REPORT ON A MEETING HELD IN OUAGADOUGOU

Report on the meeting to launch the implementation of MIKE in West Africa

OUAGADOUGOU, BURKINA FASO

19-21 February 2001

 

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background on elephants in West Africa

1.2 Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)

1.3 First meeting to discuss MIKE in West Africa

2. TECHNICAL ISSUES

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Savanna

2.3 Forest

2.4 Carcass reports

2.5. Measuring law enforcement effort

2.6. Data flow and analysis

3. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MIKE IN WEST AFRICA

3.1 Site selection

3.2 Current situation at each site

3.2.1 Human resources and logistics

3.2.2 Survey updates

3.3 Structure and coordination

3.3.1 Continental level

3.3.2 Sub-regional, national and site levels

3.3.3 Roles and responsibilities

4. DECISIONS TAKEN

5. THE NEXT STEPS

6. ANNEXES

 

1. INTRODUCTION

From 19 to 21 February 2001 a meeting was held in Ouagadougou to launch officially the implementation of the MIKE programme (Monitoring the illegal killings of elephants) in West Africa. The meeting, organised by IUCN-BRAO (Regional Office for West Africa) on behalf of the CITES Secretariat, took place in the Conference Room of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Financial assistance from the Japanese Government made this meeting possible.

All of the elephant range States in West Africa, with the exception of Liberia and Sierra Leone, were present. (see Annex 1). The Director-designate of MIKE, Mr. Nigel Hunter, was present. The purpose of the meeting was to establish the practical and organisational framework for the implementation of the MIKE programme in West Africa.

At the opening ceremony, welcome speeches were given by Dr. Malan Lindeque, Chief of the Scientific Coordination Unit of the CITES Secretariat and Mr. Ibrahim Thiaw, Regional Representative of IUCN in West Africa, who co-presided over the meeting. In his opening speech (Annex 2) on behalf of the State Minister for Water and Environment, Mr. Dabiré, Permanent Secretary, expressed his hope that the protection of the elephant would be reinforced in Burkina Faso through the ongoing decentralisation process, by reviewing the existing legislation and by reinforcing the direct participation of the population in wildlife conservation.

A set of documents was handed out to the Participants to complement their information (See Annex 3).

1.1 Background on elephants in West Africa

Elephants lost more than 90% of their range in West Africa during the 20^th century. Today there are 56 elephant populations in the sub-region, most of which are small and isolated. Habitat loss, drought, and poaching for ivory are the main threats to these populations. In 1999 representatives of the range States of the sub-region drew up a Strategy for the Conservation of West African Elephants. The strategy’s goal is to ensure the conservation of elephants and their habitats in the sub-region. The activities prescribed by the strategy will address three main objectives: (1) to evaluate the status of elephants in the sub-region; (2) to maintain and where possible increase elephant populations; and (3) to improve habitats for elephants. This strategy illustrates the commitment of governments and NGOs to conserving elephants in the sub-region. Several governments have already moved on to the next stage to prepare elephant conservation strategies at the national level.

1.2 Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)

At the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in 1997, a resolution was passed calling for the establishment of a comprehensive international system to monitor the illegal killing of elephants (Resolution Conf. 10.10). This Resolution [now Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP16) (Rev.)] was slightly revised at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties and the support for this programme was reaffirmed.

The objectives of the proposed monitoring system are: to determine current trends in illegal killing of elephants; to determine changes in these trends over time; to determine the causes of those trends; to integrate appropriate analyses of such information with that of the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) to assist decision-making by range States and other Parties to CITES.

Among other matters, the resolution stipulates that the monitoring system should monitor relevant parameters such as the pattern and scale of illegal killing, and the effort and resources applied to detect or prevent such killing. It should also build institutional capacity within the range States for the long-term management of their elephant populations. The resolution instructs the CITES Secretariat, with the participation of the African and Asian Specialist Groups of IUCN/SSC and TRAFFIC, to select sites for monitoring as representative samples; to develop a standardized methodology for data collection and analysis; to provide training at the selected sites and to CITES Management Authorities of elephant range States; and collate and process all data. Thus the resolution provides a means by which range States, with the assistance of the CITES secretariat, can develop the necessary skills to effectively manage their elephant populations.

The MIKE programme is divided into six sub-regions, four in Africa and two in Asia. Forty-five sites have been selected in Africa (see below), with 16 in West Africa. In June 1999 a pilot phase started in Central Africa. Full MIKE implementation is currently underway.

1.3 First meeting to discuss MIKE in West Africa

A three-day meeting in Accra, Ghana in December 1999 brought together representatives of the wildlife authorities from the range States in West Africa. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the implementation of MIKE in the sub-region, to evaluate resources available in each country, identify training needs, and agree on a method for sub-regional coordination. The meeting agreed that IUCN Regional Office for West Africa in Ouagadougou should adopt the role of coordination at the sub-regional level. At this stage, CITES had raised funds sufficient for implementation of the programme in only half the selected sites in the sub-region. Therefore eight out of the 16 sites were selected for the pilot phase of implementation. It was expected that the programme would be implemented at the other sites when funds became available. The participants affirmed their respective governments’ full support for MIKE.

