REVUE DU STATUT - IUCN

Éland de Derby occidental (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) Atelier de conservation

1

L’Éland de Derby Occidental

(Taurotragus derbianus derbianus)

Atelier de Conservation

REVUE DU STATUT

Éditeurs

Karolína Brandlová

Pavla Hejcmanová

Tamara Haberová

Pavla Jůnková Vymyslická

Magdalena Žáčková

Souleye Ndiaye

David Mallon


2

Sommaire

Introduction

1. Description de l’espèce

2. Valeurs

3. Rappel historique

4. Distribution actuelle et tendances

5. Habitat et évaluation des ressources

6. Menaces

7. Conservation et gestion

8. Références

Annexes

Le présent document a été élaboré en conformité avec le projet de l'UICN Planification

stratégique pour la conservation des espèces (Species Conservation Strategic Planning,

SCSP) se trouvant sur la page web :

http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/SSC_Chairs_Meeting/An_Overvi

ew_of_Species_Conservation_Strategic_Planning.pdf

Abréviations : DPN Direction des Parcs Nationaux du Sénégal EDO Éland de Derby occidental PNNK Parc National du Niokolo Koba SPEFS Societé pour la Protection de l’Environment et de la Faune au Sénégal UCAD Université Cheikh Anta Diop Dakar UICN Union Internationale pour la Conservation de la Nature UTSV Université Tchèque des Sciences de la Vie de Prague

Organisation de l'Atelier sur la stratégie de conservation de l'Eland de Derby occidental

a été soutenue par:


3

INTRODUCTION

L'une des plus grandes antilopes dans le monde, l'éland de Derby occidental (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) s'approche du bord de l'extinction. Nous ressentons le besoin d'une action urgente qui pourrait inverser son destin. Nous avons la certitude que seule l'expérience, les connaissances et la coopération étroite de tous les intéressés, des biologistes et des experts de conservation nationaux et internationaux peuvent nettement contribuer à la création de la stratégie de conservation et à la bonne préservation de cette espèce unique et de son habitat naturel – Parc National du Niokolo Koba dans l’est du Sénégal. Le présent document a pour objectif de fournir des informations sommaires sur les connaissances historiques et actuelles concernant la taxonomie, l’aire de distribution, l'écologie, le comportement et le statut de conservation de la sous-espèce occidentale d’éland de Derby.


4

1. Description de l’espèce

Cette partie répond à la question : « Qu’est ce que cette espèce ? ». Elle fournit un résumé d’informations

systématiques et phylogénétiques pertinentes relatives à l'espèce, y compris (pour les groupes d'espèces) une

liste des espèces incluses dans le SCSP. Elle devrait inclure une photo ou un dessin de l'espèce (ou des

exemples représentatifs dans le cas de multi-taxa groups), des informations sur le statut de la Liste rouge

et/ou une autre reconnaissance internationale (p. ex. inscription à la liste de la CITES).

Taxonomie et phylogénie L’éland de Derby (synonyme à Giant eland en anglais) est attribué par certains auteurs au genre Tragelaphus (Baillie et al. 1996, East 1998). Cependant, les autorités les plus récemment internationalement reconnues classent cette antilope au genre Taurotragus avec l’éland du Cap (Taurotragus oryx), tous deux considérés comme des espèces distinctes à part entières (Wilson et Reeder 2005, Groves et Grubb 2011). Dans la présente revue du statut, nous considérons donc l’éland de Derby comme Taurotragus

derbianus.

