populations in the OWR. Significant declines have occurred not only in the populations of flagship species such as forest elephant
and okapi (below), but also in most of the duiker species.
Elephant dung density 1995 Elephant dung density 2006
Okapi dung density 1995 Okapi dung density 2006
Maps: Rene Beyers
- 34 -
33
A
Identifying the legal boundaries of Virunga National Park
BOX 8 PARTICIPATORY BOUNDARY MARKING IN THE VIRUNGA NATIONAL PARK
The boundaries of the VNP were established well over 70 years ago when the demographic and political contexts were very different
from those of today. Natural demographic growth, and the population movements caused by the recent conflicts in the Great Lake
region, have meant that pressure for land has increased dramatically and made the land within the park particularly attractive. Furthermore
over the years many of the original boundary markers have disappeared, descriptions of many of the landmarks used in the
wording of the original legal texts are no longer recognisable today and “arrangements” have sometimes been made between ICCN
and local populations in an attempt to dissipate conflicts arising from the huge pressure for land. As a result in many areas the park
boundaries have been violated, often deliberately but sometimes inadvertently, by local populations. The recent period of conflict has
sharply accelerated this process. As ICCN attempts to reassert its control over the park the confused situation over the park boundaries
merely serves to heighten tensions and inflame conflicts since at least three versions of the park boundary are being employed:
the “ICCN boundary” (which may or may not correspond to the true boundary), the “populations’ boundary” (which corresponds to
their understanding, erroneous or otherwise, of the park boundary) and the “legal” boundary (which is the true boundary as defined
in the legal texts).
ICCN and WWF, with support from the UNESCO program,
have developed an innovative method of tackling the
problem by involving all the local stakeholders in a process
of participatory boundary marking. Underlying principles
are that:
The VNP is a national and international heritage
that only a Presidential decree can change.
The boundaries are those originally published in
1935 and 1950
Local communities should know the exact limits in
order to plan their livelihood activities.
Boundary markers, whether natural or artificial,
must be accepted by all and officially registered
(GPS points, placement of marker and written
description of sites).
Wherever possible, ICCN should help local communities
who demonstrate willingness to respect
the park boundaries to obtain access to alternative
land outside the park.
The method involves working sector by sector with a mixed
commission comprising representatives of the Governor’s
office, land title office, traditional authorities, WWF, ICCN.
Land surveyors, agronomists and resource persons who
have particular historical knowledge of the area may also
participate. Disagreements are resolved by consensus and
the decisions formally acted. Markers are then placed and
registered and a certified report is signed jointly by ICCN
and the traditional authorities.
This process provides the basis on which voluntary evacuation
of illegal settlers can be negotiated. ICCN and its conservation
partners help identify areas where they can be
resettled and negotiate with host communities to receive
them. Currently some 70,000 people have been voluntarily
evacuated from the park. Communities living on the edge
of the park who respect the boundaries receive support
from ICCN. This can vary from tree nurseries to various
social infrastructures (water sources, school, dispensary,
etc).
Source: WWF - PNVi.
The map illustrates the confusions that exist over the exact alignment of the park boundary
in the Kirolirwe sector of the southern sector of Virunga NP. ICCN enforces the boundary
marked in yellow, which follows more or less the original 1935 boundary (blue dots), rather
than the true legal boundary which integrates the 1950 modifications (red). While much of
the area is indeed illegally occupied (A - areas in pink) ICCN’s erroneous interpretation of
the boundary means that in some areas it is excluding people from areas that they do in fact
have the right to occupy (B), while in others it is allowing people to occupy areas that are in
fact inside the park (C). Map: Bruno Hugel, WWF
B
C
A
A
- 35 -
34
Photo © Kim S. Gjerstad
BOX 9. ZONING OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND MANAGEMENT OF IMMIGRATION IN THE OWR
The Okapi Wildlife Reserve has a
number of permanent human settlements
within its borders. These are
essentially the villages situated along
the main RN4 highway that existed
prior to the creation of the Reserve
and along the road forming the eastern
border of the Reserve. Mbuti and
Efe pygmies also live in the Reserve
and are permitted to pursue their traditional
hunting and gathering activities.
Ensuring that human activities
within the Reserve do not threaten the
integrity of the site is therefore one of
the key challenges facing ICCN.
The recent period of conflict, followed
by the rehabilitation initiatives
since the signature of the peace accords,
has brought new challenges to
the OWR. Migration away from the
war-torn and overpopulated highlands
to the east resulted in many new families
settling in the villages along the
RN4 highway. The problem was exacerbated by the rehabilitation of the RN4 which, after 20 years of being little more than a footpath,
suddenly became a major highway with hundreds of vehicles, carrying would-be immigrants, crossing the Reserve each month.
It also led to a sharp increase in the volumes of natural resources coming out of the Ituri forest (bushmeat, timber and other NTFP).
Since 2000 ICCN and its conservation partners WCS and GIC, through the UNESCO programme, have been developing strategies
to manage the critical issues of immigration and unsustainable natural resource use by villagers in the OWR. Through a participatory
process involving all the stakeholders, agricultural zones have been established around the villages and rules and regulations about the
type and scale of activities within these zones are being formally agreed upon. In return the OWR helps residents develop more sustainable
agricultural practices using a variety of agro-forestry techniques. In parallel a system to monitor and control immigration into
the Reserve has been established in order to stabilise the number of people settling in the agricultural zones.
Integrating the special needs of the Mbuti and Efe Pygmies
into the management strategy for the Reserve is a special
challenge. Their semi-nomadic way of life as huntergatherers,
and their particular relationship with their bantu
neighbours (described by anthropologists as « political
clientelism » - a voluntary relation between two parties
with a degree of inequality regarding power and access to
resources) makes this a particularly complex management
issue.
While their traditional hunting and gathering activities
within the reserve are guaranteed it is clear that limits need
to be set since monitoring data clearly shows that current
levels of traditional net hunting, together with snare hunting
practised by bantu residents, much of it to supply the
commercial bushmeat trade, is significantly reducing ungulate
populations. The establishment of hunting zones,
with clear rules and responsibilities accepted and adhered
to by all parties, together with the creation of a totally protected
core zone, will be the key to safeguarding the resource
base on which their traditional lifestyles depend. Photo © Kim S. Gjerstad
- 36 -
35
Introducing new concepts of community conservation
Historically ICCN was one of Africa’s leaders in the field of protected area management.
However the decades of turmoil and neglect has meant that ICCN has not kept up with
modern trends in conservation which place greater emphasis on consultation rather than
relying solely on coercion. Clearly in the particular Congolese context of widespread break
down of law and order, law enforcement and dealing with the impact of uncontrolled military
actions will remain for the foreseeable future an important component of park management.
However in the long term parks will only survive if local communities understand
that it is in their best interests to support them. One of the project's objectives was therefore
to help ICCN to develop a national strategy for community conservation. This strategy
was elaborated with the technical support of FFI, in collaboration with UNDP/GEF, with
contributions from all the conservation partners, and is now the reference document for all
protected areas in the DRC.
Based on the strategy, the programme also developed a training programme for protected
area staff on community conservation. Training sessions are currently ongoing for key staff
from all World Heritage sites and other DRC protected areas.
Community conservation activities must be tailored to suit the particular situations in the
different sites. However one thing that is common to all community conservation activities
is the existence of permanent dialogue between the parks authorities and local communities.
Through this dialogue the problems and aspirations of all parties can be discussed and
solutions negotiated on the basis of clearly defined rights and responsibilities. Pilot projects
were developed in the first phase of the project, and more substantial activities were
launched in the second phase (Boxes 8 & 9).
STRENGTHENING AND COORDINATING PARTNERSHIPS
Coordination between partners
Good coordination between the different implementing partners is essential for the success
of the project interventions and here again UNESCO’s role has been critical. Conservation
NGOs and funding agencies do not always manage to work effectively together but in this
case the scale of the crisis was such that UNESCO was able to provide the pillar around
which the conservation partners could federate. Together they were able to achieve what
would have been impossible to achieve alone. The basis for this coordinated approach is
the Conservation Coalition for Congo (CoCoCongo), a concept that emerged from the “Core
Group” comprising ICCN and its conservation partners that convened for the first time in
Nairobi in 1998 (through the initiative of GTZ) to discuss emergency actions for the World
Heritage Sites and which led to the development of the UNESCO project. The CoCoCongo
is currently made up of ICCN, its conservation partners and the aid agencies that provide
the funds. It is based in Kinshasa and ensures a concerted and coordinated approach at the
national level. It is an important tool for communication with the international conservation
community, and is also a point of reference for new conservation partners wishing to
join the on-going efforts.
At each World Heritage site a Site Coordination Committee (CoCoSi) was also created to
ensure that on-the-ground activities by the different field partners were properly coordinated
and addressed ICCN priorities. This innovative structure has proved very successful
and has enabled ICCN to reaffirm its leadership role in the sites – a role that had been
eclipsed during the troubles with the different partners tending to work in isolation as they
struggled to meet the ever-evolving challenges The CoCoSi has since been replicated
throughout the DRC protected area network.
- 37 -
36
Conservation diplomacy, lobbying and communication
Effective delivery of support on the ground depended on all parties involved in the conflict understanding
the overriding importance of these sites and the necessity of allowing the ICCN staff and
their partners to carry out their conservation activities. In the early stages of the conflict so-called
“diplomatic missions” were organised to meet the various protagonists and obtain agreement for the
conservation activities to go ahead. These missions involved meeting high-level political representatives
from all three countries involved in the war as well as local commanders of the different armed
forces operating in the region and coordinating this with the UN peace-keeping force, MONUC,
and the Congolese army. They were accompanied by information campaigns in the news media and
within the conservation and development community in order to highlight the plight of the sites.
Tripartite meetings between the protected area authorities of the areas controlled by the DRC Government
and the areas under rebel control were also organised on neutral ground in Nairobi. Awareness
raising through UNESCO-led missions enabled some of the excesses of the Congolese army in
the parks to be curbed, and also provided the political backing for dealing with the issues of illegal
settlements in the parks.
At the national and international level the World
Heritage Committee has been an important mechanism
for communicating with the wider conservation
community and lobbying for increased commitments.
In September 2004 the World Heritage
Centre organised an international conference of
donors and conservation partners at its headquarters
in Paris. It was attended by over 240 participants
and provided an ideal forum for the DRC to
demonstrate to the international community its
continued commitment to biodiversity conservation
despite the desperate circumstances prevailing
in the country (Box 10), and to lobby for further
political and financial support for the World Heritage
sites. Important donor commitments to ICCN
in favour of World Heritage Sites were made by
Belgium, Italy, Germany (GTZ and KfW), US
(CARPE), EC, World Bank (GEF) and UNDP
(GEF), and UNF.
UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee was also a particularly useful mechanism for bringing pressure
to bear to resolve a number of key issues threatening the sites, such as:
Ensuring that the rehabilitation of the RN3 and RN4 highways, which cross KBNP and OWR
respectively, were suspended until appropriate impact assessments had been made and mitigation
measures agreed upon,
Ensuring that recently attributed mining permits which overlapped with three of the World
Heritage sites were redrawn and a mixed technical working group set up to monitor the situation.
Obtaining written assurances from the government that the oil exploration permit attributed
to Dominion Congo Limited, which encompasses the whole of the central and southern sectors
of the PNV, will respect the special legal status of the park.
Establishing better collaboration between ICCN and MONUC and FARDC to ensure that
ICCN can continue its conservation activities. In certain cases MONUC now participates in
joint surveillance activities and has facilitated meetings with some of the rebel groups in control
of certain sites. FARDC and MONUC and are also members of a series of committees,
known as Comités de Sauvegarde (rescue committees), for the different sites.
BOX 10. COMMITMENTS GIVEN BY THE DRC GOVERNMENT
AT THE 2004 PARIS DONOR CONFERENCE
Establish a Trust Fund for the rehabilitation of the World Heritage
sites, to which the contribution by the Government will be established
in the 2005 budget;
Take active measures to evacuate armed troops and other populations
that have invaded the sites and are contributing to their destruction;
Contribute to the preservation and restoration of the integrity of the
World Heritage sites;
Ensure salary payments to site staff;
Facilitate the work of ICCN;
Ensure that the integrity of the sites is respected and take into account
the interests of local people through participatory development
and reconstruction projects;
Ensure that local populations get a fair share of the financial benefits
generated through ecotourism.
- 38 -
37
Sustainable funding
In the first phase of the programme, from 1999 to 2004, more than 60% of project funds
were used to pay salary bonuses to park staff in order to enable them to continue the conservation
field activities. However, while continuing to rely on donor support for guard
payments in the short term it was essential to start moving towards a more long term solution
for funding the running costs of the five World Heritage sites.
Working closely with sustainable funding specialists from WWF UNESCO developed a
concept for a trust fund and lobbied donors to participate. The fund will be a private entity
benefiting from the legal and fiscal guarantees that are necessary in order to attract new
actors. Its capital will be invested in perpetuity on the international financial markets and
the return on the investments will be used to support the financial needs of priority protected
areas, including natural resource management in their peripheral zones. The fund will
be managed by an independent and mixed Board of Directors representing the interests of
all actors involved, with a majority from the private sector. Potential sources of funding
include both national and international donors and could include contributions resulting
from debt conversions and carbon markets. An internationally recognized investment manager
will manage the assets on the basis of guidelines provided by the Board and specific
social and environmental criteria would be guaranteed. The investment strategy should be
based on diversification of the types of investments and markets.
The Belgian government has agreed to donate 1 million € to set up the fund and various
other donors including France, Germany and the United Kingdom have also expressed an
interest in contributing to the fund. The DRC government has established a Steering Committee
which will be responsible for defining in detail the profile of the fund, producing its
legal and management tools and mobilizing financial resources. The Steering Committee
will be made up of representatives of the Government, the civil society, conservation
NGOs, the donor community and the private sector.
Below: Direct field support to
ICCN rangers in the form of
field equipment, cash bonuses
and training enabled DRC’s
World Heritage sites to survive
the civil war. Sadly many
ICCN staff and family members
lost their lives during this
difficult time.
Photos © Kim S. Gjerstad
- 39 -
38
10 YEARS ON IN THE DRC….
It is widely recognized that without the support, at such a critical time, provided by the Biodiversity
in Regions of Armed Conflict project, and without the remarkable commitment of
ICCN’s staff on the ground, as well as that of its conservation partners who remained on
site throughout the crisis, there would be little left of the natural heritage that had justified
the original inscription of these sites on the World Heritage list. The mounting tide of pressures
that were threatening to overwhelm the sites in 2000 was stemmed, and control over
the protected areas has slowly but surely been reasserted in the intervening eight years.
There are many reasons for optimism. ICCN has regained control over the Okapi Wildlife
Reserve, thousand of illegal settlers have voluntarily moved out of Virunga and poaching
pressure in Garamba has declined significantly.
However the struggle is far from over and new crises continue to shake the region and test
the resolve of ICCN and its conservation partners. In early 2009, renewed fighting erupted
in eastern DRC as a result of efforts of the DRC
Government to neutralize CNDP, FDLR and
LRA rebels and this fighting has affected Kahuzi-
Biega, Virunga and Garamba. In all sites varying
levels of illegal natural resource exploitation still
continues and illegal settlements remain a problem.
However the breathing space afforded by the
support of the international community during
this period of crises has enabled ICCN to regroup
and prepare to move from a crisis management
mode to a more measured approach in which long
term objectives are pursued in a more strategic
manner with the coordinated support of the international
community.
The project has demonstrated how the World
Heritage Convention can be used to mobilize the
international community for biodiversity conservation
in a time of crisis and bring pressure to
bear to resolve problems affecting sites of global
biodiversity importance. The particular context in
which this project operated demonstrated the
added value that comes when conservation partners
adopt a common vision and collaborate
closely on the ground. Conservation partners collaborated
to develop innovative linkages between
biodiversity conservation and sustainable development
and significant threats to biodiversity were
addressed by developing replicable models at the
site level.
The international attention generated by
UNESCO’s intervention has raised the profile of
biodiversity conservation issues not only in DRC
but also more widely in the central African region
and has set the stage for broadening the scope of
World Heritage in the Congo basin.
Snow and ice on the equator.
The Ruwenzori mountains -
one of the many exceptional
features that justify the inclusion
of the Virunga National
Park on the World Heritage
list. Africa’s oldest National
Park was able to survive the
war thanks to support from
UNESCO and a coalition of
dedicated international conservation
NGO’s.
Photos © Kim S. Gjerstad
- 40 -
39
SETTING THE STAGE FOR NEW WORLD HERITAGE
SITES IN CENTRAL AFRICA
THE CENTRAL AFRICAN WORLD HERITAGE FOREST INITIATIVE
(CAWHFI)
A lthough the DRC contains the lion’s share of central Africa’s rainforests and
World Heritage sites there are a number of other sites outside the DRC which
are of exceptional importance and have the potential to become World Heritage
sites. Building on the successes of the DRC project UNESCO’s World
Heritage Centre has been facilitating, since 2004, a series of interventions aimed at preparing
the way for the inclusion of additional central African sites in the World Heritage list.
This is being achieved through the Central African World Heritage Initiative, CAWHFI.
As with the DRC project, CAWHFI is a collaborative undertaking between UNESCO’s
World Heritage Centre, FAO, international NGOs (WWF, WCS, CI) and the national protected
area authorities. The initiative is funded by the United Nations Foundation, the
French Global Environment Facility (FFEM) and the European Commission. Matching
funds are provided by the participating NGOs. The initiative involves a four-pronged approach
of:
Field support to improve management of selected clusters protected areas with
recognized potential for becoming World Heritage properties
Working with the private sector and other local stakeholders to promote and
monitor the sustainable use of natural resources, particularly the bushmeat trade,
in the multi-use landscapes within which the targeted clusters of protected areas
are located.
Using the World Heritage process to raise awareness of the exceptional natural
value of the targeted sites and help governments to identify and prioritize other
sites which, through inscription on the World Heritage List, would enable a better
representation of the Outstanding Universal Values of the region’s natural heritage
to be achieved.
Support for the development of sustainable conservation finance mechanisms.
CAWFHI’s trans-boundary landscape approach is fully in line with COMIFAC and CBFP
strategic priorities. It focuses on three outstanding landscapes :
i. Conkouati-Mayumba-Gamba (Republics of Gabon and Congo)
ii. Tri-national Sangha (TNS) (Republics of Cameroon and Congo, and Central African
Republic)
iii. Tri-national Dja-Odzala-Minkebe (TRIDOM) (Republics of Gabon, Cameroon
and Congo)
Each of these transborder landscapes contains a cluster of globally important protected
areas, which together represent 25% of the total surface area of the landscapes.
- 41 -
40
GAMBA-MAYUMBA-CONKOUATI LANDSCAPE
The Gamba-Mayumba-Conkouati landscape at a glance*
Countries involved: Republics of Congo and Gabon
Coordinates: 1°36’26’’S to 4°26’26’’S; 9°15’48’’E to 12°24’28’’E
Surface area: 47.346 km², of which 36.926 km² terrestrial and 10.420 km² marine
Altitude: 0 – 840 m
Terrestrial Eco-regions: Atlantic Equatorial Forest; south-western Congolian Savanna-Forest Mosaic
Aquatic Eco-region: Southernmost western equatorial coastal eco-region
Protected Areas:
Loango National Park, 153,581 ha, 2002, Gabon
Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, 502,805 ha, 2002, Gabon
Mayumba National Park, 80,000 ha, 2002, Gabon
Conkouati-Douli National Park, 505,000 ha, 1980/1999, Republic of Congo
Ngové-Ndogo Hunting Area, 1956, Gabon (legal status unclear, under reclassification)
Iguela Hunting Area, 1962, Gabon (legal status unclear, under reclassification)
Moukalaba Hunting Area, 20,000 ha, 1962, Gabon (legal status unclear, under reclassification)
Sette Cama Hunting Area, 1962, Gabon (legal status unclear, under reclassification)
Ouanga Plain Wildlife Reserve, 1962, Gabon (legal status unclear, under reclassification)
Monts Doudou Wildlife Utilisation Area, 1988 (almost entirely reclassified as Moukalaba-Doudou National Park;
legal status of remaining areas unclear)
UNESCO’s site partners : WWF, WCS.
(*) sources: State of Forests Report 2006 & WWF Gabon
- 42 -
41
S ituated along the Atlantic coast of Gabon and Congo the Gamba-Mayumba-
Conkouati landscape covers 34.258 km², three quarters of which lies within Gabon.
It is centered on the Loango, Moukalaba-Doudou and Mayumba National Parks in
Gabon and the Conkouati-Douli National Park in Congo. The Mayumba and
Conkouati-Douli National Parks have marine sections extending respectively 15 and 22 km
from the shoreline and as they are contiguous they provide 120km of protected shoreline.
The landscape also includes 1.500 km² of forestry concessions, 4.300 km² of oil and gas
exploration and production permits, a cattle ranch of 1,000 km² in Gabon and 276 km² of
eucalyptus plantations in Congo.
The landscape is particularly diverse because it falls within three of the WWF Global 200
Eco-regions: the Atlantic Equatorial Forest, the Western Congolian Savanna-Forest Mosaic,
and the Guinean-Congolian Coastal Mangroves. This rich mix of ecosystems results in
an exceptionally high biodiversity and places it among the highest regional and global conservation
priorities. Overall some 11% of the plant species in the landscape are endemic to
this bio-geographical zone. Plant species diversity on Mount Doudou is particularly high
and lends support to the theory that Mount Doudou was one of the Pleistocene forest refuges.
The landscape’s floral diversity is matched by its faunal diversity, both terrestrial and
aquatic. It harbors important large mammal populations such as the forest elephant, the
western lowland gorilla, chimpanzee, mandrill, forest buffalo, probably the world’s most
important west African manatee population and hippo. The fact that several of these species
can be observed along the shoreline makes this a particularly
intriguing landscape. The spectacle is further enhanced by the presence
of the Nile crocodile, four species of marine turtle and 17 species
of Cetacean, including five whale species, in the off-shore waters
of the landscape. Humpback whales, migrating from the Southern
Ocean to breed in the warmer tropical waters, are particularly abundant
between June and October. The 120 km of protected beach in
the Mayumba and Conkouati-Douli National Parks is also the most
important site in the world for the nesting of Leatherback turtles.
The natural resources of the landscape’s forests and waters, especially
fish and bushmeat, are crucial to the livelihoods of local human
populations. The total human population is estimated at 26,000 people.
Rural exodus has resulted in a rural population density of
0.7people/km² but the large towns within or close to the landscape
exercise a strong pressure on its natural resources, particularly fish
and bushmeat. The most important towns within the landscape are
Gamba, which came into existence with the arrival of Shell Gabon in
1963, and Mayumba. Congo’s second largest city, Pointe Noire, is
located just south of Conkouati-Douli National Park. With a population
of around 663,400 inhabitants (2005 census) the large urban
markets of Pointe Noire have a particularly strong impact on the
natural resources of Conkouati-Douli.
The main direct threats to the landscape’s biodiversity are unsustainable
commercial and local hunting and fishing practices, unsustainable
logging practices and unsustainable agricultural practices, risks
of oil pollution linked to on-shore and off-shore oil exploration and
production activities, and environmental impacts of potential upcoming
mining activities. Several companies have been granted oil
and gas as well as mining exploration permits which overlap with all
National Parks in the Landscape. Off-shore oil production is ongoing
in both Mayumba and Conkouati-Douli National Parks.
Above: A humpback whale
breaching off the coast of
Mayumba National Park,
Gabon. It is estimated that
10% of the world’s humpback
whale population breeds in the
Gulf of Guinea.
Photo © Tim Collins - Ocean
Giants/WCS
Below: Forest elephants can
often be seen in the lagoons and
on the beaches of the Gamba
complex of protected areas in
Gabon.
Photo © A. Marin
- 43 -
42
TRINATIONAL SANGHA LANDSCAPE
The Tri-national Sangha Landscape at a glance*
Countries involved: Republics of Congo, Cameroon and Central Africa
Coordinates: 3°32’12’’S to 0°40’29’’S; 15°28’26’’E to 1°34’08’’E
Surface area: 36.236 km²
Altitude: 330 - 700 m
Terrestrial Eco-regions: North West Congolian Forests.
Aquatic Eco-regions: Sangha Eco-region
Protected Areas:
Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, 419,000 ha, 1993, Republic of Congo
Lobéké National Park, 43,000 ha, 2001, Cameroon
Dzanga-Ndoki National Park, 125,100 ha, 1990, Central African Republic
Dzanga-Sangha Special Reserve, 310,100 ha, 1990, Central African Republic
UNESCO’s site partners: WWF, WCS.
(*) source: State of Forests Report 2006
- 44 -
43
A s its name suggests, this landscape covers three countries and is bisected from
north to south by the Sangha River. It contains vast areas of intact forest, displaying
a high degree of ecological integrity, and harbours a great number of
Africa’s large mammal populations, particularly forest elephants and gorillas.
Opportunities for effective conservation over a vast area are particularly good because protected
areas cover 21.5% of the landscape and formal agreements between the three countries
for transborder cooperation exist since 2000. There is good potential for developing
eco-tourism, in particular for forest elephant and lowland gorilla viewing, and this constitutes
a significant opportunity for focusing international interest on the landscape. Consumptive
tourism in the form of safari hunting also has considerable potential and is conducted
in Cameroon and CAR.
On the Congolese side the landscape covers a total area of 21,470 km² and includes the
Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park and five active logging concessions which act as a buffer
zone to the park. The Central African section covers 4,644 km² made up essentially of the
Dzanga-Ndoki National Park, divided into two sectors, Dzanga and Ndoki, and the
Dzanga-Sangha Special Reserve which acts as a buffer zone between them. The two Forest
Management Units in the Dzanga-Sangha Special Reserve are currently not being logged.
The Cameroonian section is centred on the Lobéké National Park which is surrounded to
its north, west and south by buffer zones comprising six community-managed hunting
zones, seven Sport Hunting Zones and 14 Forest Management Units attributed to 5 logging
concessionaires.
The famous mineral rich Bayanga
bai in the CAR section
of the Tri-National Sangha
landscape attracts large numbers
of forest elephant.
Photo © A. Billand, CIRAD
- 45 -
44
The floral communities of this landscape include semi-deciduous terra firma forest,
monodominant Gilbertiodendron forest, Marantaceae forest, swamp forest and Uapaca dominated
riparian forest. Several commercially valuable timber species found in this landscape
figure in the IUCN Red Data list including African teak (afromosia), African mahogany
sipo, sapelli and acajou. The cluster of National Parks therefore serves as a vital sanctuary
of these important species.
The landscape includes some of Africa’s largest assemblages of emblematic large mammal
species such as the forest elephant, western lowland gorillas, bongo, and forest buffalo.
This is partly due to the presence of more than 100 forest clearings (or bais in the local language)
where these species congregate, attracted by the mineral salts and the particular
vegetation types . In Cameroon some of the bais attract very high numbers of African grey
parrots. There are therefore exceptional opportunities for eco-tourism. A remarkable population
of “naïve” chimpanzees has also been discovered in the south of Nouabalé-Ndoki in
the Goualogou Triangle. Because of the isolated nature of this area of forest, the chimpanzees
display almost no fear of man and this has enabled scientists to make ground-breaking
behavioural studies on tool use by these chimpanzees.
The average population density in the landscape is 0.7 inhabitants/km², although the majority
of the population is concentrated around the main towns and logging camps. In the
CAR and Congo sections around 30% of the population is made up of various groups of
semi-nomads (Baka, Bambendzélé, Bangombé). The influence of logging activities on human
demographics in the forest zone are well-illustrated in this landscape where annual
growth increases of over 10% (essentially through immigration) have been recorded in and
around some logging camps. Immigrant populations tend to exert strong pressures on natural
resources by overriding traditional systems of natural resource use.
While logging related activities are the main occupation of human
populations in the landscape, artisanal mining (mainly for diamonds),
hunting, fishing and agriculture are also important.
WWF and WCS have been active in this zone for the better part of
two decades and were instrumental, along with GTZ, in the creation
of the TNS Foundation, the first trans-border conservation initiative
of its kind in Africa. After nearly ten years of negotiations the Foundation
is now up and running with an initial capital of 12 million €
(Box 11).
Threats to the landscape
are commercial bushmeat
hunting, elephant poaching
for ivory, unsustainable
industrial logging, and
artisanal mining. The
international pet trade for
African grey parrots
(below right) is also a
threat.
Photos © Reto Kuster
- 46 -
45
BOX 11. SANGHA TRI NATIONAL FOUNDATION. AN EXAMPLE OF A CONSERVATION
TRUST FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE FUNDING OF PROTECTED AREAS
The TNS covers a total surface area of 28.000km² of lowland forest and includes the three contiguous National
Parks of Lobeke in Cameroun, Dzanga-Ndoki in CAR and Nouabale-Ndoki in Congo and their buffer zones.
The process for the development of the Sangha Tri-National Trust Fund (“Fondation pour le Tri-National de la
Sangha”) received support mainly from the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable
Use, GTZ, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the French Cooperation, AFD and the USAID-funded Central
African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE).
The Foundation was established in March 2007 as a Charity under British law, with executive headquarters in
Central Africa. Formal agreements define the terms of the collaboration between the Foundation and each of the
three countries. The Foundation is managed by a Board of Directors of 11 members consisting of representatives
of the Governments of Cameroon, Congo and CAR, WCS, WWF, Regenwald Stiftung, KfW, AFD and civil society.
Around 12 million Euros have already been mobilized so far by KfW, AFD, and Regenwalt Striftung through
the “Krombacher Regenwald Kampagne”. These funds will be invested in international markets and will produce
a stable revenue stream to cover targeted activities for conservation and sustainable management of natural resources
in the TNS. A recent EC grant to CAWHFI will enable the Foundation to disburse a series of small
grants, totaling €400,000 over three years, to the parks and other eligible stakeholders
Sources; http://carpe.umd.edu/tns_foundation, EC, WWF.
Mbeli bai in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, an exceptional site for observing the large mammal fauna typical of the central African forests. Photo © M. Azink & J. Oonk
- 47 -
46
TRIDOM LANDSCAPE
The Trinational Dja-Odzala-Minkebe (TRIDOM) landscape at a glance*
Countries concerned: Republics of Gabon, Congo and Cameroon
Coordinates: 3°29’53”N to 0°26’28”N; 11°51’54”E to 15°57’21”E
Surface area: 186.500 km²
Altitude: 300 - 1000 m
Terrestrial Ecoregions: North-West Congolian Forests;
Aquatic Ecoregions: South-West Equatorial Coastal; Sangha
Protected Areas:
Odzala-Koukoua National Park, 1,350,000 ha, 1935/1999, Republic of Congo
Minkebe National Park, 756,700 ha, 1997/2000/2002, Gabon
Ivindo National Park, 300,000 ha, 1971/2002, Gabon
Mwanga National Park, 116,500 ha, 2002, Gabon
Boumba-Bek National Park, 238,255 ha, 2005, Cameroon
Nki National Park, 309,365 ha, 2005, Cameroon
Dja Wildlife Reserve, 526,000 ha, 1950, Cameroon (World Heritage Site)
Mengame Gorilla Sanctuary / Kom complex, 95,800 ha, Cameroon (final stages of classification)
Lossi Gorilla Sanctuary, 38 000 ha, 2001, Congo
UNESCO site partners: WWF, WCS, CI / CyberTracker Conservation
(*) source: State of Forests Report 2006 & WWF Gabon
- 48 -
47
T he TRIDOM landscape lies astride Gabon,
Cameroon and Congo Republic. It
covers a surface area of 186,500 km², four
times larger than either of the other two
CAWHFI landscapes and includes nine protected
areas totalling 37,360 km² (20% of the landscape).
The landscape lies on a plateau ranging from 300 to
1,000 m above sea level. It is punctuated by several
spectacular inselbergs (particularly in Minkebe National
Park) and bisected by a 75 km long escarpment
running from north to south along the Gabon
– Congo frontier which separates the two main watersheds
that this landscape feeds, the Ogooué and
the Congo. A series of spectacular rapids and waterfalls
occur on the Ivindo River, acting as a biogeographic
barrier in the Ogooué watershed.
The majority of the landscape is covered by terra firma forests including semi-deciduous forests
rich in Meliaceae, Ulmaceae and Sterculiaceae, open canopy Marantaceae forests and
mono-dominant Gilbertiodendron forests. Large areas of permanently and seasonally flooded
forest and swamps also occur. The floristic composition shows a gradient from Atlantic
influences in the west to Congo influences in the east. The inselbergs and lower rocky outcrops
in Minkebe and Dja are covered with herbaceous prairies and woody thickets comprising
many specialized species with limited distributions from the Euphorbia and Orchid
families. Many hundreds of forest clearings punctuate the landscape, of which those in
Odzala-Koukoua National Park are the most well known. As in the TNS landscape many
of these bais are rich in mineral salts and attract large concentrations of mammals including
forest elephants, lowland gorillas, bongo, forest buffalo and giant forest hog. Finally in the
south eastern part of the landscape (Odzala-Koukua National Park) there is a zone of forest
-savannah mosaic which represents the northernmost limit of the Batéké plateau.
Several typically savannah
mammal species occur in the
forest-savannah mosaic of
Odzala-Koukoua National
Park, including the spotted
hyena and possibly a relict
population of lions.
Photo © C. Aveling
Lowland gorillas and forest
buffalo (above) meet in the
Lokué bai in Odzala-
Koukoua National Park,
Congo..
Photo © C. Aveling
- 49 -
48
This landscape contains central Africa’s highest concentrations of forest elephants (an estimated
30,000 occur in the Minkebe forest alone) and forest buffalo. The fact that so much
of the landscape is relatively inaccessible means that large mammal populations have remained
relatively protected from the impacts of commercial bushmeat and ivory hunting.
However in some areas recent outbreaks of the Ebola virus appear to have caused a dramatic
decline in great ape populations. Minkebe National Park appears to have lost 98% of
its great ape population since the early 90s and in Odzala-Koukoua National Parks, where
the first known outbreaks of Ebola were recorded in 2002, the decline has also been very
severe.
Human population densities vary between 1-2 inhabitants/km² throughout most of the
landscape, but reach 3-4 inhabitants/km² in the south of the Cameroon section of the landscape.
Vast areas of the Gabon and Congo sections are virtually uninhabited. The main
activities are agriculture (slash and burn and some cocoa/coffee), industrial logging, hunting,
and artisanal mining (mainly gold panning). In Cameroon timber exploitation has become
an important part of the village economy since 40% of timber taxes are returned to
the local communities. As a result community forests are developing rapidly in Cameroon.
As in the other landscapes commercial hunting for bushmeat and the ivory trade are major
threats. Emerging diseases (notably Ebola) have also recently become a threat. The expansion
of industrial logging in the landscape has been very rapid over the past 10 years, with
over 50% of the landscape currently attributed. Much of the vast central area of the landscape
(south of Ngoïla and west of Sounake) is still unattributed but pressure to log these
areas is mounting. Finally large-scale industrial mining is scheduled to begin in the near future
and this is certain to have a very significant impact on the landscape (Box 12).
Box 12. MINING IN THE TRIDOM LANDSCAPE
Artisanal mining for gold attracts many thousands of people into the heart of the TRIDOM landscape. In addition to the physical damage to the
forest, this type of essentially unregulated activity is generally associated with large-scale poaching, cross-border smuggling and illegal immigration.
Large-scale industrial mining projects are planned in the TRIDOM heartland and inevitably pose a serious threat to the ecological integrity of the
landscape. In Gabon a Chinese company (CMEC) has acquired the rights to develop the Belinga iron ore deposits and an Australian company
(Sundance Resources Ltd) has acquired the rights to the Mbalam deposit in Cameroon as well as other deposits (Nabeba, Letioukbala) in the
neighbouring Souanke District in Congo. Another company, Core Mining (Australia/France) has started exploration of iron ore deposits in the
Avima mountains, also in Congo in the remote area to the west of Souanke. The Belinga and Mbalam deposits are estimated at 1 billion tons each,
among the richest in the world. To exploit the Mbalam deposit a railway may be constructed to Kribi, on the Cameroon coast. To exploit Belinga an
extension to the trans-gabonese railway is planned and the construction
of a hydroelectric dam on the Ivindo river has been considered.
This would severely impact the Ivindo National Park with its spectacular
series of rapids and waterfalls at Koungou. Finally a major
cobalt and nickel deposit near Lomié, on the edge of the Dja Wildlife
Reserve World Heritage site in Cameroon has been attributed to an
American company (GEOVIC).
All these industrial mining activities will have a profound impact on
the landscape and might herald the end of TRIDOM as a continous
forest with interconnected protected areas if adequate mitigation
measures are not taken. They will attract thousands of immigrant
workers into the landscape and this will inevitably result in increasing
pressures on the natural resources particularly through forest clearance
for agriculture and hunting for bushmeat and ivory. The construction
of railways or special
roads might have an even
greater impact. The potential for
biodiversity offsets linked to
these mining projects is currently
being investigated.
A large gold mining camp close to the
boundary of Minkebe National Park,
Gabon.
Photo © Gustav Mabaza
- 50 -
49
CAWHFI ACTIVITES IN THE THREE LANDSCAPES
CAWHFI activities are organized around three components:
1. Strengthening management of protected areas
2. Managing wildlife in the multi-use zones linking the protected areas
3. Identifying potential World Heritage sites and developing new nominations
Most CAWFHI field activities are implemented by WWF and WCS, both of whom have
been active in the landscapes for over 20 years. Both organizations are currently implementing
a wide range of conservation activities with funding from several private, bilateral
and multilateral sources. Given the enormous conservation challenges facing the landscapes,
and the critical shortage of financial resources available to tackle them, CAWHFI
has opted for a pragmatic approach designed to achieve economies of scale by supporting
field activities that complement or scale up those already being implemented by WWF and
WCS. Overall, CAWHFI funding represents roughly 15 to 20% of the total funds mobilized
by these organizations in the landscapes.
Strengthening management of the protected areas
Law enforcement and monitoring (LEM)
Strengthening of park management has involved scaling up the intensity and effectiveness
of surveillance activities and supporting the additional costs incurred such as bonuses, field
allowances, equipment, fuel, spare parts and the construction of patrol posts. Basic training
of guards has been provided and LEM systems have been established to allow park managers
to assess the level and impact of their surveillance activities. Training in bio-monitoring
has also been provided.
In addition to the classic surveillance within the protected areas CAWHFI has also supported
joint trans-border patrols, particularly in the TNS and TRIDOM landscapes. In the
case of TNS the protected areas are contiguous and so cooperation between the protected
area authorities is relatively straightforward. The situation is more complex in the centre of
the TRIDOM landscape where the protected areas are not contiguous along the international
boundaries and the remoteness
of the area means that there is very
little control over the movement and
activities of people operating in the
border area. The Mouloundou sector
of the Dja River along the Cameroon-
Congo border is a particular hot-spot
for poaching and illegal trafficking of
ivory and bushmeat and CAWHFI has
pioneered trans-border surveillance
patrols along the international border.
A key problem, common to all the
landscapes, concerns the difficulty of
ensuring that wildlife laws are properly
applied and offenders appropriately
prosecuted. While poor governance
and corruption are certainly contributing
factors, it is also clear that the judi-
Training has been a central
element of UNESCO’s
support to the World Heritage
sites. In Central Africa. Given
the remoteness of many of these
sites a well-developed ability to
adapt to local conditions is
essential.
Photo © Kim S. Gjerstad
- 51 -
50
ciary is often unaware of the importance of wildlife laws and consequently has little interest
in applying them. CAWHFI funding has therefore been used to organize workshops and
site visits for magistrates and other senior members of the local administration and this type
of relatively simple intervention appears to produce positive results in terms of successful
prosecutions.
In the case of the Gamba-Mayumba-Conkouati landscape, which encompasses large areas
of marine habitat, special surveillance and monitoring techniques have been developed to
address the specific conservation issues related to illegal industrial fishing activities within
the national park boundaries and pollution from offshore oil exploitation (some of which
also occurs with the park boundaries). Illegal industrial fishing is having a devastating impact
on fish stocks and threatens the livelihoods of local fishing communities. Charismatic
marine wildlife species, such as whales, dolphins, sharks (fished for their fins) and marine
turtles also require special attention in view of their global importance
and their position in the food chains. In Mayumba an observation
tower equipped with radar to monitor illegal fishing activities has been
installed and this is proving to be very effective in reducing illegal
fishing activities in the park. In both Gabon and Congo, however,
more effort is needed from the relevant government fisheries services
to end these unsustainable practices.