2. TECHNICAL ISSUES

2.1 Introduction

Two types of data will be collected during the MIKE project: (a) surveys will be undertaken periodically (probably every two years) to estimate elephant numbers. Because elephant ranges fall into two broad vegetation types: forest and savanna, aerial surveys will be used in the savanna, and dung counts in the forest. Secondly, (b) data on illegal activity and law enforcement effort will be collected continuously by personnel on the ground in each site, through patrolling as well as the compilation of other information applicable to each site.

In each case, the methods will be standardised and data will be collected in a strictly prescribed manner on data forms. Formal training sessions will be carried out in the next stage of MIKE implementation to train field teams and site officers the relevant data collection methods and techniques.

Each site must have a distinctive name and a well-defined boundary on the ground. Each patrol and each survey must have a unique identification code that will ensure it can be recognised in the database that will eventually include data from 60 sites on two continents. The identification code must include the site, the date, and perhaps a code for the patrol leader.

A GIS database will be established for each site. The GIS will create maps to be used in the field and for analysing the distribution of elephants, carcasses and patrol effort against other factors such as land use, human settlement patterns, etc.

2.2 Savanna

The data-collection form for monitoring information on the ground was reviewed. This form will be used by all personnel who go out into the field, such as patrols, researchers, mechanics inspecting pumps or dams, guides accompanying tourists, etc. A sheet of instructions and definitions accompanies the form.

The participants were asked to provide substantive feedback on the forms so that their comments could be incorporated in subsequent changes to the MIKE data protocols. The participants then commented on details of the form layout. It was suggested that there should be a place to mark the habitat type during the course of the patrol, since vegetation affects visibility. There should be a space to note the purpose of the patrol and a space for the site officer’s comments later. It was suggested that because a patrol-day is defined as six hours of patrolling and it is known that guards often patrol for less, therefore a site that was patrolled for 4 hours a day every day would emerge from the final analysis as being unprotected. Two options were suggested: (a) change the definition, for example so that a patrol-day was defined as four hours or more; (b) express effort in terms of patrol-hours.

It was suggested that grid-squares of 5 km x 5 km might be too large, especially in rough terrain, and that it may be better to use smaller grid. Squares that are one minute of latitude or longitude (i.e. just under 2 km by 2 km) would be convenient since GPS units will be used in the field by patrols.

Some wildlife departments already collect some of the data requested on this form. Others may want to collect information in addition to that required for MIKE. The CITES Secretariat saw no reason why forms should not be adapted to record additional information at the site level.

Participants felt that space should be made so that live elephants could be recorded, because at present the data sheet for ground patrols only covers only dead animals.

The forms require that guards record latitude and longitude, but it was felt that the programme should not rely entirely on new technologies like the GPS and Cybertracker. Batteries expire, and electronic equipment may fail, so guards should still be taught the old skills of map-reading and navigation in the bush. Therefore working maps are still essential tools. It was suggested that pedometers could be issued to record distance covered by patrols.

The monthly summary report for the savanna zone was reviewed. In addition to summarising the regular ground patrol forms, this provides data on expenditure on law enforcement during the month, as well as staff and transport available. It was pointed out that annual site summaries would also be required.

2.3 Forest

Dung counts will be the principal means of evaluating elephant densities in the forest zone. Some people doubt the efficacy of dung counts, but a recent review has shown that for a range of vertebrates, including elephants, dung counts are as accurate a means of estimating animal numbers as any other survey technique. A brief overview of dung count methodology was presented. A model that was developed in southern Ghana can be used to convert estimates of dung density to elephant density. The model takes variations in rainfall into account and will have to be verified in the other countries in the forest zone.

The ground patrol forms to be used in the forest zone were reviewed: (1) the field patrol authorisation (ordre de mission), (2) daily patrol report, (3) elephant carcass and ivory report (see Carcass reports below), (4) field patrol summary and debriefing report, (5) daily road checkpoint report, and (6) intelligence monitoring. Each is accompanied by a sheet of instructions. Instead of a monthly report, as in the savanna, a three-monthly report for each site has been proposed for the forest zone.

The participants noted that there are differences between the savanna and forest forms, even though they are for the most part asking for the same information. The differences are partly due to the exigencies of working under different conditions, but also due to their being produced by field teams and technical contributors working independently in the eastern and southern African savannas and the central African forests. The Director designate undertook to harmonize forms to the greatest extent possible, in collaboration with the MIKE TAG

2.4 Carcass reports

The carcass report was then reviewed. One form is to be completed for each dead elephant, using instructions provided. Carcass reports should be standardised between the forest and savanna reports. It was emphasised that the exact location must be specified to avoid multiple reporting of the same carcass. It was noted that sometimes animals are shot within a park but die outside (or vice versa), perhaps several days later.

The current data sheets allow consideration for the fact that elephant carcasses may be found outside but nearby the formal MIKE site. It was suggested that these mortality records will have to be taken into account in the analysis of data.