Figure 1. Femelle adulte et jeunes d’éland de Derby occidental. L’on reconnaît deux sous-espèces d’éland de Derby: Taurotragus derbianus derbianus (GRAY 1847) et Taurotragus derbianus gigas (HEUGLIN 1863). T. d. derbianus (Fig. 1) a été caractérisée par une taille plus petite en comparaison avec les autres sous-espèces et par un pelage roux clair avec une quinzaine de rayures blanches, tandis que T. d. gigas a été considéré comme plus important par sa taille, avec un fond couleur de sable rayé d’une douzaine de rayures (Dorst et Dandelot 1970; Kingdon 1982, 1997). Les deux sous-espèces sont géographiquement séparées (voir la partie 4. Distribution actuelle et tendances et Fig. 2), par conséquent, T. d. derbianus et T. d. gigas sont appelés respectivement sous-espèces occidentale et orientale. Il existe également des


5

dénominations synonymes: éland de Derby occidental (Western Derby eland en anglais) pour la sous-espèce de l'Ouest et éland de Derby oriental (Eastern Giant eland) pour celle de l'Est. Dans le présent document, nous utilisons la sigle EDO pour les sous-espèce occidentales. La différence entre ces deux sous-espèces a été fondée uniquement sur des descriptions morphologiques et elle a été remise en question par Groves et Grubb (2011) dans leur livre Ungulate taxonomy basé sur le concept phylogénétique de l’espèce. Ils tiennent Taurotragus derbianus pour un genre monotypique qui n’a pas de sous-espèce. Néanmoins, leur affirmation ne repose que sur un nombre très limité d'échantillons (seulement 2 paires de cornes d’EDO). Pour cette raison, nous ne considérons pas leurs conclusions pleinement valables et nous avons lancé notre propre recherche sur les relations morphologiques entre les sous-espèces. Jusqu'à présent, nous avons constaté de légères différences dans les paramètres morphologiques et nous effectuons un traitement de données génétiques (résultats non publiés). Écologie et organisation sociale L’éland de Derby est une espèce herbivore de grande taille qui occupe une bande de savane boisée et de savane arborée, la savanne soudanienne. Les deux sous-espèces sont présentes dans un environnement très similaire en termes de conditions climatiques (températures et précipitations) et structure et composition de la végétation. La végétation de savane soudanienne est constituée de forêts dominées par les familles des Combretaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, Rubiaceae, Mimosaceae et Tiliacées et par des espèces d'herbes hautes, à savoir Andropogon gayanus (pour les sous-espèces occidentales: Laweson 1995, Madsen et al. 1996, Traoré 1997, Hejcmanová-Nežerková et Hejcman 2006 ; pour les sous-espèces orientales: Bro-Jorgensen 1997, Graziani et d'Alesio 2004). L’éland de Derby est un herbivore généraliste qui se nourrit par une grande variété d'espèces végétales variant selon la saison; il mange principalement des feuilles et certains types de fruits, à savoir des cosses, et dans une moindre mesure également des herbacées, mais très rarement des graminées (Bro-Jorgensen 1997; Graziani et d'Alesio 2004; Hejcmanová et al. 2010). Les animaux maintiennent ce régime alimentaire aussi dans les enclos d'élevage de conservation dans la Réserve de Bandia (Hejcmanová et al. 2010; Galat et al. 2011) et dans la Réserve de Fathala (Hejcmanová et al. données non publiées). Il n'existe pas d'étude précise sur l’organisation sociale, le domaine vital ou le comportement pour les EDO vivant à l’état sauvage; le cas échéant, nous nous référons donc à la connaissance acquise sur les sous-espèces orientales. L’on a observé que l'élan de Derby (les deux sous-espèces) forme des hardes mixtes dont la taille peut aller de deux ou trois individus à plus d'une centaine de têtes (Renaud et al. 2006; Bro-Jorgensen 1997, observations personnelles de rangers dans le PNNK). Il semble qu’en début de saison sèche, les grands groupes se divisent en plus petits pour se rejoindre à nouveau en début de saison humide (Bro-Jorgensen 1997). Les domaines vitaux rapportés dans les études portant sur des élands de Derby orientaux étaient plutôt larges: Bro-Jorgensen (1997) a estimé l’ensemble du domaine vital de troupeaux mixtes à 100 000 ha, réduit à 30 000 ha pendant la saison sèche, et le domaine vital enregistré en RCA était de 47 517 ha pour les mâles et de 8 278 ha pour les femelles (Graziani et d'Alesio 2004).