Well-equipped teams of guards, supported by local NGOs such as
Aventure Sans Frontière, Gabon Environnement and Ibonga also patrol the
beaches during the marine turtle nesting season. Nest counting and
turtle tagging (including with GPS receptors) confirm the global importance
of these beaches, with up to 194 nest /km at the height of
the nesting season.
CAWHFI also supports monitoring of the impacts of oil exploitation
activities, particularly in Mayumba. However while detecting oil spills
is relatively straightforward, responding to them and persuading the
industry to accept the principle of accountability for this kind of pollution
are proving to be more challenging. Since there is currently no
national plan in Gabon for pollution response the project is working
closely with the government Anti-Pollution Centre to provide input
to a future national plan. As oil exploitation within Mayumba is a fait
Unsustainable fishing practices are
threatening the marine resources in the
Gamba-Mayumba-Conkouati landscape.
Illegal inshore trawling (right)
and the destructive practice of shark
fin fishing (left) are closely monitored
by the CAWHFI conservation partners.
Photo © Tim Collins - Ocean Giants/
WCS
The impact of oil exploitation
on marine resources requires
close monitoring and oil companies
must be made accountable
for the effects of oil pollution.
Photo © Tim Collins - Ocean
Giants/WCS
- 52 -
51
accompli (because it existed prior to the creation of the park), and is likely to become so in
Conkouati (where the permit was granted after the creation of the park), the project is actively
exploring ways to turn a potentially negative situation into a positive one through
working agreements with the companies involved.
Protected area management planning
Protected areas management planning is an important component of CAWHFI activities.
This is particularly complex in Conkouati-Douli National Park where the issues of logging
and oil exploration in the park must be resolved. An updated and more coherent zoning
plan has been proposed for the park and its immediate periphery but this has yet to be approved.
The CAWHFI intervention therefore comes at an opportune moment for the park
as it lends impetus to an important series of ongoing conservation activities and brings additional
international pressure to bear on the controversial issue of industrial extractive industries
operating within a globally important, and legally fully-protected, conservation area.
Eco-tourism :
The potential for eco-tourism development in the landscapes is enormous, although so are
the challenges. CAWHFI is supporting these activities as they have considerable potential
for giving added value to the sites and bringing tangible benefits to local stakeholders.
Where local NGOs are directly involved with the implementation of the activities local support
for the park is greatly enhanced. This kind of partnership is proving to be particularly
promising in the Gamba complex where a local environmental NGO Ibonga is closely involved.
The project has also provided support for development of great ape tourism in
Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park through the rehabilitation of viewing platforms in the famous
Mbeli bai and the implementation of a feasibility study for chimpanzee viewing.
However many hurdles remain to be overcome before significant levels of tourism can occur
in these sites. These constraints, which affect tourism throughout central Africa, are
largely outside of the control of the park and concern issues such as high costs of international
travel to the region, reliability of in-country transport, suitability of local accommodation
and the willingness of local operators to invest in nature based tourism.
Whale watching is likely to become an
important tourist attraction off the coasts
of Gabon and Congo.
Photo © Tim Collins - Ocean Giants/WCS
- 53 -
52
Managing wildlife in the landscapes
Moving beyond the boundaries of protected areas
One of the unique aspects of protected areas in the Congo Basin, is that in most cases, they
are still embedded in larger natural landscapes, even if natural resources in these landscapes
are utilized, for example as logging concessions. These landscapes cover a much greater
surface area than protected areas themselves in central Africa and it can be assumed that a
very significant proportion of the wildlife can be found within them. Management of wildlife
in these logging concessions can therefore make a very significant contribution to biodiversity
conservation in the region. By preserving the ecosystem processes across the landscapes
also ensures that biological linkages between protected areas are preserved. In addition,
these landscapes are in many cases essential to sustain the key values of the protected
area. For example home ranges of most elephants extend well beyond the boundaries of the
BOX 13. SOME COMMON PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGING WILDLIFE IN MULTIPLE-USE LANDSCAPES
Although the models for wildlife management will vary from site to site, a certain number of common underlying principles can be
identified from the different pilot projects implemented in the CAWHFI landscapes:
In logging concessions control of hunting is promoted by strictly enforcing national wildlife laws throughout the concession
and ensuring that logging companies enforce internal rules and regulations, particularly with respect to the transport of bushmeat,
hunters and hunting equipment in company vehicles.
Access to wildlife resources is regulated through forest use planning and zoning. This generally involves the definition of hunting
zones and the elaboration of simple management plans. These may be designated zones within the logging concession as
part of the logging company’s management plan as in the CIB and IFO concessions in northern Congo. In Gabon WWF has
worked with the logging company CBG, local authorities and park managers to facilitate the official recognition of a traditional
village zone (terroir villageois), an enclave within the Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, for the exclusive use of the indigenous
inhabitants of Pény village. In Cameroon community hunting zones (Zones d’Intérêt Cynégétique à Gestion Communautaire - ZICGC)
or sport hunting zones (Zones d’Intérêt Cynégetique - ZIC) can be located within logging concessions, communal forests or agroforestry
zones. In the forest concessions around Minkebe National Park WWF has pioneered a simple, pragmatic and participative
approach based on the principle that if the use of vehicles for hunting is prevented (by controlling the roads entering the
forest concessions), hunting will be limited to a 15 to 20 km band along public roads and rivers since this is the maximum distance
that hunters will cover on foot in a day. A large part of the Minkebe forest block can thus stay outside of hunting territories.
However the principle is only valid as long as hunters are targeting mainly fresh meat. Once they switch to smoked meat, as
in Cameroon, hunters will be able to hunt at much greater distances from the roads using camps deep in the forest to smoke the
meat.
Local communities are empowered to take responsibility for wildlife management so that the “open access” system of wildlife
use, which is so destructive to wildlife populations, can be eliminated. This will involve the creation of community-based natural
resource management structures. In the TNS and TRIDOM landscapes special consideration is being given to semi-nomad
pygmy communities whose particular lifestyles mean that they are often marginalised. Sensitization campaigns are essential and
need to be sustained over long periods since there is so much resistance (through ignorance and/or economic hardship) to the
need for limiting wildlife offtake in order to make hunting sustainable. Capacity-building and mentoring for the natural resource
management structures are essential.
Economic and protein alternatives to hunting bushmeat may also be promoted in order to reduce the hunting pressure. Various
initiatives are being tested including importation by concessionaires of domestically reared meat for the workforce, support for
livelihood activities such as family-scale animal husbandry and agro-forestry, local crafts enterprises and revenue-sharing systems
for tourism revenue. Employment on protected area management activities is also an important economic incentive for
local stakeholders, although this could never rival the levels of employment generated by a logging concession.
Research and monitoring provide feed-back into the management process. A variety of research and monitoring methods are
used to measure hunting pressure, bushmeat availability and consumption and the status of wildlife populations.
There are of course economic costs related to wildlife management in concessions but most of these can, and should, be borne by the
concessionaire. Logging, unlike protected areas management, generates revenue and so the costs should be passed on to the customer,
particularly in the case of certified timber.
Sources: WWF-Gabon, WWF-Cameroon WCS-Congo.
- 54 -
53
protected areas where they occur (map above).
Sustainable forest management plans are now a central legal requirement of the forestry
laws of the three countries. This means, amongst other things, that social issues and questions
relating to the conservation and management of wildlife and other NTFP within the
logging concessions now have to be specifically addressed in the management planning
process. This involves undertaking detailed socio-economic and wildlife surveys to establish
baselines on natural resource use and wildlife populations, and setting aside conservation
areas within the concession.
Furthermore since logging companies, particularly European ones, are increasingly moving
towards certification of their timber for the European markets, wildlife conservation and
management has become an important consideration. As most logging companies do not
have expertise in this field they are increasingly open to collaboration with specialists to
help them. Through the FFEM-funded component of the initiative WWF and WCS have
been able to expand the scope of their collaboration with logging companies active in the
three landscapes. CAWHFI is currently contributing to the implementation of on-going
agreements with 11 logging companies whose concessions cover some 5,3 million ha of
forest. Box 13 presents some common principles for managing wildlife in multiple-use
landscapes where logging is a major activity.
Home ranges of forest elephants
usually extend well beyond the
boundaries of the protected
areas where they occur. A
landscape approach is needed to
ensure that their ecological
requirements are covered. This
map displays the movements of
four elephants fitted with GPS
collars in the TNS landscape
and shows how their movements
straddle international
boundaries and include several
habitat types and land use
areas (swamps, logging concessions,
protected areas).
Map © S. Blake
- 55 -
54
Finding the right balance between sustainable wildlife use and the economic needs
of local communities
Bushmeat is an important component of rural people’s diet but all indicators from the
Congo basin show that commercialisation of bushmeat, which is strongly influenced by the
demand from urban markets, is leading to severe impoverishment of wildlife and local extinctions
of many large and medium bodied mammal species. Fish and other aquatic resources
are also very important in local diets but here again excessive off take for the commercial
trade (both local and international) is leading to diminishing stocks. The tragedy is
that it is the local communities who have most need of these resources and who are the
most adversely affected (both in terms of diet and economic spin-offs) by the loss of these
resources. CAWHFI is therefore supporting initiatives aimed at achieving more sustainable
wildlife use so that local livelihoods can be safeguarded. A range of initiatives are being
tested from improved natural resource exploitation techniques such as sustainable hunting
and fishing techniques (Box 15 opposite ) and eco-tourism, to alternative economic activities
such as small scale animal husbandry, agricultural, agro-forestry schemes and handicrafts.
However living with wildlife also has its down side. Crop raiding, particularly by elephants,
can occasionally cause considerable hardships to villagers. The problem is often particularly
acute in the periphery of protected areas, where conservation measures have allowed elephant
populations to thrive, and is a constant source of antagonism between the villagers
and the protected area authorities. If the issue is not seen to be addressed this can create
enormous bad feeling and can seriously undermine efforts to develop collaborative partnerships
with local communities. CAWHFI supports efforts to address this problem (Box 14).
BOX 14. FINDING SOLUTIONS TO CROP RAIDING BY
FOREST ELEPHANTS
In Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park an innovative approach is being developed
by WCS using a variety of chilli pepper plant from southern
Africa. Dried bricks made of elephant dung and chilli peppers, when
burnt, produce a smoke that appears to be a deterrent to elephants.
Ground chilli pepper mixed with grease can also be smeared on cable
fences (provided by logging companies) set up around fields. Furthermore,
since there appears to be a market for this variety of chilli peppers,
families participating in the pilot project may be able to use it as
an additional cash crop.
In the Gamba complex of protected areas WWF is attempting to address
the issue with the help of one of the oil sector service companies
which provides discarded metallic flow lines (used to clean oil pipes) for
use as anti-elephant fences. In Conkouati-Douli community-managed
solar powered electric fences to protect fields are being tested.
While no miracle solutions have ever been found for this thorny problem
experience, elsewhere in Africa has shown that the active participation
of the farmers themselves in protection strategies is essential.
Sources: WCS & WWF
Forest elephants are often attracted into village plantations in
the Gamba protected area complex (above). Discarded metal
cables used by the oil industry make good anti-elephant fences
(below). Metal drinks cans attached to the cable enhance the
deterrent affect by jangling when the cable moves.
Photo © R. Beville (above); WWF-Gabon (below)
- 56 -
55
BOX 15. PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE OYSTER HARVESTING IN MAYUMBA
No residents of Mayumba can remember a time when diving for oysters was not part of the town’s culture. The Mayumba oyster
grows on the aerial roots of mangrove trees, and more commonly on the sandy or muddy bed of the Banio Lagoon. Oyster beds are
known to promote high productivity within estuarine ecosystems. The shells slow down water currents and provide habitat for crabs,
other shellfish, benthic fish species, and invertebrates. These in turn help to feed other animal communities. While feeding, oysters
filter enormous quantities of water each day and are thus extremely important in maintaining water quality.
Oyster harvesting (photo top right) has declined sharply over the past two years and a survey
by WCS in 2008 found very few live oysters in the lagoon, and these were largely restricted
to one small area. Traditional oyster beds were found to be devoid of adult oysters,
and the situation was judged to be critical.
The reason for this decline is primarily the lack of any control on the number of oyster
divers, the length of the oyster season, and the number of oysters lifted by any one operator.
Compounding this is the devastating effect of removing oyster shells from the lagoon.
Traditionally, oysters were opened by hand while still in the canoe. Shells were then
thrown back overboard. More recently, however, practices have changed and oysters have
been taken ashore and opened using hot water and steam. The empty shells are then abandoned
in large heaps on the lagoon shore (photo middle right). Steaming opens the shells
kills all juvenile and non-exploitable oysters on the block. In some cases, there may be as
many as 15 young oysters growing on the shell of a single adult. The level of wastage is
therefore extreme. In addition to killing all the oysters that would otherwise form the basis
for the following year’s adult generation, the removal of hundreds of tons of oyster shells
from the lagoon removes the very substrate upon which larval oysters depend for attachment.
These two effects have combined to bring about the collapse of the oyster population,
and the end of commercial oyster harvesting in Mayumba. Furthermore the overall
effect on lagoon water quality and productivity of losing the oyster beds is likely to be
massive.
A number of management interventions are therefore being implemented in order to a)
rehabilitate the oyster beds and b) establish a sustainable system of commercial harvesting
of oysters. These interventions include:
an immediate ban on oyster harvesting
instigation of a monitoring program to measure recovery and provide guidance to
local authorities and resource users as to an appropriate time to recommence harvesting
the creation of an oyster - divers and -sellers association
controls on harvesting effort and timing of the harvesting season to enable sustainable
use, and continued capability of the oyster population to replenish
development of a zoning system for no-take zones to ensure a permanent breeding
stock of oysters
mandatory return of oyster shells to the lagoon immediately after harvesting
rejuvenation of oyster habitat using old harvested oyster shells from the lagoon edge
(photo bottom right)
Much of the success of this project is due to the Mayumba Oyster-Divers Association,
which has provided an effective and locally accepted mechanism for regulating oyster harvesting
(numbers of divers and length of the harvesting season are limited, only members
of the association are permitted to dive).
These efforts to regenerate the oyster habitat and control harvesting have enabled a serious
crisis to be avoided. Results from the monitoring program are showing encouraging
indications of the beginnings of recovery, with an increase seen in 2009 in the abundance
of juvenile oysters.
Source WCS-Mayumba Photos © R. Parnell
- 57 -
56
Awareness building with local communities
A precondition for the success of all activities aimed at promoting sustainable use of natural
resources in local communities is good communication and awareness building, and
CAWHFI therefore provides support for these activities. The best results are obtained in
situations where the project can involve dynamic and competent local organizations. In
central Africa such organizations are still rather rare so capacity building has to be an integral
part of the project’s support. In the Gamba complex CAWHFI works with a local
NGO, Ibonga –ACPE (Association pour la Connsiassance et Protection de l’Environnement) which is
involved in a wide rage of awareness building activities and these are among the most successful
activities that CAWHFI supports (Box 16).
BOX 16. SUPPORTING GRASS ROOTS ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. IBONGA-ACPE, A LOCAL
NGO PROMOTING UNDERSTANDING AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
Created in 1999, Ibonga - which means turtle in the local balumbu language - is a local non-profit organization based in the Gamba
complex of protected areas and dedicated to the understanding and protection of the environment. This is achieved through a variety
of activities that CAWHFI supports:
Formal environmental education and training for the schools in the town of Gamba, targeting both the school children
and the teachers. A comprehensive environmental curriculum has been developed in collaboration with the local education
authorities. Regular field trips to Loango South National Park are also organized.
Public awareness building and communication
within the communities of the Gamba complex of
protected areas. A particularly effective communication
tool has been the Conservation Roadshow - a
mobile road show involving song and dance, plays,
puppet shows, films, books and posters (photo right).
The Ministry of Water and Forests are closely involved
with the public awareness activities and this is
important since there is understandable antagonism
to the vital anti-poaching activities that they undertake
and little understanding on the part of local communities
of the reasons for enforcing wildlife laws.
Visitors centre. In collaboration with the park authorities
Ibonga manages the South Loango National
Park Visitors Centre. The centre serves as the official
park entrance, information point and museum.
Ibonga also sells local books, postcards and handicrafts
to tourists.
Promotion of local handicrafts. Ibonga helps develop
and promote local handicrafts and runs a shop
at Gamba airport where the products are sold.
Marine turtle monitoring and protection. Ibonga
is a member of the Gabon Marine Turtle Partnership
dedicated to monitoring and protecting the globally
important marine turtle nesting sites along Gabon’s
800 km of coastline. Ibonga runs a research and
monitoring programme (photo right) on the beaches
of the Gamba complex of protected areas and also
offers guided tours and educational visits.
Source: www.ibonga.org Photos ©WWF-Gamba
- 58 -
57
Identifying potential World Heritage sites and developing
new nominations
In parallel with the site-based activities, which are aimed at helping sites raise their standards
to meet World Heritage criteria, CAWHFI also aims to enlarge the scope of World
Heritage in central Africa by helping ites that have the potential to meet the criteria to prepare
their dossiers for submission to the World Heritage Committee, and assisting the
countries to draw up Tentative Lists of other sites for possible submission.
In the case of Lopé National Park in Gabon the site was inscribed on the list in 2007. In
view of the exceptional archeological richness of the site, showing evidence of human activities
as far back as 400,000 years, the site was inscribed as a mixed cultural and natural
World Heritage site. The TNS dossier for the cluster of trans-border protected areas is
currently under preparation with the support of the CAWHFI component funded by the
European Commission.
A two day workshop in Brazzaville in March 2008, organized by CAWHFI, established an
exhaustive list of central African forest sites displaying significant natural heritage values
and assessed them according to the World Heritage criteria. Their ecological representativity
was also cross-checked with respect to the WWF 200 Ecoregions classification, of which
17 occur in central Africa. Six sites are considered of particularly high value, either because
of their intrinsic richness or because they bring unique and/or new characteristics to the
existing list of World Heritage properties. These priority sites
are:
The volcanic islands of São Tomé, Príncipe and Annobón
(São Tomé & Príncipe5 and Equatorial Guinea6)
The trans border protected area complex of Korup and
Cross River National Parks (Cameroon and Nigeria)
The Mount Cristal National Park (Gabon)
The Itombwe mountain massif and Nyungwe National
Park (DRC and Rwanda respectively)
The Batéké Plateaux National Park (predominantly savannas,
with some forest) (Gabon & Congo)
In addition three other sites were identified as potentially important
but requiring further investigation before deciding if
they can be added to the list of priority sites. These are:
Mbam and Djerem NP (Cameroon),
the Montane forests of western Cameroon (Cameroon)
the Montane forests Mount Cameroun and Bioko
(Cameroon & Equatorial Guinea).
The workshop also examined the existing Tentative Lists prepared
by Cameroon, Gabon CAR and Congo, in order to provide
an objective analysis of the value of these sites with respect
to World Heritage criteria. A publication was edited to disseminate
the results of this work to decision makers and other interested
parties in the region. The publication can be downloaded
at http://whc.unesco.org/fr/cawhfi.
5 São Tomé & Príncipe has
not yet drawn up a Tentative
List
6 Equatorial Guinea is not yet
a signatory to the World Heritage
Convention. This is a
major concern since Equatorial
Guinea contains several areas
of outstanding natural value,
particularly on its two islands,
Bioko and Annobón.
Cão Grande, a spectacular
volcanic plug towering above the
forest canopy in the south of the
Ôbo National Park, São
Tomé, where annual rainfall
often exceeds 7 meters.
Photo © C. Aveling
- 59 -
58
INTEGRATION OF WORLD HERITAGE ACTIVITIES INTO
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION POLICIES
The Yaoundé Declaration, signed by the central African Heads of State at the Yaoundé
Summit in 1999, recognizes the protection of the Congo Basin's ecosystems as an integral
component of the development process and reaffirms the signatories' commitments to
work cooperatively to promote the sustainable use of the central African forests in accordance
with their social, economic, and environmental agendas. This Declaration led to the
creation of the Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) which is the primary authority
for decision-making and coordination of sub-regional initiatives for conservation
and sustainable management of the central African forests. It also set the scene for the creation
of Congo Basin Forest Partnership. It was formalised by the signature of a treaty in
2005 giving it the legal framework to implement its 10 point strategic plan, known as the
Plan de Convergence .
One of the most important considerations for UNESCO was that its actions should be
fully in line with regional and national conservation priorities and that its initiatives should
be firmly integrated in national, regional and international development partnerships. The
Table below summarises the COMIFAC’s Strategic Plan and associated activities and
shows clearly that World Heritage activities are fully in line
with at least nine of the Strategic Plan’s ten points. Furthermore
a close working relationship is maintained with the
regional association, Central African Protected Areas Network
(better known by its french acronym RAPAC),
COMIFAC’s officially recognised technical partner for matters
relating to protected areas.
By implementing its activities through long standing conservation
actors within the sub-region the World Heritage
Centre reinforces the complementarity of its activities and
its integration into regional and international development
partnerships. Working in seven different protected areas
over eight landscapes, integration of all activities with existing
initiatives is essential since no single initiative is able to
mobilise enough resources on its own to address the many
conservation problems in these vast landscapes. By combining
forces with locally active partners considerable
economies of scale can be achieved in the use of CAWHFI
resources while maintaining the specificity of its intervention
which is its focus on World Heritage.
In the case of the DRC programme, the World Heritage
Centre has been instrumental in the development of a new
partnership between the different conservation NGOs and
ICCN to improve conservation the 5 World Heritage sites.
This model has now been extended by ICCN to include all
protected areas and conservation partners.
The coordination unit, working out of the RAPAC offices
in Libreville, ensures visibility for its activities and takes and
active role in national and regional fora. Of particular inter-
Mount Kalami in the Batéké
Plateaux National Park in
Gabon, a potential World
Heritage site. It could also
become a trans boundary
protected area, one of the
COMIFAC priorities, if
Congo creates a Batéké Plateaux
protected area.
Photo © J-P Vander Weghe
- 60 -
59
est is the impetus that the CAWHFI regional coordination is able to give to the work of the
different national World Heritage committees as they prepare their lists of potential World
Heritage sites for submission to the World Heritage Centre.
Finally it is worth also underlining that by focusing on trans-border collaboration between
clusters of protected areas, CAWHFI effectively promotes regional integration, which is an
important factor for economic and social stability within the region.
Components of COMIFAC
Strategic Plan
COMIFAC Activities
(activities supported by CAWHFI are marked in bold)
1 Harmonization of forestry
and fiscal policies
Adherence to International Conventions; render forest policies coherent between countries
and with other sector policies; Fiscal harmonization
2 Knowledge of the resource Inventories of forest resources; Establishment / strengthening of national and regional observatories
and data bases
3 Management of the ecosystem
and reforestation
Land use planning of forested areas; Management planning of concessions and protected
areas; Reforestation / regeneration; Combating desertification
4 Biodiversity conservation Strengthening protected area networks ; Collaborative management of trans-border
areas; Identification, development and protection of phyto-genetic resources
5 Sustainable development of
forest resources
Economic development of timber, NTFP, wildlife, tourism; Monitoring of management
and use of resources; Forest certification and traceability; Law enforcement
against illegal exploitation of forest resources including poaching
6 Development of alternative
activities and poverty reduction
Alternatives to poaching; Revenue generating micro-projects
7 Capacity building, stakeholder
participation, information,
training
Participation of actors / forums; Implication of local populations and indigenous
groups; Communication, information, sensitization, education; Training
8 Research – Development Develop research programs in line with forest policies; create partnerships with research institutions;
Use traditional knowledge for natural resource management; Define techniques
for using / regenerating NTFPs; Set up structures for monitoring wildlife diseases
9 Develop sustainable funding
mechanisms
Trust Funds; Forestry Funds, common Regional funds; Private sector funding; Carbon
credits; Forest conversion taxes.
10 Regional cooperation and
partnerships
Develop collaboration mechanisms & codes of conduct.
The Sangha river which bisects
the Sangha Tri-national
landscape. This transboundary
cluster of three protected areas
is soon to be nominated as a
new world heritage site.
Photo © C. Aveling
- 61 -
60
PERSPECTIVES
Since the signing of the Yaoundé declaration, important progress has been made in terms
of sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation in the Congo Basin. Both are now
firmly on the national and regional political agendas. Protected areas are the cornerstone of
efforts to conserve the exceptional biodiversity of the region and over the past two decades
the protected area network has been expanded significantly. At the same time there has
been a major increase in the international attention and support for forest conservation in
Central Africa. It is now widely recognised that the Congo Basin forests are not only part of
our global heritage but also play an essential role in climate regulation and as such are vital
for the future of mankind. International recognition of this role of the Congo Basin forests
at the next round of discussions on climate change within the framework of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change could potentially generate substantial
resources for forest conservation in the region.
Nevertheless, important challenges remain. Protected areas remain seriously under funded
and are heavily dependant on external support, both financial and technical. The long term
future of protected areas can only be assured if governments commit the appropriate resources
to ensuring that they are properly managed.
In spite of efforts to implement more sustainable forest practices, the bush meat crisis remains
a reality. Forestry operations and other economic activities open up large areas of
previously undisturbed forest, and commercial poaching is increasingly affecting many of
the protected areas. Recent studies show that greater economic wealth is leading to an increased
demand for bushmeat, particular in urban areas. A fundamental shift in attitudes
towards bushmeat is necessary but this can only happen when wildlife is considered as part
of the nation’s natural heritage, and once issues of ownership of wildlife resources by local
communities have been more clearly defined.
At the same time, a growing interest for the important mineral and oil resources in the region
brings new threats and challenges to protected areas, some of which contain substantial
reserves of these resources. As the countries of the sub region tackle the critical issue of
poverty alleviation political pressures to de-gazette parts of the protected areas in order to
exploit their oil and mineral resources are bound to build up. Currently at least five of the
protected areas in the CAWHFI landscapes, together with Virunga National park in the
DRC, are threatened by large scale commercial industrial extractive activities despite having
legal statuses that preclude this type of activity. Even when protected areas are not directly
affected, most of these industrial projects will entail profound changes in the economic and
social fabric of the areas where they are located, and this will inevitably affect protected
areas and biodiversity in the vicinity.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is of particular concern since it includes a major
part of the Congo Basin forest and has so many important areas for biodiversity conservation.
Even though the war is officially over, instability and insecurity continues to plague
many parts of the country. In these areas a parallel economy based on the illegal extraction
of mineral and natural resources developed during the war and continues to flourish today.
These activities are having serious detrimental consequences not only for the biodiversity
but also for the local communities.
UNESCO and its conservation partners believe that the World Heritage Convention can
make an important contribution to addressing some of these challenges. With the exception
of Equatorial Guinea, all the countries in the Congo Basin are State Parties to the Conven-
- 62 -
61
tion and as such, have made a commitment towards protecting natural heritage of
“Outstanding Universal Value”. Currently, seven protected areas in the region are recognized
under the Convention and several others have been included in the Tentative Lists of
the countries.
Through its initiatives, UNESCO and its partners are assisting countries to prepare nominations
to the World Heritage List. Parallel to this, UNESCO is raising awareness about the
Convention among regional decision makers and other stakeholders by communicating the
benefits of the World Heritage system.
World Heritage listing can bring about national pride and increase national support for the
conservation of this heritage, at both government and local community levels. In many
other regions of the world governments have used the World Heritage status to promote
the biodiversity potential of their countries, with tourism being one of the key spin-offs.
While the central African countries are still a long way from being able to match, for example,
Australia’s marketing of its Great Barrier Reef World Heritage site, the forests of the
Congo basin are just as unique in their own way and have an undoubted potential that can,
and should, be marketed. Before the war, gorilla tourism was an important driver of economic
development around the Kahuzi-Biega and Virunga National Parks. In the Trinational
Sangha and Gamba-Mayumba-Conkouati landscapes this potential is already being
successfully tapped through low volume, high quality, eco-tourism and if developed wisely
these initiatives will continue to grow.
In the particular case of the five World Heritage sites in DRC, communication and awareness
raising has been a central element of UNESCO’s interventions, the aim being to mobilize
support for the sites from all of the different stake holders - government at the national
and regional levels, the DRC army, the UN mission to DRC (MONUC), local communities
and civil society.
Inscription on the World Heritage List will also provide international recognition of the
global importance of the most significant protected areas in the region. The case of the
DRC sites showed clearly how World Heritage listing can mobilise international support for
the conservation of the sites. Under the Convention, countries accept a shared responsibility
for the conservation of World Heritage sites. The development of Trust Funds can provide
sustainable funding for the management of these sites and provides a mechanism for
donor countries to fulfil their commitments under the Convention. The developing carbon
markets, particularly if avoided deforestation becomes an acceptable criterion, also have
massive potential for contributing to sustainable funding particularly as deforestation rates
in central Africa are twice as low as those of Amazonia, and four times lower than those of
south east Asia.
However, to achieve recognition under the Convention, areas not only have to demonstrate
their exceptional global value and integrity, but must also show that appropriate management
systems in place to ensure that the value and integrity of the sites can be maintained
over time. Therefore an important focus for UNESCO’s initiatives in the Congo Basin is
on improving the management of the sites within the context of their wider landscape by
developing appropriate management models and building capacities of the management
agencies and other stakeholders. This has been achieved through the strategic partnerships
that were developed with our international NGO conservation partners.
Our hope is that these combined efforts will ultimately lead to a network of well managed
World Heritage sites across the Congo Basin which reflect the exceptional natural heritage
of the region and which are sustained through local, national and international support..
- 63 -
62
ACRONYMES
APN African Parks Network
AFD Agence Française de Développement
AFC Africa Conservation Fund
AWF African Wildlife Foundation
CAWHFI Central African World Heritage Initiative
CARPE Central African Programme for the Environment
CBFP Congo Basin Forest Partnership
CBG Compagnie des Bois du Gabon
CI Conservation International
CoCoCongo Conservation Coalition for Congo
CoCoSi Comité de Coordination du Site
Coltan A valuable metallic ore containing Columbite and Tantalite
COMIFAC Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale
CNDP Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple (armed militia)
CMEC China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation
CIB Congolaise Industrielle des Bois
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EC European Commission
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FARDC Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo
FFI Faune and Flora International
FFEM Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial
FZS Frankfurt Zoological Society
FDLR Force Démocratique pour la Libération du Rwanda (armed militia)
GIC Gilman International Conservation
GIS Geographic Information System
GEF Global Environment Facility
GPS Global Positioning System
GRASP Great Apes Survival Partnership
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
IFO Industries Forestières d’Ouesso
IRF International Rhino Fund
ICCN Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature
IGCP International Gorilla Conservation Program
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
KfW Banque Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
KBNP Kahuzi-Biega National Park
LEM Law Enforcement Monitoring
LRA Lord’s Resistance Army (armed militia)
LZS London Zoological Society
MIKE Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants
MIST Monitoring Information System
MONUC United Nations Organisation Mission in DR Congo
MZS Milwaukee Zoological Society
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
NP National Park
NTFP Non Timber Forest Product
OWR Okapi Wildlife Reserve
OFAC Observatory for the Forests of Central Africa
PDA Personal Digital Assistant
RAPAC Réseau des Aires Protégées en Afrique Centrale
RN Route Nationale (Main Road)
TRIDOM Tri National Dja-Odzala-Minkebe
TNS Tri National Sangha
VNP Virunga National Park
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNF United Nations Foundation
USAID United States Agency for International Development
- 64 -
63
THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE
Established in 1992, the World Heritage Centre is the UNESCO secretariat to the World
Heritage Convention. Ensuring the day-to-day management of the Convention, the Centre
organizes the annual sessions of the World Heritage Committee, provides advice to States
Parties in the preparation of site nominations, prepares international assistance from the
World Heritage Fund and ensures, together with the advisory bodies to the Convention
IUCN and ICOMOS, the reporting on the state of conservation of the inscribed sites. The
Centre has been managing a number of large scale conservation initiatives such as the ones
in the Congo Basin, thanks to outside donor funding.
THE PARTNERSHIP
The most important actors in this partnership are the State Parties to the Convention concerned
by this initiative, the Governments of the Republic of Cameroun, Central-African
Republic, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Gabon, and
their respective ministries and technical agencies such as the DRC protected areas agency
ICCN. Activities support the COMIFAC strategic plan and are coordinated with COMIFAC
and its technical partner on protected area-related issues, RAPAC. The FAO is a partner
to the UNF funded component of CAWHFI.
The field activities are implemented by a consortium of international and regional conservation
organisations, most of which have many years of experience supporting the protected
area authorities of the Congo basin. WWF, WCS and Conservation International have also
mobilized important matching funds for the programmes.
IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS
Back cover: a western lowland
gorilla male displaying in a
forest clearing (bai) in the
Odzala-Koukoua National
Park, north Congo.
Photo © Sylvain Gatti & Florence
Levréro, CNRS, Station
Biologique Paimpont-Université de
Rennes
- 65 -
64
Our programmes in the Congo basin receive support from
- 66 -
ANNEX 5.17
David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, Dead or Alive? Valuing an Elephant, n.d.
- 67 -
DEAD
ALIVE? or
VALUING AN ELEPHANT
© Abhishek Desai
“Elephants are among the world’s most
charismatic mega fauna and our largest living
land mammals. However, the survival of Africa’s
elephants is threatened by continuing demand
for ivory desired for trinkets, religious statues,
ornaments and accessories from Far Eastern
Countries. As a result, elephant poaching is rife
across Africa, with elephants being killed even in
supposed safe and protected areas. The result
is the unsustainable slaughter of one elephant
every 15 minutes, decimating populations and
damaging ecosystems.
This report looks at the financial value of
elephants; alive. Every year, thousands of tourists
travel to African nations to see elephants, yet
without protective regulations, these nations can
become devoid of the very animals which the
hordes of eager tourists have come to see.
This report finds that alive, elephants present a
huge revenue stream to local economies through
tourism and, in the long term, elephants are
worth significantly more roaming the world’s
savannahs and forests than with their tusks
sitting on a mantlepiece or adorning someone’s
wrist.
Protecting elephants makes monetary sense.
Data of this type can be used to show key
decision makers that elephant conservation is a
far more viable economic proposition than the
ivory trade. It’s a powerful incentive to decision
PREFACE
makers in charge of our natural resources to
protect the species against rampant poaching.
Referring to wild animals as ‘economic
commodities’ has created controversy in the past
but where policy is determined by the value of an
object, it’s time to give the elephant a fair footing.
We must recognise the need to realise the value
of our wildlife and environmental heritage in order
to pass policies that safeguard against their
destruction. Policy makers will not pass effective
measures without tangible benefits to society, yet
so far the discussion has seemly only focused on
the consumptive value of an elephant, it’s tusks.
We need to look at the animal alive.
Arguments to protect Africa’s elephants
have typically been based on emotive and
environmental reasons – their cognitive abilities,
their benefit to the wider environment and their
ancient beginnings. To many decision makers,
this might be enough. But we must reach those
that balance the purse strings to make effective
policies happen.
Protecting elephants makes economic sense,
whether you’re responsible for a reserve in
Tanzania or a National Park in Kenya -- if
elephants live, tourists will come and economies
can be boosted. It’s another argument as to
why we must save elephants and a financially
compelling one.”
Rob Brandford, iworry Director
METHODOLOGY
This publication identifies reported ivory seizures
worldwide. By ‘reported ivory seizures’, we mean
publicly reported ivory seizures, focusing on
newspaper and online reports. We have used a
wide range of open source resources, including
English, Chinese, and French-language media,
but it should be noted that the reported ivory
seizures identified in this document may not
represent the total number of seizures this year
and are only a proportion of all illegal ivory trade.
As part of international monitoring of the
illegal trade in ivory, countries party to
CITES (Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)
are mandated to report information on elephant
ivory seizures to TRAFFIC via the CITES
Secretariat within 90 days of their occurrence
which is then added to the ETIS database,
though the time frame is often ignored.
Variances in law enforcement, the rule of law and
corruption levels, mean that reporting rates differ
from country to country, and our figures may vary
from TRAFFIC reported seizures.
The number of estimated elephants killed per
seizure is an estimate and not a definitive number.
We are using TRAFFIC’s estimate that an average
tusk weighs 5kg , extrapolating that an average
elephant with two tusks carries 10kg of ivory.
We note that this is a very conservative estimate
with ‘tuskers’ carrying much larger quantities,
however this estimate serves as a basis to
translate ivory seizure data into a relative estimate
of the numbers of elephants represented by
individual ivory shipments. There may be a
variation between country or even regions with
heavily poached elephant populations yielding
smaller average tusk sizes while recently poached
populations provide larger yields.
This report is produced by iworry, an elephant
awareness campaign by the David Sheldrick
Wildlife Trust. The iworry campaign raises
awareness of the ivory poaching crisis and
the impact trade in ivory is having on elephant
populations. More information: www.iworry.org
The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust has
worked in Kenya for over 35 years to protect,
conserve and preserve wildlife and habitats.
Their conservation projects include Anti-
Poaching and Aerial Surveillance initiatives,
Mobile Vet Units, the Orphans’ Project, Saving
Habitats and Community Outreach. More
information: www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org
iworry would like to thank Gabriella Minerva and
Amanda Woomer for their editorial assistance
and contributions.
Elephants are one of the world’s most recognisable
mammals, thanks to their size and distinctive
tusks. It is these distinctive teeth that are making
the species increasingly vulnerable to the point that
populations have reached a tipping point; if the
slaughter of elephants continues then they will be
wiped out within our lifetime .
Policy and decision making in the conservation
of natural resources which includes, in many
countries, elephants, is influenced more by dollardenominated
measures of benefits and costs than
non-monetary measures. With ongoing slaughter
threatening Africa’s elephant populations, in order
to secure the long term future of the species, it
is imperative to speak to natural resource policy
makers in a language they understand to highlight
the benefits of protecting the species and identify
the tangible benefits elephants can bring.
A single dead elephant’s tusks are estimated to
have a raw value of $21,000 (based on TRAFFIC
estimate that an elephant carries an average
of 5kg of ivory per tusk). By comparison, the
estimated tourism value of a single living elephant
is $1,607,624.83 over its lifetime to travel
companies, airlines and local economies thanks
to tourists willing to pay generously for a chance
to see and photograph the world’s largest land
mammal. That makes a living elephant, in financial
terms, as valuable as 76 dead elephants.
Our research finds that between January
and August 2014, a reported 17,799.29kg
(17.8 tonnes) of ivory was seized worldwide,
representing 1,940 elephants slaughtered for their
SUMMARY
Sources:
CITES, The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) Section 1. http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/etis/index.php
2014. TRAFFIC, Personal Communication.
2014. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28842965
2009. Yarrow, G., Wildlife Economics: Forestry and Natural Resources. https://www.clemson.edu/.../wildlife/.../pdfs/fs38_wildlife_economics.p…
1994. Currey,D., Moore,D & EIA, African Elephants, the Success of the CITES Appendix I Ban. Currey & Moore gave a figure of $1 million adjusted for inflation.
tusks. But it’s not just elephants that are in danger.
The slaughter so far has lost Africa’s tourism
industry, local communities and economies a total
of $44,554,844.47 alone this year. More killings
every day only increases this figure.
As a form of wildlife crime, the illegal trade in ivory
benefits criminal gangs, corrupt military units and
militia and even terrorist groups including Al-
Shabaab and the Lord’s Resistance Army.
Taken together, the findings demonstrate that
the species are worth more alive than dead.
Ending the killing and protecting elephants
makes monetary sense. Worldwide, a single living
elephant drives tens of thousands of dollars in
tourism-related revenues. Alive, they benefit local
communities and economies; dead they benefit
criminal and even terrorist groups.
Given the overlap of ivory poaching locations and
elephant tourism operations, every elephant killed
makes these regions much less profitable. As a
result of the findings, iworry recommends:
- An immediate end to all sales of ivory
- Greater funding for Anti-Poaching operations;
boots on the ground
- Education in communities from which poachers
are drawn as to the value elephants could bring
to them in the long term
- Ensure tourism initiatives and projects give
tangible benefits to communities
- Enhancing campaigns in ivory consumer
countries to inform the public about the true cost
of ivory.
TRAFFICKED
IVORY
17.8
43
IVORY
SEIZED
VALUE OF ELEPHANT over its lifetime to tourism
Average raw VALUE OF IVORY an elephant carries
$1,607,624.83
$21,000
elephants killed
this year so far
up to 19,400
1,940
17.8
tonnes
tonnes
ELEPHANTS KILLED TO PRODUCE IVORY
seizures
ILLEGAL IVORY
benefitting terrorist and criminal groups
90%
10% of CONTRABAND is usually seized
MORE VALUABLE
is an elephant alive than dead
$ 76x
THE YEAR SO FAR...