2.5 Measuring law enforcement effort

A presentation was given on law enforcement and measures of effort, in which it was emphasized that counts of carcasses alone are meaningless but can reveal trends in poaching activity when corrected for patrolling effort. The relationships between poaching rates and measures of protection were illustrated. In addition to providing information on illegal killing, park wardens can improve the efficiency of their law-enforcement by undertaking simple analyses of their patrol data.

Intelligence is often the most cost-effective form of law-enforcement, and intelligence-gathering and patrolling can together result in very effective protection. It was also pointed out that communities living around a protected area can become valuable allies. Local participation can improve protection of an area when the communities organise themselves to provide intelligence on poachers coming from elsewhere. Indeed, collaboration of surrounding communities can be a good index of performance of a protected area, and it was encouraging that many delegates reported that park managers were actively engaged with the surrounding communities.

The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) for the monitoring of legal and illegal trade in elephant specimens was described in a brief presentation, emphasizing its complementary role to MIKE. The Secretariat has been informed that TRAFFIC as coordinating body for ETIS is planning to hold a separate meeting in the sub-region to assist Parties with the implementation of this programme.

2.6 Data Flow and Analysis

Data will be collected on the appropriate form at each site. The site officer will complete these forms and he/she will pass them to the national officer at regular intervals. The national officer will collect forms from each site in his/her country and transmit them to the CITES Central Coordination Unit. This will probably be in electronic form but possibly as raw data sheets as well. The data should be computerised at the site level to facilitate as much local analysis and use as possible. Copies of the data will be kept at each stage, i.e. at the site, national, and Central Coordination Unit. Analyses will likely be performed at the site, sub-regional and continental level. Clearly, it would be desirable if each site officer could analyse the data collected at his/her site. This would also be helpful to park managers and wildlife authorities at both the local and national level.

 

3. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MIKE IN WEST AFRICA

3.1 Site selection

The MIKE sites were selected by a statistical process that took a number of criteria into account (see box below) in order to produce a representative sample of sites. The participants were informed that sites can not be changed, increased in size or dropped without disturbing the built-in balance of the formal MIKE site list. Any additions or deletions from the list would need to be considered in this light.

MIKE site selection criteria:

• Sub-region
• Forest and savanna
• High and low law enforcement effort
• Inside and outside protected areas
• With and without recent or on-going civil strife in or around the site
• Close to or distant from an international border
• Availability of existing data prior to 1990
• Relatively large elephant populations for the sub-region
• With and without a history of illegal killing in the area
• Government co-operation
• Long tenure of existing staff in key positions
• Single agency control over site management
• Involved in either CITES Decision 10.1, 10.2 or both
• Varying levels of community involvement in conservation.

The range States established a long list of candidate sites in early 1998. Using that list, and following the criteria above, the selection process produced a list of 45 sites for Africa, of which 16 were in West Africa. This list was discussed with the participants at the first Regional MIKE meeting held in December 1999 in Accra. At that time, due to financial restrictions, eight sites were selected to be monitored during the pilot phase of the MIKE programme. Since then, more financial resources have been guaranteed and they will be able to start their work simultaneously at all sites. The full list of 16 sites in the region was reviewed again by the participants and some minor corrections were made.

Several possible additional changes were also suggested by the country representatives present. Primarily, the suggested changes involved the inclusion of neighbouring areas of elephant range, some of which fall under different management authorities. These included: areas around Park "W" in Niger and Burkina Faso, areas in Guinea-Conakry adjacent to Niokolo-Koba, areas adjacent to Pendjari (Benin), the Alfa Kwara hunting area adjacent to the "W" National Park in Benin, the Nigerian side of the Baban Rafi site and a potential alternative site for Fosse aux Lions in Togo. The CITES Secretariat noted these suggestions and agreed to look into the technical, statistical and financial implications of the proposed changes. (See Annex 4)

3.2 Current situation at each site

The current situation at each site was reviewed by the participants to get a precise idea about available equipment, methods of patrolling and human resources available, as well as complementary needs and training requirements. In addition, the participants provided an update on the status of population surveys in each site.

3.2.1 Human resources and logistics

In an overview of the in-kind contributions of the range State authorities to the implementation of MIKE, participants were asked to give a short presentation on the following points:

• Level of current staffing
• Details of patrol efforts
• Available equipment and transport
• Training requirements
• Partners involved

An inventory was produced to establish existing human resources and equipment at the site level (see Annex 5). This overview revealed that both patrol efforts and the resources available for their implementation differ greatly from site to site. Nonetheless, on some sites there is a regular system of extensive patrolling in place. Most of the management systems described have involved village guards in their law enforcement activities. Equipment available differs greatly from one site to another: some sites are very well equipped, e.g. Niokolo Koba, but most others have no vehicles in good functioning order and only rudimentary support facilities.

3.2.2 Survey updates

In a very useful exercise, the participants were asked to provide information on the most recent surveys including: the types of surveys and the identity of those responsible for conducting the survey at each site. (see Annex 6)

It was noted that in some cases no recent surveys have been carried out at the sites, that types of surveys carried out vary greatly from site to site and that the source of the survey data is in many cases unknown. For example, the Marahoue site has not been surveyed since 1981, Fosse aux Lions was surveyed in 1990, Sapo in 1989 and Mole in 1993. The Niger and Benin parts of the Parc "W" site have also not been surveyed simultaneously in recent years, while no systematic surveys at all have been carried out in Sambissa, Baban Rafi, Sahel Burkinabé or Taï. The source for the survey data was provided only for Mole, Kakum, Parc "W" Niger and Benin and the Pendjari site.