6

Statut UICN de la Liste rouge et inscription à la CITES L’EDO figure sur la Liste rouge de l'UICN des espèces menacées classées comme En danger critique (CR C2a (ii)) (UICN 2010). Cette classification implique des taxons dont la population est estimée à moins de 250 individus matures avec un déclin continu constaté, prévu ou déduit du nombre d'individus matures et au moins 90% d'individus matures dans une sous-population. Vu le fait que pas plus de 200 individus d’éland de Derby occidental qui à l’heure actuelle habitent la savane ouest-africaine vivent principalement dans le PNNK (Renaud et al. 2006, Fig. 4), cette classification est tout à fait justifiée. L’EDO ne figure pas dans la convention CITES.


7

2. Valeurs

Cette partie répond à la question : « Pourquoi sauver l'espèce ? ». Elle devrait résumer quelles valeurs sont

représentées par l’espèce vis-à-vis de l’homme, y compris des valeur culturelles, socio-économiques,

religieuses, écologiques et d'autres significations. Cette partie devrait mettre en évidence des services

écosystémiques liés à l'espèce (p. ex. pollinisation, dispersion des graines,), son utilisation consommable (p. ex.

nourriture, décoration) et non-consommable (p. ex. tourisme) par l’homme et enfin, des valeurs culturelles

importantes (p. ex. symbolisme culturel, identité collective, et cela tant au sein de la distribution

géographique de l'espèce qu’à l'extérieur de ce domaine.

L’EDO est l'une des plus grandes antilopes dans le monde; en raison de sa timidité, cet animal majestueux est presque mystérieux. L’EDO est porteur de valeurs élevées et multiples et peut être désigné comme espèce phare pour la région ouest africaine. Valeur consommable: Les populations humaines locales ne reposent pas sur l’EDO en tant que source de nourriture et à cet égard, l’EDO peut être remplacé par le bétail et/ou d'autres grandes espèces sauvages. De ce point de vue, sa valeur consommable n'est donc pas significative. Valeur non-consommable: D'autre part, la valeur non-consommable de l’EDO est d’un potentiel extrêmement large, en particuier pour le tourisme, les services écosystémiques et la recherche scientifique. L’EDO est spectaculaire par sa taille et ses cornes, agréable pour la vue – et cela d’autant plus lorsqu’il est en grand troupeau. En y ajoutant les faits suivants: 1) état de conservation critique, 2) aire de distribution de l’animal très limitée et 3) possibilité exclusive de le voir dans son environnement naturel uniquement au Sénégal, l’EDO est l'espèce clé pour l'écotourisme et par conséquent, pour le développement économique dans la région. L’EDO est un grand herbivore brouteur généraliste – ainsi, il affecte une grande variété d'espèces ligneuses. Les grands troupeaux que l’EDO forme vivent en Afrique de l’Oeust dans la savane soudanaise. A cause d’une connaissance très limitée et une recherche scientifique inexistante sur l'animal dans son milieu naturel, son véritable rôle écologique n'a pas été évalué jusqu'à présent. Nous rappelons toutefois que l'élimination d’herbivores aussi grands en synergie avec un déclin d’autres espèces herbivores, par exemple d’éléphants, de buffles ou d'antilopes rouannes, peut avoir des conséquences inattendues sur la végétation de savane avec un risque élevé d'envahissement par des broussailles et de la perte d'habitats particuliers. Le rôle de l’EDO dans les services écosystémiques et le fonctionnement des écosystèmes est donc incontestable et représente un élément important et unique avec une fonction à peine remplaçable dans l'écosystème. La valeur de l’EDO comme élément important de la diversité biologique des savanes de l'Afrique consiste aussi dans le potentiel inépuisé pour la recherche scientifique, l'éducation, la connaissance et sa juste valeur, y compris la diversité génétique ou la valeur éthique, culturelle et esthétique de l'existence en soi. L’EDO a également une valeur d'option pour l'avenir, semblable à celle de la sous-espèce orientale qui représente un gibier de trophée de grande importance pour le « tourisme de chasse aux trophées » dans les réserves spéciales de faune au Cameroun et en RCA, ce qui contribue aux activités de conservation de l’animal dans son habitat naturel dans des zones entièrement protégées. Nous estimons cette valeur potentielle


8

de l’EDO dans le tourisme de chasse aux trophées réaliste dans un délai déterminé, 10-20 ans à titre d’exemple, après la stabilisation de la baisse de la population à l'état sauvage et la coordination des mesures de conservation et de gestion ex-situ.