JAN-AUG 2014
Ivory has long been prized in cultures across the
world but since 1989, it has been illegal to trade
internationally in ivory. Two exceptions to this
ban have since occurred; in 1999, Botswana,
Namibia and Zimbabwe were allowed a ‘one off
sale’ of ivory to Japan and in 2002, and a further
‘one off sale’ to China and Japan was approved,
which took place in 2008.
Prior to the ‘one-off’ sales, the ban was initially
successful in halting the elephant killing of the
1980’s and combined with declining popularity
among Western countries throughout the 20th
century, meant the price of ivory slumped and
poaching rates fell dramatically. By comparison,
IVORY
a popular product
2014. Born Free USA, Ivory›s Curse: The Militarization and Professionalization of Poaching in Africa. http://www.bornfreeusa.org/a9_ivorys_curse.php
as a result of the sales to China, demand
has been stimulated and a market has been
created in which illegal poached ivory can be
laundered, thus boosting domestic demand for
ivory products. Combined with China’s growing
middle class who can afford endangered wildlife
products such as ivory, the result has been a
soar in demand.
Two types of elephant exist in Africa, the Forest
Elephant and the Savannah Elephant; both are
poached for their ivory. Research by Save The
Elephants found that in 2014, uncarved ivory
was worth $2,100 per kilo in China, three times
its value in 2010.
The illegal wildlife trade, which includes the illegal
trade in ivory, is estimated to be worth $15–20
billion annually and is the fourth most lucrative
illegal activity behind arms, drugs and human
trafficking.
Between January and August 2014, 43 seizures of
ivory were reported or more than one a week. The
combined weight of the seizures amounts to more
than 17.779 tonnes (17.8 tonnes), or approximately
1,940 elephants slaughtered for their tusks.
Of the reported ivory seized: 10 seizures were in
Kenya, five were in Gabon, five were in Vietnam
and four were in China (including Hong Kong).
Whilst this is significantly less than the 50 tonnes
of ivory seized globally in 2013, it cannot be seen
seizures and terrorism
17.8 TONNES
OF IVORY
SEIZED
THIS YEAR
as indicating poaching rates have diminished.
Changing shipping routes, ports, reduction in a
region’s rule of law and reporting can all impact
seizure rates.
It is widely known that corrupt officials, criminal
groups and even terrorist groups are involved in
the illegal trade in ivory. Using current estimates,
the value of the seized ivory in 2014 amounts to
$37,378,509.
Yet, it is estimated that a seizure rate of 10% in
a developed country is considered “good” for
general goods contraband – which includes ivory.
This suggests that so far this year, an estimated
177,993kg (178 tonnes) of ivory has been illegally
trafficked representing 19,400 elephants killed.
\
\
TOURISM an Economic Alternative
2014. Save The Elephants, Price of ivory in China triples in four years, with grave implications for elephants in Africa. http://savetheelephants.org/
press-releases/price-of-ivory-in-china-triples-in-four-years-with-grave-implications-for-elephants-in-africa/
2014. UNEP, The Escalating Illegal Trade in Wildlife. http://www.unep.org/unea/the-escalating-illegal-trade-in-wildlife-and-t…
2014. Born Free & C4ADS, Out of Africa: Mapping the Global Trade in Illicit Elephant Ivory. http://www.bornfree.org.uk/news/news-article/?no_
cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1660
2013. Animal Welfare Institute, Elephant Slaughter Escalates as Illegal Ivory Market Thrives. https://awionline.org/awi-quarterly/2013-winter/
elephant-slaughter-escalates-illegal-ivory-market-thrives
2008. BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7777413.stm
2013. Kahumbu, P., Kenya overhauls wildlife laws following rise in elephant and rhino deaths. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/africawild/
2013/jun/07/kenya-wildlife-laws-elephant-rhino-deaths
2012. Kenya Wildlife Service, Annual Report 2012. http://www.kws.org/export/sites/kws/info/publications/annual_reports/KW…
Report_2012_FINALx.pdf
2010. Kenya Wildlife Service, Tsavo Conservation Area. Lease Development and Operation of Proposed Tourist Accommodation Facilities,Prospectus
2010. http://www.kws.go.ke/tourism/promotions/KWS_TSavo_conservation.swf
The current population of elephants in Africa
is unknown but estimates place the figure at
between 300,000 and 400,000. As a species,
elephants do not reach sexual maturity until at
least 11 years old, live until 70 on average and
reproduce slowly meaning at the current rate
of slaughter, they will be wiped out within our
lifetime.
As one of Africa’s famous Big Five, elephants are
a significant source of revenue for the tourism
industry. In Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and South
Africa elephants are now an important part of
the regional and national tourism industry, driving
multi-million dollar revenue streams. Elephant
viewing camps, safaris and photo-tours are all
based around the thrilling experience of viewing
wild elephants. When viewed through a nonconsumptive
lens (tourism), alive a single elephant
can contribute $22,966 to tourism per year and
because elephants live for multiple decades, the
total revenue that each elephant can generate
during its lifespan is immense - $1,607,624.83.
By comparison, an elephant carries an estimated
two 5kg tusks or a total of 10kg (a conservative
estimate). Dead, an elephant is worth an
estimated $21,000. Alive, an elephant is worth 76
times as much.
As a key stone species, elephants shape their
environment with species and animals within
the ecosystem dependent on elephants for
their own survival. Grazing the world’s forests
and savannahs, elephants generate vast sums
of renewable cash for the local economy in the
process.
Regionally, Kenya and Gabon account for the
most seizures within Africa. Though tourism in
Gabon remains largely underdeveloped, in Kenya
elephants and wildlife tourism alone generates
12% of the Gross Domestic Product and creates
over 300,000 jobs.
In fact Kenya is well established as a destination
to view wildlife, raising Kshs’4,216,756,000 in
National Park entrance fees in 2012 (around
$47,657,000). Home to Africa’s ‘Big Five’,
elephant herds alongside rhino and buffalo draw
hundreds of thousands of tourists each year.
For instance, Tsavo East National Park, home to
Kenya’s single largest population of elephants
accounts for over 20% of average annual
visitation into Kenya Wildlife Service National
Parks with other parks including Amboseli
National Park and Samburu National Reserve
home to world famous herds.
The slaughter of over 1,940 elephants so far this
year to furnish the illegal trade in ivory represents
$44,554,844 lost to tourism. This pales in
comparison to the potential $445,548,444 lost to
tourism if we take into account a 10% seizure rate
- which is a standard among developed countries.
Further loss of elephants only increases this figure
and makes these regions less profitable.
alive a single
elephant can
contribute
$22,966 to
tourism per year
DATE OF
SEIZURE
IVORY
SEIZED
WEIGHT
(KG)
COUNTRY OF
SEIZURE
January 34kg 34.00 3.4 Gabon
January 2 tusks not known 1 Gabon
January 1.8 tonnes 1,800.00 180 Singapore
01-Jan-14 81 tusks not known 40.5 Tanzania
08-Jan-14 35 tusks 275.00 17.5 China
10-Jan-14 34kg 34.00 3.4 Gabon
14-Jan-14 14kg 14.00 1.4 China
16-Jan-14 5kg 5.00 0.5 Kenya
18-Jan-14 3.4kg 3.40 0.34 Kenya
29-Jan-14
23-Jan-14 3.815 tonnes 3,815.00 381.5 Togo
30-Jan-14 120kg 120.00 12 China
February 95.82kg 95.82 9.582 China
February 4.2kg 4.20 0.42 Vietnam
08-Feb-14 143kg 143.00 14.3 Cameroon
14-Feb-14 0.68 kg 0.68 0.068 Kenya
16-Feb-14 79.5kg 79.50 7.95 Cambodia
06-Mar-14 36 tusks 170.00 18 Cameroon
21-Mar-14 77 pieces 263.00 26.3 Cambodia
27-Mar-14
106 pieces of raw
ivory tusks
1,000.00 100 Singapore
04-Apr-14 7 tusks 50.00 3.5 Gabon
07-Apr-14 48kg 48.00 4.8 Kenya
01-May-14 0.092kg 0.09 0.0092 Zimbabwe
09-May-14 3 tonnes 3,000.00 300 Cambodia
24-May-14 1266kg 1,266.00 126.6 Vietnam
05-Jun-14 2152 kg 2,152.00 215.2 Kenya
08-Jun-14 125kg 124.00 12.4 Togo
10-Jun-14 790kg 790.00 79 Ethiopia
18-Jun-14 700kg 700.00 70 Togo
NUMBER OF
ELEPHANTS
KILLED
PER SEIZURE
IVORY SEIZURES
SOURCE
http://www.laga-enforcement.org/Portals/0/Documents/Regional%20Wildlife…
Enforcement%20Briefing%20-%20Jan%202014.pdf
http://www.laga-enforcement.org/Portals/0/Documents/Regional%20Wildlife…
Enforcement%20Briefing%20-%20Jan%202014.pdf
http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/singapore-ivory-seizure-%E2%80%9…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25590669
http://wildlifenews.co.uk/2014/chinese-border-guards-intercept-80000-of…
www.traffic.org/traffic-bulletin/traffic_pub_bulletin_26_1.pdf
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-01/15/content_17237454.htm
http://allafrica.com/stories/201401170545.html
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/thecounties/article/2000102723/40-year-o…-
jkia-with-ivory-disguised-as-cups
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/02/03/togo-makes-second-re…
http://220.181.168.86/NewJsp/news.jsp?fileId=228172
http://newsroom.wildlifedirect.org/2014/02/14/shanghai-customs-cracks-u…-
its-immigration-channels-since-it-airport-was-constructed/
http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/vietnam-seizes-endangered-elephant…
http://www.cameroun24.net/?pg=actu&ppg=1&pp=1&id=14635
http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2014/02/another-chinese-ivory-smuggler-…
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/843016.shtml
March report- http://www.laga-enforcement.org/MonthlyAction/MonthlyAction2014/tabid/2…
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=208070
http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/singapore-ivory-seizure-%E2%80%9…-
ifaw
http://www.bornfree.org.uk/news/news-article/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_n…
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/thecounties/article/2000108931/police-ne…
http://newsroom.wildlifedirect.org/2014/05/03/zimbabwe-chinese-business…
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cambodia-seizes-record-3-tons-illegal-iv…
http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/19876/vietnam-seizes-over-1-ton-of-elepha… or
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/427751/vietnam-seizes-tonne-of-iv…
http://www.kws.org/info/news/2014/9ivory2014.html
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/two-years-jail-togolese-ivory-smuggler-le-pat…
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1558582/16-jailed-over-hk79m…
http://www.togoleseembassy.com/news.cfm?page=ivory-conviction
IVORY SEIZURES
22-Jun-14 90Kg 90.00 9 Vietnam
28-Jun-14 6 tusks not known 3 Namibia
July 4 spikes 14.00 1.4 Gabon
25-Jul-14 260kg 260.00 26 Kenya
28-Jul-14 18 tusks 46.00 9 Thailand
31-Jul-14 9 tusks 84.00 4.5 Kenya
01-Aug-14 14.6 kg 14.60 1.46 Vietnam
04-Aug-14 5 tusks 12.00 1.2 Kenya
04-Aug-14 84kg 84.00 8.4 Kenya
12-Aug-14 4 tusks 30.00 2 Benin
15-Aug-14 30kg 30.00 3 Benin
17-Aug-14 1000kg 1,000.00 100 Vietnam
18-Aug-14
62kg including
2 tusks
62.00 6.2 Kenya
12-Aug-14 30kg 30 3 Benin
22-Aug-14 56kg 56 5.6 Benin
Total:17799.29 Total:1940.0292
DATE OF
SEIZURE
IVORY
SEIZED
WEIGHT
(KG)
COUNTRY OF
SEIZURE
NUMBER OF
ELEPHANTS
KILLED
PER SEIZURE
SOURCE
http://www.elephant-news.com/index.php?id=6928
http://allafrica.com/stories/201407020404.html
http://www.gabonews.com/fr/actus/environnement/article/une-peine-peu-di…
http://allafrica.com/stories/201408051321.html
http://www.conservation-justice.org/CJ/?p=1731&lang=en
http://www.gabonews.com/fr/actus/environnement/article/une-peine-peu-di…
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-185259/police-officer-among-two-…-
tusks-narok
http://osbcng.org/2014/08/20/vietnam-seize-1-ton-ivory-shipment-from-ni…
http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-185259/police-officer-among-two-…-
tusks-narok
http://en.gabonews.com/headlines-reader-en/items/large-stock-of-ivory-c….
html
http://fr.africatime.com/benin/articles/commissariat-de-natitingou-56-k…
sthash.oOygrrTC.dpuf
http://sabahionline.com/en_GB/articles/hoa/articles/newsbriefs/2014/07/…
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/thecounties/article/2000130066/police-ar…-
worth-sh8-4million
http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/vietnam-seizes-endangered-elephant…-
29618.html
http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2014-07/29/content_33082628.htm and http://www.ifaw.org/
united-kingdom/news/weekend-ivory-seizures-kenyathailand and http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/
news/weekend-ivory-seizures.html#cr
The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust
2nd Floor, 3 Bridge Street
Leatherhead, Surrey
KT22 8BL
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 (0) 1372 378 321
[email protected]
www.iworry.org
iworry is an elephant awareness campaign by the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust.
Design by Gilda Castro Rios
© Abhishek Desai
ANNEX 5.18
UNEP and UNWTO, Tourism — Investing in energy and resource efficiency, 2011
Peter Prokosch
Investing in energy and resource efficiency Tourism
This chapter was developed in partnership with the World Tourism Organization
ADVANCE COPY
ONLINE RELEASE[ ]
Towards a green economy
Acknowledgements
Chapter Coordinating Author: Lawrence Pratt, Director of the
Latin American Center for Competitiveness and Sustainable
Development (CLACDS), INCAE Business School, Alajuela, Costa
Rica.
Lead authors also included Luis Rivera, Economics Consultant and
Amos Bien, Sustainable Tourism Consultant.
Nicolas Bertrand of UNEP managed the chapter, including the
handling of peer reviews, interacting with the coordinating author
on revisions, conducting supplementary research, conducting
preliminary editing and bringing the chapter to final production.
Derek Eaton reviewed and edited the modelling section of the
chapter.
The chapter was developed in partnership with the World Tourism
Organization. The project manager for UNWTO was Luigi Cabrini,
Director, Sustainable Tourism Programme.
Background Technical Papers prepared for the development of
this chapter were drafted by the following individuals: James Alin,
Ravinder Batta, Tom Baum, Kelly Bricker, Rachel Dodds, Ramesh
Durbarry, Ioanna Farsari, Carolyn George, Stefan Gössling, Gui
Lohmann, Anna Karla Moura, Awangku Hassanal Bahar Bin
Pengiran Bagul, Paul Peeters, Joseph Rath, Daniel Scott, Anna
Spenceley, Davina Stanford, Louise Twining-Ward, Carolyn Wild.
The preparation of Background Technical Papers was coordinated
by Carolyn George and Davina Stanford (TEAM Tourism
Consulting). Additional material was prepared by Andrea M. Bassi,
John P. Ansah and Zhuohua Tan (Millennium Institute); Wolfgang
Weinz and Ana Lucía Iturriza (ILO).
We would like to thank the many colleagues and individuals
who commented on various drafts, including Stefanos Fotiou
(UNEP), Stefan Gössling (Lund University), Sofia Gutierrez
(UNWTO), Donald E. Hawkins (George Washington University),
Marcel Leijzer (UNWTO), Brian T. Mullis (Sustainable Travel
International), David Owen (UNEP), Helena Rey de Assis (UNEP),
Ronald Sanabria Perera (Rainforest Alliance), Andrew Seidl (IUCN),
Daniel Scott (University of Waterloo), Deirdre Shurland (IUCN),
Richard Tapper (Environment Business & Development Group),
and Zoritsa Urosevic (UNWTO). The support of the UNEP Division
of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Sustainable
Consumption and Production Branch, Goods and Services Unit
(Charles Arden-Clarke, Head), throughout the project, is also
gratefully acknowledged.
Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2011
410
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
Key messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
1.1 Tourism in a green economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
2 Challenges and opportunities for tourism in a green economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
2.1 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
2.2 Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
3 The case for investing in the greening of tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
3.1 Spending in the tourism sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
3.2 Benefits in employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
3.3 Local economic development and poverty reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
3.4 Environmental benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
3.5 Cultural heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
3.6 Modelling tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
4 Overcoming barriers: enabling conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
4.1 Private-sector orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
4.2 Destination planning and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
4.3 Fiscal policies and economic instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
4.4 Financing green tourism investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
4.5 Local investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
Annex 1: Economic sizing of the sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Annex 2: Drivers and likely implications of investment in sustainable tourism strategic
areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Annex 3: Assumptions of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Tourism
411
Towards a green economy
List of figures
Figure 1: World international tourist arrivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Figure 2: Accommodation linkages and tourist income distribution in Tanjong Piai, Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . 425
List of tables
Table 1: Sample of tourism employment multipliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
Table 2: Impact of tourism on poverty rates in Costa Rica, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Table 3: Breakdown of tourism income and pro-poor income (PPI) contribution in Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Table A1-1: Economic relevance of tourism in selected countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Table A2-1: Drivers and likely implications of investment in sustainable tourism strategic areas . . . . . . . . 441
List of boxes
Box 1: Water consumption for tourism and local communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
Box 2: Investment in energy efficiency and savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
Box 3: Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
Box 4: Financial cost-recovery of green programmes in tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
Box 5: Differential economic contribution from cultural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
412
Tourism
List of acronyms
BAU - Business-as-usual
Bn - Billion
CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility
DFI - Development Finance Institutions
DMO - Destination Management Organization
ERT - Environment-related tourism
EU - European Union
FDI - Foreign Direct Investment
G2 - Green Scenario 2
GDP - Gross Domestic Product
GEF - Global Environment Facility
GER - Green Economy Report
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
GSTC - Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria
Ha - Hectare
HCT - Hotels, catering and tourism
ICOMOS - International Council on Monuments and Sites
ILO - International Labour Organization
IPA - Investment promotion agencies
IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature
LDC - Least-developed countries
M&E - Monitoring and evaluation
Mt - Million tonnes
OSH - Occupational safety and health
PPI - Pro-poor income
ROI - Return on investment
SIFT - Sustainable Investment and Finance in Tourism network
SME - Small and Medium-sized Enterprise
ST-EP - Sustainable Tourism for Eliminating Poverty initiative
TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
TIES - The International Ecotourism Society
TSA - Tourism Satellite Account
UNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNWTO - World Tourism Organization
WTP - Willingness to pay
WTTC - World Travel & Tourism Council
WWF - World Wildlife Fund
413
Towards a green economy
Key messages
1. Tourism has significant potential as a driver for growth for the world economy. The tourism economy
represents 5 per cent of world GDP, while it contributes to 6-7 per cent of total employment. International
tourism ranks fourth (after fuels, chemicals and automotive products) in global exports, with an industry
value of US$1trillion a year, accounting for 30 per cent of the world’s exports of commercial services or 6
per cent of total exports; 935 million international tourists were recorded in 2010 and 4 billion domestic
arrivals in 2008. In over 150 countries, tourism is one of five top export earners, and in 60 it is the number
one export. It is the main source of foreign exchange for one-third of developing countries and one-half
of LDCs.
2. The development of tourism is accompanied by significant challenges. The rapid growth in both
international and domestic travel, the trends to travel farther and over shorter periods of time, and
the preference given to energy-intensive transportation are increasing the non-renewable energy
dependency of tourism, resulting in the sector’s contribution of 5 per cent to global GHG emissions.
Other challenges include excessive water consumption compared with residential water use, discharge
of untreated water, the generation of waste, the damage to local terrestrial and marine biodiversity, and
the threats to the survival of local cultures, built heritage and traditions.
3. Green tourism has the potential to create new jobs and reduce poverty. Travel and tourism are
human-resource intensive, employing directly and indirectly 8 per cent of the global workforce. It is
estimated that one job in the core tourism industry creates about one and a half additional or indirect
jobs in the tourism-related economy. The greening of tourism, which involves efficiency improvements
in energy, water, and waste systems, is expected to reinforce the employment potential of the sector
with increased local hiring and sourcing and significant opportunities in tourism oriented toward local
culture and the natural environment.
4. Tourism development can be designed to support the local economy and poverty reduction. Local
economic effects of tourism are determined by the share of tourism spending in the local economy as
well as the amount of the resulting other economic activities. In greening the tourism sector, therefore,
increasing the involvement of local communities, especially the poor, in the tourism value chain can
contribute to the development of local economy and poverty reduction. This can include the local supply
of products, labour, tourism services, and increasingly “green services” in energy and water efficiency
and waste management. There is increasing evidence that more sustainable tourism in rural areas can
lead to more positive poverty-reducing effects.
5. Investing in the greening of tourism can reduce the cost of energy, water, and waste and enhance
the value of biodiversity, ecosystems and cultural heritage. Investment in energy efficiency has been
found to generate significant returns within a short payback period. Improving waste management
is expected to save money for tourism businesses, create jobs and enhance the attractiveness of
destinations. The investment requirement in conservation and restoration is small relative to the value of
forests, mangroves, wetlands, and coastal zones including coral reefs, which provide ecosystem services
essential for the foundation of economic activities and for human survival. Investment in cultural
heritage—the largest single component of consumer demand for sustainable tourism—is among
the most significant and usually profitable investments a society or tourism sector can make. Under a
green-economy investment scenario, tourism makes a larger contribution to GDP growth and significant
environmental benefits include reductions in water consumption (18 per cent), energy use (44 per cent)
and CO2 emissions (52 per cent) compared with “business-as-usual”.
414
Tourism
6. Tourists are demanding the greening of tourism. More than a third of travellers are found to favour
environmentally-friendly tourism and be willing to pay for related experiences. Traditional mass tourism
has reached a stage of steady growth. In contrast, ecotourism, nature, heritage, cultural, and “soft
adventure” tourism are taking the lead and are predicted to grow rapidly over the next two decades. It
is estimated that global spending on ecotourism is increasing about six times the industry-wide rate of
growth.
7. The private sector, especially small firms, can, and must be mobilised to support green tourism.
The tourism sector involves a diverse range of actors. The awareness of green tourism exists mainly in a
selection of larger scale firms. Smaller firms are mostly outside this sphere and diverse supplier groups
may not be connected at all. Specific mechanisms and tools to educate small and medium sized tourism
related enterprises are critical and are most effective when they are accompanied by actionable items.
The promotion and widespread use of internationally recognised standards for sustainable tourism, such
as the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC), can help businesses understand the practical aspects
of sustainable tourism and assist with mobilising investment.
8. Much of the economic potential for green tourism is found in small and medium-sized Enterprises
(SMEs), which need better access to financing for investing in green tourism. The majority of tourism
businesses are SMEs with potential to generate greater income and opportunity from green strategies.
Their single greatest limiting factor for greening, however, is lack of access to capital. Governments and
international organisations can facilitate the financial flow to these important actors with an emphasis
on contributions to the local economy and poverty reduction. Public-private partnerships can spread
the costs and risks of large green tourism investments. Besides reducing administrative fees and offering
favorable interest rates for green tourism projects, in-kind support such as technical, marketing or
business administration assistance, could also help.
9. Destination planning and development strategies are the first step towards the greening of
tourism. In developing tourism strategies, local governments, communities and businesses need to
establish mechanisms for coordinating with ministries responsible for the environment, energy, labour,
agriculture, transport, health, finance, security, and other relevant areas. Clear requirements are needed
in such areas as zoning, protected areas, environmental rules and regulations, labour rules, agricultural
standards, and health requirements particularly related to energy, emissions, water, waste and sanitation.
10. Government investments and policies can leverage private sector actions on green tourism.
Government spending on public goods such as protected areas, cultural assets, water conservation,
waste management, sanitation, public transport, and renewable energy infrastructure can reduce
the cost of green investments by the private sector in green tourism. Governments can also use tax
concessions and subsidies to encourage private investment in green tourism. Time-bound subsidies
can be given, for example, on the purchase of equipment or technology that reduces waste, encourages
energy and water efficiency, the conservation of biodiversity, and the strengthening of linkages with
local businesses and community organisations. At the same time, resource and energy use as well as
waste generation need to be correctly priced to reflect their true cost to society.
415
Towards a green economy
1 Introduction
This chapter seeks to make the case, primarily an
economic one, for investing in the “greening” of tourism
and it provides guidance on how to mobilise such
investments. The objective is to inspire policy makers
to support increased investment in greening the sector.
The chapter shows how green investment in tourism
can contribute to economically viable and robust
growth, decent work creation and poverty alleviation;
while improving resource efficiency and minimising
environmental degradation.
There is a growing body of evidence that greening tourism
can lead to broad economic, social and environmental
benefits for the host countries and their communities
(Mill and Morrison 2006, Rainforest Alliance 2010, World
Economic Forum 2009a, Klytchnikova and Dorosh 2009).
Tourism’s potential for creating employment, supporting
livelihoods and enabling sustainable development is
huge, given that it is one of the main sources of foreignexchange
income—the principal source for one-third
of developing countries and one-half of the world’s
Least Developed Countries (LDCs) according to the UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 2010).
The chapter starts with an explanation of what is meant
by greening tourism, followed by a discussion of the
challenges and opportunities facing the sector. It then
discusses the goals for greening the sector and the
potential economic implications of green investment
being made in the sector, including the results from a
modelling exercise. Finally, the chapter presents the
conditions that are important for enabling the greening
of the sector.
1.1 Tourism in a green economy
Tourism in a green economy refers to tourism activities
that can be maintained, or sustained, indefinitely in their
social, economic, cultural, and environmental contexts:
“sustainable tourism”. Sustainable tourism is not a special
form of tourism; rather, all forms of tourism may strive
to be more sustainable (UNEP and UNWTO 2005). A
clear distinction should be made between the concepts
of ecotourism and sustainable tourism: “the term
ecotourism itself refers to a segment within the tourism
sector with focus on environmental sustainability, while
the sustainability principles should apply to all types
of tourism activities, operations, establishments and
projects, including conventional and alternative forms”. 1
Sustainable tourism describes policies, practices and
programmes that take into account not only the
expectations of tourists regarding responsible naturalresource
management (demand), but also the needs of
communities that support or are affected by tourism
projects and the environment (supply)2. Sustainable
tourism thus aspires to be more energy efficient and more
“climate sound” (e.g. by using renewable energy); consume
less water; minimise waste; conserve biodiversity, cultural
heritage and traditional values; support intercultural
understanding and tolerance; and generate local income
and integrate local communities with a view to improving
livelihoods and reducing poverty. Making tourism
businesses more sustainable benefits local communities
and raises awareness and support for the sustainable use
of natural resources. In this chapter, the conceptual and
operational framework for sustainability in tourism is
based on the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC),
an international consensus on the minimum criteria that a
tourism business should follow to approach sustainability3.
A group of key variables based on the GSTC are used for
the analysis of the “greening” of tourism in this chapter.
The movement toward more sustainable tourism
implies significant improvements in the performance
of conventional tourism, as well as growth and
improvements in smaller, niche areas centred on natural,
cultural and community resources. The expansion of the
latter, as a proportion of the industry as a whole, may
have especially positive implications for biodiversity
conservation and rural poverty reduction; whereas the
greening of conventional and mass tourism is likely to
have its largest effects on resource use and management,
as well as on increased economic spillovers and the
inclusion of disadvantaged populations.
1. International Year of Ecotourism 2002, http://www.unep.fr/scp/tourism/events/iye/pdf/iye_leaflet_text.pdf.
2. ILO (2010b) views sustainable tourism as “composed of three pillars: social justice, economic development, and environmental integrity. It is committed
to the enhancement of local prosperity by maximizing the contribution of tourism to the destination‘s economic prosperity, including the amount of visitor
spending that is retained locally. It should generate income and decent employment for workers without affecting the environment and culture of the
tourists’ destination and ensures the viability and competitiveness of destinations and enterprises to enable them to continue to prosper and deliver benefits
in the long term”.
3. The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria were developed as part of a broad initiative managed by The Partnership for Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria
(GSTC Partnership), a coalition of over 40 organisations working together to foster increased understanding of sustainable tourism practices and the adoption
of universal sustainable tourism principles. The Partnership was initiated by the Rainforest Alliance, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the
United Nations Foundation and the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). See www.gstcouncil.org/resource-center/gstc-criteria.htm.
416
Tourism
2 Challenges and opportunities
for tourism in a green economy
2.1 Challenges
The tourism industry faces a multitude of significant
sustainability-related challenges. Challenges that
need to be resolved through the greening of the
industry include (1) energy and GHG emissions; (2)
water consumption; (3) waste management; (4) loss of
biological diversity; and (5) effective management of
cultural heritage.
Energy and GHG emissions
The tourism sector’s growing consumption of energy,
especially in travel and accommodation, and its
dependence on fossil fuels has important implications for
global GHG emissions and climate change as well as for
future business growth. Several elements contribute to
tourism’s increasing energy consumption, including growth
rates in international tourist arrivals and domestic travel;
trends to travel further and over shorter periods of time; as
well as preference given to energy-intense transportation
(e.g. aircraft and car travel over train and bus, and flying
first and business class instead of economy (Peeters et al.
2010). The sustainability and competitiveness of tourism
depends in part on energy efficiency (reductions in overall
energy use) and a more intensive use of renewable sources.
After transport, accommodation is the most energyintensive
component of the tourism industry, through
its demand for heating or cooling, lighting, cooking
(in restaurants), cleaning, pools and, in tropical or arid
regions, the desalination of seawater. A general rule is
that the more luxurious the accommodation, the more
energy will be used. In a wide review of studies, energyuse
in hotels range between 25 and 284 MJ/guestnight
(Peeters et al. 2010). Tourism-related transport
consumption of energy is related to travel mode. Coach
and rail transport, cars and buses, aircraft and cruise
ships have diverse energy intensities.4
There is no systematic international country dataset
on energy consumption from tourism activities.
UNWTO and UNEP (2008) estimate 250 MJ per person
is consumed through activities not related to travel
to the destination or accommodation on an average
international tourist trip, 50 MJ per person is expended
on shorter and less activity-oriented business trips and
100 MJ per person for Visiting Friends and Relatives
(VFR) trips. The weighted global average of energy
consumption for activities of international tourists is
estimated at 170 MJ per trip, excluding transport and
accommodation. As a comparison, world daily energy
consumption per capita is estimated at 135MJ (a value
that includes energy generation and industry).5
Given the rising global trend for travel and the growing
energy intensity of most trips, future emissions from the
tourism sector are expected to increase substantially,
even considering current trends in technological
energy-efficiency gains in transport (air and ground) and
accommodation. Tourism is estimated to create about 5
per cent of total GHG emissions (1,302 Mt CO2), primarily
from tourist transport (75 per cent) and accommodation
(21 per cent, mainly from air-conditioning and heating
systems). A globally-averaged tourist journey is estimated
to generate 0.25 tonnes of CO2 (UNWTO and UNEP 2008).
The World Economic Forum (WEF 2009b), using a different
set of sub-sectors, estimated global GHG emissions from
tourism to be 13 per cent higher (1,476 Mt CO2 in 2005).
The report distinguishes direct and indirect emissions
from tourism, with direct emissions being defined as
“carbon emissions from sources that are directly engaged
in the economic activity of the tourism and travel sector.”
While these are included in the WEF estimate, indirect
emissions are excluded, i.e. emissions from electricity
usage in airline or travel agent offices, and emissions from
transportation of hotel consumables, such as food or
toiletries (Peeters et al. 2010). Scott et al. (2010) estimate
the sector contributed between 5.2 per cent and 12.5 per
cent of all anthropogenic radiative forcing in 2005.
Over the next 30-50 years, GHG emissions from the
tourism sector are projected to grow substantially in
a “business-as-usual” scenario, in large part because
emissions from aviation, the most important emitter in
the industry, are expected to grow by at least a factor
of 2 to 3 (UNWTO and UNEP 2008, WEF 2009b). Aviation
4. For instance, in New Zealand, the total energy consumed for tourism transport and accommodation is distributed by 43 per cent for road transport, 42 per
cent for air travel, 2 per cent for sea transport and 1 per cent for rail transport, with accommodation comprising the remaining 12 per cent. For local travel,
coach tourism consumes the greatest energy per day, followed by camper tourists, soft comfort and auto tourists (Becken et al. 2003).
5. Own estimation with data from the International Energy Agency, available at http://data.iea.org/ieastore/default.asp.
417
Towards a green economy
and tourism are expected to account for a large share
of emissions unless a major change in the emission
trajectories is achieved (Peeters et al. 2010).
Water consumption
While water use by tourism, on a global basis, is far less
important than agriculture, industry, or urban domestic
use, in some countries and regions, tourism can be the
main factor in water consumption. In such areas, it can
increase pressure on already diminished water resources
and compete with other sectors as well as subsistence
needs of local populations (Box 1). Tourism can also
directly affect water quality, for instance through the
discharge of untreated sewage or freshwater abstraction
(Gössling 2010).
Global direct water consumption by international tourism
(accommodation only) is estimated to be 1.3 km3 per year
(Gössling 2005). Available data suggests that direct water
use in tourism varies between 100 and 2,000 litres per
guest night, with a tendency for larger, resort-style hotels
to use significantly more water than smaller, pension-like
establishments or campsites. The main water-consuming
factors are golf courses, irrigated gardens, swimming
pools, spas, wellness facilities and guest rooms.
UNEP (2003) estimates that in the USA, tourism and
recreation consumes 946 million cubic metres of water
per year, of which 60 per cent is linked to lodging (mostly
spent on guest consumption, landscape and property
management and laundry activities), and another 13
per cent to foodservice. Total yearly water consumption
by tourism in Europe is estimated at 843 million cubic
metres. Each tourist consumes 300 litres of freshwater
per day on average, whereas “luxury” tourists can
consume up to 880 litres. By comparison, average per
capita residential consumption in Europe is estimated at
241 litres per day.6
Waste management
Waste management is another increasing and wellrecognised
challenge in the industry. Every international
tourist in Europe generates at least 1 kg of solid waste per
day, and up to 2 kg/person/day for the USA (UNEP 2003).
By comparison, CalRecovery and UNEP (2005) report
total country waste generation, including industrial and
other sources, for Austria (1.18 kg/person/day), Mexico
(0.68 kg/person/day), India (0.4 kg/person/day) and the
USA (2.3 kg/person/day).
Impacts are also considerable for wastewater
management, even in high-income countries. In the
Mediterranean region, for instance, it is commonplace
for hotels to discharge untreated sewage directly into
the sea (WWF 2004), with 60 per cent of water used in
tourism resulting in sewage in need of disposal (GFANC
1997). In the European Mediterranean, only 30 per cent
of municipal wastewater from coastal towns receives
any treatment before discharge. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that this is also the case in many other countries
outside the European Union (Gössling 2010).
6. Author’s estimation with data from AQUASTAT-FAO. Available at http://
www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agl/aglw/aquastat/dbase/index.stm.
Box 1: Water consumption for tourism and local communities
Tourism development is concentrated in coastal areas
and on small islands, where potable water is typically
scarce. This scarcity can be caused by either a physical
absence of freshwater, or because the necessary
infrastructure or resources are lacking. A tourismthirsty
industry can secure its water needs wherever
it operates although this can create situations of stark
water inequity between tourists and neighbouring
communities. Tourism’s water demands can even
lead to the appropriation of supply to the detriment
of local domestic and agricultural needs, caused by
the overexploitation of aquifers and reservoirs and
the lowering of groundwater tables.
In a popular resort area of one South Asian country,
for example, privately-owned water tankers buy
water from villages through local elites and transport
it to supply nearby hotels. This leaves villagers with
water supply to their communal standpipes for a
few hours a day only (Tourism Concern 2009 and
2010). Luxury resorts on an East African island are
estimated to use up to 2,000 litres of water per
tourist per day, almost 70 times more than the
average daily domestic consumption of local people
(Gössling and Hall 2006).
Golf tourism is rapidly expanding. An estimated
9.5 billion litres of water are used to irrigate the
world’s golf courses per day, equivalent to the daily
needs of 80 per cent of the global population. One
Mediterranean island, where water is so scarce
it must sometimes be shipped in, is planning to
increase its golf courses from three to 17, with
tourism cited as the principal driver. This will involve
building over agricultural land and constructing
several desalination plants to ensure continual
supply (Tourism Concern 2009).
Source: Tourism Concern (2010)
418
Tourism
Loss of biological diversity
There are many examples where large-scale tourism
has had detrimental effects on biodiversity, including
coral reefs, coastal wetlands, rainforests, arid and semiarid
ecosystems and mountainous areas (UNWTO
2010d). Coral ecosystems have suffered strong adverse
impacts from the use of coral for construction materials
for hotels, over-fishing off reefs to feed tourists,
sewage dumping and sedimentation from improperly
managed runoff from buildings, parking lots, and golf
courses. Coastal wetlands, particularly mangroves,
have routinely been damaged or destroyed to build
beach resorts. And in arid and semi-arid ecosystems,
golf courses and other water-intensive activities have
lowered water tables affecting local fauna and flora.
Biodiversity will be greatly affected by the way in which
tourism grows and develops, especially in developing
countries (UNEP 2010). And failure to incorporate
biodiversity concerns in destination planning and
investment will have detrimental effects on the natural
environment, increase conflict with local communities,
and lead to reduced value-creation potential for both
the destination and investors (notably as interest in
nature-based tourism is growing rapidly around the
world and represents therefore a strategic argument for
maintaining biodiverse environments, which are often
tourist destinations in developing countries).
Management of cultural heritage
Interest in unique cultures by tourists can result in adverse
impacts and severe disruption for communities. There
are examples of communities overrun by large numbers
of visitors, commercialisation of traditions and threats
to cultural survival from unplanned and unmanaged
tourism. Tourism destinations are occasionally built by
outsiders (usually with government approval) in areas
that indigenous or traditional communities consider
to be theirs, and where the development was neither
desired nor locally validated. These situations lead to
conflicts that make cooperation and mutual benefits
nearly impossible to achieve, and instil animosities that
negatively affect the local communities and the tourism
destination. Frequently, the cultural issues overlap and
are aggravated by environmental issues such as access
to water, coastal resources and wildlife. Over the last two
decades, with the growth in ecotourism and alternative
travel, tourism impacts on vulnerable cultures has
begun to be taken seriously by the tourism industry,
governments, non-governmental organisations and the
cultural groups involved (Wild 2010).
2.2 Opportunities
The following trends and developments provide a
particularly promising space for greening tourism: (1)
sizing and growth of the sector; (2) changing consumer
patterns; and (3) potential for addressing local
development and poverty reduction.
Sizing and growth of the tourism sector
Tourism is one of the most promising drivers of growth
for the world economy. The sheer size and reach of
the sector makes it critically important from a global
resource perspective. Even small changes toward
greening can have important impacts. Furthermore, the
sectors’ connection to numerous sectors at destination
and international levels means that changes in practices
can stimulate changes in many different public and
private actors.
The tourism economy represents 5 per cent of global GDP,
while it contributes to 6-7 per cent of total employment.
International tourism ranks fourth (after fuels, chemicals
and automotive products) in global exports, with an
industry value of US$1 trillion a year, accounting for 30
per cent of the world’s exports of commercial services or
6 per cent of total exports. Tourist arrivals have shown
continuous yearly growth over the last six decades, with
an average 4 per cent annual increase during the last
two. This trend has held in spite of occasional short drops
from international crises, such as pandemics, recessions
and terrorism. International tourism arrivals reached
922 million in 2008, dropped to 880 million in 2009,
and then recovered in 2010 with 935 million (UNWTO
2011) (Figure 1), while 4 billion domestic arrivals were
recorded in 2008 (UNWTO and UNEP 2008). The tourist
industry has been sensitive but resilient to economic,
political and social global phenomena. The number of
tourist trips is expected to continue to grow for the next
decade, with the number of international tourist arrivals
expected to reach 1.6 billion by 2020 (UNWTO, 2001).