In conclusion, the participants outlined the proposed breakdown of contributions from both CITES and the range State governments. These are summarised in the table below.

 

Contributions from CITES/MIKE	Contributions from range State Governments
Extensive training	Foster external political support (e.g. donors)
Cybertracker and other new technologies	Build internal political support (e.g. Perm. Sec., Ministers, etc.)
Computer for site analysis	Provision of sites
Some basic field equipment	Provision of staff – high level (i.e. Directors) – site level (i.e. officer at site and observers /data
Cost of extensive population survey work	Continue their current support to sites: – transport – field allowance – accommodation
Assistance with data handling and analysis	Coordination with ongoing initiatives at the site level
Assistance with implementation by the CITES Secretariat
Assistance with donor coordination

 

3.3 Structure and co-ordination

MIKE is a complicated project that will cover 45 sites on the African continent. Therefore it is important to clarify procedures and co-ordination early in the project. Mr. Hunter provided background information on the proposed structure and co-ordination of MIKE at all levels.

3.3.1 Structure at the continental and global levels

Mr Hunter presented the structure of MIKE at the continental and global levels. MIKE will have an hierarchical structure, with data passed from the site it is collected to the national level, and then to the sub-regional level and finally to the central data unit where it will be stored in the database.

3.3.2 Structure at the sub-regional, national and site levels

The structure of the co-ordinating and management body for MIKE in West Africa was discussed with input from all the participating countries. The proposed structure at all levels is summarized in the diagram below, but it was recognized that this structure would have to be largely compatible with similar structures in other sub-regions:

3.3.3 Roles and responsibilities

Mr. Hunter also reviewed the respective roles and responsibilities at the different levels.

The roles to be played by the site manager and the national focal points, if separate from the former, are outlined as follows.

SITE OFFICER

• Oversee collection of data as agreed under MIKE protocols
• Oversee compilation of data into monitoring and annual report
• Manage the data compilation and analysis at site level and transit to national level
• Provide and maintain the support for keeping the site teams and equipment operational
• Assist in identifying training needs and in arranging training opportunities
• Provide feedback on protocol deficiencies and other constraints and bottlenecks
• Liaise with the National officer
• Manage expenditure (including donor reporting requirements)

SITE OFFICER/NATIONAL FOCAL POINT

These are as above with the following additional responsibilities:

• Liaise with sub-regional co-ordination unit on MIKE implementation and data transmission
• Manage the data compilation and analysis at national level (if more than 1 site)
• Keep steering group representative informed

NATIONAL FOCAL POINT (IF SEPARATE FROM SITE MANAGER)

• Co-ordinate and support efforts of site manager(s) and their teams
• Ensure harmonisation of site operations
• Liaise with sub-regional co-ordination unit on MIKE implementation and data transmission
• Manage data compilation and analysis at the national level
• Keep their fellow Steering Committee members informed
• Manage expenditure (including donor reporting requirements)

 

4. DECISIONS TAKEN

The executive committee of the Sub-regional Steering Group was nominated by the participants. This committee is made up of four members, each from a different country. It was decided that the members of the committee should be chosen taking the language and habitat factors into account as follows:

• Francophone countries in the savanna area (2 representatives)
• Countries in the forest area (1 representative)
• Anglophone countries (1 representative)

The agreed members of the first executive committee were chosen as follows:

• M. John Mshelbwala, Nigeria
• Jean Y. Tessi, Benin
• Yaya Tamboura, Mali
• Côte d’Ivoire (member still to be nominated by the country)

M. John Mshelbwala and Jean T. Tessi were nominated by their peers as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee, respectively.

It was further agreed that the procedure for renewal of the committee will be decided at the next regional meeting.

Interim Site Officers and Interim Focal Points for the Sub-Regional Steering Committee were also named by the representatives. These persons will act in an interim capacity until official confirmation is received in writing from the respective governments. Their names were provided to the CITES Secretariat.

4. NEXT STEPS

The following list outlines the next steps that need to be taken towards the full implementation of MIKE in Sub-region:

Range States

• Formally nominate Site Officers, in writing
• Formally nominate National Officers/National Focal Points, in writing
• Define the mandate of the Executive Committee (next meeting of full Steering Committee)

Director of the MIKE Central Coordination Unit

• Get Sub-Regional Support Coordinator in place
• Get all protocols harmonised

The participants at the meeting will work together to:

• Discuss implementation at site level
• Establish a good communication process
• Attend the first training workshop for Site Officers (and National Officers where appropriate)
• Start implementation
• Sign Memoranda of Understanding between CITES and the range State governments on MIKE implementation in West Africa

 

Annex 1

List of Participants to the Meeting on MIKE, 19 - 21 February 2001, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