9

3. Rappel historique

Cette partie répond à la question : « D’où vient le statut actuel de l'espèce ? ». Elle devrait fournir un résumé

de l'histoire de l'espèce, sa distribution historique, et expliquer brièvement comment elle est devenue une

préoccupation de conservation et quelles ont été les principales menaces dans le passé. Cette partie devrait

inclure une distribution historique de l'espèce bien documentée, y compris une carte (et la couche SIG

correspondante) qui fournit une limite externe de la zone de planification. Dans cette partie, l’on devrait

également citer tous les efforts majeurs de planification pour l'espèce dans le passé, y compris les plans

d'action précédents.

La première description scientifique de l’EDO provenait du Dr J. E. Gray, gardien du Département de zoologie du British Museum à Londres en début des années 1840, à partir de spécimens collectés par l'expédition qui travaillait pour le 13e comte de Derby. En 1863, le Dr M. T. von Heuglin a trouvé une paire de cornes de la même antilope quelques 6000 km plus à l'est, au cours de son voyage dans la région du Nil Blanc (Ruggiero 1990). L’éland de Derby est une espèce de savane soudanaise (Bigalke 1968). Cette savane s'étend comme une ceinture de l'ouest (Sénégal) à l'est de l'Afrique (Soudan, Ethiopie) ; ainsi, l’aire de distribution originelle des élands de Derby aurait donc potentiellement pu couvrir dans le passé toute la région (mentionné par Dollman 1936), mais réduite à une distribution limitée en deux aires séparées (Gentry 1971). La répartition historique documentée de l’EDO passait à travers le Sénégal, la Gambie, la Guinée-Bissau (Guinée portugaise), la Guinée, le Mali et le Côte-d'Ivoire du Nord (Prince Philip et Fisher 1970) et s'étendait même jusqu’au Nigeria du Nord selon Dorst et Dandelot (1970). En 1970, l’EDO a été déclaré être pratiquement disparu en Gambie, en grand danger causé par la pression de chasse au Mali. Les animaux qui ont été vus en Guinée-Bissau en 1970 s’étaitent probablement seulement égarés du Sénégal et les populations de la Guinée-Bissau et de la Guinée ont été considérées comme éteintes (le prince Philip et Fisher 1970). En Côte-d'Ivoire, T. d. derbianus a été noté comme absent en 1962 (Gentry 1971). Selon East (1998), dans les années 1990, l’EDO vivait seulement au Sénégal dans le PNNK au Sénégal oriental, dans la région du fleuve Falémé (frontière Sénégal/Mali/Guinée) et entre les fleuves Casamance et Gambie. La population totale de l’EDO a été estimée à environ 1000 individus, 700 à 800 d'entre eux dans le PNNK (Est 1998). Cependant, Darroze (2004) a signalé l'apparition possible de l’EDO au Mali et en Guinée – quelques animaux ont été tués par des chasseurs dans le nord-est de la Guinée dans la zone de Nabour (environ 20 km de la frontière Guinée/Mali) en 2001 ; une année plus tard, un jeune taureau a été abattu au Mali près de la réserve du Bafing (aujourd'hui Parc National du Bafing) et deux autres animaux ont été tués dans le nord-est de la Guinée. Considérant que ces rapports concernent des individus, l’on peut suggérer que la seule population viable confirmée de l’EDO sauvage peut être trouvée dans le PNNK au Sénégal (Koláčková et al. 2011). La distribution de la sous-espèce orientale peut être résumée au Cameroun, la République centrafricaine, le Tchad, le Nigeria, le Soudan, au sud-ouest de l'Ouganda et au nord de la République démocratique du Congo. Cependant, plus de 50% de la population sont morts pendant l’épidémie de peste bovine en 1982-1983 (East 1998) et


10

l’aire de distribution d’éland de Derby oriental s'étend seulement au Cameroun, à la République Centrafricaine, au Soudan du Sud et peut-être au-delà de la frontière avec la République démocratique du Congo (information non confirmée).