The economic significance of tourism is highly variable
across countries, however. While it represents only 1.9
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Million
10/09
09/08
08/07
07/06
06/05
05/04
04/03
03/02
02/01
01/00
00/99
99/98
98/97
97/96
96/95
95/94
94/93
93/92
92/91
91/90
90/89
Figure 1: World international tourist arrivals
Source: UNWTO (2008, 2010b and 2011)
419
Towards a green economy
per cent and 3.3 per cent of GDP in Japan and Peru
respectively, it represents 7.7 per cent and 10.9 per cent
of GDP in South Africa and Spain respectively (UNWTO
2010c, WTTC 2010b). Regarding employment, the
tourism industry contributes with 2.8 per cent, 3.1 per
cent, 6.9 per cent and 11.8 per cent of total employment
for the same countries (UNWTO 2010c, WTTC 2010b). In
terms of investment, it accounts for 5.8 per cent, 9.9 per
cent, 13 per cent, and 13.8 per cent of total investment
respectively (WTTC 2010 and 2010b).7
Proportionately, tourism will grow faster in less developed
countries than in developed economies in the next ten
years. Destinations in emerging economies receive 47
per cent of worldwide international tourist arrivals and
US$306 billion in international tourism receipts (36
per cent of the global total). Moreover, growth in the
decade since 2000 has been most marked in emerging
economies (58.8 per cent). Market share has also grown
more significantly in emerging economies (from 38.1
per cent in 2000 to 46.9 per cent in 2009). Recent trends
and forecasts point to a spreading of tourism to new
destinations, largely in developing countries, where
there is outstanding potential to support development
goals, and where new environmental and cultural
attributes can make an important contribution to more
sustainable tourism destinations (UNWTO 2010b).
Changing consumer patterns
Tourist choices are increasingly influenced by
sustainability considerations. For instance, in 2007
TripAdvisor surveyed travellers worldwide and 38 per
cent said that environmentally-friendly tourism was a
consideration when travelling, 38 per cent had stayed
at an environmentally-friendly hotel and 9 per cent
specifically sought such hotels, while 34 per cent were
willing to pay more to stay in environmentally-friendly
hotels (Pollock 2007). CEDS and TIES (2005) found that
a majority of international tourists are interested in the
social, cultural and environmental issues relevant to the
destinations they visit and are interested in patronising
hotels that are committed to protecting the local
environment, and increasingly view local environmental
and social stewardship as a responsibility of the
businesses they support. Choice experiments conducted
in Uganda conclude that biodiversity attributes increase
the willingness to visit tourism attractions, independently
of other factors (Naidoo and Adamowickz 2005). Research
also indicates that consumers are concerned about the
local environments of their travel destinations and are
willing to spend more on their holidays if they are assured
that workers in the sector are guaranteed ethical labour
conditions in the places they are visiting (ILO 2010b). On
the other hand, Rheem (2009) argues that less than a
7. See Annex 1 for an indication of the economic dimension of tourism in
a country sample.
third of American travellers indicate a willingness to pay
some sort of premium
for “green” travel, higher prices
(cost premium) being seen as a demand barrier for 67 per
cent of respondents.
Traditional mass tourism such as “sun-and-sand”
resorts has reached a steady growth stage. In contrast,
ecotourism, nature, heritage, cultural and “soft
adventure” tourism, as well as sub-sectors such as
rural and community tourism are taking the lead in
tourism markets and are predicted to grow most rapidly
over the next two decades. It is estimated that global
spending on ecotourism is increasing by 20 per cent a
year, about six times the industry-wide rate of growth
(TEEB 2009a). Nature-based tourism is an important
economic component of the entire tourism market,
including 75 per cent of Australia’s international tourism,
42 per cent of European recreational tourists in 2000
and contributing US$122.3 billion to the USA’s tourism
market in 2006 (UNWTO 2010d). About 14 per cent of
international visitors to South Africa in 1997 engaged in
an “adventure activity” during their stay (Travel to South
Africa). Of the 826,000 tourists to Kenya in 1993, 23 per
cent visited national parks and reserves for wildlife safari
tourism (Sindiga, 1995). The Asia-Pacific region alone
reported 10 per cent of tourism revenue came from
ecotourism activities in 1993 (Dalem 2002).
There is empirical evidence that tourists seeking
environmental and culturally differentiated destinations
are willing to pay more for this experience. Inman et
al. (2002) estimate this to be between 25 per cent and
40 per cent. WEF (2009) estimates that 6 per cent of
the total number of international tourists pay extra
for sustainable tourism options and 34 per cent would
be willing to pay extra for them. One third to one half
of international tourists (weighted toward the USA)
surveyed in a CESD and TIES (2005) study said they were
willing to pay more to companies that benefit local
communities and conservation. Research by SNV (2009)
records two studies where 52 per cent of respondents
in a UK survey would be more likely to book a holiday
with a company that had a written code to guarantee
good working conditions, protect the environment
and support local charities, while some 58.5 million US
travellers would “pay more” to use travel companies that
strive to protect and preserve the environment.
Wells (1997) presents a survey of nature-tourism
willingness to pay (WTP) studies and shows that, in
almost all cases, consumer surplus (private value of
benefits from nature tourism) is higher than collected
fees from tourists. In other words, the value of
ecosystems for tourism is undervalued in many cases.
For instance, Adamson (2001) estimates that 50 per cent
or more of the economic value from Manuel Antonio
National Park in Costa Rica is not captured in entrance
420
Tourism
fees. WTP for entrance fees from international tourists
was estimated at US$12 (compared with a US$6 actual
entrance fee) and US$6 for national tourists (compared
with an actual fee of US$2). Furthermore, it is estimated
that the average value of coral reef opportunities for
recreation and tourism is US$65,200 per hectare per year
in 2007 values, while it could reach up to more than US$1
million (TEEB 2009a). The maximum monetary value of
ecosystem services for tourism, per hectare per year, has
been estimated for coastal systems (US$41,416), coastal
wetlands (US$2,904), inland wetlands (US$3,700), rivers
and lakes (US$2,733) and tropical forests (US$1,426).
Potential for local development and poverty reduction
Making tourism more sustainable can create stronger
linkages with the local economy, increasing local
development potential. Of particular and recognised
importance (Hall and Coles 2008) are: purchasing
directly from local businesses, recruiting and training
local unskilled and semi-skilled staff, entering into
neighbourhood partnerships to make the local social
environment a better place to live, work and visit for
all; as well as the ability to improve the local natural
environment within its areas of direct and indirect
influence (Ashley et al. 2006). The move toward more
sustainable tourism has been shown in a number
of destinations to enhance this local development
potential through several mechanisms:
1. Its ability to harness biodiversity, landscape and
cultural heritage available in developing countries
can play a major role in enhancing incomes and
employment opportunities;
2. Tourism is a relatively labour-intensive sector
traditionally dominated by micro and small
enterprises with activities particularly suited for
women and disadvantaged groups;
3. As a tourism product is a combination of different
activities and inputs produced by many sectors,
enhanced spending by tourists can benefit a wide
range of sectors such as agriculture, handicrafts,
transport, water and waste management, energy
efficiency and other services;
4. As tourism development at destinations requires
investment in facilities such as roads, water supply, and
energy, it improves the basic common infrastructure
facilities required for development of other sectors
and improvement of quality of life (Bata 2010); and
5. Tourism employs more women and young people
than most other sectors; providing economic
benefits and independence to women is very
important in terms of supporting child development
and breaking the cycle of poverty.
421
Towards a green economy
3 The case for investing in
the greening of tourism
3.1 Spending in the tourism sector
Tourism drives significant investments. Adding even
small percentages of investment for a greener sector
results in very significant increases in investment
flows. Furthermore, much new investment flow is
directed toward developing countries, where increased
investment could have greater impact on green
outcomes. It is estimated that travel and tourism-sector
investments reached US$1,398 billion in 2009, or 9.4
per cent of global investment. It increased on average
by 3 per cent during the last decade, notwithstanding
a significant contraction in 2009 (-12 per cent). Global
investment in tourism has fluctuated between 8 per
cent and 10 per cent of total world investment over the
last 20 years. In developing countries, such as in the
Caribbean region, this figure could be as high as 50 per
cent (WTTC 2010).8 In OECD countries, investment in
hotels, travel agencies and restaurants range from 6 per
cent of national gross value added in Germany to 32 per
cent in Portugal (OECD 2010).
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is an important source
of world tourism investment. The stock of outward
and inward FDI in the “hotels and restaurants” sector
reported by UNCTAD (2009) accounts for almost 1
per cent of total FDI stock. This figure, however, does
not take into account other tourism-related elements
in other sectors, such as construction, transport or
business activities. There is a growing focus on tourism
as a generator of FDI in developing countries, where it
is a priority of many Investment
Promotion Agencies
(IPAs). In this regard, the case of Costa Rica is illustrative
as foreign investment in the tourism sector represented
17 per cent of total FDI inflows in 2009 and 13 per cent
on average for 2000-09.9
3.2 Benefits in employment
Tourism is human-resource intensive due to the service
nature of the industry. It is among the world’s top job
creators and allows for quick entry into the workforce for
youth, women and migrant workers. The wider tourism
economy provides, both directly and indirectly, more
than 230 million jobs, which represents about 8 per cent
of the global workforce. Women make up between 60
and 70 per cent of the labour force in the industry and
half the workers are aged 25 or younger (ILO 2008). In
developing countries, sustainable tourism investment
can help create job opportunities, especially for poorer
segments of the population.
The move toward more sustainable tourism can
increase job creation. Additional employment in
energy, water, and waste services and expanded local
hiring and sourcing are expected from the greening
of mainstream tourism segments. Furthermore, an
increasing body of evidence suggests significantly
expanded indirect employment growth opportunities
from segments oriented toward local culture and the
natural environment (Cooper et al. 2008, Moreno et al.
2010, Mitchell et al. 2009).
Tourism creates jobs directly and leads to additional
(“indirect”) employment. It is estimated that one job in
the core tourism industry creates about one and a half
additional jobs in the tourism-related economy (ILO
2008). There are workers indirectly dependent on each
person working in hotels, such as travel-agency staff,
guides, taxi and bus drivers, food and beverage suppliers,
laundry workers, textile workers, gardeners, shop staff for
souvenirs and others, as well as airport employees (ILO
2008). These relationships influence the many types of
workplace relationships that include full-time, part-time,
temporary, casual and seasonal employment and have
significant implications for employment opportunities
within the sector. A study of South Africa shows that
direct employment in the core tourism sector only
accounts for 21 per cent of total employment creation
due to tourism spending in 2008 (Pan African Research
& Investment Services 2010). Available data indicate that
every new job in tourism can have multiplying effects in
the whole economy, as illustrated in Table 1.
8. It is worth mentioning that WTTC estimates incorporate all fixed investment expenditure by tourism service providers and government agencies, in
facilities, capital equipment and infrastructure for visitors. In this sense, it could be overestimating infrastructure investments that are not tourism sector
specific but affect the whole economy (for instance, road improvements or airport construction). Still, it is the only cross-country source of tourism investment
data available.
9. Author’s calculations with data from the Central Bank of Costa Rica, www.bccr.fi.cr, accessed on September 12, 2010.
422
Tourism
For the EU 27, GHK (2007) estimates direct and indirect
employment multipliers for environment-related tourism
at between 1.69 and 2.13. This means that for every 100
jobs directly created in the sector, 69 more are created
elsewhere in the economy as a result of indirect effects
and the figure increases to 113 when induced effects
are taken into account. The authors define environmentrelated
tourism (ERT), as activities where the natural
environment (not the built environment) is responsible
for influencing the choice of destination for the tourism
activity, including visits to hills, mountains, coasts,
farmland, woods, forests, springs, lakes and wildlife and
the activities of fishing (sea, game and coarse), walking,
climbing, golfing, skiing, cycling, bathing/swimming, etc.
It is estimated that sustainable tourism in Nicaragua, a
destination that focuses very prominently on its culture
and natural environment, has an employment multiplier of
2. That is, for every job in the tourism sector, an additional
local employment is created, with higher wages than the
national averages (Rainforest Alliance 2009).
3.3 Local economic development
and poverty reduction
Local economic development
Tourism is an important and effective driver of local
economic development. Tourist spending enters the
local economy to varying degrees depending principally
on the structure of the tourism business and its supply
chain at a destination. The economic contribution
entering the economy is the “local contribution” and is
typically measured as an average amount per tourist,
and as a percentage of the total tourism spending that
stays in the local economy. That which is not retained
in the local economy is “leakage.” Multiplier effects are
limited by leakages, which reduce the positive economic
impacts of tourism. Wells (1997) reports values of leakage
as a percentage of gross tourism receipts ranging from
11 per cent (Philippines) to 56 per cent (Fiji).
The “income multiplier” is used to describe the amount
of the indirect economic activity resulting from the local
contribution. The economic development potential
of tourism is a direct function of the local contribution
and multiplier—larger local contributions and larger
multipliers each lead to greater economic activity in
the local economy and there are important synergies
between them. From a global perspective, Mill and
Morrison (2006) review the literature on income
multipliers and present a list of estimations from
different countries and regions. Income multipliers can
be relatively low for specific destinations such as the
City of Winchester (0.19) and higher for a country such
as Turkey (1.96). According to Cooper (2008), tourism
impacts income in different ways depending on the
country or region where it develops. Every US dollar
spent by overnight tourists impacts income in the
economy between 1.12 to 3.40 times. This high variability
indicates that local economic impact development will
depend on particular characteristics of the tourism
business “model”, in particular the quantity and type of
products and services sourced from the local economy.
In destinations where a large percentage of tourist
needs are locally supplied (beds and linens, food and
beverage, equipment and supplies, labour, tour and
transportation services, souvenirs, among others), local
contribution and multipliers tends to be high, and the
resulting economic impact correspondingly greater. In
destinations where substantial income is not captured
locally, economic impact from tourism is less. This effect
can vary dramatically between destinations:
■■For Granada, Nicaragua, the Rainforest Alliance (2009)
reports a case study of sustainable tourism where local
purchases represent only 16 per cent of total purchases;
■■For the Canary Islands, Hernández (2004) finds that 43
per cent of total tourism expenditure is supplied from
outside the local economy through direct, indirect and
induced imports; and
■■In New Zealand, it is estimated that 24 per cent of
tourism expenditure is for imports of goods and services
sold directly to tourists by retailers (Hernández 2004).
Looking at a single destination illustrates how substantial
tourism’s economic impact can be. For example, for
Panama, Klytchnikova and Dorosh (2009) present a
detailed evaluation of tourism’s impact in the local
economy of three different regions. The income multiplier
for the tourism industry (hotels and restaurants) is the
largest of all economic sectors. An additional US$1 in
Table 1: Sample of tourism employment
multipliers
Source: Cooper et al. (2008)
Total employment per
single job in the tourism
sector
Employments per
US$10,000 tourist
expenditure
Jamaica 4.61 1.28
Mauritius 3.76 not available
Bermuda 3.02 0.44
Gibraltar 2.62 not available
Solomon Islands 2.58 not available
Malta 1.99 1.59
Western Samoa 1.96 not available
Republic of Palau 1.67 not available
Fiji not available 0.79
UK (Edinburgh) not available 0.37
423
Towards a green economy
value added results in US$2.87 total income. This large
multiplier is due to strong backward linkages in terms of
demand for local food products as well as forward linkages
of household spending from tourism income. This gain
results from consumer spending effects as incomes
earned in various activities are spent in the domestic
economy. By way of comparison, multipliers are smallest
(1.30 to 1.64) in sectors such as the Panama Canal, mining
and textiles where there are few production linkages
(as much of the inputs are imported). In contrast, the
multipliers for the fruits, shellfish and other agricultural
exports are especially large because much of the income
earned accrues to rural households who spend a high
proportion of their incomes on non-tradable goods and
services in the local economy.
There is an increasingly convincing body of evidence
indicating that more sustainable tourism can increase
both the local contribution and multiplier effect. Within
a given (or similar) destination, local contribution and
multiplier increase the more the local community is
involved in the tourism value chain, through the supply
of products, labour, tourism services and, increasingly,
“green services.” The few available meta-studies
indicate considerably higher multipliers for natural
and culturally-oriented destinations (Chang 2001). And
destination specific studies, such as Brenes (2007) for
Costa Rica indicate similar effects. The logic is sound—
more local purchases (substituting imports) will increase
local contribution, and the income effect will be greatest
when local actors are the beneficiaries of those linkages.
Poverty reduction
When tourism-related income grows with a substantial
reorientation in favour of the poor, poverty can be
reduced. In this regard, UNWTO launched in 2002
the ST-EP (Sustainable Tourism for the Elimination of
Poverty) initiative, aimed at reducing poverty levels
through developing and promoting sustainable forms
of tourism.10 Increased tourism, local contributions and
multiplier effects can accrue to wealthy, middle income,
or poor alike. Therefore, interventions must be made
to help poor people become part of the processes that
drive the industry (ILO 2010a). Investors and developers,
as well as local and national governments, play a critical
role in determining the role poorer populations play in
the tourism industry. The local industry can also help by
10. The Sustainable Tourism for Eliminating Poverty (ST-EP) initiative has
identified seven different mechanisms through which the poor can benefit
directly or indirectly from tourism: (1) Undertaking measures to increase
the level of the poor working in tourism enterprises; (2) Maximising the
proportion of tourism spending that is retained in local communities and
involving the poor in the supply process; (3) Promoting the direct sales
of goods and services to visitors by the poor from informal businesses;
(4) Establishing and managing more formal tourism enterprises by the
poor, either individually or at a community level; (5) Using taxes or levies
on tourism income or profits with proceeds benefiting the poor; (6)
Supporting the poor in money or in kind, by visitors or tourism enterprises;
and (7) Investing in infrastructure that offers local communities the chance
to gain new access to available resources (UNWTO 2004b).
engaging in and encouraging the use of local companies
for the provision of transport, services and food in order
to generate local income and employment multipliers
and contribute to alleviate local poverty:
■■In the case of Malaysia, TPRG (2009) describes the
case of accommodation businesses and the shares of
income generated and distributed across the chain.
The final impact on local communities depends on the
business structure and the economic activities related
to tourism. In the case of the accommodation sector,
most income is captured by hotel owners. However, an
important share is received by small-business owners
and local people involved in informal activities (Figure 2).
From all tourism expenditure, 28 per cent is captured by
hotels, while crafts artisans obtain 5 per cent and local
small businesses 11 per cent.
■■In Zanzibar, Tanzania, Steck et al. (2010) estimate that
only 10.2 per cent of total tourism income is captured by
“poor” local people. The study found that the industry is
heavily dependent on imports for both primary supplies
and staff of suitable quality, both of which are normally
avenues for participation of locals.
■■In Panama, households capture 56 per cent of
total local tourism income (Klytchnikova and Dorosh
2009). Which households benefit the most, however,
depends on the region in which the tourism revenues
are generated. In the Colón Zone, most of the gains in
household incomes (63 per cent) go to urban non-poor
households and only 20 per cent of the income gains
accrue to poor households. In contrast, in Bocas del Toro,
where poor households account for a larger share of the
regional labour force, 43 per cent of the total increase
in household incomes accrues to the poor while the
percentage gain in household incomes is nearly the
same across household groups. The results for Chiriqui
Province report household income gains received by the
poor of 19 per cent, although the share earned by rural
households is higher (46 per cent).
Empirical studies suggest that, at best, between onefifth
and one-third of total tourist expenditure in the
destination is captured by “the poor” from direct
earnings and supply chains (Mitchell and Ashley 2007).
The impact of tourism on poverty depends on various
factors including employment, the skill level of the labour
force, changes of prices (goods and services and factors
of production), ownership of micro and small enterprises
and labour-market composition. As with income effects,
there is increasingly convincing evidence that more
sustainable tourism (particularly in rural areas) can lead
to more positive poverty-reducing effects.
■■In Costa Rica, Rojas (2009) estimated the impact
of tourism on poverty levels and found that without
424
Tourism
tourism incomes the local incidence of poverty would
be higher in urban and rural sectors (Table 2). This
result is consistent with other studies for the country.
For instance, CEPAL (2007) estimates that tourism
contributes to a reduction in poverty of 3 per cent in
Costa Rica (and 1 per cent in Nicaragua). From a site
comparison perspective, Brenes et al. (2007) estimated
the impact of Tamarindo (mass tourism destination)
and La Fortuna (natural and adventure attractions
destination) and found that average monthly wages
in La Fortuna (US$437) were higher than in Tamarindo
(US$392). Moreover, they estimated a 0.64 probability of
income improvement for La Fortuna inhabitants when
working in the tourism sector. The evidence indicates
that tourism is contributing to poverty reduction in
Costa Rica, with the sustainability approach of the
country as a driver of living conditions improvement.
■■In Malaysia, using a value-chain analysis, TPRG
(2009) finds that economic benefits received by local
people account on average for 34 per cent of total
income generated by tourism. The relatively high “propoor”
income share, particularly in restaurants (Table
3), may reflect various public and private initiatives
to employ or involve locals in tourism business operations.
3.4 Environmental benefits
There is increasing motivation from both the private
and public sectors to invest in making tourism more
sustainable. Although the availability of global
investment data specific to “sustainable tourism” is
currently not of a sufficient quantity to draw any
robust conclusions, it is clear that there is an increased
awareness of the need and value of conserving unique
natural, social and cultural assets of destinations.
Private and public investment in tourism includes
infrastructure (roads, airports, national parks, private
reserves, hospitality installations and other sites
and facilities); environmental conservation (natural
attractions, beaches, mountains, rivers, biodiversity,
natural barriers and endemic species); education
Bee Farm
RM13
4%
Local People
RM12
4%
Tourist
RM300
100%
Homestay
Provider
RM125
42%
Coconut Farm
RM13
4%
Local People
RM12
4%
Seafood Restaurant
RM65
22%
Local Fishermen
RM60
20%
Figure 2: Accommodation linkages and tourist income distribution in Tanjong Piai, Malaysia
Source: TPRG (2009). Note: RM=Ringgit Malaysia (1 RM=US$0.30)
Table 2: Impact of tourism on poverty rates in
Costa Rica, 2008
Source: Rojas (2009)
With tourism income Without tourism income
National 17.69% 19.06%
Urban 16.93% 18.40%
Rural 18.73% 20.0%
Table 3: Breakdown of tourism income and propoor
income (PPI) contribution in Malaysia
Source: TPRG (2009)
Share in tourism
revenue Share of PPI
Accommodation and hotel meals 88.4% 7.3%
Restaurants 4.4% 47.0%
Retail 3.7% 27.0%
Tours and excursions 3.0% 18.8%
Other 0.5% n.a
425
Towards a green economy
(labour-force skills, including the “greening” of the skills
base); capacity building; and technology improvements
(cleaner production, sustainable management).
Investment in sustainable tourism offers a wide range
of opportunities, notably in the areas of water, energy,
waste and biodiversity, which can generate significant
returns.
There is a growing trend within the tourism industry of
investment in sustainability. For instance, the Accor hotel
chain has been testing environmental technologies such
as photovoltaic electricity, grey water re-use and rainwater
recovery. Additional capital expenditure in energy
efficiency and sustainable construction and renovation
projects is estimated at a relatively modest 6 per cent
of total construction costs (for a 106-room hotel),
with excellent returns (WTTC 2009). Sol Meliá Hotels
& Resorts have institutionalised their sustainability
programme with independent certification for the
company, including hotels and corporate offices on an
international level, and a specific budget for the strategic
project of sustainable development, financed entirely
by company funds (WTTC 2010).
Energy
In hotels and other accommodation there is
considerable scope for investment in energyefficient
features and services, including refrigeration,
television and video systems, air conditioning and
heating (particularly reduction or elimination of these
systems through improved design), and laundry. Such
investments are driven by increasing energy costs;
likely carbon surcharges; increasing expectations
of customers (particularly from Europe and North
America); technological advances with low-carbon
technology; and in some cases, government incentives.
Many leading airlines are exploring alternative fuel
strategies, as well as changes in routing, aircraft and
flight practices. The railroad industry, particularly
in Europe, is positioning itself as a “green” and
“community-linking” alternative to air travel. Increased
energy efficiency for tourism translates as reduced
operational costs, increased customer satisfaction,
and higher investment in energy efficiency (through
retrofits and improvements).
Evidence suggests that investment in a more efficient
use of energy in the sector generates significant returns
(Box 2). Hamele and Eckardt (2006) reported the results
of environmental initiatives in European hotels, bed &
breakfast and camping sites, on energy consumption.
On average, energy costs in hotels represented about 6
per cent of their annual turnover, whereas in the “best
practice” establishments,
this expense factor typically
represented 1.5-2.8 per cent. Recent studies have shown
that a 6 per cent increase in investment in energy-efficient
design & equipment can lower electrical consumption
by 10 per cent (Six Senses 2009); low-cost water-efficient
design and operation can reduce consumption by 30
per cent (Newsom et al. 2008, Hagler Bailly 1998), and
Box 2: Investment in energy efficiency and savings
Six Senses, a luxury hotel group, reports that the
return on investment of various energy-savings
measures applied in resorts located in Thailand
ranges from six months to ten years:
■■ The energy monitoring system cost US$4,500,
enabling the resort to achieve 10 per cent energy
savings as well as to identify areas for further savings;
■■ Investment for the mini chiller system was
US$130,000, which saves US$45,000 annually, and
thus pays off in 2.8 years;
■■ The heat-recovery system cost US$9,000, saving
US$7,500 annually, corresponding to 1.2 years
payback time;
■■ The laundry hot-water system cost US$27,000,
saving US$17,000 annually (1.6 year payback time);
■■ Efficient lighting cost US$8,500, resulting in
US$16,000 savings per year, i.e. taking six months to
pay back (not considering the longer life-span of the
lights);
■■ Investment in a water reservoir was US$36,000,
leading to annual savings of US$330,000 (less than
a month payback time);
■■ Biomass absorption chillers cost US$120,000
resulting in US$43,000 saving annually, i.e. 2.8 years
payback; and
■■Medium voltage (6.6kV) underground electric
copper cables cost US$300,000. Payback is
roughly 10 years from lower energy loss, but
other benefits include less radiation, less power
fluctuation, reduced fire risk and a prettier resort
compared to old hanging low voltage electrical
cables.
Source: Six Senses (2009)
426
Tourism
that overall financial cost-recovery of a destination’s
green strategy (ratio of present value savings to present
value capital expenditures) can be between 117 per cent
and 174 per cent for investment recovery from hotel
buildings operation efficiency (Ringbeck et al. 2010).
Rainforest Alliance (2010) presents an estimate of
costs and benefits of sustainable-energy management
practices for a sample of 14 tourism businesses in Latin
America (Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and
Nicaragua) based on GSTC indicators. The energy bill
was reduced in 64 per cent of companies, with average
annual savings of US$5,255 (maximum of US$17,300).
Required investment ranged from 1 per cent to 10 per
cent of annual operations costs. Average investment
was US$12,278 (maximum US$56,530). The average
payback of investments is 2.3 years.
Water
Internal water efficiency and management programmes,
and investments in water-saving technology in rooms,
facilities and attractions reduce costs. Greater efficiency
and improved management allows for the increase
of number of rooms/visitors in water-constrained
destinations. With regard to the most water-consuming
factor, irrigation, considerable reductions can be
achieved through alternative gardening (choice of
species, landscaping) as well as the use of grey water.
Golf courses can be designed to require less water, and
operators can measure soil moisture to help control
and optimise water use. Hotels with spas and health
centres can engage in a range of water-saving measures,
while new hotel constructions can seek to avoid pool
landscapes and other water-intensive uses (Gössling
2010).
With regard to direct water use for tourists, Fortuny
et al. (2008) demonstrated that many water-saving
technologies relevant to hotels and other businesses
have short payback times (between 0.1-9.6 years),
making them economically attractive. Investments in
water-saving systems, grey water reuse and rainwater
collection and management systems can help reduce
water consumption by 1,045 m3 per year, or a 27 per cent
lower volume per guest per night.
Rainforest Alliance (2010) estimates the costs and
benefits of sustainable tourism management practices
for a sample of 14 businesses in Latin America (Belize,
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Nicaragua) based
on GSTC indicators. The water bill was reduced in 31
per cent of companies, with average annual savings of
US$2,718 (maximum of US$7,900), a particularly large
number given the very low price of water charged in
those countries. Required investment ranged from 1 per
cent to 3 per cent of annual operations costs. Average
investment was US$2,884 (maximum US$10,000).
Average annual savings were US$2,718, for a payback
period of 1.1 years.
Waste
Improved waste management provides opportunities
for business and society. Lower levels of generation
improves financial return for private sector actors, and
better management of that waste creates opportunities
for jobs, and enhances the attractiveness of destinations.
Hamele and Eckardt (2006), reporting the results of
an analysis of 36 hotels in the 2 to 4-star categories
in Germany and Austria, showed average values per
overnight-stay for solid waste (1.98 kg) and waste
water (6.03 litres). The average cost of managing these
two waste streams is €0.28 per occupied room night.
Rainforest Alliance (2010) presents an estimation of
costs and benefits of sustainable tourism management
practices for a sample of 14 very small businesses in
Latin America (Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala
and Nicaragua) based on GSTC indicators where solid
waste was reduced in 71 per cent of companies, with
average annual savings of US$3,600.
Biodiversity
UNEP (2010) argues that biodiversity conservation
will be greatly affected by the way in which tourism
grows and develops, especially in developing countries
hosting biodiversity hotspots, where tourism is expected
to become increasingly important. Demand growth
for experiences that involve contact with wildlife
and pristine (or near pristine) ecosystems and the
expectations from guests that tour operators respect and
protect the natural resource base are increasingly driving
changes in the tourist industry. Policies of mainstream
tourism are likely to change towards more effective
conservation of sensitive ecosystems, driven by market
demand and large operator programmes (for instance,
cruise-industry guidance on coastal systems). Moreover,
the increasing trends for nature-based tourism will
encourage conservation and tourism revenues (including
protected-area fees) to grow in tandem. Current trends
towards increasing nature-based and ecotourism are
likely to continue or accelerate as pristine areas become
increasingly rare, leading in turn to the incorporation
of natural areas in tourism development and greater
transfer of benefits toward natural areas.
Conservation and restoration provides a highly profitable,
low-cost investment for maintaining ecosystem services
(Box 3). Avoiding loss of ecosystems by conservation,
particularly of forests, mangroves, wetlands and the
coastal zone, including coral reefs, is a sound investment
from a cost-benefit analysis. This appears to hold from
both a societal investment perspective as well as a
private one. The review of dozens of restoration projects
worldwide concludes that restoration compared with
biodiversity loss provides a benefit/cost ratio of 3 to 75
427
Towards a green economy
in return of investments and an internal rate of return of
7 to 79 per cent (Nellemann and Corcoran 2010).
More than 70 per cent of Latin American hotels surveyed
by Rainforest Alliance (2010) support biodiversity
conservation while 83 per cent of them indicate that
conservation practices have created competitive
advantages through operation savings, improved image
and process improvements. Ringbeck et al. (2010) report
significant returns of green investments in tourism
at major sun and beach destinations in Spain (Box 4).
The authors estimated a present value of investments
(capital expenditure) on water and energy efficiency,
emissions mitigation and biodiversity conservation of
Box 4: Financial cost-recovery of green programmes in tourism
Based on its experience with the greening process
of one of the world’s leading sun-and-beach tourist
destinations (a seaside locale in Spain), Booz &
Company report significant returns from investment
in energy efficiency and GHG emissions, lower
water consumption, better waste management
practices and biodiversity conservation. The green
transformation strategy was developed after a
thorough baseline analysis that showed, like most
tourist destinations, unsustainable water and
energy consumption patterns, problems with waste
management and the risk of total depletion of key
natural resources such as coral reefs and marine animals
(main attractions). Capital expenditure on greening
the tourism sector can quickly be offset by the savings
in operation costs, which include not only the costs
of greening initiatives, but also the socioeconomic
effects of lost tourism revenue. Savings by reducing
operation costs from green programmes, compared
with the capital expenditure, range from 174 per cent
(hotel buildings operation efficiency) to 707 per cent
(biodiversity conservation). Private investment and
public funding was used to secure sufficient funding.
The greening transformation followed a three-step
process, including an assessment of the destination’s
environmental status, the development of a green
strategy and the collaborative execution of projects
related to the green strategy.
Source: Ringbeck et al. (2010)
Box 3: Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN)
Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN)
is an initiative funded by the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) designed to maximise the potential
of the protected-area system in Namibia by
strengthening its management and establishing
partnerships. It is a six-year project with a GEF grant
of US$8.5 million and co-financing amounting to
US$33.7 million. GEF analysis indicates that tourism
in Namibia’s protected areas contribute to 3.1 to
6.3 per cent of the country’s GDP. Investment by
the government of Namibia in the past 20 years
has achieved a rate of return of 23 per cent. The
government has increased the annual budget
for park management and development by 300
per cent in the past four years. A quarter of the
park-entrance revenue is to be reinvested in park
and wildlife management through a trust fund,
providing additional sustainable financing of US$2
million annually. First implemented in 2007, The
National Policy on Tourism and Wildlife Concessions
on State Land has approved more than 20 new
tourism and hunting concessions. After two years it
had generated more than US$1 million annually in
fees payable to the government. Local communities
were granted most of the concession rights in
protected areas, creating revenue and jobs for local
people.
Source: GEF (2009)
0 200 400 600 800
Buildings operations eciency (hotels)
Buildings operations eciency (others)
Green building design
Green water transport
Resilient water supply
Biodiversity
Savings/capital expenditure (present value)
%
428
Tourism
US$1 billion and a significantly higher present value
of savings (US$2.5 billion), with strongest investment
recovery from biodiversity.
3.5 Cultural heritage
The largest single component of consumer demand
for more sustainable tourism is for cultural authenticity
(CESD and TIES 2005). Cultural heritage includes living
cultures, both mainstream and minority, as well as
historical, religious, and archaeological sites. Tourism
can offer opportunities for continuation, rejuvenation or
enhancement of traditions and a way of life.
Culture is rarely static, and linking tourism and cultural
survival may bring benefits as well as changes and
challenges for a community to address. The possible
socio-cultural costs and benefits of tourism to a vulnerable
culture are rarely quantified. Tourism projects need to
include a programme to monitor economic and cultural
benefits so that vulnerable cultures can assess and manage
the impacts of tourism on their communities (Wild 2010).
Aside from the intangible benefits, most commentators
believe that investment in cultural heritage is among the
most significant, and usually profitable, investments a
society, or tourism sector, can make (Box 5).
3.6 Modelling tourism11
To quantify the likely effects of increased investments in
tourism, the green investment scenario (G2) simulated
in the modelling exercise allocates on average 0.2 per
cent of global GDP12 (or US$248 billion at constant 2010
US dollar prices) per year between 2011 and 2050 to
the tourism sector, which is further disaggregated into
energy, water and waste management, staff training,
and biodiversity conservation.13 The green investment
represents 4% of tourism GDP. This would most
likely comprise a mixture of public as well as private
investments. Assumptions of the model are presented
in Annex 3 and results of simulations are detailed below.
Results of the simulation
The results of the simulations of the green investment
scenario indicates that total arrivals of international
tourists will increase by 2.8 per cent per year by 2030
and then at a lower rate of 2.5 per cent per year in
the longer term to reach 2.6 billion in 2050, which is
11. This section is based on the Millennium Institute’s work for the Green
Economy Report.
12. Tourism accounts for 5% of global GDP.
13. In the G2 green investment scenario, an additional 2 per cent of global
GDP is allocated to a green transformation of a range of key sectors, of
which tourism is one (see Modelling chapter for more detailed explanation
of scenarios and results).
Box 5: Differential economic
contribution from cultural
areas
In Western Australia, attempts have been made
to measure the economic value of cultural
heritage through direct tourism expenditure,
using three locations: the city of Freemantle,
the city of Albany and the town of New Norcia.
In order to determine the proportion of the
total overnight visitor expenditure that could
be directly attributable to cultural heritage, an
attribution factor was generated based on data
from visitor surveys and other sources. The study
found that between 63 per cent and 75 per cent
of a visitor’s expenditure was due to the cultural
heritage of the area, generating in the region of
US$40-$80 per visitor per day.
Source: Tourism Western Australia (http://www.westernaustralia.com, accessed
on September 10, 2010)
30 per cent below the corresponding “business-asusual”
scenario (BAU2) due to the shift towards less
frequent -but longer- trips in the green scenario14. The
immediate impacts of international and domestic
tourism will lead to a yearly direct tourism expenditure
of US$11.3 trillion on average between 2010 and 2050
in the green investment scenario (in such areas as
sales in the hotel sector, hotel payments for wages and
salaries, taxes, and supplies and services). These direct
expenditures have strong impacts on the destination
economies resulting from various rounds of re-spending
of tourism expenditure in other industries (i.e., industries
supplying products and services to hotels). The total
expenditure, including direct and indirect expenditures,
will reach US$21.5 trillion on average over the next
40 years in the green scenario. The resulting higher
economic growth drives the sector GDP to grow from
US$3 trillion today to US$10.2 trillion in 2050, exceeding
the corresponding BAU scenario by 7 per cent. Direct
employment in this sector is expected to grow to 580
million in the green scenario by 2050, compared with
544 million in the corresponding BAU projection. The
training of these new employees requires US$31 billion
of investment per year on average in the next 40 years.
Despite the rising flow of tourists, the green investment
will lead to significant resource conservation through
considerable efficiency improvements and reduction of
losses:
14. BAU2 refers to the BAU scenario with an additional 2 per cent of global
GDP per year invested according to current patterns and trends (see
Modelling chapter).
429
Towards a green economy
■■Tourism water consumption is projected to be
6.7 km3 in 2050 in the green scenario, undercutting
the corresponding BAU scenario by 18 per cent. In
the meantime, additional investments are projected
to increase water supply, which is essential for many
tourism-dependent, water-stressed countries—on
average 0.02 km3 per year above BAU2 from desalination,
and 0.6 km3 per year from conventional sources (treated
wastewater, surface and underground water) through
better management over the 40-year period.
■■Under the green scenario, tourism energy supply and
demand will see both the expansion of renewables and
efficiency improvements across all tourism activities. The
incremental renewable-energy supply associated with
tourism will be 43 Mtoe per year on average, including
the expansion and introduction of renewable power
generation and biofuels. On the demand side, the
total energy consumption for various tourism activities
will reach 954 Mtoe in 2050 under the green scenario,
representing 44 per cent of avoided energy use relative
to BAU2. These savings come from a mix of effective
measures in individual activities—a modal shift to less
carbon-intensive transport (e.g. electrified train and coach),
behavioural changes (e.g. shorter-haul trips) to reduce total
travel distance, better energy management (e.g. setting
targets and benchmarking for hotels)—as well as across
all sectors—technological advances in fuel efficiency and
fewer inefficient uses due to better equipment or greater
environmental awareness. More specifically, tourism
transport, thanks to the transport-sector investments, will
see the largest saving (604 Mtoe below the corresponding
BAU scenario), followed by tourist accommodation, with
150 Mtoe of avoided consumption in 2050.
■■As a result of these energy savings, CO2 emissions will
be mitigated substantially relative to the corresponding
BAU projection (-52 per cent by 2050), returning to the
current level of 1.44 Gt in 2050, or 7 per cent of global
emissions. The relative increase of the share of global
emissions generated by tourism derives from a projected
growth of tourism GDP higher than the average
projected growth of global GDP. Tourism is expected
to grow faster than most other sectors; and, without
green investments, its environmental impacts would be
much higher. By 2050, transportation is still the principal
emitter (0.7 Gt), with aviation and cars accounting for 74
per cent and 24 per cent of the reduction respectively.
Accommodation, as the second-largest emitter, will
account for 0.58 Gt of emissions in 2050. The remaining
CO2 emissions (98 Mt) are caused by other tourism
activities. In addition to the mitigation of CO2 emissions
in the green economy, as climate is a key resource for
tourism and the sector is highly sensitive to the impacts
of climate change, these sustainable practices will
strengthen the capacity of tourist destinations to adapt
to unfavourable climatic conditions.
■■Furthermore, the investment in tourism waste
management allow for a higher rate of waste collection
and reuse (recycling and recovery). In 2050, 207 Mt of
waste will be generated by the tourism sector in the green
scenario, compared with 180 Mt in the corresponding
BAU scenario (due to higher GDP and tourist visitor nights
in green scenarios). On the other hand, green investment
is estimated to allow 57 Mt more reuse of waste than in
the corresponding BAU scenario, therefore cutting net
waste disposal (taking into consideration waste reuse) in
2050 by 30 Mt relative to BAU2.
■■These savings will result in potential avoided costs
that can be reinvested in socially and environmentally
responsible local activities (such as protected areas, local
transportation or staff capabilities and skills), increasing
the indirect and induced effects of tourism expenditure
on local development. In particular, spending by visitors
from wealthier regions to developing countries helps to
create much-needed employment and opportunities
for development, reducing economic disparities and
poverty.