SURNAME AND FIRST NAME(S)	COUNTRY	TITLE/FUNCTION	COMPLETE ADDRESS B.P., Tel., Fax, Email
TIOMOKO ALI DJAFARON	Bénin	Ingénieur Eaux et Forêts Directeur du P.N. PENDJARI	B.P. 32 Tanguita Tel/Fax: (229) 83 00 65
EL-HADJ ISSA AZIZOU	Bénin	Directeur des Forêts et des ressources Naturelles	B.P. 393 Cotonou Tel: (229) 33 06 62/33 61 89 Fax: (229) 33 04 21/33 21 92 Email: [email protected] [email protected]
SACCA SYLLA BOKO	Bénin	Directeur du Park W	B.P.08 Banikoara Tel: (229) 65 01 95/65 01 96
YEHOUENOU TESSI JEAN	Bénin	Directeur Technique Cenafref	08 B.P. 0227 Tel: (229) 30 72 82/97 52 34 Fax: (229) 30 72 82 e-mail: [email protected]
OUBDA TIMOTHE	Burkina Faso	Conservateur du "W" Burkina Faso	B.P. 07 Diapaga Tel: (226) 79 10 33
OUEDRAOGO PAUL	Burkina Faso	Ecologue Chercheur CNRST Secrétaire Technique AAPE	04 B.P. 8540 Ouagadougou Tel: (226) 33 40 98 email: [email protected]
COMPAORE PROSPER	Burkina Faso	Conservateur de la faune au Sahel	BP 07 Gorom Gorom - Province de l'Oudalan Tel: (226) 66 00 65
INIYE YARO	Burkina Faso	Directeur Faune et Chasses	B.P. 7044 Ouagadougou Tel: (226) 25 63 14 (Office) (226) 36 07 07 (Home)
KOBON KOBON SIMPLICE	Côte d'Ivoire	Chargé du programme Eléphant	BP V 178 Abidjan (RCI) Tel: (225) 20 21 07 00 Fax: (225) 20 21 09 90 Email: [email protected] / Simplice [email protected]
GNAMIEN HALA JEAN-MARIE	Côte d'Ivoire	Chef de division Parc National de Taï	BP 1342 Soubré Tel: (225) 34 72 23 52 Fax: (225) 34 71 17 79
GONTO GBASSAHA A.	Côte d'Ivoire	Ingénieur E&F Directeur du Parc Marahoué	BP 623 Bouaflé Tel: (225) 30 68 93 73 Fax: (225) 30 68 91 63
CLETUS K. NATEG	Ghana	Officer in charge Kakum Kakum National Park	Box 427 Cape Coast National Park - Ghana Tel: (233 42) 32 583 Fax: (233 42) 33042/30268
FRANK NSIAH	Ghana	SNR Wildlife Protection Officer	Box 102 E 2460 W/R
NICHOLAS BOAMAH	Ghana	Wildlife Protection Officer BIANational Parc	Box 171 S/WIAWSO W/R
MOSES KOFI SAM	Ghana	Coordinator Elephant Programmes	Wildlife Division (Forestry Commission) P.O. Box M 239 Accra, Ghana Tel: (233 21) 66 46 54 / 66 31 55 Fax: (233 21) 66 64 76/ 66 61 29 Email: [email protected] / [email protected]
CHARLES KOBINA ABAKA HAIZEL	Ghana	Officer I/C Mole National Park	P.O. Box 8, Damongo Ghana Tel: (233 717) 22041/22045 Fax: (233 21) 66 64 76/ 66 61 29 Email: [email protected]
CONDE CECE PAPA	Guinée	Conservateur Directeur Adjoint CF. NZerekré	B.P. 71 Nzerekoré/ B.P. 624 Ckry DNEF Tel: (224) 91 03 85 Fax: (224) 48 50 91 Email: [email protected]
CHRISTINE SAGNO	Guinée	Chef Division Faune et Protection de la Nature	B.P. 624 Tel: (224) 43 02 51 Fax: (224) 43 00 20 / 41 48 73 E-mail: [email protected]
LEO NISKANEN	Naïrobi Kenya	Chargé de Programme GSEAF-	P.O Box 62440 Tel: (254-2) 572630 Fax: (254-2) 577389 Email: [email protected]
DUBLIN HOLLY	Kenya	Senior Conservation Adviser wwf and Chair - IUCN/SSC AFESG	P.O. Box 62 440 Nairobi, Kenya Phone /fax: same as Leon Niskanen Email: [email protected]
TAMBOURA YAYA NOUHOUM	Mali	Directeur National Conservation Nature	B.P. 275 Bamako Tel/fax: (223) 23 36 96
MAMADOU B. SAMAKE	Mali	Chef de service de la Conservation DTZA	Tel: (223) 45 20 29
SEYNI SEYDOU	Niger	Directeur de la Faune de la Pêche et de la pisciculture	Email: UICN [email protected]
JOHN H. MSHELBWALA	Nigeria	Chief Environmental Scientist, Fed. Ministry of Environment	PMB 265 Garki, Abuja Tel: (2349) 2342807/ 2342808 Email: [email protected]
ABDOULAYE SY	Sénégal	Chef Division Nationale Gestion de la Faune	Parc Forestier de Honn B.P. 1831 Dakar Tel: (221) 832 08 56 Fax: (221) 832 04 26
IBRAHIM DIOP	Sénégal	Conservateur du Parc National de Niokdo Koba	B.P. 37 Tambacouda Tel: (221) 98 110 97
OKOUMASSOU KOTCHIKPA	Togo	Chef de Division Faune chargé & des PN et RF	B.P. 355 Lome Fax: (228) 21 40 29 Email: [email protected]
HUNTER NIGEL D.	CITES Secretariat	Director, MIKE Designate	CITES
MALAN LINDEQUE	CITES Secretariat	Chief, Scientific Coordination Unit	15, Chemin des Anénomes 1219 Châtelaine-Genève Suisse Tel: (4122) 917 81 39 Fax: (4122) 797 34 17
KEDOWIDE FRANCOIS- CORNEILLE	UICN - BRAO	UICN –BRAO Facilitateur Suivi Evaluation	01 B.P. 1618 Ouagadougou 01 Burkina Faso
LAMINE SEBOGO	UICN - BRAO	Chargé de Programme GSEAF Afrique de l'Ouest	01 B.P. 1618 Ouagadougou 01 Burkina Faso Tel: (226) 30 70 47 Fax: (226) 30 75 61 Email: [email protected]
RICHARD F. W. BARNES	Consultant UICN - BRAO	Ecologist West Africa Programme Conservation International	Biology Division 0116 University of California 0116 LA JOLLA, California 92 111 USA Tel/Fax: (001-858) 292 0803 Email: [email protected]
TORREKENS PETER	UICN - BRAO	Coordonnateur Programme Régional	01 B.P. 1618 Ouagadougou Burkina Faso Tel: (226) 30 70 47
IBRAHIM THIAW	UICN - BRAO	Représentant Régional Afrique de l'Ouest	Tel: (226) 30 85 80 Fax: (226) 30 70 47