11

4. Distribution actuelle et tendances

Cette partie répond à la question : « Quel est le statut actuel de l'espèce ? ». Elle devrait fournir un résumé de

l'état actuel de l'espèce, y compris les couches cartographiques de synthèse documentant (a) les prospections

récentes pour l’espèce et leurs résultats ; (b) la distribution actuelle, classée par niveau de confiance selon les

catégories standardisées (p. ex. certain, probable, improbable, disparu, inconnu unknown etc.) ; (c) unités de

population importantes, appropriées pour y fonder des actions de conservation, y compris, le cas échéant,

l'identification des zones de restauration possibles. Chacune de ces données doit être attribuée par sa source,

la date et la méthode d'observation, avec des métadonnées normalisées.

Distribution actuelle de l’EDO Selon notre connaissance de rapports publiés et disponibles, la distribution actuelle de l’EDO est très limitée. La seule population viable confirmée a été signalée dans le PNNK au Sénégal. A partir du contact avec un grand troupeau de 69 têtes au cours d’un décompte aérien très intense en 2006 (et 2 contacts avec des troupeaux d'env. 7 animaux chacun lors du décompte terrestre en 2006), la population a été estimée à un total de 170 individus (Renaud et al. 2006). Des relevés aériens effectués en 1998 dans la région du Bafing au Mali n'ont abouti à aucun enregistrement visuel d’animaux (East 1998). D'autres enregistrements sont rares et proviennent de la frontière entre le Mali et la Guinée, près de la frontière du Sénégal. Mais ces témoignages sont indirects (animaux morts confisqués aux braconniers sur les marchés locaux) et ne concernent que des animaux individuels (Darroze 2004). Évolution de la population Les uniques chiffres ou estimations de la population de l’EDO disponibles proviennent du PNNK au Sénégal et des informations cohérentes et fiables provenant d'autres pays font défaut (que ce soit dû au manque de comptages d’animaux sauvages ou aux données non-publiées et donc indisponibles). Il y a eu plusieurs études zoologiques et écologiques importantes menées dans le PNNK ; cette dernières étaient cependant focalisées sur la faune en général ou sur l'écologie de la faune sauvage (Dekeyser 1956; Dupuy 1969 a, b, Dupuy et Verschuren 1982, Verschuren 1982). La population de l’EDO dans le PNNK a été enregistrée et estimée dans des comptages aériens et terrestres suivants: Dupuy 1970b, 1971; Galat et al. 1992, Benoit 1993; Hájek et Verner 2000; Mauvais 2002; Mauvais et Ndiaye 2004; et Renaud et al. 2006. Se basant sur des chiffres pertinents, Sournia et Dupuy (1990) ont estimé la population totale de l’EDO à 1000 individus dont la plupart se trouvait dans le PNNK, et ils ont considéré la population comme accrue dans les 20 dernières années (1970 et 1980). Tous les comptages après 1990 rapportaient pour la plupart seulement le nombre de contacts et la taille des troupeaux ; s’il y a eu des estimations sur l’ensemble de la population, elle ont toujours été faites avec prudence, justement à cause de ce contact avec l'animal très peu enregistré. Toutefois, les données de Benoit (1993), Chardonnet (1999); Hájek et Verner (2000) et Renaud et al. (2006) correspondent à l'estimation approximative de 100-150 (-170) individus de la population d’EDO dans le PNNK. En raison des informations incomplètes, la véritable évolution de la population est difficile à être appréciée avec rigueur. À notre connaissance, le premier avis sur l'état de conservation est dû à Nowak et Paradiso (1983) qui considéraient T. d. derbianus