430
Tourism
4 Overcoming barriers:
enabling conditions
Tourism can have positive or negative impacts
depending on how it is planned, developed and
managed. A set of enabling conditions is required
for tourism to become sustainable: to contribute to
social and economic development within the carrying
capacities of ecosystems and socio-cultural thresholds.
This section presents recommendations to create
the enabling environment for increased investment
in sustainable tourism development, overcoming
barriers in the areas of (1) private-sector orientation;
(2) destination planning and development; (3) fiscal
and government investment policies; (4) finance
and investment; (5) local investment generation.
Recommendations are based substantially on the
policy recommendations of the International Task Force
on Sustainable Tourism Development
(ITF-STD).15
Tourism market tendencies indicate that the main drivers
towards sustainable tourism investment decisions
are consumer demand changes; business actions to
reduce operational costs and increase competitiveness;
coherent policies and regulations for environmental
protection; technology improvements; private efforts
for environmental and social responsibility and
natural resource conservation. These are leading the
transformation of the industry and determining the
returns on investments.16 The systemic characteristic of a
sustainable tourism industry stresses the need to invest
more in energy and water efficiency, climate-change
mitigation, waste reduction, biodiversity conservation,
the reduction of poverty, the conservation of cultural
assets and the promotion of linkages with the local
economy. The savings and higher returns expected from
actions in those areas can simultaneously be invested in
new green investment projects, creating a self-enforcing
greening dynamic that could enhance competitiveness
and strengthen sustainability.
A cross-cutting barrier to greener or more sustainable
tourism investment is the lack of understanding
and recognition of the value created for companies,
communities and destinations from the greening of
tourism. The sharing of knowledge, information and
experiences among public, private and civil society actors
is a necessary first step towards overcoming these barriers.
4.1 Private-sector orientation
Tourism is a heterogeneous industry17 where hundreds
(and sometimes thousands) of actors operate in multiple
market segments, even within a single country or region.
These segments include conventional and mass tourism
as well as niche areas such as ecotourism, adventure
tourism, rural tourism, community-based tourism, sports
fishing, cruise tourism and more recently, health tourism.
The principal businesses within the tourism industry are
accommodation, tour operation, and transport (land, air,
and aquatic). In addition, tourism has diverse linkages
through several economic activities, from lodging,
entertainment and recreation, to transportation,
professional services and advertisement, among
others.18 While all can and should benefit in the medium
to long term, greening will require very different actions
and investments, and benefit companies in different
ways—there is no single strategy or “recipe” for all to
follow. A coherent strategy for green tourism growth
must, therefore, cover all segments and activities, and
the ways in which they interact.
The tourism industry is dominated by small and medium
sized enterprises (SMEs). Although online travel agencies
and large conventional tour operators control an
important share of international travel from Europe and
North America, tourism destinations are characterised
15. The ITF-STD was comprised of members from UNEP, UNWTO, 18 developed and developing countries, seven other international organisations, seven
non-governmental organisations, and seven international business associations. It was an outcome of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development,
which declared that “fundamental changes in the way societies produce and consume are indispensable for achieving global sustainable development”. The
work of the Task Force will continue with its successor, the Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism.
16. Drivers and likely implications of sustainable investments in key strategic areas for tourism (energy, climate change, water, waste, biodiversity, cultural
heritage and the local economy) are summarised in Annex 2.
17. Tourism does not fit the standard notion of an “industry” because it is a demand-based concept. It is not the producer who provides the distinguishing
characteristics that determine how tourism is classified, but rather the purchaser, i.e. the visitor (OECD 2000).
18 The Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) indicates that “tourism industries comprise all establishments for which the principal activity is a tourism
characteristic activity.” Tourism characteristics consumption products and tourism industries are grouped in 12 categories: accommodation for visitors,
food and beverages serving activities, railway passenger transport, road passenger transport, water passenger transport, air passenger transport, transport
equipment rental, travel agencies and other reservation services activities, cultural activities, sports and recreational activities, retail trade of country-specific
tourism characteristic goods, and other country-specific tourism characteristic activities (see UNWTO 2010c).
431
Towards a green economy
by the predominance of smaller businesses. For example,
close to 80 per cent of all hotels worldwide are SMEs
(WEF 2009a) and, in Europe, this figure is 90 per cent.19
Additionally, providers of goods and services for the
industry tend to be small, local businesses. Reaching out to
such a wide variety of small businesses, across numerous
sectors, continents and languages is a daunting task.
Without information, knowledge and tools, greening
will be nearly impossible. Nonetheless, engaging these
critical actors is a necessary condition for a sustainable
industry. In Nepal, for instance, incentives for privatesector
participation in capacity-building events and the
implementation of sustainable action plans have helped
to increase their access to international sustainable
tourism markets, improved project performance and
stimulated interest among other companies in Nepal
in sustainable tourism business practices, creating
synergies throughout the industry (UNEP 2008).
Organisational management is a key element of
business sustainability. According to By and Dale (2010),
successful management of change (political, economic,
social and technological) is crucial for the survival and
success of tourism SMEs, particularly with the following
eight critical factors: adaptability and flexibility;
commitment and support; communication and cooperation;
continuous learning and improvement; formal
strategies; motivation and reward; pragmatism; and
the right people (skilled and motivated collaborators).
Kyriakidou and Gore (2005) argue that best performing
SME operations in hospitality, tourism and leisure
industry share cultural features such as cooperative
setting of missions and strategies, development of
teamwork and organisational learning.
Tourism businesses are no different to other businesses
when it comes to the criteria that must be considered
in deciding whether to invest in them. However, there
are some specific characteristics that will affect tourism
business costs (Driml et al. 2010):
■■Tourism businesses are relatively labour-intensive
and therefore labour costs often make up the largest
proportion of operating costs;
■■The cost of inputs for capital investment and operation
are higher for remote locations;
■■The cost of capital will attract a premium if there is
uncertainty about returns from investment in tourism;
■■The price of land in tourist-desirable locations will be
governed by competition with other land uses which
may be able to pay more (due to higher returns);
19. www.hotelenergysolutions.net, accessed on September 30, 2010.
■■Project planning and approvals cost will be high if
assessment is lengthy or complex; and
■■Labour and land make up a high proportion of inputs
and are subject to payroll tax and land tax.
A question is how to address these basic issues while
making sustainable investment decisions. In this regard,
the ITF-STD recommends that “tourism businesses and
government institutions in charge of tourism should
adopt innovative and appropriate
technology to
improve the efficiency of resource use (notably energy
and water), minimise emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHG) and the production of waste, while protecting
biodiversity,
helping reduce poverty and creating
growth and sustainable development conditions for
local communities.” The business case for investing in
these areas is sound. At the private-sector level, hotel
owners, tour operators, and transport services can play a
key role in protecting the environment and influencing
tourists to make sustainable choices. Increased
public environmental awareness, including traveller
awareness, has contributed to the development of a
host of voluntary industry initiatives and the definition
of environmental performance at the national, regional
and international levels (UNEP 1998). Many larger
corporations are already addressing their environmental
and social impacts. In many countries, SMEs account
for the vast majority of businesses and can have a
significant environmental impact; however, they tend
to be more reactive to addressing environmental issues
(Kasim 2009). Nevertheless, increasing pressure from
consumers could force them to address more impacts in
order to remain competitive.
Enabling conditions for engaging the industry
1. Tourism promotion organisations, resource
management agencies and destination management
organisations (DMOs) should link tourism products (i.e.
parks, protected areas and cultural sites) more closely
with marketing positions. This will ensure a consistent
and unique selling position in world tourism markets
based on high-value experiences at natural and
cultural sites in a compact geographical area.
2. Tourism industry associations and wider industry
platforms play an important role in engaging tourism
businesses in sustainability as well as developing
practical tools to respond to many common
challenges. As in most industries, the concept
of Corporate Social Responsibility is increasingly
recognised in the tourism sector and is being
promoted by industry bodies, at the international as
well as national levels. However, a formal response,
including measures such as triple-bottom-line
reporting, environmental management systems and
certification appears to be prevalent only within
432
Tourism
a selection of larger firms. Smaller firms are largely
outside this sphere, and diverse supplier groups
may not be connected at all. Experience in many
countries has shown that well designed mechanisms
and tools to educate SMEs are critical, but are most
effective when they are accompanied by concrete,
actionable items.
3. International development institutions, such as
multilateral and bilateral cooperation agencies, and
Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) should
engage directly to inform, educate and work
collaboratively with the tourism industry to integrate
sustainability
into policies and management
practices, and secure their active participation in
developing sustainable
tourism. At the national level,
government and civil-society engagement should
be a critical part of these efforts to coordinate action.
4. The increased use of industry-oriented decisionsupport
tools would help speed the adoption of
green practices. Hotel Energy Solutions, TourBench
and SUTOUR are examples of projects designed to
provide assistance to Europe’s tourism
enterprises
to identify potential investments and cost-saving
opportunities for sustainable decision making
to ensure profitability and competitiveness
(saving money and investment in ecological
building measures and equipment with low
energy consumption); provide visitor satisfaction
(fulfilling their demands and expectations for high
environmental quality);
achieve efficient use of
resources (minimising the consumption of water
and non-renewable energy sources); secure a clean
environment (minimising the production of CO2 and
reducing waste); and conserve biological diversity
(minimising the usage of chemical substances and
dangerous waste products).
5. The promotion and widespread use of internationally
recognised standards for sustainable tourism is
necessary to monitor tourism operations and
management. The private sector tends to perform
best when clear criteria, objectives and targets
can be identified and incorporated into their
investment plans and business operations. The
Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC), issued in
October 2008, provides the most promising current
platform to begin the process of grounding and
unifying an understanding of the practical aspects
of sustainable tourism, and prioritising private
sector investment.20 The GSTC should be adopted in
20. The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria Partnership began in 2007
and member organisations include the World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), United
Nations Foundation, Expedia.com, Travelocity-Sabre, and over 50 other
organisations (Bien et al. 2008).
order to assess industry’s performance and support
policy recommendations. At a national and even
sub-national level, GSTC, supported by information
sharing and access to experts and experienced
“greening” pioneers, is a critical step.
6. Economies of scope in the tourism sector could be
achieved by means of clustering. A high environmental
quality is a key input by those companies that
pursue competitive advantages based on sound
environmental management. In the case of tourism,
the conservation of the natural capital of a country
has a chainable effect and complementary influence
on many firms. Clustering can strengthen backward
and forward linkages in the tourism value chain and
drive sustainability in the whole industry. Natural
and cultural attractions are the most valuable
assets for tourism development. The tourism cluster
must become actively engaged in environmental
management and conservation. Active collaboration
with the public sector and community organisations
will strengthen competitive position for the entire
cluster. In the case of Croatia, for instance, Ivanovic
et al. (2010) show that small businesses dominate
the tourism market share in the total number of
enterprises and generate the highest employment
rates and income. However, they also show the lowest
rate of productivity. This situation partly results from
limited understanding of the potential benefits of
clustering in tourism, including economies of scale;
growth of technological and organisational knowhow,
and higher market share.
4.2 Destination planning
and development
Destination planning and development strategies will be
a critical determinant for the greening of tourism. Every
destination is unique, and therefore each development
strategy must be sensitive to the destination’s unique
assets and challenges, while creating a vision to deliver
the destination’s goals for environmental sustainability.
Destination planners and policy officials are frequently
unaware of the opportunities that greener tourism
can bring to their destination. And even those who are
aware usually lack the skills or experience necessary to
build sustainability into new or ongoing destination
development efforts.
Advancing greening goals through tourism planning
and destination development requires the ability and
institutional capacity to integrate multiple policy areas;
consider a variety of natural, human and cultural assets
over an extended time frame; and put in place the
necessary rules and institutional capacity. A destination
cannot successfully implement a green tourism strategy
433
Towards a green economy
without the right laws and regulations in place, or the
right governance structure to oversee them. Legislation
should protect the environment, limit potentially
harmful development, control detrimental practices, and
encourage healthy behaviour. Clear rules in these areas,
based on the destination strategy and its unique asset base,
determine the direction, scale and scope of government
and private investment in more sustainable tourism.
Enabling conditions for greener destination planning
1. Higher-level government, community and private
tourism authorities must establish mechanisms for
coordinating with ministries responsible for the
environment,
energy, labour, agriculture, transport,
health, finance, security, and other relevant areas, as
well as with local governments. Clear requirements
such as zoning, protected areas, environmental rules
and regulations, labour rules, agricultural standards,
and health requirements (particularly for water, waste
and sanitation) establish clear “rules of the game,” and
define the operating climate for investment. These
decisions relate very closely to fiscal and investment
considerations discussed in the following section.
2. Organisations engaged in developing tourism
strategies should make use of credible scientific
methods and tools encompassing economic,
environmental and social approaches and assessments
for sustainable development that will help
stakeholders related to different components of the
value chain understand their environmental and
socio-cultural impacts.
3. Tourism Master Plans or Strategies provide a supplyside
approach for developing a tourism destination.
Environmental and social issues must be included in
these plans in order to manage the critical assets and
promote greener outcomes. Green transformation
programmes will be more effective if produced by
a multi-stakeholder participatory planning process,
as well as through the development of partnerships
at local, national, regional and international levels.
Multilateral environmental and social agreements
and the organisations that support them should be
included in the process.21 Public, private and civilsociety
stakeholders should make a decision on the
kind of tourism industry they want to consolidate
in the medium and long terms, considering the
possible impacts on the natural resource base and
21. For instance, the principles of the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism
adopted by UNWTO and endorsed by the UN General
Assembly as
well as the recommendations and guidelines provided by Multilateral
Environmental Agreements and conventions, as appropriate, including the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the World Heritage Convention,
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC),
the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the
Code of Conduct for the protection of children against sexual exploitation
in travel and tourism.
the development opportunities for the country.
Therefore, the creation of a sound institutional
framework is required. Coordination among key
actors and environmental regulations enforcement
are key conditions. In addition, when investing in
tourism sustainability, main short-, medium- and
long-term objectives should be followed, based on:
■■ The contribution to country macroeconomic
balances;
■■ The creation of local direct and indirect
employment;
■■ The use of local raw materials and inputs;
■■ The benefits created in other productive sectors
(multipliers outside the industry);
■■ The effects on local development and poverty;
■■ The modernisation, diversification and
sustainability of the tourism value chain; and
■■ The growth of the internal and external demand
for sustainable tourism.
4. When promoting sustainable tourism, a coherent
destination planning policy is necessary to create
a sound international reputation, a country brand
that differentiates and positions the country
competitively. According to FutureBrand (2008),
while tourism is often the most visible manifestation
of a country brand, it is clear that the image,
reputation and brand values of a country impact its
products, population, investment opportunities and
even its foreign aid and funding. Therefore, a holistic
nation approach is required in order to align public
and private sector initiatives to create a successful
country brand based on sustainability.
5. Assessment of carrying capacity and social fabric
should be considered to take into account external
and internal impacts of tourism at destination. While
it is difficult to evaluate due to great differences from
one destination to another, maximum thresholds
could be agreed on so as to provide guidance for the
development of planning policies.
4.3 Fiscal policies and
economic instruments
The greening of tourism will require a more sophisticated
use of instruments within government purview, such as
fiscal policy, public investment, and pricing mechanisms
for different public goods.
434
Tourism
Tourism investment from government should focus on
business motivations for sustainable management as
key targets. Incentives should be consistent with both
environmental protection and value added creation.
Market trends and competitive advantages need to be
mutually reinforced. In this regard, policy coherence
is a necessary condition. From a national perspective,
sustainable tourism policy should address market failures
(including externalities) in a consistent manner, avoiding
the creation of additional distortions through government
interventions. Like markets, governments can fail.
Selected interventions must incentive a more efficient
allocation of goods and resources than would occur in
the absence of government action. Social policy should
address compensation and benefits to workers, access to
improved opportunities, human resource development,
and value chain integration strategies. In the case of
sustainable tourism policies, more coherence in terms of
targets (location investments, development of specific
areas for destination, national and local infrastructure
investments), management (institutional coordination,
impact analysis studies) and incentives (effectiveness,
cost-benefit, and adequacy) is required to maintain sound
competitive advantages. Where possible, the use of
incentives should be based on market instruments rather
than “command and control” measures. Some forms of
market failures deserve special attention, particularly
those that prevent learning how new sustainable tourism
businesses can be produced profitably (self-discovery
externalities), impede simultaneous and integrated
investments which decentralised markets cannot
coordinate (coordination externalities), and missing
public inputs (legislation, accreditation, transport and
other infrastructure, for instance).
Enabling conditions in fiscal and government
investment policies
1. In the case of tourism, policy intervention towards
investment sustainability can be justified as far as
enabling conditions promote the sustainable use
of natural resources and therefore create positive
externalities for the society. Alternative, less
productive uses of natural resources (i.e. unsustainable
agriculture) or possible depletion activities (i.e.
housing construction) could be compensated (for their
opportunity cost) with policy instruments that increase
profitability for sustainable tourism businesses and
generate positive environmental externalities. Freeriding
(non-compliance by companies) should be
avoided with an effective performance monitoring
and impact evaluation mechanism. There is a need to
conduct periodical evaluations and impact analysis
of tourism incentives, from an economic, social and
environmental perspective.
2. Defining and committing to critical government
investments in the green enabling environment
plays a central role in determining private sector
investment and direction. Government investments
in protected areas, cultural assets, water, waste
management, sanitation, transportation and energy
infrastructure investments play a critical role in
private sector investment decisions toward greener
outcomes. Investments in public infrastructure
related to tourism or investments in private
tourism businesses should estimate their social
and environmental impacts and adopt economic
measures to compensate and offset unavoidable
impacts.
3. Appropriate taxation and subsidy policies should
be framed to encourage investment in sustainable
tourism activities and discourage unsustainable
tourism. Use of taxation is often resorted to for
keeping developments in limits (for instance, taxes
on use of resources and services at the destinations)
and controlling the specific inputs and outputs (like
effluent charges and waste services).
4. Tax concessions and subsidies can be used to
encourage green investment at the destinations
and facilities. Subsidies can be given on purchase
of equipment or technology that reduces waste,
encourages energy and water efficiency, or
the conservation of biodiversity (payments for
environmental services) and the strengthening
of linkages with local businesses and community
organisations.
5. Establish clear price signals to orient investment and
consumption. The price for such public goods as
water production and supply, electricity and waste
management send important signals to the private
sector. Governments frequently price these goods at
very low levels (frequently even free) to encourage
investment, only to find that low prices encourage
waste, place a drain on communities and make it
very costly (financially and politically) to raise prices.
4.4 Financing green
tourism investments
Environmental and social investments are relatively
new, and remain outside the mainstream of financial
markets (particularly in developing countries). In many
cases, barriers are based on misperceptions or lack of
knowledge. For example, for many green investments,
payback periods and amounts are not clearly
established (due to limited experience with them),
creating uncertainty for banks or other investors that
can jeopardise financing. Also, the return on many green
investments includes easily measurable components
(such as energy savings), combined with more difficult
435
Towards a green economy
to measure components such as “guest satisfaction”
which can make calculating returns tricky.22
In other cases, framework conditions in destination
countries limit investment. For example, higher interest
rates in many countries make investments that are
completely viable in wealthy countries, unviable in the
local environment. Another frequently cited situation
found in many developing countries is that the financial
regulatory systems classify “environmental” investments
as “non-productive assets”, requiring banks to hold
greater reserves, resulting in higher interest rates and
less investment.
Enabling conditions for finance
1. The single greatest limiting factor for SMEs in moving
toward greener tourism is lack of access to capital for
this type of investments. Green investments must be
seen as value-adding and made on their economic
and financial merits, without prejudice. This will
require greater private sector awareness of the value
of green investment, and also policy coordination
with Ministries of Finance and regulatory authorities.
2. Regional funds for local tourism development
could help overcome financial barriers for green
investments where investments also generate public
returns (through positive externalities). Foreign
direct investment (FDI), private equity, portfolio
investment, and other potential funding sources
should be also aligned with sustainable projects
and strategies for the tourism industry. Ringbeck
et al. (2010) argue that not all green initiatives are
financially possible for the local or national parties
undertaking them, and destinations are not always
able to generate enough revenue through their own
resources. When local financial resource limitations
exist, obtaining external funding could help ensure
the long-term sustainability
of investments.
3. Mainstream sustainability into tourism development
investments and financing. In this regard, the
Sustainable Investment and Finance in Tourism (SIFT)
network is working to integrate the expectations
of private investors,
the leveraged strength of the
financing and donor community, and the needs of
developing destinations. The SIFT Network aims
to establish a common, voluntary standard to encourage
greater sustainability in tourism investments
by public, private and multilateral investors; intensify
financing of sustainable tourism projects; increase
sustainable investments in the tourism sector;
22. For example, Frey (2008) found in a survey of South African tourism
businesses that 80 per cent of respondents agree that responsible tourism
management leads to enhanced employee morale and performance,
improves company reputation and is an effective marketing tool. However,
businesses are not investing sufficient time or money into changing
management practices.
improve capacity of developing destinations; and
leverage unique knowledge and reach others. SIFT
efforts should permeate to regional, national and
local financial organisations (counterparts), and help
integrate other global sustainable financial initiatives
(e.g. UNEP FI, Equator Principles) to support green
investments in tourism.
4. Establish partnership approaches to spread the
costs and risks of funding sustainable tourism
investments. In the case of small and medium
enterprises, for example, besides sliding fees and
favourable interest rates for sustainability projects,
in-kind support like technical, marketing or business
administration assistance, could help to offset the
cash requirements of firms by offering them services
at low cost. In addition, loans and loan guarantees
could include more favourable grace periods, soften
the requirements on personal asset guarantees or
offer longer repayment periods. Loans for sustainable
tourism projects could be set up with guarantees
from aid agencies and private businesses, lowering
risk and interest rates.
4.5 Local investment
As discussed above, sustainable tourism creates additional
opportunities to increase local economic contribution
from tourism. An often-overlooked aspect of these
linkages is that they also offer opportunities for increased
investment in local communities. Capitalised and
formalised businesses in the tourism value chain enhance
local economic opportunity (through employment, local
contribution and multiplier effects) while also enhancing
local competitiveness among tourists demanding greater
local content. This win-win situation is recognised in the
UNWTO’s ST-EP initiative. Notably, many of the targeted
mechanisms are investment enhancing as well as localincome
enhancing.
This promotes a greater number and variety of
excursions in a given destination, a “buy local”
movement in food and beverages sector and growth
of specialised niches. Efforts by tourism businesses to
include local communities within value creation, public
and private initiatives of local workers training, and the
development of infrastructure and supporting industries,
creates new conditions for business development, more
equitable growth and less leakage. These businesses
require investment, and can expect substantial growth
opportunities in successful destinations.
Enabling conditions for increasing local contribution
1. Strengthen tourism value chains to back SME
investment. Destination tourism is usually stable
enough to provide sufficient guarantees for investors
436
Tourism
and bankers. Long-term contracts for products and
services to hotels or other “anchor” businesses create
suitable conditions, and simple mechanisms to
monitor performance.
2. Expand the use of solidarity lending mechanisms
to permit groups of local suppliers to access credit
and build capital. Solidarity lending (guarantees
provided by a peer group) has proven successful in
fisheries, agriculture, and handicrafts – all industries
of critical importance to successful sustainable
tourism destinations.
3. Enhance development bank access to individuals
and small businesses that are not eligible for credit,
or are involved in the provision of public services
(such as protected areas management, guiding,
waste management, infrastructure construction,
among others).
4. Establish seed funds to permit new green industries
to develop locally. For example, solar collectors and
photovoltaic systems can be imported as complete
systems, or can be assembled locally from imported
components. The latter encourages local investment
and promotes local economic contribution. It also
permits adaptation of the technologies to better suit
local tourism needs.
437
Towards a green economy
5 Conclusions
Tourism is a leading global industry, responsible for
a significant proportion of world production, trade,
employment, and investments. In many developing
nations, it is the most important source of foreign
exchange and foreign direct investment. Tourism growth,
environmental conservation, and social wellbeing
can be mutually reinforcing. All forms of tourism
can contribute towards a green economy transition
through investments leading to energy and water
efficiency, climate-change mitigation, waste reduction,
biodiversity and cultural heritage conservation, and
the strengthening of linkages with local communities.
Making tourism businesses more sustainable will foster
the industry’s growth, create more and better jobs,
consolidate higher investment returns, benefit local
development and contribute to poverty reduction,
while raising awareness and support for the sustainable
use of natural resources.
The potential economic, social and environmental costs
of a “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario in the tourism
industry are not always considered when evaluating
the cost of investments toward sustainability. Concern
about required investments and financing sources
availability are common when considering actions
for making tourism more sustainable. Nevertheless,
empirical evidence shows that demand for traditional
mass tourism has reached a mature stage whereas
the demand for more responsible forms of tourism is
booming and are predicted to be the fastest growing
tourism markets in the next two decades. Tourismmarket
tendencies indicate that main drivers towards
investment in sustainable tourism relate to consumer
demand changes, actions to reduce operations costs
and increase competitiveness, coherent policy and
regulations, technology improvements, stronger efforts
for environmental and social responsibility and natural
resource conservation. These are leading transformation
of the industry and determining the returns on
investments.
In a BAU scenario up to 2050, tourism growth will
imply increases in energy consumption (111 per
cent), greenhouse gas emissions (105 per cent), water
consumption (150 per cent), and solid waste disposal
(252 per cent). On the other hand, under an alternative
greener investment scenario (in energy and water
efficiency, emissions mitigation and solid waste
management) of US$248 billion (i.e. 0.2 per cent of
total GDP), the tourism sector can grow steadily in the
coming decades (exceeding the BAU scenario by 7 per
cent in terms of the sector GDP) while saving significant
amounts of resources and enhancing its sustainability.
The green investment scenario is expected to undercut
the corresponding BAU scenario by 18 per cent for
water consumption, 44 per cent for energy supply and
demand, 52 per cent for CO2 emissions. This will result in
potential avoided costs that can be reinvested in socially
and environmentally responsible local activities—such
as local transportation and staff capabilities and skills—
increasing the indirect and induced effects of tourism
expenditure on local development. In particular, the
spending by foreign visitors from wealthier regions to
developing countries helps to create much-needed
employment and opportunities for development,
reducing economic disparities and poverty, notably
through the multiplier effect and the reduction of
“leakage”.
Tourism can have positive or negative impacts
depending on how it is planned, developed and
managed. Various enabling conditions are required
for transforming tourism to contribute to social and
economic development within the carrying capacities
of ecosystems.
To promote sustainable tourism in a green economy,
the national, regional, and local economy should first
provide a good investment climate, featuring security
and stability, regulation, taxation, finance, infrastructure,
and labour. Various tourism stakeholders should
collaborate and share knowledge and tools in order
to understand the overall picture of environmental
and socio-cultural impacts of tourism activities at
destinations. There is also a need for policy coherence,
which can include economic instruments and fiscal
policy to reward sustainable investments and practices
and discourage the most costly externalities associated
with uncontrolled tourism expansion. In the case of
tourism, government and private tourism authorities
should coordinate with ministries responsible for the
environment,
energy, agriculture, transport, health,
finance, security, and other relevant areas, as well as with
local governments.
By steering the direction
of policy and spearheading
sustainability efforts, government authorities can
motivate and influence
other stakeholders—both
public and private—to engage in behaviour that
bolsters a destination’s sustainability. It is necessary that
tourism promotion and marketing initiatives emphasise
sustainability as a primary option. To create local
development opportunities, marketing efforts should
ensure access to domestic and international markets
438
Tourism
by sustainable local, small, medium, community-based
and other tourism suppliers (especially in developing
countries). As the tourism industry is dominated by
SMEs, it is also essential to facilitate their access to
industry-oriented decision-support tools, information,
knowledge as well as to capital. Partnership approaches
to lower the costs and risks of funding sustainable
tourism investment and in kind support to SMEs should
be considered so as to facilitate the shift toward green
tourism activities.
The design and implementation of a sustainable tourism
enabling environment should be based on a sound formal
and well-documented analysis. Policymakers should set
baselines and measurable targets with regard to short-,
medium-, and long-term results of sustainable tourism
promotion and marketing. It is important to note that
the “success” of tourism destinations should be evaluated
not only in terms of “arrivals” but also in terms of broader
economic, social and environmental drivers, as well as
its impacts. Sustainable tourism policymaking should
be based on sound quantitative analysis. Valuation
exercises (such as choice experiments) can help identify
opportunities for sustainable tourism development from
the demand side. Tools such as input-output and general
equilibrium models, business surveys, and the Tourism
Satellite Accounts (TSA) can support policy design
and business strategy. The adoption of international
standards and criteria (e.g. GSTC) at a global scale is
highly recommended in order to assess comparable
results and unify an understanding on the practical
aspects of sustainable tourism enabling prioritising of
private sector investments. Further, increased adoption
of management standards for environmental and labour
performance23 would greatly assist tourism operators
in strengthening their internal management capacity
to reduce environmental impacts and protect their
workers, and enhance capacity to relate to community
stakeholders.
The effects of tourism can vary dramatically between
destinations. More quantitative studies are necessary
to clearly understand the reasons for such variations,
to expand the evidence base at a national and subnational
level on tourism and local employment,
procurement through local supply chains, poverty
reduction, environmental benefits, and other relevant
areas. Domestic tourism (in many countries the most
important source of tourism income) should be further
analysed. Business performance and the determinants
of higher ROI on green investments are key variables to
study.
This chapter analyses the main variables that influence
tourism development and aims to demonstrate
that concerted “greener” policies can steer the
growth of the sector toward a more sustainable path,
generating economic benefits, while strengthening
its social and environmental context. Its findings
and recommendations are addressed to all tourism
stakeholders.
23. Such as ISO 14000 series for environmental management, ISO 26000
series for social responsibility management and S.A. 8000 series for working
conditions.
439
Towards a green economy
Annex 1: Economic sizing of the sector
Table A1-1: Economic relevance of tourism in selected countries
Source: Author’s calculations with data from UNWTO (2010c) and WTTC (2010)
Country
Domestic tourism
consumption / total tourism
consumption (%)*
Tourism gross domestic
product / GDP (%)*
Jobs in tourism industries /
total jobs (%)*
Tourism investment / total
investment (%)**
Australia 73.9 4.1 4.8 12.5
Chile 75.0 3.1 2.6 7.5
China 90.8 4.2 2.3 8.5
Czech Republic 45.3 3.0 3.3 11.0
Ecuador 69.4 4.1 1.8 12.4
Honduras 54.5 5.7 5.3 8.4
Israel 61.0 1.8 2.6 7.6
Japan 93.5 1.9 2.8 5.8
Latvia 51.4 1.9 9.0 7.4
Lithuania 56.4 2.6 2.6 9.8
Netherlands 80.8 3.0 4.3 7.3
New Zealand 56.2 12.0 9.7 15.0
Peru 74.4 3.3 3.1 9.9
Philippines 80.7 6.9 9.7 11.3
Poland 41.0 2.0 4.8 7.1
Romania 47.7 2.2 8.3 7.3
Saudi Arabia 61.5 5.0 3.9 3.9
Slovakia 44.1 2.9 7.3 11.4
Slovenia 43.0 4.9 11.5 12.0
Spain 42.3 10.9 11.8 13.8
* Estimated with TSA country data for latest year available (mainly 2007). ** 2009 values.
440
Tourism
Annex 2: Drivers and likely
implications of investment in
sustainable tourism strategic areas
Table A2-1: Drivers and likely implications of investment in sustainable tourism strategic areas
Source: Author’s compilation
Strategic
area Sustainability drivers Likely implications
Energy
■■ Increased energy costs
■■ Likely carbon surcharges
■■ Customers expectations (particularly from Europe and
North America) driving operators and entire supply chain
■■ Availability of low-carbon technology
■■ Possible government incentives
■■ Decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies
■■ Eco-labels and/or voluntary standards
■■ Regulations/legislation on energy efficiency and performance
of buildings
■■ Maintain or reduce operating costs for tourism operators through energy efficiency
■■ Increased customer satisfaction
■■ Investment in energy efficiency (retrofits, improvements)
■■ New energy-efficient investment stock
■■ Investment in more energy efficient features and services (such as efficient refrigeration,
television and video systems, air conditioning and heating, and laundry)
■■ Differentiation of operators and their value chains
■■ Modest shift toward short-haul versus long-haul tourism, with the effect increasing
with energy costs (and offset to the extent efficiency is increased)
Climate
change
■■ Costs of GHG emissions (driven by post-Kyoto rules)
■■ Concern of customer base about footprint
■■ Host government policies and priorities (climate change
mitigation and energy)
■■ Uptake of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
■■ Climate change impact on tourism sites
■■ Same as for energy efficiency
■■ Increased substitution of fuels toward electricity, particularly increased investment in
passive solar collectors and PV, alternative fuels for vehicles
■■ Increased number of project developers orienting business strategies toward lowercarbon
footprint
■■ Expectations of broader stakeholder base
■■ Demand for carbon offsets and other mechanisms to compensate for residual emissions
Water
■■ Water scarcity
■■ Price for water and conflicts
■■ Expectations from travellers for responsible water
management
■■ Expectations from major tour operators
■■ Reduction in water costs from internal water efficiency
■■ Investments in water saving technology in rooms, facilities (such as laundry and
swimming pools) and attractions (such as golf courses, gardens, and water-based
attractions)
■■ Increase in number of rooms/visitors in water-constrained destinations
■■ Slight advantage to destinations with more abundant water supplies in terms of
variety of activities and cost of water resources
■■ Increased use of water treatment systems, at firm/project level and destination
Waste
■■ Customer demand for clean destination
■■ Public opinion
■■ Degradation of water resources owing to waste dumping
and waste water
■■ Pressure from major tour operators
■■ Lower pollution and natural resource
■■ Improved solid waste management
■■ Reduction of open waste dumping sites and poorly managed landfills
■■ Investments in waste water management equipment, treatment and disinfection.
■■ Investment in sanitary landfills and solid waste recycling capacity
■■ Lower sewage and clean-up fees
Biodiversity
■■ Increased tourist preference for experiences that involve
contact with wildlife and pristine (or near pristine)
ecosystems
■■ Expectations from guests that operators protect the
natural resource base
■■ Government regulations regarding sensitive ecosystems
such as coral reefs, coastal wetlands and forests
■■ National policies to attract resources through tourism
capable of protecting critical biological habitat
■■ Ecosystem services potential for tourism revenue generation
■■ Demand for nature-based tourism likely to accelerate as pristine areas become
increasingly rare
■■ Increased number of policies and related practices in mainstream tourism to more
effectively protect sensitive ecosystems
■■ Improved design of individual projects and destinations incorporating biodiversity
conservation in situ, and through compensatory mechanisms
■■ Increased incorporation of natural areas in tourism development and greater transfer
of benefits toward natural areas through entrance fees and Payment for Environmental
Service (PES) schemes
441
Towards a green economy
Table A2-1: Drivers and likely implications of investment in sustainable tourism strategic areas
Source: Author’s compilation
Strategic
area Sustainability drivers Likely implications
Cultural
heritage
■■ Tourist preference for experiences that involve contact
with authentic cultural landscapes
■■ Expectations from guests that their tourism operators
respect and protect traditional culture
■■ Increased awareness of World Heritage Sites
■■ Recognition and appreciation for cultural diversity
■■ Respect and recognition of traditional culture, particularly in context of assimilation
into a dominant culture. Help to community members to validate their culture, especially
when external influences of modern life cause the young to become dissociated
from traditional life and practices
■■ Conservation of traditional lands and natural resources on which the culture has
traditionally relied
■■ Help to reduce poverty within a community or cultural group; Increased opportunities
for young to remain in community instead of seeking alternative opportunities in
cities and towns; Meeting needs of cultural group, such as health care, access to clean
water, education, employment, and income
■■ Reduced risk of losing unique cultural attributes
Linkages
with Local
Economy
■■ Demand for more contact with local communities
■■ Greater number and variety of excursions in a given
destination
■■ “Buy local” movement in food and beverages sector
■■ CSR uptake
■■ Public and private initiatives of local workers training
■■ Growth of specialised niches (ecotourism, rural tourism,
adventure tourism, sports fishing, agrotourism, and
community-based tourism)
■■ Development of infrastructure and supporting industries
■■ Concerted efforts by tourism authorities, local officials and civil society organisations
to increase local content
■■ Responses by tourism operators and increasing use of indicators to track local contribution
(which feed into tourism satellite accounts)
■■ Deepening of supply chain in local economy, generating increased indirect employment
■■ Increased spending in local economy from income effects in direct and indirect
employee consumption and purchases
■■ Improved income distribution among industry stakeholders
■■ Decreased leakage (imports of intermediate goods and foreign workers)
442
Tourism
Annex 3: Assumptions of the model
1. Tourism energy management:
25 per cent of the tourism sector green investment (on
average US$61 billion per year) is allocated in 2011-2050
to both energy demand reduction through efficiency
improvements and increase of renewable energy supply.
Abatement of emissions from energy use: Emissions
from tourism activities are reduced in the green scenario
through efficiency improvements in tourism electricity
and fuel consumption and behavioural changes towards
longer stay and fewer trips, shorter travel distance and
transport modal shifts (from aviation and private cars to
cleaner transport, e.g. coach and electric railway). This
investment adds up to US$18 Bn per year on average
over the next forty years, or 29 per cent of the tourism
energy green investment in the green investment
case (G2). The same rates of efficiency gain and modal
shifts as in associated GER sectors are assumed, while
the assumption in increase of stay (by 0.5 per cent per
year) and reduction of trips (to retain total guest nights)
is based on the scenarios presented by UNWTO and
UNEP (2008). The investment is estimated by using CO2
abatement costs included in IEA (2009). More specifically,
for tourism transportation:
■■The length of stay is assumed to increase by 0.5 per
cent per year (on average 3.7 days in 2050) instead of a 0.5
per cent decrease per year (2.5 days in 2050) in businessas-
usual (BAU), in line with the scenarios of UNWTO and
UNEP (2008). To be consistent with the projected total
guest nights in other scenarios, tourist arrivals in the
green investment scenario are reduced. Thereby these
travelling behavioural changes result in fewer but longer
trips, but would not affect total number of guest nights.
In addition, IEA’s assumption of reduced travel is a good
fit with the green tourism goal (short travel and longer
stays).
■■With respect to transport modal shift and energy
efficiency in the green scenario, to ensure coherence
across the sectors, the same assumptions as in the GER
transportation sector are used for tourism. In accordance
with IEA’s reports, it is assumed that by 2050 in the green
scenario, 25 per cent of car travel and air travel is replaced
by bus or rail. The ratio of transport energy efficiency in
the green investment scenario (by 60 per cent) is based
on the amount of green investment and unit abatement
costs from IEA.
■■Renewable energy production: Additional
investments of 71 per cent of the tourism energy green
investment (or US$43 Bn on average per year) between
2010 and 2050 are allocated to the introduction and
expansion of renewable power generation and biofuel
production. The cost assumptions are collected from IEA
(2009).
2. Tourism water management:
0.1 per cent of the tourism-sector green investment
(on average US$0.24 billion per year) is allocated in
2011-2050 to both water demand reduction through
efficiency improvements and increase of water supply24:
Water efficiency improvement: The amount of
investment in water-efficiency improvement, aimed
at reducing tourism water demand, is assumed to be
US$0.16 billion per year on average (or 65 per cent of
investment in tourism water management) over the 40-
year period. The unit cost is assumed to be US$0.28/m3.
Water supply: The remaining (35 per cent) of tourismsector
water investment (US$0.86 billion per year on
average between 2010 and 2050) aims to increase
water supply from desalination and conventional water
sources:
■■Desalination: 30 per cent of water-supply investment
(US$0.026 billion per year on average), over the 40-year
period will be invested in water desalination. The cost to
supply water desalination is set at US$1.1/m3.
■■Conventional water supply management: 70 per cent
of the total water-supply investment (US$0.06 billion
per year on average) is allocated to conventional watersupply
management measures, including treatment
of wastewater, reservoir storage, and surface and
underground water supply. The unit cost to increase
conventional water supply is set at US$0.11/m3.
3. Waste management:
13 per cent of tourism-sector green investment (on
average US$32 billion per year) is allocated in 2011-2050
to upstream (collection) and downstream (reuse) waste
treatment:
■■Waste reuse: 8 per cent of the tourism waste
investment is invested in waste recycling and recovery,
totalling on average US$2.4 Bn per year over the next
40 years under the green investment scenario. The
unit costs of recycling and compost are assumed to be
US$138 per tonne and US$44.85 per tonne respectively.