Annex 2 (French only)

 

Discours d'Ouverture du Représentant du Ministre de l'Environnement et de l'Eau du Burkina Faso

 

DISCOURS D'OUVERTURE DU MINISTRE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE L'EAU A L'OCCASION DE LA REUNION DE MISE EN OUEVRE DE MIKE (Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants) EN AFRIQUE DE L'OUEST.

 

Monsieur le Représentant du Secrétariat de la CITES,

Monsieur le Représentant Régional de l'UICN pour l'Afrique de l'Ouest,

Honorables délégués et Spécialistes de la Conservation,

Chers invités,

Je voudrais, au nom du Gouvernement, vous souhaiter la bienvenue en terre hospitalière du Burkina Faso. Nous sommes très honorés d'abriter cette rencontre sous-régionale, et j'espère que malgré ce début de séjour marqué par l'harmattan et la fatigue du voyage, vous ne ménagerez aucun effort pour conduire à terme le programme de cette rencontre.

Le suivi de l'abattage illégal des éléphants, thème central de cette rencontre, constitue un sujet d'importance capitale pour la conservation d'une espèce dont les valeurs aux plans culturel écologique et économique ne sont plus à démontrer dans les sociétés ouest africaines.

En effet les responsables politiques attendent beaucoup de cette rencontre et cela à juste titre au regard, des menaces qui suscitent des inquiétudes quand à la survie de l'espèce dans notre sous-région.

Je me permettrai d'évoquer la situation de l'espèce dans nos pays. En effet, plusieurs pressions s'exercent sur nos populations d'éléphants parmi lesquelles je citerai les suivantes:

• La forte pression démographique qui entraîne la dégradation, la réduction de l'habitat et sa dislocation qui a atteint un niveau tel que les zones de distribution des éléphants sont devenues isolées les unes des autres

• La dégradation de l'habitat liée entre autre aux caprices pluviométriques avec pour conséquence une insuffisance des ressources en eau pour répondre aux besoins du couvert végétal et du cheptel sauvage.

• Le braconnage dont il sera question tout au long de vos travaux, qui constitue la menace la plus directe sur les éléphants et pouvant conduire à court terme à une extinction locale de l'espèce. Cette pression est la plus dangereuse pour les éléphants d'Afrique de l'Ouest qui déjà sont très vulnérables en raison de la taille réduite des populations et du contexte écologique difficile.

En plus de ces trois pressions, je ne saurai passer sous silence la question des conflits hommes- éléphants qui deviennent de plus en plus sévères dans nos régions et pouvant contribuer également à la disparition de l'espèce.

Le Burkina Faso, avec un effectif d'éléphants d'environ 3500 têtes, n'échappe pas à toutes ces réalités que je viens d'évoquer. Pour une superficie de 274200 km2, le pays compte 13 sites de distribution des éléphants dont la superficie totale est de 18198 km2, représentant 7% de la superficie du territoire. Les importantes zones de distribution des éléphants sont situées à l'Est du Pays dans le complexe W, Arly, Singou et ses zones périphériques, au centre Sud, dans le Ranch de Nazinga, au Centre Ouest dans le Parc des deux Balés et à l'Ouest dans le complexe Comoé Léraba et ses zones périphériques.