12

comme En danger en 1976. L’augmentation de la population dans les années 1970 et 1980 (Sournia et Dupuy 1990) aurait pu se produire 1) suite à la déclaration du Niokolo Koba comme parc national avec des règles de protection en 1956, et par conséquent, grâce à une meilleure protection, et 2) en tant que conséquence d’une plus grande surface parce que le PNNK a été prolongé à plusieurs reprises dans les années 1960 et 1970, la protection a donc encore augmenté et il y a eu également une aire proportionnellement plus importante dans les calculs pour les estimations de la taille de la population. Des chiffres plus élevés pourraient ainsi représenter simplement une incohérence méthodologique. Quoi qu'il en soit, la taille réelle de la population de l’EDO est très faible et son augmentation est essentielle et souhaitable pour la survie des sous-espèces. Au cours des 20 dernières années, la population des sous-espèces orientales semble être stable ou en augmentation (Chardonnet et Chardonnet 2004; Bouché et al. 2009). Selon l'UICN, T. d. gigas est considéré comme Préoccupation mineure et sa population est estimée à environ 15 000 individus (UICN 2010). Unités de population semi-captive Une population semi-captive d’EDO a été établie en 2000 dans la Réserve de Bandia, basée sur 6 fondateurs (1 mâle, 5 femelles) capturés dans le PNNK. Depuis 2002, ils se sont reproduits avec succès, avec une croissance démographique annuelle moyenne de ces dernières années d’environ 36% (Koláčková et al. 2011). De nos jours, la population est divisée en 5 troupeaux reproducteurs et deux troupeuax de mâles dans deux réserves clôturées, Bandia et Fathala au Sénégal (Fig. 3) avec un nombre total de 83 individus, et l’effectif présente une tendance à la hausse (Koláčková et al. 2012).


13

Figure 2. Aire de distribution de l’éland de Derby. La couleur rouge indique la distribution actuelle, la couleur bleue indique la distribution historiquement enregistrée.


14

5. Habitat et évaluation des ressources

Cette partie répond à la question : « Quelle est la capacité des systèmes de la Terre pour soutenir l'espèce ? ».

Cette partie devrait founir un résumé du potentiel actuel de la Terre pour soutenir l'espèce, en particulier en

ce qui concerne ses conditions d'habitat (y compris nourriture, eau, abri et ressources de reproduction). En

règle générale, cette partie devrait comprendre un examen de l'utilisation des terres à travers l’aire de

distribution de l'espèce, les principales ressources utilisées par ou nécessaires pour l'espèce, et décrire les

paramètres écologiques majeurs des lieux où l'espèce est présente. Pour les espèces migratrices ou hautement

mobiles, cette partie devrait comprendre une évaluation des liens écologiques entre les zones de population

importantes. Elle devrait également revoir les prévisions de l'impact du changement climatique actuel sur

l'habitat et les ressources ainsi que les relations écologiques qui peuvent être perturbées dans le cadre du

changement climatique.