24. The low level of investment allocated to tourism water sector is due to
the relatively small amount of water consumption in tourism compared to
the total of all sectors, as the same unit costs and improvement percentage
are used for all water users.
443
Towards a green economy
■■Waste collection: the remaining 92 per cent of green
investment in tourism waste management is allocated to
improve the waste collection rate, totalling on average
US$30 billion per year over the next 40 years under the
green investment scenario. The upstream cost of waste
treatment is assumed to rise from US$1083 per tonne in
1970 to US$1695.5 per tonne in 2050.
4. Training of employees:
12 per cent of tourism investment in the green
investment scenario, or US$31 billion on average each
year between 2011 and 2050. The cost of training per
employee is assumed to be US$117 for 120 hours, while
all new employees attend training for one year in total
over the duration of their career (together with the
assumption that as many as possible would be local
workforce). Overall, the total cumulative cost of training
one employee is assumed to reach US$2,854. A variety
of scenarios were simulated to study and evaluate the
impacts of the variation in training cost per employee
per year, in the range of between 30 per cent lower and
higher than the assumed cost (or from US$1,998 to
US$3,711).
5. Biodiversity conservation:
50 per cent of tourism investment, or US$123 billion on
average each year between 2011 and 2050. Three scenarios
are simulated based on different biodiversity conservation
costs. These are (a) US$119 per hectare, assuming only
forest conservation—using the average cost offered
by FONAFIFO25; (b) US$451 per hectare assuming the
possibility to undertake forestry and agriculture on
that land (based on the experience in Costa Rica, from
Forestry chapter); (c) US$1,380 per hectare assuming that
housing and other related business opportunities can be
created, based on what is offered by Amazon Carbon and
Biodiversity Investment Fund (ACIF)26.
25. Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, Costa Rica.
26. The Amazon Carbon and Biodiversity Investment Fund (ACIF) offers
between US$276 and US$3,450 per ha, but it is a very specific case for
100,000 ha (US$3,450/ha seems high for an average). As a consequence,
US$1,380/ha is used as a maximum value of conservation cost in this analysis.
444
Tourism
References
Adamson, M. (2001): “El uso del Método de Valoración
Contingente para estimar precios de las “Amenities” provistas por el
Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio.” Serie Documentos de Trabajo,
N°208. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Económicas,
Universidad de Costa Rica.
Ashley, C., H. Goodwin, D. McNab, M. Scott and L. Chaves (2006):
Making Tourism Count for the Local Economy in the Caribbean.
Guidelines for Good Practice. Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership and the
Caribbean Tourism Organization.
Becken, S. and J. Hay (2007): Tourism and Climate Change. Risks
and Opportunities. Channel View Publications, Cleveland.
Becken, S., D. Simmons and C. Frampton (2003): “Segmenting
Tourists by their Travel Pattern for Insights into Achieving Energy
Efficiency.” Journal of Travel Research, 42(1), 48-56.
Bien, A. et al. (2008): “Sustainable Tourism Baseline Criteria Report
(2007): ” Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria, version 5.0 (25 Sept
08). www.SustainableTourismCriteria.org.
Bishop, J., S. Kapila, F. Hicks, P. Mitchell, and F. Vorhies (2008):
Building Biodiversity Business. Shell International Limited and the
International Union for Conservation of Nature: London, UK, and
Gland, Switzerland.
Brenes, W., R. Martorell and J. Venegas (2007): Calidad de vida en
las familias y comunidades con proyectos de desarrollo turístico: un
estudio de caso en dos tipos “modelos” de turismo: Tamarindo de
Santa Cruz y La Fortuna de San Carlos. San José: Estado de la Nación
en Desarrollo Sostenible.
By, R. and C. Dale. (2008): “The successful management of
organisational change in tourism SMEs: initial findings in UK visitor
attractions.” The International Journal of Tourism Research,10(4).
CalRecovery and UNEP (2005): Solid Waste Management. United
Nations Environment Programme.
Center on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development (CESD) and
International Ecotourism Society (TIES) (2005): “Consumer Demand
and Operator Support for Socially and Environmentally Responsible
Tourism.” CESD/TIES Working Paper No. 104. April 2005.
CEPAL (2007): Turismo y Condiciones Sociales en Centroamérica:
Las Experiencias en Costa Rica y Nicaragua. Available in www.eclac.
cl/publicaciones/xml/4/28854/L779.pdf.
Chang, W. (2001): Variations in multipliers and related economic
ratios for recreation and tourism impact analysis. Unpublished
Dissertation. Michigan State University. Department of Park,
Recreation and Tourism Resources. 150 pp.
Cooper, C., J. Fletcher, A. Fyall, D. Gilbert and S. Wanhill (2008):
Tourism: Principles and Practice. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Fourth Edition.
Dalem, A.A.G.R. (2002): “Ecotourism in Indonesia.” In Linking
Green Productivitiy to Ecoutourism: Experiences in the Asia Pacific
Region, 92-94. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.
Driml, S., J. Robinson, A. Tkaczynski and L. Dwyer (2010): Tourism
Investment in Australia: A Scoping Study. Queensland: Sustainable
Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
“Equator Initiative.” www.equatorinitiative.org, retrieved on 27
November 2010.
Fortuny, M., Soler, R., Cánovas, C., and Sánchez, A. (2008):
“Technical approach for a sustainable tourism development. Case
study in the Balearic Islands.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 860-
869.
FutureBrand (2008): Country Brand Index 2008: Insights, Findings
and Country Rankings. FutureBrand and Weber Shandwick.
GEF (2009): GEF Annual Report 2009. Global Environment Facility
(GEF).
— (2010): Behind the Numbers: A Closer Look at GEF Achievements.
Global Environment Facility (GEF).
GHK (2007): Links between the environment, economy and jobs.
GHK, Cambridge Econometrics and IEEP. London.
Gössling, S. (2005): ‘Tourism’s contribution to global
environmental change: space, energy, disease and water.’ In Tourism
Recreation and Climate Change: International Perspectives., eds C.M.
Hall & J Higham, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Gössling, S. (2010): Background Report (Water) prepared for the
tourism chapter of the UNEP Green Economy Report.
Gössling, S. and Hall, C M (eds.) (2006): Tourism and Global
Environmental Change: Ecological, Social and Political
Interrelationships. Routeledge, London.
Hagler Bailly, Inc. (1998): “Assessment of Voluntary International
Environmental Certification Programs. Report prepared for Jamaican
Hotel and Tourist Association, Arlingon, VA: Halger Bailly.
Hall, C.M. and Coles, T. (2008): “Introduction: Tourism and
international business.” In T. Coles and C.M. Hall (Ed.), International
Business and Tourism: Global Issues, Contemporary Interactions. (1-
25). London: Routledge.
Hamele, H. and S. Eckhartd (2006): Environmental Initiatives by
European Tourism Businesses. Instruments, indicators and practical
examples. A contribution to the development of sustainable tourism
in Europe. Saarbrücken: SUTOUR, TourBench, DBU, ECOTRANS.
Hernandez, R. (2004): “Impacto Económico del Turismo. El Papel
de las Importaciones como Fugas del Modelo.” Sector Exterior
Español, 817.
Hiltunen, Mervi J. (2007): Environmental Impacts of Rural Second
Home Tourism – Case Lake District in Finland. Scandinavian Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(3), 243-265.
Honey, Martha, Vargas, Erick; Durham, William H. (2010): Impact
of Tourism Related Development on the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica;
Center for Responsible Travel; www.responsibletravel.org.
IEA (2009): World Energy Outlook 2009. OECD/IEA. Paris.
ILO (2008): Guide for social dialogue in the tourism industry.
Sectoral Activities Programme. Working Paper 265 prepared by
Dain Bolwell and Wolfgang Weinz.
— (2010a): Reducing poverty through tourism. Sectoral Activities
Programme. Working Paper 266 prepared by Dain Bolwell and
Wolfgang Weinz.
— (2010b): Developments and challenges in the hospitality and
tourism sector. Sectoral Activities Programme. Issues paper for
discussion at the Global Dialogue Forum for the Hotels, Catering,
Tourism Sector (23-24 November 2010).
Inman, C., G. Segura, J. Ranjeva, N. Mesa and A. Prado (2002):
Destination: Central America. A Conceptual Framework for Regional
Tourism Development. Latin American Center for Competitiveness
and Sustainable Development (CLACDS). Working Paper, CEN 607.
Ivanovic, S., A. Katic and K. Mikinac (2010): “Cluster as a Model of
Sustainable Competitiveness of Small and Medium
Entrepreneurship in the Tourist Market.” UTMS Journal of Economics,
1 (2), pp. 45-54.
Kyriakidou, O. and J. Gore (2005): “Learning by example:
Benchmarking organizational culture in hospitality, tourism and
leisure SMEs.” Benchmarking, 12 (3), pp 192-206.
Klytchnikova, I. and P. Dorosh (2009): “How Tourism can (and
does) benefit the Poor and the Environment. A Case Study from
Panama.” In En Breve, 146, August, The World Bank.
Lejárraga, I. and P. Walkenhorst (2010): “On linkages and leakages:
measuring the secondary effects of tourism.” Applied Economics
Letters, 17(5), 417-421.
Mill, R., and A. Morrison (2006): The Tourism System. Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company. Fifth Edition.
Mitchell, J. and C. Ahley (2007): “Can tourism offer pro-poor
pathways to prosperity? Examining evidence on the impact of
tourism on poverty.” Briefing Paper 22. Overseas Development
institute.
Mitchell, N., M. Rössler, and P. Tricaud (2009): “World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes. A Handbook for Conservation and
Management.” World Heritage Papers 26. UNESCO.
445
Towards a green economy
Moreno, M., F. Salas, M. Otoya, S. González, D. Cordero, and C.
Mora (2010): Análisis de las Contribuciones de los Parques Nacionales
y Reservas Biológicas al desarrollo socioeconómico de Costa Rica 2009.
UNA, CINPE, SINAC. Heredia: Costa Rica.
Naidoo, R. and W. Adamowickz (2005): “Biodiversity and naturebased
tourism at forest reserves in Uganda.” Environment and
Development Economics, 10, 159–178.
Nellemann, C., E. Corcoran (eds). (2010): Dead Planet, Living Planet
– Biodiversity and Ecosystem Restoration for Sustainable Development.
A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment
Programme, GRID-Arendal. www.grida.no.
Newell, G. and S. Seabrook (2006): “Factors influencing hotel
investment decision making.” Journal of Property Investment and
Finance, 24(4), 279-294.
Newsom, D. and C. Sierra (2008): Impacts of Sustainable Tourism
Best Management Practices in Sarapiquí, Costa Rica. Rainforest
Alliance.
OECD (2000): Measuring the Role of Tourism in OECD Economies.
The OECD Manual on Tourism Satellite Accounts and Employment.
Paris.
— (2010): OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2010. Paris:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Pan African Research & Investment Services (PAIRS) (2010): A
Framework/Model to Benchmark Tourism GDP in South Africa: What is
the role of tourism in the economy and what drives tourism in South
Africa? PAIRS.
Peeters, P., S. Gössling and A. Scott. (2010): Background Report
(Tourism patterns and associated energy consumption), prepared
for the tourism chapter of the UNEP Green Economy Report.
Pollock, A. (2007): The Climate Change Challenge. Implications for
the Tourism Industry. The Icarus Foundation.
Pratt L. and L. Rivera (2004): Perspectivas sobre la Competitividad
del Turismo Costarricense. In Revista Fragua, N°1, 2004.
Rainforest Alliance (2009): Análisis del impacto económico de las
empresas de turismo sostenible en las comunidades locales. Caso
Granada, Nicaragua. Proyecto Alianza Internacional para el
Mercadeo y Comercialización de Productos y Servicios de Turismo
Sostenible.
— (2010): Buenas Prácticas de Manejo en las Empresas Turísticas: sus
Beneficios e Implicaciones. San José: Sustainable Tourism Program.
Rheem, C. (2009): Going Green: The Business Impact of
Environmental Awareness on Travel. PhoCusWright Inc.
Ringbeck J, A. El-Adawi and A. Gautarn (2010): Green Tourism. A
Road Map for Transformation, Booz & Company Inc.
Rojas, L. (2009): Evolución e Importancia del Turismo en Costa Rica.
San José: Estado de la Nación en Desarrollo Sostenible.
Scott, D., Peeters, P., and Gössling, S. (2010): “Can Tourism ‘Seal
the Deal’ of its Mitigation Commitments? The Challenge of
Achieving ‘Aspirational’ Emission Reduction Targets.” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 18(2).
Sindiga, I. (1995): “Wildlife-based Tourism in Kenya: Land use
conflicts and government compensation policies over protected
areas.” The Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(2).
Six Senses (2009): Carbon Inventory Report. Evason Phuket 2008-
2009. Six Senses Resorts & Spas, Bangkok, Thailand.
SNV (2009): The Market for Responsible Tourism Products in Latin
America and Nepal. SNV Netherlands Development Organisation.
Spenceley, Anna (2004): “Tourism Certification in Africa:
Marketing, incentives and monitoring.” The International
Ecotourism Society, December.
Steck, B., K. Wood, and J. Bishop (2010): Tourism: More Value for
Zanzibar. Value Chain Analysis. SNV, VSO, ZATI.
TEEB (2009a): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for
National and International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding
to the Value of Nature.
— (2009b): TEEB Climate Issues Update.
— (2010c): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. TEEB
for Businesses. Executive Summary.
Toth, B., A. Russillo, A. Crabtree, and A. Bien (2006) “Implementing
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for Impact: A Guide for Tourism
Certifiers and Their Clients.” TIES, www.ecotourism.org.
Tourism Concern (2009): Internal trip report (India and Sri Lanka).
Tourism Concern (2010): Personal communication.
Travel to South Africa. “Nature-based Tourism.” http://www.satour.
co.za/more/articles/naturebasedtourism.html. Accessed 28
November 2010.
TPRG (2009): The Application of Value Chain Analysis to measure
Economic Benefits at Tanjong Piai, Pontian, and Johor. Tourism
Planning Research Group. Universiti Teknologi Malysia.
UNCTAD (2009): World Investment Report 2009. Transnational
Corporations, Agricultural Production and Development. New York
and Geneva.
— (2010): The Contribution of Tourism to Trade and Development.
Note by the UNCTAD secretariat. TD/B/C.I/8.
UNEP (2003): A Manual for Water and Waste Management: What
the Tourism Industry Can Do to Improve Its Performance. Paris: United
Nations Environment Programme.
— (2008): Building Nepal’s private sector capacity for sustainable
tourism operations. A collection of best practices and resulting
business benefits. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme.
— (2010): Are you a green leader? Business and biodiversity: making
the case for a lasting solution. Paris: United Nations Environment
Programme.
UNEP and UNDP (2001): Integrating Biodiversity into the Tourism
Sector: A Guide to Best Practice. Prepared for the Biodiversity
Planning Support Programme (BPSP).
UNEP and UNWTO (2005): Making Tourism more Sustainable. A
Guide for Policy Makers. United Nations Environment Programme
and World Tourism Organization.
UNWTO (2001): Tourism 2020 Vision. Madrid: World Tourism
Organization.
— (2004a): Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism
Destinations. A Guidebook. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
— (2004b): Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: Recommendations for
Action. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
— (2010a): Tourism and the Millennium Development Goals. Madrid:
World Tourism Organization.
— (2010b): UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, 8(2), June.
— (2010c): TSA Data around the World. Worldwide Summary.
Statistics and TSA Programme. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
— (2010d): Tourism and Biodiversity: Achieving common goals
towards sustainability. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
— (2011): UNWTO World Tourism Barometer. Advance Release,
January. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
UNWTO and UNEP (2008): Climate Change and Tourism,
Responding to Global Challenges. Madrid: World Tourism
Organization and United Nations Environment Programme.
WEF (2008): The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2008.
Balancing Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability.
J. Blanke and T. Chiesa, editors. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
— (2009a): The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2009.
Managing in a Time of Turbulence. J. Blanke and T. Chiesa, editors.
Geneva: World Economic Forum.
— (2009b): Towards a Low Carbon Travel & Tourism Sector. T. Chiesa
and A. Gautam (eds.). Geneva: World Economic Forum and Booz &
Company.
Wells, M. (1997): “Economic Perspectives on Nature Tourism,
Conservation and Development.” Environment Department Papers
55. The World Bank.
World Bank (2010): World Development Indicators database.
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-developmentindicators/
— (2006): Where is the Wealth of Nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st
Century. Washington, D.C.
WTTC (2010): The 2010 Travel and Tourism Economic Research.
Economic Data Research Tool. World Travel and Tourism Council.
www.wttc.org.
— (2010b). Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2010: South Africa.
Economic Data Research Tool. World Travel and Tourism Council.
WWF (2004): Freshwater and Tourism in the Mediterranean.
Available at: http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/
medpotourismreportfinal_ofnc.pdf
446
Tourism
447
ANNEX 5.19
UNWTO, Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife
Watching Tourism in Africa, 2015
Towards
Measuring
the Economic
Value of Wildlife
Watching Tourism
in Africa
Briefing Paper
UNWTO
Copyright © 2015, World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
Cover photo: © Janina Kubik | Dreamstime.com
Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa – Briefing Paper
ISBN (printed version): 978-92-844-1674-5
ISBN (electronic version): 978-92-844-1675-2
Published by the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).
First printing: 2015
All rights reserved.
Printed in Spain.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinions
whatsoever on the part of the publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) Tel.: (+34) 915 678 100
Calle Capitán Haya, 42 Fax: (+34) 915 713 733
28020 Madrid Website: www.unwto.org
Spain E-mail: [email protected]
Citation: World Tourism Organization (2014), Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in
Africa – Briefing Paper, UNWTO, Madrid.
All UNWTO publications are protected by copyright. Therefore, and unless otherwise specified,no part of an UNWTO
publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, microfilm,scanning, without prior permission in writing. UNWTO encourages dissemination of its
work and is pleased to consider permissions, licensing, and translation requests related to UNWTO publications.
Permission to photocopy this material in Spain must be obtained through:
CEDRO, Centro Español de Derechos Reprográfico Tel.: (+34) 913 08 63 30
Calle Monte Esquinza, 14 Fax: (+34) 913 08 63 27
28010 Madrid Website: www.cedro.org
Spain E-mail: [email protected]
For authorization of the reproduction of works outside of Spain, please contact one of CEDRO’s partner organizations, with
which bilateral agreements are in place (see: www.cedro.org/en).
For all remaining countries as well as for other permissions, requests should be addressed directly to
http://publications.unwto.org/en/content/right-permissions.
Towards Measuring the Economic
Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism
in Africa
Briefing Paper
Table of
Contents
Executive summary 2
1. Background 5
1.1 Wildlife crime challenges nature conservation 5
1.2 Tourism is a driver of sustainable development 6
1.3 Tourism is affected by the loss of species 6
2. Scope of the briefing paper 8
2.1 Objective 8
2.2 Methodology 8
2.3 Definition of wildlife watching tourism 9
2.4 The economic value of wildlife watching tourism 10
2.5 The survey 10
2.5.1 Survey participation: governmental institutions 11
2.5.2 Survey participation: Tour operators 12
2.5.3 Size of participating tour operators 13
3. Analysis of the surveys 14
3.1 Characteristics of wildlife watching tourism 14
3.1.1 Safari is the most practiced type of wildlife watching tourism 14
3.1.2 Locating wildlife watching tourism 16
3.1.3 Wildlife watching takes place in combination with other tourism activities 16
3.2 Importance of wildlife watching tourism and its main beneficiaries 19
3.2.1 Nature, national parks and wildlife are among the most important assets for wildlife watching
destinations
19
3.2.2 Wildlife watching tourism benefits a wide range of stakeholders, especially national parks, local
tourism providers and the local community
22
3.2.3 Wildlife watching offers a wide range of employment areas for the local community 23
3.3 Economic dimension of wildlife watching tourism 24
3.3.1 Efforts are ongoing in protected areas to monitor wildlife watching tourists, but results are not yet
consistent
24
3.3.2 Wildlife watching represents 80% of the total annual sales of trips to Africa and sales are increasing 25
3.3.3 The average price per person per day of a standard wildlife watching tour is US$ 243 and US$ 753
for a luxury wildlife watching tour
26
3.4 Effects of poaching on tourism 30
3.4.1 Nature conservation and wildlife are managed but with many shortcomings 30
3.4.2 Poaching has a negative impact on the tourism experience 30
3.4.3 Tour operators can play an important role in raising awareness of the issue and (co-) funding antipoaching
initiatives
31
4. Conclusions and recommendations 33
Annexes
I List of contributions and tour operators 36
II Available on international tourism arrivals and receipts for African countries 40
III List of participating governmental institutions 42
References 44
Set against the backdrop of the ongoing poaching crisis driven by a
dramatic increase in the illicit trade in wildlife products, this briefing
paper intends to support the ongoing efforts of African governments
and the broader international community in the fight against poaching.
Specifically, this paper looks at the wildlife watching market segment
within the tourism sector and highlights its economic importance with
a view to encouraging tourism authorities and the tourism industry
to collaborate in strengthening anti-poaching measures and raising
awareness of these issues among tourists. The analysis identifies key
economic indicators and characteristics of wildlife watching tourism in
African countries. This paper acts a first step towards a more systematic
measurement of the economic value of the wildlife watching tourism
market segment in Africa and in defining the role of the tourism sector
in the fight against poaching. In its research, UNWTO followed a multilevel,
participatory approach, collecting as much information as was
available at the international, national and local levels and creating a
network of contacts for potential future research.
This paper focuses specifically on non-consumptive forms of wildlife
tourism which offer visitors the experience of observing wildlife in natural
and non-captive habitats. Generally, the species of wildlife that can be
observed through this form of tourism are the very same as those most
often threatened by poaching and other environmental detriments. The
research findings are based on a review of publications, economic data,
case studies and other sources related to wildlife watching tourism, as
well as on the exchange of experiences with international organizations
working in the fields of nature conservation, tourism, sustainable
development and wildlife crime. In addition, to address a scarcity of
data and statistical information about the wildlife watching tourism
segment and its economic value, a survey was carried out among
African tourism ministries and authorities, protected area and wildlife
2 UNWTO • Briefing Paper
Executive
summary
Note: The report was prepared under the supervision of Dr. Dirk Glaesser, Director of Sustainable
Development of Tourism, World Tourism Organization with support from the Regional Programme
for Africa and Communications and Publications, and contributions from Dr. Mohcine Bakhat,
Gordon Clark, Virginia Fernandez-Trapa, Sofia Gutierrez, Borja Heredia Salis, Dr. Oliver Herrmann,
Lyris Lyssens, Stephanie Roth, Enrico Saltarelli, Michèle Schaul, Stephanie Stein.
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 3
conservation institutions, and international and African-based
tour operators. This briefing paper was likewise prepared
in collaboration with the Convention on Migratory Species
of Wild Animals (UNEP/CMS), which played an especially
important role in establishing contact with protected area
and wildlife conservation authorities.
A total of 48 governmental institutions (tourism authorities
and protected area and wildlife conservation agencies)
from 31 African countries participated in the survey. The
sample represents 63% of UNWTO African Member States.
Additionally, a total of 145 tour operators selling trips to Africa
from 31 different countries participated, 50% of which were
tour operators mainly from Europe (generally the principal
source market for Africa) and 50% were Africa-based tour
operators. The survey findings confirm that wildlife watching
is a very important segment of tourism for most African
countries, representing 80% of the total annual trip sales
to Africa for the participating tour operators, with that share
only increasing. The survey findings also indicated that for the
vast majority of the countries denoted in the paper, poaching
is seen as a serious problem that has negative impacts on
tourism that threatens the sector’s long-term sustainability
and its development opportunities. For example, the
employment opportunities generated for the local community
in accommodation, restaurants and guiding, as well as the
indirect benefits linked to the redistribution of protected
area fees and community funds are at risk from the negative
impacts of poaching.
Feedback from the survey also reveals a picture of where
wildlife watching tourism is taking place and what kinds
of activities travellers are taking part in. Wildlife watching
tourism occurs mainly in protected areas; and nature,
national parks and wildlife are considered the most important
tourism assets for tourists travelling to Africa. While the
regions that are most visited for the purposes of experiencing
wildlife watching tourism are East Africa and Southern Africa,
Central and West African tourism authorities are committed
to further developing this type of tourism. Safari is the most
popular kind of wildlife watching and is being offered by 96%
of the participating tour operators. This is followed by bird
watching, which is offered by 80% of the participating tour
operators and seems to be combined frequently with other
activities. In countries that are not considered classic safari
destinations, the observation of great apes, marine wildlife
and tracking of particular species are particularly important.
The exercise has also been successful in identifying key
indicators related to wildlife watching tourism that assist
in measuring the segment’s economic importance and
potential growth. For instance, a typical wildlife watching
tour involves on average a group of six people, lasts
10 days, has an average daily price per person of US$ 433
and captures an additional US$ 55 in out-of-pocket
expenses per person, per day. The findings also indicated
the differences between standard and luxury segments with
the greatest variation being in both average daily price per
person per day (US$ 753 for a luxury package and US$ 243
for a standard package) and in out-of-pocket expenditures
(US$ 59 for a traveller on a luxury package and US$ 44 per
person per day on a standard package). Little variation was
found between the segments related to the size of the group
or the average length of stay which seem to be consistent
characteristics of the wildlife watching product instead of
factors directly related to the comfort of the experience.
With regards to protected area visitors and receipts, results
suggest that a total of 14 countries are generating an
estimated US$ 142 million in entrance fees for protected
4 UNWTO • Briefing Paper areas. Because this figure covers only a small number of
countries and is based on some inconclusive data, it can
be assumed that protected area receipts are indeed much
higher than the figure suggests. Fortunately for the purposes
of future analysis, the research found that there are numerous
ongoing efforts being carried out by African governments to
monitor data that could be useful in estimating the economic
value of the wildlife watching tourism sector. That being said,
further improvements are needed as these efforts are often
not consistent and commonly lead to inconclusive results.
The data also indicated that while a majority of protected
area authorities are involved in anti-poaching measures, the
tourism authorities are only involved to a minor extent and
most do not distribute information on poaching to tourists. Of
the participating tour operators about 50% are funding antipoaching
initiatives and/or engaging in nature conservation
projects, however only a few are proactively taking the
initiative to inform their customers on the issue.
In conclusion, the findings suggest that guidance and
capacity building in developing consistent monitoring of
protected area visitors and receipts and subsequently
putting together a framework for the analysis of these data
are needed. In this regard, establishing a model linked to an
overall assessment of the economic value of wildlife watching
tourism in Africa that would connect data from protected
areas with tour operators’ performance would be most
useful. In addition, based on the experiences gathered and
the network established through this exercise, such a model
could be developed and tested with relevant stakeholders,
namely tourism and wildlife conservation authorities at the
national and local levels, and the tour operator community.
Ideally, the model should be able to look at specific kinds
of wildlife watching tourism (safari, marine, bird watching,
etc.) in order to be applicable to the very different settings in
which wildlife watching tourism takes place.
Finally, while the involvement in anti-poaching initiatives by
tour operators is not very extensive yet, the survey results
suggest that there is potential for mobilizing the tourism sector
in anti-poaching campaigns, which is significant in that the
sector can play a key role in raising awareness and potentially
financing (or co-financing) anti-poaching initiatives. Further
research is recommended in order to assess the level of tour
operators’ concern with nature conservation as well as their
involvement with conservation and anti-poaching initiatives
and other types of initiatives in place. Such research could
be designed in close cooperation with the target group
and not be restricted to European and North American
travel markets but could also include emerging markets for
outbound tourism to Africa like Asia.
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching T Tourism in Africa 5
1.1 Wildlife crime challenges
nature conservation
African countries have long promoted biodiversity
conservation through the sustainable use of natural resources
and there have been major achievements in the protection
and recovery of wildlife populations1. The dramatic increase
in poaching and illicit trade of wildlife products since 2005
– often referred to as ‘wildlife crime’ – threatens to undermine
these conservation achievements and endangers some
of the most iconic species to become extinct within only a
few decades – most prominently, elephants and rhinos, but
also other big mammals such as lions and gorillas as well as
smaller species2. Furthermore, wildlife is also threatened by
the increasing loss of habitat and loss of range3, among other
pressures.
The increase in wildlife crime is a result of widespread
poverty, underfunding of wildlife conservation efforts, lack
of law enforcement and political instability in the concerned
countries and a rising demand for exotic animal products
overseas, foremost in the rapidly growing economies of Asia
due to increasing wealth and recent changes in consumer
spending patterns4. While in the past much of the poaching
in Africa had been opportunistic, wildlife crime has become
a serious criminal activity involving transnational networks of
well-resourced and organized groups5.
Poaching and the illegal wildlife trade lead to detrimental
environmental, economic and social consequences. Wildlife
crime threatens the future existence of species and impacts
the ecological integrity of whole ecosystems, especially
as big mammals are essential for the maintenance of
biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Poaching deprives
communities of their natural capital and cultural heritage
and undermines sustainable economic development and
1.
Background
poverty alleviation. Wildlife crime is also a security challenge
that threatens national security, undermines government
authority, breeds corruption and restricts the potential for
sustainable investment, constraining a country’s social and
economic development6.
Over time, the international community has become aware
of the fact that poaching is the most immediate and direct
threat to wildlife in Africa, making its upward trend a cause
of serious concern. There has been progress in a number
of countries but compliance with international conventions
and law enforcement are still insufficient in many parts of
the world7. Therefore, actions against wildlife crime are
being reinforced and readjusted through the statements and
agreements among numerous international governmental
and nongovernmental bodies.
Examples of the enhanced efforts that are active in the
international community to address these issues can be seen
in programmes such as the Monitoring the Illegal Killing of
Elephants (MIKE) and the Elephant Trade Information System
(ETIS); the commitments made at Rio+20 (June 2012), CITES
COP 16 (March 2013) and the G8 Summit (June 2013);
the discussions held during the United Nations General
Assembly (UNGA, September 2013), the African Elephant
1
1. Miliken/Shaw (2012); UNEP/IUCN/ TRAFFIC/CITES (2013); Blanc et al. (2007).
2. UNEP/IUCN/TRAF-FIC/CITES (2013); WWF/Dalberg (2012); Milliken/Shaw (2012);
WWF (2013); UNODC (2014a).
3. Miliken/Shaw (2012); UNEP/IUCN/TRAF-FIC/CITES (2013); CITES (2010).
4. UNODC (2014a); UNEP/IUCN/TRAF-FIC/CITES (2013); CITES (2013).
5. UNODC (2013a); UNODC (2014a); WWF/Dalberg (2012); IISD (2013);
UNEP/IUCN/TRAFFIC /CITES (2013).
6. WWF/Dalberg (2012); Republic of Botswana/IUCN (2013); ICCWC (2011);
Ripple (2014); CITES (2013).
7. Nowell (2012); WWF/Dalberg (2012); IISD (2013); Milliken/Shaw (2012).
6 UNWTO • Briefing Paper Summit (December 2013) and the London Conference on
Illegal Wildlife Trade (February 2014); the side event held at
the First United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) of
UNEP (June 2014); and the launch of the Strategic Mission
of the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime
(ICCWC) at CITES SC 65 (July 2014), among others8.
1.2 Tourism is a driver of
sustainable development
Tourism is increasingly referred to as a driver of sustainable
development. It was mentioned in the UNGA Resolution
66/288 which endorses the Outcome Document of the
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
(Rio+20), “The future we want”, as one of the sectors capable
of making a significant contribution to the three dimensions
of sustainable development, noting also that tourism is
linked closely to other sectors and can create decent jobs
and generate trade opportunities. The document builds on
the previous Resolution 65/173, Promotion of Ecotourism
for poverty eradication and environment protection, which
“recognizes that the development of ecotourism, within the
framework of sustainable tourism, can have a positive impact
on income generation, job creation and education, and thus
on the fight against the poverty”.
Moreover, tourism has been identified as one of the ten key
sectors to evolve towards a Green Economy and is included
as one of the initial 10-Year Framework of Programmes
(10YFP) to accelerate the shift towards more sustainable
consumption and production patterns. Additionally, the
Conference of the Parties (COP) of Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs) such as the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) or the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance have also approved respectively
Decisions VII/14, on ”Biological diversity and tourism” and
XI/6 on “Cooperation with other conventions, international
organizations, and initiatives” and Resolution XI/7 on
“Tourism, recreation and wetlands”, recognizing the potential
of tourism to advance biodiversity conservation.
In economic terms, many countries in Africa, especially in
Sub-Saharan Africa, have benefitted from strong growth in
their tourism sector in recent years. Although the economic
importance of tourism in Africa and the continent’s share of
the worldwide tourism market are relatively modest (5% of
global international arrivals and 3% of global international
receipts), tourism has been increasing steadily with an
average annual growth rate of international tourist arrivals of
about 6.1% per year between 2005 and 2013. During the
same period, arrivals grew from 35 million in 2005 to reach
a new record of 56 million in 20139. The total international
tourism receipts for Africa in 2013 reached US$ 34.2 billion.
Absolute numbers are predicted to more than double during
the upcoming decade, reaching 134 million international
arrivals in 2030.
From a policy perspective, it is important to note that over
30 African countries have identified tourism as a national
priority within the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF)10.
This underlines that tourism is considered a priority sector
for many African countries and much hope is put into future
tourism development as a vehicle for economic growth,
job creation and poverty alleviation11. The multiplier effects
on local and national economies due to the broad range of
goods and services included in its value chain have benefits
beyond generating income and revenue12.
Research related to pro-poor tourism and experiences have
demonstrated the functions of tourism from the perspective
of sustainable development and poverty alleviation13:
–– Tourism can support the transformation and diversification
of national economies;
–– Tourism can be developed in remote areas and developing
regions that do not offer other export options;
–– Tourism is a labour-intensive industry and can create
decent employment for women, young people and
marginalized populations;
–– Cultural and wildlife heritage is one of the assets of many
developing countries that can be harnessed for economic
development; and
–– Tourism can create net benefits and offers a wide range
of opportunities for micro, small and medium enterprises
(MSMEs).
1.3 Tourism is affected by the loss
of species
The world’s highest levels of biodiversity occur in lessdeveloped
countries and these offer some of the world’s
most well-known wildlife watching destinations. Africa is
exceptional for mammal diversity and the main destination
for wildlife watching tourism14. According to the Centre for
the Promotion of Imports from developing countries in the
Netherlands (CBI), the destination of about half of all wildlife
watching tourism trips booked worldwide is an African
country. The global market size of wildlife tourism has been
estimated at 12 million trips annually and is growing at a rate
of about 10% a year15.
The leisure tourism market in Africa represents over
half of the international tourist arrivals to Africa16 and is
characterized by high-end trips to top wildlife watching
and nature destinations, niche tourism products such as
adventure trips and cultural heritage tours and lower-end
beach holidays. The middle-income market on the other hand
remains relatively underdeveloped17. The most established
tourism products in Africa are safari, beach resort, business
and Diaspora tourism18 while newly emerging products are
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 7
adventure tourism (mainly nature-related such as trekking
and adventure sports), cultural heritage and wellness/health
tourism19.
The most important long-haul markets for Africa are France,
United Kingdom, United States of America, Germany
and Portugal. Smaller markets include tourists from other
European countries, Canada and Australia, while important
future source markets are in emerging countries like China,
India and Russian Federation20. Furthermore, there is a
significant increase in domestic and intraregional travel in
Africa undertaken for a variety of purposes from business
and shopping to visiting family, to cultural heritage sightseeing
and other leisure reasons.
Wildlife watching tourism, like other types of tourism, is
sensitive to economic circumstances and has decreased
during this recent economic recession. Nevertheless, wildlife
watching tourism is a growing market segment and interest in
wildlife watching trips has only increased with a rise in media
coverage and Internet communication. Conservation issues
and awareness of the risk of extinction of an increasing
number of species also contribute to tourists’ motivation to
observe wildlife ranging freely in their natural habitats21.
Countries in East and Southern Africa are known as
the world’s top destinations for the so-called “Big Five”
watching (African Elephant, Cape Buffalo, leopard, lion and
rhinoceros). In addition to Africa’s classic safari destinations,
alternative or complementary destinations are emerging
with new products, for example gorilla trekking in Central
Africa. These wildlife-related tourism products can only be
experienced on the African continent and thus represent
a unique selling proposition for African tourism. In addition
to the mentioned iconic species, all African countries offer
outstanding opportunities to experience wildlife and nature
– including bird watching, observation of marine wildlife and
viewing of agglomerations of wildlife along migration routes.
However, wildlife crime is threatening the very existence of
iconic species that are essential to Africa’s image as home
to the world’s top wildlife destinations and thus jeopardizes
the basis of one of Africa’s most important tourism products.
Security, safety, the conservation of ecosystems, and
the quality of tourism products and services are basic
prerequisites for successful tourism development, while
poaching has serious negative impacts on the political, social
and economic framework in which tourism development
can take place. Consequently, the loss of wildlife caused by
poaching is likely to significantly impact tourism development
in Africa as well as the tourism sector worldwide linked to
the African market with the subsequent reduction of the
sustainable development opportunities linked to the sector.
1
8. CITES (2014); WWF/Dalberg (2012); IISD (2014); ICCWC (2011).
9. UNWTO (2013); UNWTO (2014a); UNWTO (2014b); UNWTO (2014c).
10. A multi-donor programme providing trade-related assistance to LDCs (online), available
at: www.enhancedif.org.
11. AFTFP (2009); Christie et al. (2013); UNWTO (2002a); UNWTO (2002b); (Ebbe 2010);
UNWTO (2013); WTTC (2012).
12. Christies et al. (2013: 1).
13. UNEP/CMS (2006); Job/Paesler (2013); Christie et al. (2013); Higginbottom (2004).
14. Higginbottom (2004).
15. CBI (2014).
16. UNWTO (2014c).
17. Christie et al. (2013).
18. African Americans wishing to visit the countries of their ancestors.
19. Christie et al. (2013), AFTFP (2009).
20. AFTFP (2009); UNWTO (2014a).
21. CBI (2014).
8 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 2.1 Objective
This briefing paper aims to identify key economic indicators and
characteristics of wildlife watching tourism in African countries in
order to highlight this market segment’s economic importance and
encourage tourism authorities and the tourism sector to collaborate in
strengthening anti-poaching measures and raising awareness of these
issues among tourists.
This paper is a first step towards measuring more systematically the
economic value of the wildlife watching tourism market segment in
Africa and in defining the role of the tourism sector in the fight against
poaching.
2.2 Methodology
This briefing paper is based on a review of publications, economic data,
case studies and other sources related to wildlife watching tourism; a
survey among African tourism ministries and authorities; protected area
and wildlife conservation agencies; international and African-based tour
operators; as well as an exchange of experiences with international
organizations working in the fields of nature conservation, tourism,
sustainable development and fighting wildlife crime (a list of contributors
can be found in annex 1).
The collaboration with the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (UNEP/CMS) for the preparation of the briefing paper is to be
highlighted, especially for the key role that it played when establishing
contact with protected area and wildlife conservation agencies.
The desk research was initiated in February 2014 and was followed by
an online survey which was concluded on 15 April 2014. Consultations
with representatives from a variety of relevant organizations took place
during the process. A first draft of the document was presented to the
2.
Scope of the
briefing paper
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 9
African Ministers of Tourism during the UNWTO Commission
for African Member States1 celebrated in Luanda, Angola,
on 28 April 2014. A second round of consultations focusing
on key questions of the survey was carried out with tour
operators in the month of May applying the Delphi method2.
The final analysis of data was carried out between June and
July 2014. The validation of the results by the governmental
institutions and contributors was completed in September
2014.
2.3 Definition of wildlife watching tourism3
Based on the definition of UNEP/CMS4, this briefing paper
defines: “Wildlife watching tourism is a type of tourism that
is organized and undertaken in order to watch or encounter
wildlife. Wildlife watching tourism exclusively relates to nonconsumptive
forms of wildlife-based activities as observing
and sometimes touching or feeding of animals, in contrast to
consumptive forms like hunting and fishing.”
The specific tourism products with a main purpose of wildlife
observation are often named after the animal or the group of
animals primarily observed. For instance:
–– Big Five watching (buffalo, elephant, leopard, lion, rhino);
–– Gorilla tracking;
–– Lemur tracking;
–– Bird watching;
–– Whale watching; and
–– Dolphin watching.
Safari is the most common term for wildlife watching tourism.