Bien que les effectifs d'éléphants au Burkina soient relativement modestes, le pays a consenti des efforts pour la conservation de l'espèce et en a fait une priorité dans le domaine de la gestion de la Faune. Pour votre information, je voudrais souligner quelques uns de ces efforts.

• Au plan législatif, l'espèce bénéficie d'un statut de protection intégrale au niveau national depuis 1974.
• Au niveau de la maîtrise des effectifs, toutes les populations d'éléphants ont fait l'objet d'inventaire depuis 1991. Ce suivi est beaucoup plus régulier dans certains sites comme Nazinga et l'Est du pays ou en moyenne des inventaires ont lieu chaque année.
• Au niveau de la protection, le pays avec l'aide des partenaires au développement a mis en place des programmes de conservation qui couvrent la majorité des sites. Au nombre de ces programmes, on peut noter, le projet d'appui aux unités de conservation de la Faune financé par la coopération Française, le Programme National de Gestion des Terroirs financé par la Banque Mondiale, le projet d'appui au Ranch de Nazinga, financé par la Banque Mondiale et la Belgique, le Projet de Gestion Participative de la Faune et des Ressources Naturelles avec l'appui de la Banque Mondiale. Tout dernièrement, le Gouvernement vient de mettre en place un important programme qui couvre presque toutes les zones de distribution des éléphants. Ce programme dénommé Programme National de Gestion des Ecosystèmes Naturels est financé par la Banque Mondiale pour une période de 15 ans. Enfin, je citerai le projet sous-régional W financé par l'Union Européenne.
• Certaines initiatives sont également en cours. Dans le soucis de consolider sa politique en matière de conservation des éléphants, le Burkina est entrain de planifier une stratégie nationale pour la gestion de ses éléphants avec l'assistance technique du Groupe de Spécialistes de l'Eléphants d'Afrique et l'appui financier du Service de la Faune et de la Pêche des Etats Unis d'Amérique.
• Par ailleurs, d'autres initiatives sont en préparation avec l'UICN et la France pour le développement d'un programme de gestion des éléphants au Deux Balés.

S'appuyant sur l'expérience pilote d'intégration des communautés locales au ranch de Nazinga, le Burkina a réussi une intégration effective des communautés riveraines des parcs à la gestion de la faune.

En perspective, le Burkina entend consolider ces acquis, par la relecture des textes législatifs portant su la gestion de la Faune, la mise en œuvre de la décentralisation, la prise en compte des intérêts des populations dans les programmes en préparation.

 

Toutes fois, bien d'autres domaines méritent encore des efforts supplémentaires. Je citerai entre autres, la maîtrise du commerce interne de l'ivoire pour laquelle aucune action n'a été jusque là initiée.

En raison des mouvements transfrontaliers des éléphants, mon pays souhaite associer ses efforts à ceux des pays voisins à travers l'approche préconisée par la stratégie sous-régionale pour la conservation des éléphants d'Afrique occidentale, développée par le Groupe de Spécialistes de l'Eléphant d'Afrique de l'UICN et les Etats de la sous-région.

Nous avons suivi avec intérêt le développement du processus de MIKE aussi bien à travers les différentes conférences des parties à la CITES, qu'à travers les réunions de dialogue initiées pour rechercher un consensus autour de la question de la gestion des éléphants en Afrique. Nous sommes aujourd'hui heureux de constater que toutes ces démarches ont abouti à la mise en place d'un système formel dont l'objectif est de dégager la tendance évolutive du braconnage dans les Etats de l'aire de répartition.

Nous attendons que vos travaux dégagent toutes les mesures à même d'assurer une bonne fonctionnalité de ce système de suivi.

Je voudrais enfin adresser tous mes remerciement à la CITES, à l'UICN, et à tous les partenaires qui ont conjugué leurs efforts pour la tenue de cette réunion.

Au nom du Gouvernement du Burkina Faso, je vous souhaite plein succès dans vos travaux. Sur ce, je déclare ouverte, la réunion de mise en œuvre du Système de Suivi de l'Abattage Illégal des Eléphants en Afrique de l'Ouest.

Je vous remercie

 

Annex 3

List of documents distributed

 

1. Report of the meeting in Accra
2. Draft Monthly report form and instructions
3. Draft MIKE ground patrol form and instructions
4. Draft MIKE carcass report form and instructions
5. Draft MIKE forest population survey (form 4)
6. Draft MIKE forest village survey form (form 5)
7. Draft MIKE law enforcement monitoring form (form 2)
8. Draft MIKE trimester report form (forests)
9. Draft MIKE forest ground patrol form

 