L’EDO est une grande espèce herbivore occupant une bande soudanienne de savanes boisées et arborées. Plusieurs études et nos observations ont révélé que l’EDO est principalement brouteur généraliste qui se nourrit de feuilles et de fruits d'une large variété de plantes. La végétation de savane boisée avec sa grande diversité d'espèces végétales est donc la principale ressource pour l'animal et cela du point de vue des ressources alimentaires et des abris pour se protéger contre les prédateurs, y compris l'homme. La superficie de la couverture végétale que l’homme n’a ni perturbée par ses activités, ni interrompue par ses habitations devrait être assez vaste pour permettre le passage des animaux sans restrictions majeures de manière à ce que les exigences des animaux en domaine vital naturel soient satisfaites. Les grandes zones protégées couvertes par la savane boisée semblent être une exigence clé de l'habitat pour les élands de Derby. Ces zones dans le paysage ouest-africain contemporain sont toutefois très limitées et se restreignent purement aux zones protégées comme parcs nationaux ou réserves naturelles. Il n'y a pas de données exactes en ce qui concerne les exigences de l'éland de Derby en eau ; cependant, des observations personnelles de gardes du PNNK des années 1970 et 1980 indiquent que les EDO ont réussi à surmonter de longues distances pour atteindre des points d'eau ou des rivières et fleuves. Ceci a été observé surtout en saison sèche chaude quand les points d'eau temporaires étaient desséchés et les animaux ont suivi des voies relativement stables jusqu’au fleuve Gambie (communication personnelle de nombreux gardes, incl. Souleye Ndiaye). Selon Bro-Jorgensen (1997), les sous-espèces orientales se déplacent en moyenne 14 km par jour (de 7 à 22 km par jour) et toujours à portée de l'eau. Nos observations de la réserve de Bandia soutiennent la dépendance relative de l’EDO sur les sources d'eau, puisque en saison sèche, le troupeau de reproduction a été observé à venir aux points d'eau tous les jours ou au moins tous les deux jours. Une autre ressource très importante pour les élands de Derby sont des sites riches en sel et d'autres minéraux (salines, c’est-à-dire pierres à lécher naturelles). Les élands de Derby orientaux ont été fréquemment observés dans la nature à ingérer de la terre ou des plantes sur ces lieux, dans les deux endroits de la RCA et au Cameroun. Les analyses de sol ont confirmé des contenus particulièrement élevés de sodium et de magnésium. Dans les Réserves de Bandia et de Fathala, l’on donne des salines à lécher aux animaux domestiques et ces derniers en prennent. Considérant que les ressources alimentaires des élands de Derby sont des feuilles qui ont un contenu fréquemment élevé en composés de fibres et de antinutritives, principalement des tanins, les animaux utilisent


15

la nutrition minérale par l’intermédiaire du sel à lécher comme un moyen naturel de détoxication. Aisi, le sel à lécher ou des compléments de nutrition minéraux sont un élément clé pour la nutrition de l’élan de Derby. La représentation catrographique et la surveillance de lieux riches en sel dans le PNNK sont fortement recommandées pour enregistrer les gisements de sel locaux. Les ressources de reproduction en termes de partenaires potentiels semblent être très limitées pour l’EDO avec sa population totale estimée à 170 animaux dans le PNNK (Renaud et al. 2006). L’on n’a toutefois pas mené aucune étude de la structure de la population et nous pouvons seulement avoir des doutes sur un probème de capacité potentiel dans la population.


16

6. Menaces

Cette partie répond à la question : « Quelles sont les principales menaces à la persistance de l’espèce à travers

son aire de distribution actuelle? ». L’on devrait y diagnostiquer les processus qui la menacent de manière

aussi précise et complète que possible pour s'assurer que les mesures de gestion proposées y répondent et se

traduisent dans une réelle inversion du déclin de la population. L’identification des menaces doit donc être un

processus rigoureux qui implique une anayse critique des meilleures données disponibles par des spécialistes.

En évaluant les menaces à la persistance de la population ou d'une espèce, il est important de distinguer les

menaces réelles (conducteurs du déclin de la population et/ou de l’aire de distribution) des processus qui

limiteraient la taille de la population et de la distribution en l'absence de l'activité humaine.

Pour de nombreuses espèces, il sera également utile de distinguer les menaces immédiates et ultimes pour les

populations sauvages afin d’aider à mener des mesures de gestion.