The word “Safari” originates from Swahili and means
“journey”. When used in English or German in colonial times,
it referred to hunting expeditions. Currently the term safari is
most often used as a synonym for wildlife watching tourism
and refers to tourism taking place mainly in protected areas
that offers the opportunity to observe and photograph wild
animals in their natural habitats. The classic form of safari
entails observing wildlife from four-wheel drive vehicles and
staying in tented safari camps or lodges. Newly emerging
forms of safari include trekking, kayaking or camel safaris5.
While safari tours and the above-mentioned specific tourism
products may represent the most common forms of wildliferelated
tourism, this briefing paper encompasses all kinds
of wildlife that may be observed by tourists. The research
does not include captive or semi-captive settings of animals
such as zoos. This paper aims to showcase the economic
value and related characteristics of tourism products that are
based on the opportunity to observe wild animals in their
natural habitat, as it is this form of wildlife tourism that is
threatened by poaching and other environmental detriments.
Furthermore, this paper focuses on non-consumptive forms
of wildlife tourism and therefore does not include trophy
hunting tourism. Trophy hunting tourism can be a legitimate
1
1. UNWTO has 49 African Member States (online), available at:
http://www2.unwto.org/members/africa.
2. The Dephi method is an interactive method of analysis based on a survey which is
conducted in two or more rounds, providing the participants in the second round with the
results of the first so that they can alter their original assessment or stick to their previous
opinion, (online), available at: www.rand.org.
3. For the following cf. Higginbottom (2004).
4. UNEP/CMS (2006).
5. FTFP (2009); Wikipedia.
10 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 10 and profitable wildlife conservation tool if managed effectively.
Nevertheless, against the background of poaching and the
illegal trade of wildlife products, the discussion of hunting
tourism among stakeholders including nature conservation
institutions and the African countries that take different
approaches with regards to trophy hunting, remains
controversial. Additionally, from both the tourism sector
and the consumer perspectives, wildlife watching tours and
trophy hunting are separate segments.
2.4 The economic value of wildlife
watching tourism
It is important to note that the subject of this briefing paper is
the economic value of tourism, most precisely of the wildlife
watching market segment, and not the economic value of
wildlife itself. The intrinsic value of wildlife and its various
contributions to sustainable development and human wellbeing
– including ecological, genetic, social, economic,
scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic –
are manifold and maybe more or equally important as the
economic value, but they are not the subject of this paper.
The economic value of tourism can be defined as the result
of all economic impacts caused by tourism. These impacts
are direct, indirect and induced through the total of tourism
expenditures, creation of employment, positive and negative
externalities, revenues from taxes and other public charges,
foreign exchange earnings and the related multiplier effects6.
UNWTO Statistics focus on measuring the direct economic
contribution7 of tourism to the national economy. They provide
data and indicators on inbound, outbound and domestic
tourism, as well as on tourism industries, employment
and macroeconomic indicators related to inbound tourism
such as for instance, the contribution of tourism to GDP.
The inclusion of the full economic benefits of tourism8 into
UNWTO Statistics is currently under discussion9.
Analyzing the economic value of the wildlife watching
tourism market segment in Africa faces some of the following
challenges10:
1. The availability of national tourism statistics for African
countries is quite limited and refers to the direct economic
contribution of tourism. At the national level, data on
international tourist arrivals and international tourism
receipts are available for the majority of countries.
However, data on employment or tourism industries or
indicators on the average length of stay and the average
expenditure per day are being reported for only a small
number of African countries11. In addition, Tourism
Satellite Accounts (TSA)12 are only available for a limited
number of African countries.
2. Where data are available at national level, they mostly refer
to the whole tourism sector, regardless of the different
travel purposes. A few countries account indicators
according to three different travel purposes, i.e. leisure,
business, visiting friends and relatives (VFR) and others;
but different segments of tourism such as beach tourism,
nature tourism, cultural tourism or wildlife-related tourism
are not identified.
3. Data on the tourism expenditure of wildlife watching tourism
at the destination level are not collected systematically,
or, where data are generated by registrations, surveys or
studies, these are often not published.
The review of the literature and case studies revealed that
there are numerous studies, projects and publications
analyzing wildlife watching tourism. Although the economic
value of wildlife watching tourism is usually referred to as
important, the reviewed literature focuses mainly on how the
economic value could be evaluated and points out that there
are no valid data available for such analysis. The very few
studies that eventually gathered concrete economic figures
on the segment were based on very specific locations and
demonstrate that the economic value of wildlife watching
tourism can reach significant dimensions. They also reveal
that, while the economic potential of wildlife watching tourism
might be underestimated, the realization of its benefits
in terms of tangible impacts on local economies and propoor
benefits can only be achieved if tourism development
is participatory, well-planned, managed and monitored, and
follows the principles of sustainability.13
2.5 The survey
Given the scarcity of data at the national level for the region
as well as the absence of relevant statistical information for
the segment of wildlife watching tourism, UNWTO fielded
a survey among relevant stakeholders. Specific questions
addressing the number of arrivals to protected areas and
related receipts were included in the survey. The existing
official data on international tourism arrivals and receipts was
used as a benchmark against which the results of the survey
were contrasted (the available data on international tourism
arrivals and receipts can be found in annex 2).
The survey was distributed to national tourism authorities,
protected area and wildlife conservation authorities and
individual protected areas. With the objective of accessing
relevant data on the wildlife watching tourism segment
potentially available at the national and local level, a selection
of questions related to key economic indicators and
characteristics of wildlife watching tourism were included in
the survey. Moreover, international and African tour operators
were surveyed to describe the supply side of wildlife watching
tours.
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 1111
The survey was conducted following a consultative
process with various tour operator associations via online
questionnaires from 26 February to 15 April 2014. A second
round of consultations with tour operators focusing on
validating the findings took place during May 2014 using the
Delphi method.
The following four specific versions of the questionnaire were
developed and sent to governmental institutions and the
tourism sector:
–– Ministries of tourism and national tourism authorities;
–– National and local protected area and wildlife conservation
agencies;
–– Tour operators from Europe and United States of America
(aka ‘international tour operators’); and
–– African-based tour operators.
All questionnaires were available in English and French, and
in the case of international tour operators, also in German.
2.5.1 Survey participation:
governmental institutions
Tourism ministries of all 49 UNWTO African Member States14
were invited to participate in the survey. The national
authorities for protected areas and wildlife conservation were
addressed through the national focal points of UNEP/CMS
which is a partner in this UNWTO initiative. The UNEP/CMS
focal points were asked to forward the survey to relevant
conservation institutions and individual national parks (a list
of participating governmental institutions can be found in
annex 3).
In total, 48 governmental institutions from 31 countries replied,
i.e. Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Cabo Verde, Chad, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic
Republic Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique,
Niger, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South
Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania and
Zimbabwe. The sample represents 63% of UNWTO Member
States and the respondents include 20 national tourism
authorities, 16 national wildlife conservation authorities, three
local wildlife conservation authorities, six individual national
parks and three other institutions. The balanced response of
both governmental branches can be interpreted as a sign of
their shared interest in the topic.
Figure 2.1 Survey participants:
governmental institutions
Governmental institutions, n = 48
The participating governmental institutions are from four
African sub-regions – six participants from five Central African
countries; 15 participants from 10 East African countries;
10 participants from four Southern African countries and
17 participants from 12 West African countries. There were
no participating countries from Northern Africa. For nine
countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Kenya,
Lesotho, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania and
Uganda), replies were received from both the governmental
branches of tourism and protected area and wildlife
conservation.
Tourism Authority 20
National Conservation
Authority 16
National Park 6
Local Conservation
Authority 3
Others 3
1
6. Smith (1998); Freyer (2011).
7. Tourism Economic Contribution is understood as the direct, positive effects of Tourism
Consumption, Tourism Gross Fixed Capital Investment and Tourism Collective
Consumption on a national economy. This includes the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA)
measures of Tourism Direct Gross Value Added, Tourism Direct Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), and Employment in the tourism Industries consistent with the System of National
Accounts. (UNWTO, 2011).
8. Tourism Economic Benefits are defined as the Tourism Economic Contribution plus the
secondary effects (including both indirect effects and induced effects) on the national
economy. (UNWTO, 2011).
9. UNWTO (2011).
10. cf. Higginbottom( 2004).
11. This absence of detailed economic data on tourism is not restricted to Africa; it is common
for many countries worldwide. (UNWTO, 2014c, UNWTO, 2014d).
12. The TSA is a distinctive method of measuring the direct economic contributions of
tourism consumption to a national economy. It is a macroeconomic policy analysis tool.
(UNWTO, 2011).
13. cf. Higginbottom (2004).
14. UNWTO has 49 African Member States: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cameroon, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon,
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao
Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland,
Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, (online),
available at: http://www2.unwto.org/members/africa.
12 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 2.5.2 Survey participation: tour operators
Fifty-eight tour operator associations from 27 European
and American countries and 12 African countries were
contacted and requested to forward the survey invitation to
their members. 17 responded positively and supported the
survey (a list of the supporting tour operator associations
can be found in Annex 4). In addition, about 700 individual
tour operators from 38 countries were contacted directly and
invited to participate in the survey.
A total of 159 tour operators from 34 countries replied to
the survey. Tour operators were from Australia, Bangladesh,
Botswana, Canada, Cabo Verde, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany,
India, Italy, Kenya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi,
Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, Portugal, Republic
of Korea, Rwanda, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland,
Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania,
United States of America and Zimbabwe (a detailed list
of the tour operators participating is given in Annex 5). 14
of the international tour operators surveyed do not offer
trips to Africa and were therefore excluded from further
analysis. The remaining 145 tour operators are from
31 countries; 72 are based in Africa and 73 in Europe, North
America, Asia and Oceania.
Among the African tour operators, a majority of the
participants are from countries that are well-known wildlife
watching destinations such as Tanzania (20 participants),
Figure 2.2 Survey participants: Governmental institutions by sub-regions
Governmental institutions, n = 48
20
15
10
5
0
Number of participants
Central Africa East Africa Northern Africa Southern Africa West Africa
Figure 2.3 Survey participants: African tour operators by countries of origin
African tour operators, n = 72
Uganda 8
Zimbabwe 3
Bostwana 2
Cabo Verde 1
Ethiopia 1
Gabon 1
Kenya 8
Madagascar 3
Malawi 2
Nigeria 1 Namibia 9
Rwanda 1
South Africa 12
Tanzania 20
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 13
South Africa (12 participants), Namibia (9), Uganda (8) and
Kenya (8). Zimbabwe and Madagascar are represented by
three participants each, Botswana, Cabo Verde, Ethiopia,
Gabon, Malawi, Nigeria and Rwanda by either one or two
participating tour operators each.
The majority of the participating international tour operators
are from Europe (62 out of 73), mainly from Germany (24),
The Netherlands (9), Italy (8), United Kingdom (8), France (5)
and another four European countries. The high participation
of European tour operators is linked to the fact that these
are the main source markets for Africa and thus greater
emphasis was placed in ensuring participation. Additionally,
eight of the tour operators participating are from United
States of America and Canada, two from Asia (Bangladesh
and Republic of Korea) and one from Australia.
2.5.3 Size of participating tour operators
Out of the 145 tour operators that offer trips to Africa who
responded, 140 provided information on their size15: 51%
fall into the category of micro-enterprises having less than
10 employees; 32% are considered small enterprises with
10 to 50 employees; 10% correspond to medium enterprises
with 50 to 250 employees, and; 7% are large enterprises with
more than 250 employees. In total, 93% of the participating
tour operators are considered MSMEs. It should be noted
that from the large enterprises, 2 tour operators employ more
than 6,000 employees.
1
15. The classification of enterprises per size used by the European Commission has been
followed, (online), available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/
european_business/special_sbs_topics/small_medium_sized_enterprises_SMEs.
Figure 2.4 Survey participants: International tour operators by countries of origin
International tour operators, n = 73
Germany 24
Italy 8
Netherlands 9
Portugal 1
Spain 1
Bangladesh 1
Switzerland 2
United Kingdom 8
Republic of Korea 1
Canada 1
United States of America 7
Australia 1
Croatia 1
Czech Republic 1
Denmark 1
Finland 1
14 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 2.
UNWTO Work
on City Impact
Measurement
The following section presents the analysis of the results of
the surveys (the questionnaires can be found in Annex 6).
3.1 Characteristics of wildlife watching
tourism
3.1.1 Safari is the most practiced type
of wildlife watching tourism
Governmental institutions were asked about the type of wildlife
watching that can be practiced in their countries through
a multiple choice question: a) safari (Big Five and others);
b) great apes (chimpanzee, gorillas); c) marine wildlife
(including whale watching); d) bird watching; e) special
wildlife tracking, and f) others. Additionally, tour operators
were asked about the kinds of wildlife watching tours that
they offer and the countries in which they operate.
All participating governmental institutions from 31 different
countries answered this question. A total of 92% of the
respondents mention that bird watching can be practiced in
their country; 73% state this for safari; 35% state this for the
observation of great apes; 45% state this for marine wildlife
watching; 38% state that special wildlife tracking; and 29%
state this for other kinds of wildlife watching tours.
Analyzing the replies from the participating tour operators,
bird watching is offered in 71% of African UNWTO Member
States, safari tours in 65%; special wildlife watching in 49%;
marine wildlife watching in 33%; observation of great apes in
24%; and other kinds of wildlife watching in 61%.
A total of 25 countries were mentioned by both the
governmental institutions and tour operators as wildlife
watching destinations. When comparing the public and
private answers for the same country, it was noted that
in a majority of cases (67%) those countries highlighted
by the governmental institutions as wildlife watching
destinations were also viewed by the tour operators. The
biggest discrepancy between the answers of governmental
institutions and tour operators related to the practice of
bird watching. Bird watching was reported as available by
governmental institutions in 92% of their countries, but was
only highlighted by tour operators as being practiced in 71%
of African countries. This discrepancy could be linked to the
fact that although bird watching can be practiced in almost
every African country, tour operators might often combine
it with other activities rather than offer it as a specialized
product and therefore the number of countries in which they
view themselves operating is smaller.
The other discrepancy between responses related the
percentage of countries that were considered in the replies
of governmental institutions as wildlife watching destinations
that were not considered as such by tour operators. Upon
review, this group of countries fall into two general categories.
Firstly, countries where despite the availability of natural
resources, tourism is in its initial stages of development and
secondly, countries that are specialized in a different type of
product, such as beach and sun holidays.
All in all, 96% of the 145 tour operators participating offer
safari tours; 56% offer tours focusing on the observation of
great apes; 57% offer marine wildlife tours; 80% offer bird
watching tours; 48% offer special wildlife tracking tours; and
36% other kinds of tours.
3.
Analysis of
the surveys
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 15
The results of the survey show that those countries in which a
higher number of tour operators are active, are countries that
are already known as wildlife watching destinations. Between
54%-61% of the 145 participating tour operators offer wildlife
watching tourism products in each of the following countries:
Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa and Tanzania. Data
indicates that the main wildlife watching product are safari
tours, offered by 55% of the tour operators, followed by bird
watching (offered by 31%) and tours for the observation of
marine wildlife, currently offered by 16% (this product is not
available in Botswana).
Countries where wildlife watching tours are operated by
22%-50% of the participating tour operators are Madagascar,
Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. For this second cluster of countries, the main
product is also safari, which is being offered by 22% of the
tour operators, followed by bird watching (offered by 18%)
and tours for the observation of great apes which is offered
by 11% (this product is only available in Rwanda and Uganda).
Between 5% and 18% of the tour operators offer wildlife
watching tourism products in Congo, Ethiopia, Lesotho,
Mauritius, Morocco, Senegal, Seychelles and Swaziland.
Nineteen more countries are mentioned as wildlife watching
destinations. This leaves out only 10 of the 49 UNWTO
Member States in Africa without being mentioned as
destinations for wildlife observation for the participating tour
operators. However, it is important to note that this last group
includes post-conflict countries and countries with very
limited tourism development.
Figure 3.1 Kinds of wildfile watching offered per tour operator (%)
Tour operators, n = 145
100
80
60
40
20
0
Safari Great apes Marine wildlife Bird watching Special wildlife tracking
16 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 3.1.2 Locating wildlife watching tourism
When answering the question “does wildlife watching in your
country/during your tours take place in protected areas?” a
total of 96% of the participating governmental institutions and
tour operators replied positively. Additionally, when listing the
top five destinations for wildlife watching in their respective
country, governmental institutions refer almost exclusively to
protected areas. Some tour operators mention that wildlife
watching tourism also takes place on private and communal
lands, but to a much lesser extent.
From a sub-regional perspective, it is interesting to note
that most of the activities of the 145 participating tour
operators are taking place in East Africa (90% of the tour
operators operate in the sub-region) and Southern Africa
(66% of the tour operators operate in the sub-region1).
In both sub-regions, the main products offered are safari
followed by bird watching. The third most popular products
are the observation of the Great Apes in East Africa and
marine wildlife watching for Southern Africa. These two subregions
also obtained the highest number of replies from
their respective governmental institutions when they were
asked to highlight the resources available in their countries
(80% and 73% respectively); a correlation which could
reflect the efforts of both the regions to create an enabling
framework for the development of wildlife watching tourism.
West and Central African governmental institutions were
asked if wildlife watching tourism takes place in their
respective country, of which the replies were 73% and 44%
respectively. However, as tour operators confirm this only
with 14% and 19% respectively for the sub-regions, these
figures can suggest rather the commitment of governmental
institutions from West and Central Africa to opt for and
develop wildlife watching tourism, which has not yet made it
into the distribution channels.
In the Northern African sub-region no governmental
institutions and only 2% of the tour operators mentioned
wildlife watching tourism as a product on offer. This
coincides with the fact that Northern African destinations
are traditionally placing greater efforts in the development of
other tourism products such as beach and sun as well as
cultural tourism.
3.1.3 Wildlife watching takes place in
combination with other tourism activities
National tourism authorities2 were asked about the
opportunities to combine wildlife watching with other activities
in their countries as well as about the types of activities
that are normally combined with wildlife watching through
a multiple choice question including the following options:
a) Resort; b) Adventure sports; c) Fishing; d) Cultural heritage;
e) Nature-related activities; f) Homestay; g) Volunteering;
h) Others. Additionally, tour operators were asked about the
additional activities that are included in their wildlife tours.
A total of 23 governmental replies were received for this
question out of which 90% indicate that wildlife watching
tourism is indeed being combined with other activities. Most
commonly wildlife watching is combined with nature-related
activities (85%), followed by cultural heritage (70%) and
resort/beach holidays (65%). Fishing, adventure sports such
as dune surfing or kayaking. Homestay and volunteering are
less frequently mentioned as activities typically combined
with wildlife watching tours.
For the 145 participating tour operators, the most important
additional activities included in their tours are cultural
visits (history, architecture, tribal and village culture, wine
tasting, city tours etc.), other nature-related and adventure/
sports activities (including mountaineering, hiking, trekking,
4x4 drives, mountain biking, golf, scuba diving, snorkelling,
kayaking, canoeing, white water rafting, etc.).
Figure 3.2 Activities combined with wildlife watching tours (%)
Governmental institutions, n = 23
100
80
60
40
20
0
Resort Adventure
sports
Fishing Cultural
heritage
Naturerelated
Homestay Volunteering Others
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 17
Case Studies (1)
Bird watching in South Africa
In 1997, a quantitative study on avitourism to South Africa
conservatively estimated that the country received between
11,400 and 21,200 birdwatchers per year which contributed
US$ 12 to 26 million to the South African economy (Turpie
& Ryan, 1998; cited after Biggs et al., 2011). South Africa
is a well-known bird watching destination with a diversity of
bird habitats and a high number of endemic species. Since
1997, there has been a significant increase in bird watching
tourism in South Africa, reflected in the increasing number
of tour operators specializing in birding and the number of
bird watching tourism products being offered. The market
has undergone considerable growth and the number of
bird watching tourists and revenues generated by this
market segment have only continued to increase to date.
The development of birding tourism has been promoted
by community projects supported by NGOs from the
tourism sector. Currently, there are more opportunities for
small business development along birding routes, which
contributes to the creation of jobs for local communities
(e.g., local birding guides) and supports conservation. (Biggs
et al., 2011).
1
1. UNWTO African sub-regions are: Central Africa (Angola, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon
and São Tome and Principe); East Africa (Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Rwanda, Seychelles, Tanzania, Uganda,
Zambia and Zimbabwe); Northern Africa (Algeria, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia); Southern
Africa (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland); and West Africa
(Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo).
2. The question was only addressed to the tourism authorities and not included in
questionnaire of the conservation agencies.
18 UNWTO • Briefing Paper Mountain Gorillas in Uganda
In the Bwindi Forest National Park in Uganda, mountain
gorilla families that are accustomed to humans can be visited
by small tourist groups for one hour with a special guide.
The permit to visit a gorilla family costs between US$ 500
and 700 per person. The visits to a single gorilla family that
attracts an average of 10 tourists in a day generates between
US$ 5,000 and 7,500 per day. Over a year’s time, visits to
this same family can generate up to about US$ 500,000 per
year (visits are not made every day).The total income of gorilla
visits in the Bwindi Forest National Park is about US$ 15
million per year. Additionally, a similar amount is spent by the
tourists on accommodation, transport and other services.
(Lengefeld, 2013).
Kichwa Tembo Masai Mara Tented Camp,
Kenya
The tented camp Kichwa Tembo Masai Mara is located on the
Masai Mara Nature Reserve in the remote western Mara in
Kenya’s southwest. The main attractions are the year-round
concentration of wildlife and the camp’s location on the route
of the Great Migration. As it is a private concession land,
bush walks and night drives are allowed. The tented camp
offers considerable luxury for a maximum of 80 guests. The
camp has about 200 employees, 70% of whom are locals
from the Masai Mara region. An average of 60% of the fruits,
vegetables and other farm products that are consumed are
obtained from local suppliers. The camp also supports local
schools, reforestation, environmental education, health, and
anti-AIDS programmes. The camp generates total annual
revenues of US$ 8 to 10 million, of which US$ 1.5 million is
paid directly to local communities for the lease fee, salaries
and purchases of local products. (Lengefeld, 2013).
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 19
3.2 Importance of wildlife watching
tourism and its main beneficiaries
3.2.1 Nature, national parks and wildlife are
among the most important assets for
wildlife watching destinations
To better understand the perceived importance of wildlife
watching tourism in the African countries surveyed, the
national tourism authorities were asked both “how important
is wildlife for tourism in your country?” and “is wildlife watching
tourism a valuable source of income for your country?”
In response, a total of 24 replies were received, out of which
79% state that wildlife watching tourism is “very important”
for their countries; 17% state that it is “important” for their
countries. 79% found that wildlife watching is a valuable
source of income.
National tourism authorities3 and tour operators were also
asked to highlight the degree of importance for the visitor/
customer of the following items: a) Nature; b) National Parks;
c) Wildlife; d) Cultural sites; e) Contact with local community;
f) Beaches; g) Luxury hotels; h) Shopping; i) Nightlife;
j) Good/exotic food; k) Adventure; l) Sports; m) Wellness;
n) Exotic destination; o) Handicrafts.
The 25 governmental replies received reveal that nature,
national parks, wildlife, adventure and cultural sites are
among the most important assets for the visitors to their
countries (rated as “very important” by 84%, 76%, 72%, 54%
and 48% of respondents, respectively). Also “important” but
to a lesser extent, are beaches (43%), handicrafts (38%),
good/exotic food (26%), the contact with local communities
(29%). Exotic destinations, shopping, nightlife, wellness
and sports are not so important for the tourists from the
perspective of the governmental institutions. One participant
also mentioned in the comments section that security is an
important issue for tourists.
Tour operators were asked the same questions. The 145
replies received from tour operators show that 95% of the
respondents evaluate wildlife, nature and national parks as
“very important” for their customers (rated 95%, 92% and
87% respectively). Culture, contact with local communities,
adventure, exotic destinations, good/exotic food and exotic
destinations get high rankings as well (36%, 31%, 31%,
27% and 25% respectively). Beaches, luxury hotels and
handicrafts range in the middle, while the majority evaluates
shopping, wellness, sports and nightlife as “not so important”
or “not at all important”.
Marine turtle observation
In 2004, a WWF study analyzed the non-consumptive use of
marine turtles for observation in 13 locations in the tropics and
subtropics of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.
In nine of these locations, this activity is considered a major
revenue generator while in the other four locations is only one
of many attractions. The gross-revenue attributed to marine
turtle observations was calculated by multiplying the average
tourist expenditure by the number of tourists that participated
in this activity. The analysis included all expenditures (food,
accommodation, souvenirs, transport and others) made
by tourists during their stay at the turtle-watching site. The
costs of turtle observation tours were relatively low as little
transport and no special equipment were needed. On the
other hand, tourists needed to travel to remote beaches
and the excursions were undertaken mainly at night, which
generates higher travel costs.
At the nine locations where marine turtles were the major
attraction, the study showed revenues generated from
US$ 41,000 to US$ 6.7 million per site per year, with an
average of US$ 1.7 million per year at a single site. The
sites employed anywhere from 30 to 1,280 tour guides,
and the hostel/resort owners and their employees received
direct economic benefits from the turtle-watching tourism.
At the four destinations where turtles are only one of many
attractions, the revenue from turtle observation ranged from
US$ 3,000 to US$ 106,000 per year with an average of
US$ 41,000 per year. (Troëng/Drews, 2004).
1
3. The question was only addressed to the tourism authorities and not included in
questionnaire of the conservation agencies.
20 UNWTO • Briefing Paper Figure 3.3 Importance of tourism assets for visitors (%)
Governmental institutions, n = 25
Type of entries
Handicrafts
Exotic destination
Wellness
Sports
Adventure
Good/exotic food
Nightlife
Shopping
Luxury hotels
Beaches
Contact with local
Cultural sites
Wildlife
National parks
Nature
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
■ Not at all important ■ Not so important ■ Important ■ Very important
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 21
Figure 3.4 Importance of tourism assets for customers (%)
Tour operators, n = 145
Handicrafts
Exotic destination
Wellness
Sports
Adventure
Good/exotic food
Nightlife
Shopping
Luxury hotels
Beaches
Contact with local
Cultural sites
Wildlife
National parks
Nature
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
■ Not at all important ■ Not so important ■ Important ■ Very important
Type of entries
22 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 3.2.2 Wildlife watching tourism benefits a wide
range of stakeholders, especially national
parks, local tourism providers and the
local community
National tourism authorities4 were asked about who
benefits from wildlife watching tourism through a multiple
choice question, which gave the following options: a) Local
communities; b) Local tour operators; c) Local tourism
service providers; d) Other local providers; e) Local tourism
authorities; f) Local governments; g) National tour operators;
h) National hotel chains; i) National Parks; j) National tourism
authorities; k) National governments; l) International tour
operators; m) International hotel chains.
The 26 governmental institutions that responded indicated
that there is a wide range of beneficiaries from wildlife
watching tourism in their countries (the majority selected
an average of eight different beneficiary categories from
the 13 options proposed). National parks and local tourism
providers are mentioned most frequently as beneficiaries
(both by 85% of respondents), but also local communities
(73%), national tour operators (69%) and other local providers
(69%). Between 50% and 58% of the participants state that
national and local governments, national tourism authorities,
international tour operators and national hotel chains benefit
as well. Local tourism authorities are mentioned by 35%, and
international hotel chains by 23% of the participants.
Governmental institutions were also requested to indicate
whether local communities “receive direct and/or indirect
benefits” from wildlife watching tourism by selecting among
the following replies: a) Supply of food and beverages;
b) Supply of cultural goods and services; c) Supply of other
goods and services; d) Proportion of national park fees;
e) Proportion of taxes/licenses related to tourism.
The replies from the majority of the 47 governmental
institutions that answered this question indicate that local
communities are involved in wildlife watching tourism and
obtain direct (72%) and indirect (82%) benefits from it. In
most cases, local communities provide different goods
and services directly to the tourists, cultural goods and
services being the most important ones for the participating
governmental institutions (mentioned in 88% of the cases),
followed by food and beverages (68%) and other goods
and services (59%). With regard to indirect benefits, 35%
of the responses from participating governmental institutions
Figure 3.5 Beneficiaries of wildlife watching tourism (%)
Governmental institutions, n = 26 (cases) Question included only in the questionnaire addressed to Tourism authorities.
International hotel chains
International tour operators
The national governments
National tourism authorities
National parks
National hotel chains
National tour operators
Local governments
Local tourism authorities
Other local providers
Local tourism service providers
Local tour operators
Local communities
0 5 10 15 20 25
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 23
reported that communities get a proportion of national park
fees; 13% mention the proportion of tourism-related taxes or
licenses as an indirect benefit for communities, and; 46% of
the replies list other indirect benefits. For instance:
–– Community development programmes, e.g., education,
health, youth, SME development, ecotourism, alternative
livelihoods;
–– Establishment of infrastructure like water supply and
access roads to parks in remote areas;
–– Tourism concessions areas allowing for the establishment
of self-employed/SME tourism businesses; and
–– Nature conservation.
3.2.3 Wildlife watching offers a wide range of
employment areas for the local community
Governmental institutions were requested to indicate whether
“local communities are employed by tourism service providers
that offer wildlife watching tours in your country” and the type
of jobs that they are offered through the following multiple
choice options: a) Accommodation; b) Restaurants; c) Tour
guides; d) Local tour operators; e) Transport; f) Porters;
g) Craftsmen; h) Rangers5; and i) Others.
A total of 48 governmental institutions replied to this
question and 75% of those responses state that members
of local communities are employed within the wildlife
watching tourism sector. Where the response indicates local
community involvement, the most important employment
areas are tour guiding (86%), accommodation (83%),
restaurants (75%), craftsmen (72%) and rangers (70%). To a
lesser extent opportunities for work are provided in transport
companies and with local tour operators (61% and 58%).
Porters are mentioned by only a small number of participants
(36%) but this may be due to the fact that porters are only
required for certain forms of tourism that involve challenging
and/or overnight trekking in remote areas, e.g., tracking of
primates in dense rainforests. Other forms of employment
mentioned by the participants are cultural performances,
jobs in accounting, security, outreach and communication.
Additionally, tour operators were asked to list the local
services that they commonly include in their wildlife watching
tours as well as those services that are typically used by their
customers but not included in their tours through the following
multiple choice answer: a) Accommodation, b) Restaurants;
c) Food and beverages; d) Wellness; e) Transport; f) Tour
guides; g) Inbound local tour operators; h) National park/
protected area service; i) Cultural performances; j) Others.
The responses from the 145 tour operators that replied to this
question mention that their wildlife watching tours commonly
include accommodation (99%), transport (95%), tour guides
(94%) and national park services (90%). Restaurants (64%),
local tour operators (62%), cultural performances (58%) and
food and beverages (47%) are included to a lesser extent.
Wellness services (e.g., beauty treatments, massages) and
other services are not commonly included in the tours.
Among the other services listed by the participants are sports
and adventure activities, meet and greet services, special
wildlife permits, luggage service, souvenirs, motorcycle rent
and trophy fees.
1
4. The question was only addressed to the tourism authorities and not included in
questionnaire of the conservation agencies.
5. Only the national and local protected area and wildlife conservation agencies questionnaire
included “Rangers” among the multiple choice answers and not the national tourism
authorities’ questionnaire. 23 governmental institutions answered this question.
Figure 3.6 Direct and indirect beneficiaries for wildlife watching tourism (%)
Governmental institutions, n = 26 (cases) *Question asked only in the tourism authorities’
68
88
59
35
13 13
46
Supply of food and
beverages
Supply of cultural
goods and services
(souvenirs,
handicrafts, village
visits, events,
festivals, etc.)
Supply of others
goods and services
(clothes,
construction
material, medicinal
plants, etc.)
They get a
proportion
of national
park fees
They get a
proportion of
taxes/licences
related to tourism
None Others
Direct benefits Indirect benefits
24 UNWTO • Briefing Paper On the other hand, with regards to the services that their
customers typically use in addition to their tour package,
all the listed services are mentioned by fewer participants.
This could imply that local services are booked through the
tour operators rather than purchased by the tourists on-site.
Cultural performances/ souvenirs (66%), wellness (63%)
and food and beverages (47%) get the highest numbers,
followed by restaurants (33%), local tour operators (13%)
and national park services (12%). Other services typically
used by customers of the participating tour operators but not
included in the packages are sports and adventure activities,
education, homestay, tips, porter fees and laundry.
3.3 Economic dimension of wildlife
watching tourism
3.3.1 Efforts are ongoing in protected areas
to monitor wildlife watching tourists, but
results are not yet consistent
All governmental institutions were requested to indicate
whether they monitor the numbers of wildlife watching
tourists through any or all of the following multiple choice
options: a) Entrance tickets; b) Official registration forms;
c) Surveys; d) Tourist information point; e) Others.
A total of 47 governmental institutions provided an answer
and 81% report that numbers of wildlife watching tourists are
monitored, in all cases by official registration, entrance tickets
sold for protected areas, monitoring tourist information points
or similar records. Nevertheless, only six of the national level
governmental institutions entered information on the results
of these activities and further research would need to be
undertaken to ensure their comparability.
Additionally, national and local protected area and wildlife
conservation agencies were asked the question “do tourists
visit your national park mainly for wildlife watching or do they
come for other activities?” offering the following multiple
choice options: a) 100% of visitors come to observe wildlife;
b) Visitors come to observe wildlife and for other naturerelated
activities; c) Visitors come mainly for other naturerelated
activities.
A total of 24 national and local wildlife and conservation
agencies provided an answer that 38% reporting that 100%
of the visitors to protected areas come to observe wildlife;
54% visitors come to observe wildlife and for other naturerelated
activities, and 8% visitors come mainly for other
nature-related activities.
In the absence of regular statistical records of the number
of wildlife watching tourists, the number of protected area
visitors and receipts is valuable information for the evaluation
Figure 3.7 Local services included in wildlife watching tour packages (%)
Tour operators, n = 145
Accommodation
Restaurants
Food and beverages
Wellness
Transport
Tour guides
Inbound local TO
National parks services
Cultural performances
Others
0 20 40 60 80 100
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 25
of the importance of wildlife watching tourism for a country
or a destination and therefore the questionnaires addressed
to governmental institutions included detailed questions in
this regard.
Governmental institutions from 14 countries entered data on
the number of protected area visitors and receipts. Based on
the results, three groups of countries can be distinguished
according to their visitor numbers:
1. Countries with a major number of visitors in protected
areas: between 2 and 5 million visitors per year. It is
estimated that these countries have receipts up to
US$ 90 million. (Kenya, South Africa).
2. Countries with a medium number of visitors in protected
areas: between 100,000 and over 500,000 visitors per
year. It is estimated that they have receipts between
US$ 2 and 15 million. (Ethiopia, Lesotho, Swaziland,
Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe).
3. Countries with a limited number of visitors in protected
areas: between 1,000 and 90,000 visitors per year. It is
estimated that they have receipts between US$ 20,000
and 700,000 per year. (Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Niger).
According to the survey replies, protected area receipts
from the 14 above-mentioned countries would total US$ 142
million per year. When using the total number of visitors in
combination with the average entry fees provided for the
same calculation, the total protected area receipts for the
same countries would add up to US$ 168 million per year.
It should be noted that the replies related to protected area
visitors and receipts of protected areas are spread over a very
large range. This could be linked to the different circumstances
of the participating countries. Nevertheless, further research
would be required to validate and complement these data
and therefore, only estimations are being presented.
3.3.2 Wildlife watching represents 80% of the
total annual sales of trips to Africa and
sales are increasing
The tour operators were asked to describe their business
performance to provide information about the following
items: a) the number of tours sold that includes wildlife
watching; b) the number of customers on tours that include
wildlife watching; c) the percentage of their product portfolio
that wildlife watching tours represent; d) their annual sales,
and; e) the sales trends.
From the participating 145 tour operators, depending on the
question, between 105 and 123 entered data related to the
number of tours, customers and percentage of their product
portfolio that wildlife watching represents. In total, the tour
operators participating represented more than 26,500 tours
per year6, with the biggest seller selling 3,000 and the smaller
seller selling 1 tour per year. The average tours sold is
181 tours per year per tour operator. However, this figure is
not representative for the whole sample of respondents due
to the difference in sizes of the tour operating companies
(83% of the respondents are MSMEs) and therefore, the data
has been split depending on the size of the tour operator in
the table below.
Micro Small Medium Large
Tours sold including wildlife7 4,076 9,656 7,337 4,323
Share of wildlife tours out of all tours sold with Africa as a destination 76% 70% 72% 66%
Number of tour operators replying 57 43 11 6
Average number of tours sold annually per operator 72 225 667 721
Participating tour operators sold tours to more than 144,000
customers per year. The range started as low as 2 customers
and reached 13,500 customers per year per tour operator,
with an average of 1,203 customers per year per tour
operator. In the following, data is provided related to the size
of the tour operating companies (82% of the respondents
are MSMEs).
1
6. Replies totalled in 26,783 tours.
7. In order to calculate the breakdown of tours per size of tour operator, only the entries from
tour operators which had provided information on their size was used.
26 UNWTO • Briefing Paper All in all, wildlife watching represents a high percentage of
the participating tour operators’ product portfolio (73%) and
clients (75%).
A total of 83 tour operators provided data on annual sales
from wildlife watching tours, which totaled US$ 263 million.
When analyzing the annual revenue from wildlife watching
tours by tour operator size, it was discovered that out of
the sample, 52% are micro enterprises which have annual
sales of US$ 47 million in total (average per company is
US$ 1 million); 31% of the sample is comprised of small
enterprises which have annual total sales of US$ 92 million
(average per company is US$ 3.5 million); 12% of the sample
is composed of medium enterprises with annual sales of
US$ 48 million (average per company is US$ 5 million), and;
5% of the sample is represented by large enterprise with annual
sales adding up to US$ 70 million (average per company is
US$ 17.5 million).
In total, wildlife watching tours represent 88% of the total
annual revenues of trips to Africa for the participating tour
operators. Interestingly, 20% of the participating tour
operators sell only wildlife watching tours.
The majority (60%) of the 140 participating tour operator
respondents state that the sales of wildlife watching tours
have been increasing over the last five years. Another
24% find the situation stable and only 16% experienced
a decrease in the wildlife watching tours sold in the same
period. Some of the participants state that the reasons for
decreased demand most probably link to the financial crisis
and recession in North America and Europe. However,
security issues, poaching and negative media coverage
are also mentioned as factors influencing the decrease of
arrivals.
3.3.3 The average price per person per day of a
standard wildlife watching tour is US$ 243
and US$ 753 for a luxury wildlife watching
tour
Tour operators were also asked to elaborate on the following
key economic indicators: a) average size of groups;
b) average length of stay; c) average tour price per day
(excluding flights), and; d) average additional out-of-pocket
spending per day.
Replies provided by the tour operators have been analyzed by
splitting them into the two main segments, i.e. standard tours
and luxury tours. This segmentation was done based on data
provided and validated with each operator. Key economic
indicators were provided by 114 to 128 tour operators.
128 tour operators replied to the second round of
consultations which intended to confirm some initial results.
Out of the 128 tour operators that participated in the second
round of consultations, 42% are specialized in the “standard”
segment while 28% are specialized in the “luxury” segment.
Another 30% positioned themselves in both segments
targeting customers from the “standard” and the “luxury”
markets.
The data of the survey suggests that the average number of
participants in a wildlife watching tour is 6 persons, though
the number of participants can range from 1 to 30 persons.
In the “standard” market segment the average number
of participants per tour is 7 and can range from 2 to 30
persons. In the “luxury” market segment the average number
of participants per tour is 5 and ranges from 1 to 24.
The average length of stay for a typical wildlife watching tour
from the overall sample (128 tour operators) is 10 days. In
the “standard” market segment the average length of stay
is 11 days; the range starts at half a day and reaches up to
42 days. In the “luxury” market segment the average length
ranges from a day and half to 18 days.
Micro Small Medium Large
Customers booking wildlife8 17,167 50,621 44,135 25,236
Share of wildlife tours out of all tours sold with Africa as a destination 78% 77% 65% 62%
Number of tour operators replying 57 40 12 5
Average customers annually per operator 301 1,266 3,678 5,047
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 27
The average daily price (excluding flights) for a wildlife
watching tour from the overall sample (128 tour operators)
is US$ 433. In the “standard” market segment the average
price per day for a wildlife watching tour is US$ 243 and
ranges from US$ 86 to 500 per day. In the “luxury” market
segment the average price per day of a wildlife watching tour
is US$ 753 and ranges from US$ 179 to 2,500 per day.