Annex 4

Information on sites and suggested changes

SITES	STATUS	EXTERNALLY FUNDED PROJECTS / DONORS	PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS	COUNTRY
PENDJARI	PN BIOSPHERE RES.	Administration of the Pendjari National Park complex Funding: GTZ/KFW/AFD/GEF	Tourist agency University Population	BENIN
RANCH DE NAZINGA	Ranch gibier d'état	World Bank (WEF) Belgian Walloon area for the research		BURKINA FASO
PARC "W" COMPLEX	PN	Project on conservation and rational use of continued transboundary protected areas in Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and their buffer zones Funding: European Union - FED	ONG Population           Tourist agency University	BENIN         BURKINA FASO       NIGER
COMOE	PN	Transitory programme - European Union	ONG/WWF	COTE D'IVOIRE
MARAHOUE	PN	Transitory programme - European Union	ONG/Conservation Internationale	COTE D'IVOIRE
TAÏ	PN	KFW	GTZ,WWF. CSRS	COTE D'IVOIRE
KAKUM	NP	Japan Govt/US Fish & Wildlife Service	Conservation International	GHANA
MOLE	NP	-------	-------	GHANA
ZIAMA	Biosphere Reserve	Project on the administration of rural resources (PGRR.) K.F.W.	Population Local collectivities	GUINEA
SAPO	NP			LIBERIA
GOURMA + SAHEL BUR.	Reserve	Project on Biodiversity Conservation / B.M., F.F.E.M.	Population Collectivity ONG	MALI + BURKINA FASO
BABAN RAFI	Forêt classée	Domestic energy program / Project on the Aménagement of natural forests	- Population DANIDA B.A.D.	NIGER
SAMBISA	NP	National Park Service	NCF	NIGERIA
YANKARI	NP	National Park Service	Savanna Conservation NCF	NIGERIA
NIOKOLO BADIAR	PN	Programme AGIR CEE	Population Local collectivities	GUINEA + SENEGAL
FOSSE AUX LIONS	PN	Programme on rehabilitation of protected areas in Togo C.E.	- Local population - Direction *Faune et Chasse" - ONG	TOGO

Annex 5

Human Resources, Patrols and Equipment

Sites	Country	Personnel							Patrols								Equipment
		Upper level	Middle level	Field staff	Others				Nbr per month		Days per patrol		Pers. per patrol		Tot. Patr. man.days per month		Truck	4 x 4	Motor bikes		Bikes	Others (specified)
Marahoué	Côte d'Ivoire	5	15	21	6				2		10		12		240		0	0	0		0	GPS, compass
Park "W"	Bénin	2	0	4	8				6		5		6		180		0	2	4		0	4 walkie-talkies
Gourma	Mali	3	15	1	0				3		7		6		126		0	1	1		0	N.s.
Kakum	Ghana	1	3	47	16		C		10		15		4		600		0	2	2		10	Radio
							M		1		10		7		70
Pendjari	Bénin	5	0	22	16				8		10		7		560		0	0	0		0	GPS, computers
Mole	Ghana	4	5	177	0		C		29		15		4		1740		4	2	5		200	Radio, telephone
							M		9		10		4		360
Fosse aux lions	Togo	1	5	5	0				N.s.		N.s.		N.s.		N.s.		0	0	0		0	N.s.
Taï	Côte d'Ivoire	9	0	75	0				2		5		7		70		0	10	0		0	GPS, Radios, PC
Ziama	Guinée	5	0	28	0				2		15		6		180			3	7		20	GPS, Radios
Niokolo	Senegal	5		126	24				19		3		3		171		3	2	16		1	2 canoes, radio
									4		4		10		160
									2		5		25		250
									1		5		50		250
Park "W"	Niger	2	4	18	20				4		5		5		100		1	4	4		5	3 canoes, GPS, radio
Nazinga	Burkina Faso	3	0	5	25				?		?		?				?	?	?		?
Park "W"	Burkina Faso	4	0	5	21				3		3		3		27		0	0	3		13
Sahel Burkina	Burkina Faso	1	0	9	5				2		5		3		30		0	0	2		0
		C: Camp Patrols M: Mobile force Patrols N.s.: Non Specified														Numbers in italics indicating equipment in poor condition

 

Annex 6

SURVEY UPDATE

SITE	DATE OF SURVEY	TYPE OF SURVEY	SOURCE	FUTURE PLANS
Pendjari	1987	Ground transect	National Management Project
	1990	"	Montpelier
	2000	"	Univ. of Benin	February – March 2001
Nazinga Ranch	2000	Aerial transect & ground surveys twice a year
Park "W"
Benin	1996	Aerial		In 2001/02
Niger	1972/77/92	Ground surveys	U.S. Peace Corps	"
Burkina Faso	1999/2000	Aerial	Local NGO with French assistance Chardonet in the peripheral areas	"
Comoé	1999	Aerial extrapolation		April 2001
Marahoué	1981			In July or August 2001
Taï
Kakum	1997	DNA survey	Eggert, PhD. work
	2000	Dung counts	Barnes' team
Mole	1993	Aerial sample count	Ghana Wildlife Division	February 2001 GWD with CI
Ziama	2000	Much is known of distribution & range but not numbers
Sapo	1989	Dung count
Sahel - Burkinabé
Mali		Multiple guessestimates including recentling but no formal survey		2001/02 with WB funds
Burkina Faso		Study of movements and distribution only
Babah Rafi
Sambissa		No formal survey but well monitored from the ground
Yankari	1989	Modified aerial survey with ultralight		Possibly again in 2001
Niokolo Koba	January 2001	Aerial		March & May 2001 (ground count) June & October 2001 (wet & dry season aerial counts)
Fosse aux Lions	1990	Aerial		possibly March 2001