As the average number of participants and the average
length of stay for both the luxury and standard segments
are very similar, it can be concluded that they are intrinsic
characteristics to the wildlife watching product that do not
necessarily relate to the level of comfort of the experience.
The indicator that clearly differentiates the segments is the
average daily price, and this clearly works to identify which
market the tour operators are targeting. It is important to note
that within the African region the prices for both the “standard”
and the “luxury” segments vary in each country depending
on the level of tourism development of the destination and
the size of the market offer.
Based on the overall responses, the average daily additional
out-of-pocket spending from the full sample (128 tour
operators) is US$ 55. In the “standard” market segment
the average the reported additional spending per day is
US$ 44, with additional spending ranging from US$ 7 to
250 per day. In the “luxury” market segment the average
additional spending per day is US$ 59 with a range of
US$ 1 to US$ 104.
1
8. In order to calculate the breakdown of customers per size of tour operator, only the entries
from tour operators which had provided information on their size could be used.
The typical wildlife watching tour
Average number of participants:
6
Average length of stay:
10 days
Average tour price per day:
US$ 433 per person
Average out-of-pocket spending per day:
US$ 55 per person
28 UNWTO • Briefing Paper Case Studies (2)
Serengeti-Ngorongoro Circuit, Tanzania
According to a study conducted in 2009, the southern circuit
at Serengeti-Ngorongoro receives 300,000 tourists per
year on the 300 km stretch between Arusha and Serengeti.
The total inbound tourism expenditure generated at this
destination is US$ 500 million per year, which is more than
half of Tanzania’s foreign exchange earnings from tourism.
The price of a typical wildlife watching package is US$ 1,600
for 6 days/ 5 nights (US$ 320 per day). Additionally, tourists
spend an average US$ 226 out-of-pocket (US$ 37/day).
Among the local tourism providers that benefit from this
income are tour operators and providers of accommodation,
parking, transport, cultural goods and services as well as
food and beverages. Along the safari circuit there are about
3,500 crafts and souvenir stalls that employ 7,000 sellers and
21,000 crafters. About US$100 million per year (19% of the
earnings) are considered pro-poor, meaning that they reach
local people via wages and tips when they are employed
by tourism providers. Furthermore, local small producers
provide about half of the food consumed at the circuit.
The local population obtains indirect benefits from tourism
through funds allocated by the protected area management
to the communities.
Together with the second part on Kilimanjaro tourism, the
2009 study reveals that Tanzania captures about half of the
total value of the global value chain for a package holiday
sold in Europe. The great majority of the inbound tour
operators and tourism providers are owned by Tanzanians.
Foreign companies are not common but pay significantly
higher wages than local companies. The benefits of
tourism at Serengeti-Ngorongoro could be enhanced by
establishing better linkages between accommodations and
local food producers as well as capacity building to foster
local employment in the tourism sector and to increase the
margins of the craft sector. (Steck/ODI, 2009).
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 29
Economic impact of nature tourism in
Zambia
In Zambia, tourism is one of the fouressential sectors
identified for sustainable development. Yet, the economic
impact of nature tourism has been underestimated. In 2005,
tourism was characterized by a small and fragmented private
sector, inconsistent policies, weak incentive structures,
poor business climate, limited fiscal support of the tourism
sector and lacking financial resources of the Zambia Wildlife
Authority and the Ministry of Tourism. Even under such
unfavourable circumstances, a World Bank study showed
that the economic impact of nature tourism is significantly
higher than previously perceived.
In 2005, only 26% of international tourist arrivals were naturetourists,
but these 176,000 visitors realized an export value
of tourist spending of US$ 194 million which is 3.1% of the
direct GDP. Summing up direct and indirect linkages, the
176,000 nature tourists contributed nearly 16% of Zambian
exports and 6.5% of the GDP, more than 6% of wages and
net income of unincorporated business, 7% of government
revenues and nearly 10% of formal sector employment
(54,000 formal jobs). The fiscal revenues generated in 2005
by international nature tourists visiting national parks were
about US$ 5 to US$ 8 million, meaning that the revenues
exceeded by far the US$ 1 million in funds allocated to the
Zambia Wildlife Authority in the same year.
In 2007, approximately 206,000 international tourists (30%
of overall international tourist arrivals) came to Zambia to
experience Victoria Falls, wildlife and nature-based activities.
Considering the many challenges the tourism sector in
Zambia was facing in 2005, the opportunities for developing
nature and wildlife tourism and enhancing the benefits of
tourism are growing. Tourism, and specifically nature and
wildlife tourism, can be an important source of revenues and
employment if appropriate revenue-sharing mechanisms are
put in place to enhance the benefits for local communities
and pro-poor impacts of tourism. (Hamilton et al., 2007).
30 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 3.4 Effects of poaching on tourism
3.4.1 Nature conservation and wildlife are
managed but with many shortcomings
Governmental institutions and tour operators were requested
to evaluate nature conservation and wildlife management in
their countries or the countries in which they operate through
a multiple choice answer: a) Very well managed; b) Well
managed; c) Managed but there are many shortcomings;
d) Poorly managed or not at all.
Of the 23 governmental institutions that answered this
question, 57% of the responses indicate that nature
conservation and wildlife are “managed but with many
shortcomings”, 26% state “well managed”, 17% reply “very
well managed”. “Poorly managed or not at all” was not
mentioned in the replies.
Of the 144 tour operators that answered this question, 51%
state that nature conservation and wildlife are “managed but
with many shortcomings”, 31% reply “well managed, 13%
state “very well managed”, while 5% reply with “poorly or not
at all”.
The quite similar assessment indicates that nature
conservation and wildlife are equally important from a
conservation but also tourism sector perspective. In their
replies, many tour operators singled out poaching as the
biggest threat to wildlife.
3.4.2 Poaching has a negative impact on the
tourism experience
Governmental institutions were requested to indicate
whether there are problems with poaching in their respective
countries and which animals are being poached among
the following: a) terrestrial mammals; b) marine wildlife;
c) birds; d) others. Additionally, both governmental institutions
and tour operators answered the question “Do you consider
poaching as an issue that affects wildlife watching tourism?”
and tour operators were requested to indicate the “difficulties
encountered during tours because of poaching activities”.
Out of the 46 governmental institutions that replied to the
first question, 93% confirm that there are problems with
poaching in their countries or in their protected areas. The
majority of the governmental institutions state that terrestrial
mammals are the most commonly poached (70%). Marine
wildlife and birds are threatened to a much lesser extent
(indicated by 25% and 30% of the participants respectively).
Other species were mentioned by 5% of the governmental
institutions that replied.
Additionally, out of the 46 governmental institutions and the
145 tour operators that replied to these questions, 80% of
the governmental institutions and 70% of the tour operators
state that it is affecting wildlife watching tourism. The following
explanations were provided:
Figure 3.8 Does poaching affect wildlife watching tourism? (%)
Government institutions respond: Tour operators respond:
Government institution respondents, n = 46 Tour operators respondents, n = 145
Yes 80 Yes 70
No 20 No 30
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 31
–– Poaching decreases wildlife populations and adversely
affects ecosystems;
–– Poaching has a deteriorating effect on the tourism
experience: reduced wildlife populations and changes
in animal behaviour diminish the chance to observe
wildlife. Animals become shyer and are harder to find and
approach;
–– Bad sightings occur (carcasses, rhinos without horns,
marked animals, slaughtered and living animals on sale)
that significantly affect the tourism experience;
–– Poaching threatens security. Shootings in the parks, nogo
areas, warning signs, encounters with poachers and
armed anti-poaching patrols make tourists feel unsafe or
are put in actual danger;
–– It creates a bad image of a country or a destination
and therefore fewer tourists visit the places affected by
poaching;
–– Anti-poaching measures are a big financial burden for the
protected areas and countries in general; and
–– Poaching results in lower numbers of tourists, reduces
tourism receipts and affects the long-term sustainability
of tourism.
While a majority of the tour operators state that tourism is
affected by poaching, only 26% of the participants report
direct impacts on their operations, e.g., additional costs for
extra security measures, the necessity to change itineraries
because of blocked roads or closed areas and a negative
impact on the tourists’ satisfaction as wildlife observation
is less guaranteed and bad sightings as described above
occur.
3.4.3 Tour operators can play an important role
in raising awareness of the issue and (co-)
funding anti-poaching initiatives
Governmental institutions and tour operators were requested
to indicate whether they “are involved or fund anti-poaching
activities” and/or “distribute specific information on
poaching”. Additionally, tour operators were asked whether
their “customers are concerned with poaching”.
A total of 47 governmental institutions provided responses
with 77% indicating that they are involved with anti-poaching
measures. For instance: patrolling and law enforcement
(prosecution), awareness raising campaigns, environmental
education and working with communities are important antipoaching
measures. Other actions are gaining the support
of other authorities, participating in policy making at regional
and international levels and the gathering intelligence and
research on poaching. Many participants indicate a variety
of measures or state that there is a broad anti-poaching
strategy in place.
The 26% of governmental institutions that replied that are
not engaging in such measures are in most cases tourism
ministries or national tourism authorities that are not
responsible for wildlife conservation. Otherwise, all but one
protected area/wildlife conservation authority state that they
engage in anti-poaching activities.
Of the 145 tour operators that replied, 49% state that
they fund anti-poaching initiatives; 51% do not engage in
such measures; 34% of the tour operators know that their
suppliers are involved in anti-poaching support; 58% are not
aware of such initiatives and 8% indicate that their suppliers
do not fund anti-poaching.
A total of 45 governmental institutions mentioned that 42%
do not distribute information on poaching, however, 22%
state that this is planned for the future. Looking at the
different types of institutions, the answers are the same: a
third of the tourism ministries and a third of the protected
area/wildlife conservation authorities distribute information
on poaching to visitors and/or the general public, more than
half of them do not distribute such information or are only
currently developing it.
Of the 145 tour operators that replied, the majority (58%)
does not distribute information on poaching. 23% say they
use a variety of media and measures to inform their clients
(websites, flyers, travel information, newsletters, press
releases, give-aways, brochures etc.). In many cases, the
tour guides inform the tourists about the topic. Sometimes
tourists visit an education center that informs them about
poaching. Some tour operators distribute information
materials developed by nature conservation NGOs. About
40 NGOs, institutions and anti-poaching projects and other
organizations are mentioned in the responses to the survey.
32% of 145 participants state that their customers actively
ask about poaching, another 51% say that the customers
express their concern when the topic comes up – depending
on the tour operator, this was found to happen very
often (70%) or occasionally (30%). Only 16% report not
experiencing concerns of the tourists regarding the topic.
The extensive comments of the participating tour operators
reveal their deep concern with the topic of poaching (see box
below).
32 UNWTO • Briefing Paper Tour operators’ comments (selection)
“Africa without wildlife would deprive all TO the basis of their existence. Semi-captive settings are no solution, wildlife
needs to be at free range in big game parks.”
(Germany, translated from German)
“Wildlife conservation should play a bigger role for the tourism sector and the revenue it generates. (…)”
(Germany, translated from German)
“(…) It is terrible that human beings with intelligence can be so barbaric at this day and age. (…) PLEASE DO something
to save the rhinos and elephants.”
(South Africa)
“We are willing to support anti-poaching activities but only if the government gets serious with the whole issue. Without
government intervention, it will be a fruitless effort (…).”
(Tanzania)
“The increased media coverage about poaching has been a matter for our clients. In many cases, they have seen evidence
of poaching (…) with skittish animals, carcasses or areas devoid of game.”
(Tanzania)
“Great concern with the elevated rhino and elephant poaching activity occurring in Africa, this will ultimately impact the
wildlife viewing opportunities as well as devastate the tourism industry.”
(United States of America)
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa
33
2.
UNWTO Work
on City Impact
Measurement
The review of the literature and case studies reveal that while there are
numerous studies, projects and publications analyzing wildlife watching
tourism, more is needed in terms of measuring its value. Although the
economic value of wildlife watching tourism is usually referred to as
important, the reviewed literature focuses mainly on how the economic
value could be evaluated and points out that there are no valid data readily
available for such analysis. Additionally, an estimation of the overall value
of the segment based only on the available case studies of specific
destinations are not broadly representative and can be misleading given
the different levels of tourism development in Africa. However, although
there are ongoing efforts being carried out to monitor data that could
be relevant for estimating the economic value of the wildlife watching
tourism sector, such as monitoring the number of arrivals and receipts
of protected areas, these efforts are often inconsistent and commonly
lead to inconclusive analysis.
The main findings of this briefing paper are based on the primary data
gathered through the surveys carried out among national tourism
authorities, protected area and wildlife conservation authorities,
individual protected areas and international and African tour operators.
In a majority of cases, the replies of governmental institutions are aligned
with the replies of tour operators and in the cases where alignment did
not happen, an interesting debate on the links between governmental
perception and market presence of destinations was triggered. The
representative response to the survey and the correlation of replies from
public and private sectors supports most of the findings well.
The results of the survey reflect the serious concern of both
governmental institutions and tour operators related to the poaching
crisis and its negative impact on tourism. It is clear this criminal activity
is viewed as a threat to the long-term sustainability of tourism and
potentially jeopardizes the development opportunities linked to the
sector. Moreover, the feedback from the participating governmental
institutions and tour operators confirm that wildlife watching is a very
important segment of tourism for most African countries as well as a
4.
Conclusions and
recommendations
34 UNWTO • Briefing Paper profitable one, with potential to benefit the local community.
In fact, local communities appear to be involved in wildlife
watching tourism in most of African countries, mainly
through employment in accommodation, restaurants and
guiding. Communities also function as suppliers of goods
and services, primarily food and beverages and receive
sometimes indirect tourism benefits through redistribution
of revenues from protected area entrance fees and funds
allocated to community development projects. Additionally,
the annual revenues of wildlife watching tours represent
80% of the total annual revenues of trips to Africa for the
participating tour operators. The replies provided indicate
that revenues are expected to grow further. On average, the
annual turnover of a micro tour operator is US$ 1 million;
US$ 3.5 million for a small tour operator, US$ 5 million for a
medium tour operator; and US$ 17.5 million for a large tour
operator.
According to the survey, wildlife watching tourism takes
place mainly in protected areas and nature, national parks
and wildlife are among the most important assets for wildlife
watching destinations. Safari appears to be the main kind
of wildlife watching. Safari tours are being operated by 96%
of the participating tour operators and the sub-regions that
are most frequented for safari tours are East and Southern
Africa, where countries which are already known as
wildlife watching destinations are located. From both subregions
also higher numbers of governmental replies were
received; an indication that here enabling frameworks for the
development of wildlife watching tourism are already in place.
It is to be noted that a great number of governmental replies
were also received from the Central and West African subregions,
which indicates the existing will to further develop
wildlife watching tourism in these destinations. However, the
number of tour operators active in Central and West Africa
is still small.
Bird watching appears to be the second most practiced
type of wildlife watching which can be observed in almost
every African country and is being offered by 80% of the
tour operators. The operation of bird watching tours mainly
takes place in top safari destinations and indicates that bird
watching could be offered more frequently in combination
with other activities than as a specialized product. In fact,
the results of the survey point out that wildlife watching
tourism is normally combined with nature-related activities,
cultural heritage and resort/beach holidays. In the third place
and with variations depending of the region come marine
wildlife tours and the observation of Great Apes, followed by
special tracking of wildlife, which are especially important for
countries that are not classic safari destinations but do play
a role as wildlife watching destinations.
Through analysis of the data, it was possible to identify
key characteristics and economic indicators related to the
segment of wildlife watching tourism in Africa. A typical
wildlife watching tour involves a group of 6 persons, lasts
10 days and has an average daily price per person per day
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 35
of US$ 433 as well as involves out-of-pocket expenses of
US$ 55 per person per day. These indicators were also
analyzed per market segment (standard, luxury) and it was
noted that neither the size of the group or average length
of stay would register remarkable variations for the different
segments. In this regard, the analysis seems to indicate that
the average size of the group and length of stay are intrinsic
characteristics to a wildlife watching product which do not
necessarily relate to the level of comfort of the experience.
The variation in the average price per person per day is on
the other hand significant: US$ 753 for a luxury package and
US$ 243 for a standard package. From the participating
sample, 42% of the participating tour operators offer standard
wildlife watching tours, 28% are specialized in luxury tours
and 30% target both standard and luxury clients.
Data on protected area visitors and receipts from 14 countries
was used were conclusive data was provided, and indicates
that wildlife watching tourism is generating a considerable
amount of revenues for the countries where it is taking place.
The protected area receipts of these 14 countries totaled
US$ 142 million per year. As this figure relates to only a small
number of countries, one can assume that protected area
receipts are indeed much higher. Guidance and capacity
building for a more consistent monitoring of protected area
visitors and receipts as well as a framework for their analysis
are needed. In this regard, the development of a model for
the structured integration and evaluation of available data, in
order to harness it for an overall assessment of the economic
value of wildlife watching tourism in Africa, which would
connect data from protected areas with tour operators’
performance, would be useful.
A majority of the protected area authorities participating in
the survey is involved in anti-poaching measures. Tourism
authorities are involved only to a minor extent and the majority
does not distribute information on poaching. From the side
of the participating tour operators, about half of them fund
anti-poaching initiatives or engage in a nature conservation
project. Only a few inform their customers on the issue.
Although the involvement in anti-poaching initiatives is not
very extensive yet, the survey shows that there is potential
for mobilizing the tourism sector in anti-poaching campaigns
since they can play a key role in awareness raising and
potentially (co-) finance anti-poaching initiatives.
Finally, this briefing paper is to be seen as a first step towards
measuring the economic value of wildlife watching tourism in
Africa and defining the role of the tourism sector in the fight
against poaching. The exercise has succeeded in identifying
key economic indicators and characteristics of wildlife
watching tourism in African countries. Despite the limitations,
the findings support the potential of the tourism sector to
advance its contribution to the fight against poaching in Africa
and confirm the importance of wildlife watching tourism for
the sustainable development of the region.
36 UNWTO • Briefing Paper List of contributions
The following organizations and institutions contributed to the
briefing paper by providing case studies, other publications and
expertise:
–– Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA)
–– African Travel and Tourism Association (ATTA)
–– Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA)
–– Convention of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (UNEP/CMS)
–– Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna (CITES)
–– Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
–– Federal Agency for Nature Conservation of Germany (BfN)
–– International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC)
–– International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
–– International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
–– International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
–– United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
–– World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
2.
UNWTO Work
on City Impact
Measurement
Annex I
List of
contributions and
tour operators
List of tour operator associations
The following tour operators associations provided support to
circulate the survey invitation:
–– ABTA, UK
–– Tour Operators’ Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development
(TOI)
–– Deutscher ReiseVerband e.V. (DRV), Germany
–– Association of French Tour Operators (SETO/CETO)
–– Netherlands Association of Travel Agents and Tour Operators
(ANVR)
–– The African Travel & Tourism Association (ATTA), UK
–– Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA), USA
–– American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA)
–– Association of Danish Travel Agents and Tour Operators
(Danmarks Rejsebureau Forening)
–– Tanzania Association of Tour Operators
–– Africa Travel Association, USA
–– forum anders reisen e.V., Germany
–– Association of Independent Tour Operators (AITO), UK
–– Schweizerrischer Reise-Verband (SRV), Switzerland
–– Association for the Promotion of Tourism in Africa (APTA), USA
–– Association of Croatian Travel Agencies
–– ASTOI Confindustria Viaggi (Associazione Tour Operator Italiani)
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 37
List of participating tour operator
AFRICA
1 Botswana
Gavin Blair Safaris South Africa Rockjumper Birding Tours
Golden Okavango t/a Golden Africa Sun Safaris
2 Cabo Verde Naturalia Capa Verde Lda Sunway Safaris
3 Ethiopia Abeba Tours Ethiopia The Savannah Africa
4 Gabon ngondetour Wow Cape Town Tours
5 Kenya African Quest Safaris Ltd 12 Uganda Around Africa Safaris
Asilia Safaris BIC Tours Ltd
Eco Adventures Africa Kagera Safaris / Miriam Kyasiimire
Impact Adventure Travel Kombi Nation Tours
Kent Tours & Travel Ltd Mamaland safaris. Tony Byarugaba
Outdoor Africa Matoke Tours
Simba Holidays Surf Tours & Travel
Arp Travel Group The Far Horizons
6 Madagascar Asisten Travel 13 United
Republic of
Tanzania
BMS Safaris Limited
Le Voyageur Blackmamba Travels Lts
SETAM Chem Chem Safaris
7 Malawi
Rpss Duma Explorer
Ulendo Safaris Fast Travel & Adventure Limited
8 Namibia
ATC Namibia Four Seasons Safari Lodge Serengeti
Chameleon Holidays Intoafrica Eco Travel Ltd
Chameleon Safaris Namibia Kibo Guides (TZ) Ltd
E. Safaris & Tours Leopard Tours Ltd
Eagles Rock Tours & Safaris Manyara Ranch Conservancy
Karibu Safari Namibia Melau Tours and Safaris
Namib Enviro Tours cc Nomad Tanzania Ltd
Sense of Africa and Wild Africa Travel, Tourvest Safari Makers Ltd
Ultimate Safaris Serengeti Balloon Safaris
9 Nigeria Johnpaul Ezeani Summit Expeditions & Nomadic Experience
10 Rwanda Amahoro Tours The African Footprint Co. Ltd (B2B Safaris)
11 South Africa ATC-African Travel Concept (DMC) The Map's Edge Ltd
Africa Geographic Travel Wild Things Ltd
African Adventure Safaris Wildlife (East Africa) Ltd
Bushtracks Expeditions Karibu Africa Safaris Ltd
Kirfara 14 Zimbabwe Natureways Safaris Pvt Ltd
Mozambique Tourism Nyati Travel
Roads to roam Zambezi Safari & Travel Co.
38 UNWTO • Briefing Paper EUROPE
15 Croatia Olymptours by Ratko Flajpan
El-pi Tours Malinska*
Frodo d.o.o., Yacht Base travel agency*
Hvar Touristik*
Katarina Line*
Lang International*
PENTA d.o.o.*
Zlatna Greda Ltd. tourist agency*
Germany
16 Czech Republic Stella Travel
17 Denmark Limpopo Travel
18 Finland Koonono Tours Ltd
19 France Kuoni
Les Circuits Découverte by Club Med
Rev Vacances
Vacance Transat (Transat France)
Voyageurs du Monde
20 Germany AST African Special Tours GmbH
Afrika à la Carte Reisen
Albatros-Tours
Art of Travel GmbH
Bikeworld Travel GmbH
Chamäleon Reisen GmbH
DER Touristik
Daktaritravel
Djoser Reisen GmbH
ETC Reisen Edutainment Travel Company
Elangeni African Adventures
Escape tours GmbH
Globetrotter Select
Jacana Tours
Karibu Safaris GmbH
Klipspringer-Tours GmbH
Makalali - African Exclusive Tours
S.A.Landprogramm
SA Travel
Severin Travel Africa
Studiosus Reisen
Tour Vital
Thomas Cook AG Segment Continental
Europe
Wikinger Reisen
R.U.F Touristik GmbH*
Rucksack Reisen*
Tour Exquisit*
21
Italy FollowMe
Best Tours Italia
Hoteplan Italia Spa
Il Diamante
NAAR Tour Operator
Settemari Spa
Viaggi Dell'elefante
Viaggi del Mappamondo
22 Lithuania Baltic tour*
23
Netherlands Bongo Asili Travel
Kuoni Netherlands/NDTC
Live To Travel
Mondi Reizen
SNP Natuurreizen (SNP Nature Travel)
Travel Trend
Travelhome
Vamonos Travels
De Jong Intra Vakanties
24 Portugal Zoom Travel - Tailor Made Tour Operator
25 Spain A Step Ahead S.L.
26
Switzerland
Stohler Tours
Africa Design Travel
27
United
Kingdom
Baobab Travel
Jacada Travel Ltd
Marketing Worldwide
Natural High Safaris
Rainbow Tours
Thomas Cook
TripAfrica
Wildlife Trails
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 39
AMERICA
28 Canada Goway Travel
29 Peru Andean Lodges*
30
United
States of
America
USA
USA
David Mark Erickson Travel
Africa Adventure Consultants
AfricanMecca Inc
Infinite Safari Adventures
Journeys International
Timeless Africa
Travcoa
ASIA
31 Bangladesh Discovery Tours And Logistics
32 India
Greener Pastures*
Navigator India*
33 Republic of
Korea
Sihnae Lee
AUSTRALIA
34 Australia The Classic Safari Company
* Participating tour operators that were not offering trips to Africa at the time of the survey.
Note: The above list of participating tour operators has been configured as per the entries to the survey.
40 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 2.
UNWTO Work
on City Impact
Measurement
Annex II
Available data
Available data on international tourism arrivals and receipts for African countries
INTERNATIONAL TOURIST ARRIVALS
(1,000)
INTERNATIONAL TOURIST RECEIPTS
(US$ million)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013
1 Algeria 2,070 2,395 2,634 2,733 219 209 217 350
2 Angola 425 481 528 650 719 646 706 1,234
3 Benin 199 209 220 231 149 188 170 ..
4 Botswana 2,145 .. .. .. 78 33 34 45
5 Burkina Faso 274 238 .. 218 72 133 84 ..
6 Burundi 142 .. .. .. 2 2 1 2
7 Cameroon 573 604 817 912 159 409 349 576
8 Cabo Verde 336 428 482 503 278 368 414 462
9 Central African Republic 54 .. .. .. 11 .. 11. ..
10 Chad 71 77 86 100 .. .. .. ..
11 Congo 194 218 256 297 .. .. .. ..
12 Côte d'Ivoire 252 270 289 .. 201 141 .. ..
13 Democratic Republic of the Congo 81 186 .. 191 11 11 7 1
14 Djibouti .. .. .. 63 18 19 21 22
15 Equatorial Guinea .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
16 Eritrea 84 107 .. .. .. .. .. ..
17 Ethiopia 468 523 596 681 522 770 607 621
18 Gabon .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
19 Gambia 91 106 157 171 74 83 88 ..
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 41
INTERNATIONAL TOURIST ARRIVALS
(1,000)
INTERNATIONAL TOURIST RECEIPTS
(US$ million)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013
20 Ghana 931 .. .. .. 620 694 914 853
21 Guinea .. .. .. 56 2 2 1 ..
22 Guinea-Bissau .. .. .. 13 9 7 ..
23 Kenya 1,470 1,785 1,781 1,433 800 926 935 881
24 Lesotho 414 397 422 320 25 29 46 39
25 Liberia .. .. .. .. 12 232 .. ..
26 Madagascar 196 225 256 196 321 .. .. ..
27 Malawi 746 767 .. .. 33 34 34 ..
28 Mali 169 160 134 142 205 267 142 ..
29 Mauritania .. .. .. .. .. .. 48 41
30 Mauritius 935 965 965 993 1,282 1,484 1,477 1,321
31 Morocco 9,288 9,342 9,375 10,046 6,703 7,281 6,703 6,854
32 Mozambique 1,718 1,902 2,113 1,886 197 231 250 241
33 Namibia 984 1,027 .. 1,176 438 518 485 409
34 Niger 74 82 .. 123 105 96 50 ..
35 Nigeria 1,555 715 .. 600 576 628 559 543
36 Rwanda 504 688 815 864 202 252 282 294
37 Sao Tome and Principe 8 12 .. .. 11 16 13 13
38 Senegal 900 1,001 .. 1,063 453 484 407 ..
39 Seychelles 175 194 208 230 274 291 310 344
40 Sierra Leone 39 52 60 81 26 44 42 59
41 South Africa 8,074 8,339 9,188 9,537 9,070 9,515 9,994 9,238
42 Sudan 495 536 .. 591 94 185 772 773
43 Swaziland 1,078 879 1,093 968 50 21 30 13
44 Togo 202 300 235 327 66 79 95 ..
45 Tunisia 6,903 4,785 5,950 6,269 2,645 1,914 2,227 2,190
46 Uganda 946 1,151 1,197 1,206 784 959 1,135 1,184
47 United Republic of Tanzania 754 843 1,043 1,063 1,255 1353 1,713 1,880
48 Zambia 815 920 859 915 125 146 155 224
49 Zimbabwe 2,239 2,423 1,794 1,833 634 664 749 851
42 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 2.
UNWTO Work
on City Impact
Measurement
Annex III
Governmental
institutions
List of participating governmental institutions
COUNTRY NAME INSTITUTION TYPE
1 Benin Direction du Parc National de la Pendjari National Park
2 Botswana Ministry of Tourism, Environment & Wildlife Tourism Ministry
3 Burkina Faso Ministère de la Culture et du Tourisme Tourism Ministry
4 Burundi Ministère du Commerce, de l'Industrie,
des Postes et du Tourisme
Tourism Ministry
5 Cameroon Ministry of Tourism and leisure Tourism Ministry
6 Cabo Verde General Directorate of Environment National Wildlife Conservation Authority
7 Chad Ministère de l'Environnement et
des Ressources Halieutiques
Environment Ministry
8 Congo Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Programme Congo
National Wildlife Conservation Authority
9 Cote d'Ivoire Ministère du Tourisme Tourism Ministry
10 Democratic Republic
Congo
Administration Nationale du Tourisme National Tourism Authority
Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la nature
(ICCN)
National Wildlife Conservation Authority
11 Eritrea Ministry of Agriculture Agriculture Ministry
12 Ethiopia Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) National Wildlife Conservation Authority
13 Gabon Ministère des Mines, de l'Industrie et du Tourisme Tourism Ministry
14 Gambia Gambia Tourism Board National Tourism Authority
15 Ghana Bui National Park National Park
Wildlife Division of Forestry Commission National Wildlife Conservation Authority
Forestry Commission Wildlife Division National Wildlife Conservation Authority
Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Creative Arts Tourism Ministry
16 Guinea Office guinéen des Parcs et Réserves National Wildlife Conservation Authority
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 43
COUNTRY NAME INSTITUTION TYPE
17 Kenya Kenya Wildlife Service National Wildlife Conservation Authority
Ministry of East African Affairs, Commerce
and Tourism
Tourism Ministry
County Government of Migori Others (County Government)
18 Lesotho Sehlabathebe National Park National Park
Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture Tourism Ministry
19 Malawi Department of National Parks and Wildlife National Wildlife Conservation Authority
20 Mali Office Malien du Tourisme et de l'Hôtellerie (OMATHO) National Tourism Authority
21 Mauritania Parc National du Diawling National Park
Direction des Aires Protégées et du Littoral National Wildlife Conservation Authority
22 Mozambique Ministry of Tourism Tourism Ministry
23 Niger Ministère du Tourisme et de l'artisanat Tourism Ministry
24 Senegal Direction des Parcs Nationaux: Parc National
des Iles de la Madeleine
National Park
Ministère du Tourisme et des Transports Aériens Tourism Ministry
25 Seychelles Seychelles Islands Foundation Local Wildlife Conservation Authority
26 Sierra Leone National Tourist Board of Sierra Leone National Tourism Authority
27 South Africa CapeNature Local Wildlife Conservation Authority
Western Cape Nature Conservation Board
trading as CapeNature
Local Wildlife Conservation Authority
South African National Parks National Wildlife Conservation Authority
National Department of Tourism National Tourism Authority
28 Swaziland Big Game Parks National Wildlife Conservation Authority
Swaziland National Trust Commission National Wildlife Conservation Authority
Swaziland Tourism Authority National Tourism Authority
29 Uganda Uganda Wildlife Authority National Wildlife Conservation Authority
Ministry of Tourism Wildlife and Antiquities Tourism Ministry
30 United Republic of
Tanzania
Tanzania National Parks National Wildlife Conservation Authority
Wildlife Division National Wildlife Conservation Authority
Tanzania Association of Tour Operators (TATO) Others (Tour Operator Association)
31 Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Tourism Authority National Tourism Authority
Note: The above list of participating tour operators has been configured as per the entries to the survey.
44 UNWTO • Briefing Paper 1 1
Report, (online), available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRSUMAFTPS/Resources/
2049902-1327506860777/FinalSSATourismRpt1118.pdf
(25-03-2014).
Africa Region’s Finance and Private Sector Development Department
(AFTFP) (2010), Sub Saharan Africa Tourism Industry Research.
Phase II Tour Operators Sector: Results and Analysis, Final
Report, (online), available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRSUMAFTPS/
Resources/TourOperatorRptFINAL96.pdf (18-03-2014).
Biggs, D. et al. (2011), ‘The Value of Avitourism for Conservation and
Job Creation - An Analysis from South Africa’, in: Conservation
and Society, 9 (1), pp. 80-90.
Blanc, J. J. et al. (2007), African Elephant Status Report 2007: an
update from the African Elephant Database, Occasional Paper
Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, No. 33, (online),
available at:
www.african-elephant.org/aed/pdfs/aesr2007.pdf (03-04-2014).
Centre for the Promotion of Imports from developing countries (CBI) /
Minister of Foreign Affairs (2014), Promising EU export markets for
wildlife tourism, (online), available at:
www.cbi.nl/system/files/marketintel/Promising_EU_export_
markets_for_wildlife_tourism.pdf (25-03-2014).
Christie, I. et al. (2013), Tourism in Africa. Harnessing Tourism for
Growth and Improved Livelihoods, (online), available at:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/01/
18320011/tourism-africa-harnessing-tourism-growth-improvedlivelihoods
(04-04-2014).
CITES (2013), New figures reveal poaching for the illegal ivory trade
could wipe out a fifth of Africa’s Elephants over next decade,
(online), available at:
http://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/20131202_elephantfigures.
php (04-04-2014).
Ebbe, K. (2010), Tourism Portfolio Review. January 2005 – December
2009 Volume I. Findings, Lessons Learned, Recommendations,
(online), available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRSUMAFTPS/Resources/
2049902-1327506860777/PortfolioReviewFinalVolumeI.pdf
(23-04-2014).
Emslie, R. (2012a), ‘Ceratotherium simum’, in: IUCN (2013), IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species, Version 2013.2., (online), available at:
www.iucnredlist.org (30-03-2014).
Emslie, R. (2012b), ‘Diceros bicornis’, in: IUCN (2013), IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species, Version 2013.2., (online), available at:
www.iucnredlist.org (30-03-2014).
Freyer, W. (2011), Tourismus. Einführung in die Fremdenverkehrsökonomie,
10. Auflage, Oldenbourg Verlag, München.
Hamilton, K. and Pavy, J.M. (2010), ‘Unlocking the potential of tourism
in Zambia’, in: Private Sector Development, 7th issue.
Higginbottom K. (ed.) (2004), Wildlife tourism: impacts, management
and planning, Altona, Vic. Common Ground Publishing, Gold
Coast.
Hinterholzer, T. and Jooss, M. (2013), Social Media Marketing und-
Management im Tourismus, Springer Gabler.
International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (2011),
Information Note, (online), available at:
www.cites.org/eng/prog/iccwc.php (25-03-2014), ICCWC.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2013),
‘A Summary Report of the First International Environmental
Compliance and Enforcement Conference’ in: INTERPOL-UNEP
Bulletin, vol. 216, no. 1, (online), available at:
www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/Portals/8/documents/
UNEP-INTERPOLConferenceReport.pdf (16-01-2014).
References
UNWTO • Towards Measuring the Economic Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa 45
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2012), Elephant
Database, (online), available at:
www.elephantdatabase.org/preview_report/2013_africa/
Loxodonta_africana/2012/Africa (07-04-2014), IUCN.
Job, H. and Paesler, F. (2013), ‘Links between nature-based tourism,
protected areas, poverty alleviation and crises - The example of
Wasini Island (Kenya)’, in: Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, vols. 1-2 (2013), pp. 18-28.
Lengefeld, K. (2013), Touristic Economic Value and Threats for
Emblematic Species such as Koalas, Pandas and Rhinos, Power
Point Presentation.
Milliken, T. and Shaw, J. (2012), The South Africa – Viet Nam Rhino
Horn Trade Nexus: A deadly combination of institutional lapses,
corrupt wildlife industry professionals and Asian crime syndicates,
(online), available at:
www.traffic.org/species-reports/traffic_species_mammals66.pdf
(16-01-2014).
Nowell, K. (2012), Wildlife Crime Score Card - Assessing compliance
with and enforcement of CITES commitments for tigers, rhinos
and elephants. A WWF Report, (online), available at:
www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/WWF_
Wildlife_Crime_Scorecard_Report.pdf (16-01-2014).
Republic of Botswana/IUCN (2013), African Elephant Summit
Gaborone, Botswana 2-4 December 2013: Urgent Measures
(3 December 2013), (online), available at:
https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/african_elephant_summit_
final_urgent_measures_3_dec_2013.pdf (16-01-2014).
Ripple, W. J. et al. (2014), ‘Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s
Largest Carnivores’, in: Science, vol. 343, no. 6167.
Rogers, J. and Gibbs, R. A. (2014), Geographical distribution and
genetic variation in selected primates; Comparative primate
genomics: emerging patterns of genome content and dynamics.
Nature Reviews Genetics, 15th edition, pp. 347–359.
Smith, S. L. J. (1998), ‘Tourism as an industry: debates and concepts’,
in: Ioannidis, D. and Debbage, K.G. (eds.) (1998), The Economic
Geography of the Tourist Industry. Routledge, Abingdon,
pp. 31-52.
Steck, B. (SNV) and ODI (2009), Tracing the Tourism $,€, £ in Northern
Tanzania. Power point presentation, British Overseas Development
Institute and Netherlands Development Organisation.
Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) (2009),
Wildlife tourism: challenges, opportunities and managing the
future, (online), available at:
www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop/BookDetail.aspx?d=668 (18-
04-2014).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2012), 2011 National Survey of fishing,
hunting and wildlife-associated recreation, (online), available at:
www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf (02-05-2014).
Troëng, S. and Drews C. (2004), Money Talks: Economic Aspects of
Marine Turtle Use and Conservation, WWF-International, Gland,
Switzerland.
United Nations Development Programme (2011), Discussion paper
tourism and poverty reduction strategies in the integrated
framework for least developed countries, UNDP, Geneva.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/CITES/IUCN/
TRAFFIC (2013), Elephants on the dust - The African Elephant
Crisis. A Rapid Response Assessment, (online), available at:
www.grida.no/_cms/OpenFile.aspx?s=1&id=1570 (16-01-2014).
46 UNWTO • Briefing Paper
United Nations Environment Programme/CMS (2006), Wildlife
Watching and tourism. A study on the benefits and risks of a fast
growing tourism activity and its impacts on species, UNEP/CMS
Secretariat, Bonn.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2013a), Transnational
Organized Crime in Eastern Africa, (online), available at:
www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/TOC_
East_Africa_2013.pdf (02-05-2014), UNODC.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2013b), Transnational
Organized Crime in East Asia and the Pacific, (online), available at:
www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/TOCTA_
EAP_web.pdf (02-05-2014), UNODC.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2014a), Environmental
Crime - The Trafficking of Wildlife and Timber, (online), available at:
www.unodc.org/documents/toc/factsheets/TOC12_fs_
environment_EN_HIRES.pdf (02-05-2014), UNODC.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2014b), Wildlife Crime - Key
Stats, Unpublished document, UNODC.
World Tourism Organization (2002a), Tourism and Poverty Alleviation,
UNWTO, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2002b), Tourism: A Catalyst for Sustainable
Development in Africa, UNWTO, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2010a), Tourism Satellite Account.
Recommended Methodological Framework 2008, UNWTO,
Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2011), Exploring the Full Impact of Tourism
for Policy Making. Extending the Use of Tourism Satellite Account
through Macroeconomic Analysis Tools, UNWTO, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2013), Tourism Highlights 2013 Edition,
UNWTO, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2014a), World Tourism Barometer, vol. 12,
UNWTO, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2014b), Tourism Towards 2030. Global
Overview, UNWTO, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2014c), Compendium of Tourism
Statistics. Data 2008 – 2012, UNWTO, Madrid.
World Travel & Tourism Council (2012), Travel and Tourism Economic
Impact: Sub-Saharan Africa, 2012, (online), available at:
www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/sub_saharan_
africa2012.pdf (18-03-2014), WTTC.
World Wildlife Fund (2013), WWF Positionspapier CITES - Wichtige
Anträge im Überblick. 16. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz (Conference of
the Parties, CoP) zum Washingtoner Artenschutzübereinkommen
CITES von 3. bis 14. März 2013 in Bangkok, Thailand, (online),
available at:
www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/WWF_
Positionspapier_D_2013.pdf (03-04-2014), WWF.
World Wildlife Fund/Dalberg (2012), Fighting illicit wildlife trafficking:
A consultation with governments, (online), available at:
www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/
WWFFightingIllicitWildlifeTrafficking_LR.pdf (16-01-2014), WWF.