Compte tenu du fait que la seule population sauvage de l’EDO a été confirmée dans le Parc National du Niokolo-Koba (PNNK) dans l'est du Sénégal, l'évaluation des menaces qui suit se concentre sur ce lieu. Or si le PNNK est menacé, alors l’EDO est également menacé. Bien que le PNNK ait été déclaré parc national en 1954 et inscrit par UNECSO au patrimoine mondial en 1981 (UNESCO 2012), un grand nombre de menaces pour la faune locale y persistent. Par conséquent, le PNNK a été inclu sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril (Howard et al. 2007). La menace directe la plus grave pour l’EDO dans le PNNK semble être le braconnage qui entraîne une réduction considérable de toutes les espèces de grands mammifères depuis les 30 dernières années (Howard et al. 2007; UNESCO 2011). Des activités de braconnage dans le parc ont été documentées par de nombreuses études et observateurs (Mauvais Ndiaye et 2004; Nežerková et al. 2004; Renaud et al. 2006) et le braconnage y subsiste jusqu'à nos jours (Pruetz et al. 2012). La viande de brousse obtenue par le braconnage est estimée être égale à la production provenant de la chasse légale (respectivement 31 tonnes contre 29 tonnes par saison) (Diop 2004). Une autre menace grave pour l’EDO est le pâturage des animaux domestiques à l'intérieur du PNNK (Howard et al. 2007). On estime par milliers des bovins, des chèvres et des moutons qui sont nourris à l'intérieur du parc (Renaud et al. 2006). Cette menace est en même temps directe et indirecte. La menace directe consiste dans la probabilité accrue de transmission de maladies entre le bétail et la faune lors du pâturage (Pedersen et al. 2007). Malgré le fait que la peste bovine, à laquelle les élands sont susceptibles (Kock et al. 1999), a été déclarée éradiquée de la région (OIE 2011), il existe d'autres maladies infectieuses (p. ex. la gale sarcoptique généralisée) qui peut mettre en péril les espèces sauvages (Pence et Ueckerman 2002 ). La menace indirecte liée au pâturage du bétail dans le PNNK consiste à des changements dans la végétation dus au surpâturage et à l'érosion des sols et à la concurrence entre des animaux sauvages et ceux d'élevage pour les ressources en aliments et en eau (Ba Diao 2006). Une autre menace pour l’EDO est la perte générale de l'habitat naturel dans le PNNK. Elle peut être causée par des feux de brousse incontrôlés, lancés habituellement par des braconniers ou éleveurs de bétail (Mbow et al. 2000), par l'exploitation forestière et la culture agricole dans le parc illégales (Renaud et al. 2006) ou par la sécheresse et la salinisation (MEPN 2004). Il y a également un cas particulier – celui de l'embroussaillement des savanes boisées et des marais qui signifie la perte continue d'importants habitats humides dans le PNNK,


17

probablement en raison de la chute des effectifs et quasiment perte des éléphants au cours des dernières 30 ou 20 années. Une autre raison possible et synergique peut être la diminution de précipitations continue et manifeste à long terme. Une autre menace indirecte, mais sérieuse pour l’EDO représentent les décisions (principalement économiques ou politiques) sur le PNNK qui peuvent considérablement affecter l'habitat naturel de l’EDO. C’est, par exemple, réaliser la proposition de construire un barrage sur le fleuve Gambie, la nouvelle grande route (autoroute) coupant le PNNK, l'extraction de basalte ou exploitation de l'or, du fer et du zirconium à l'intérieur ou à côté du parc, notamment si des substances toxiques étaient utilisées (pour plus de détails voir Howard et al. 2007 et ECODIT 2008). La population semi-captive de l’EDO qui est élevé en enclos dans les Réserves de Bandia et de Fathala est bien protégée contre le braconnage et la perte d'habitat. Mais malgré tout, les EDO semi-captifs ne sont pas entièrement exempts de menaces. La menace la plus grave se cache dans la dépression de consanguinité potentielle, car l'élevage est basé sur un petit nombre de fondateurs (seulement 6 animaux) (Primack 2000). Quoqu'il n'y ait aucune évidence scientifique de l'hybridation de l’éland de Derby (T. derbianus) avec d'autres espèces du genre Tragelapus/Taurotragus, une certaine probabilité de cette menace pourrait exister. Cependant, tous les hybrides des tragelaphines connus (sauf hybrides entre bongo et sitatunga) ont été avortés ou infertiles (Wirtu 2004).

Figure 3. Carte du Sénégal avec l'emplacement du Parc National du Niokolo Koba et des Réserves de Bandia et de Fathala.


18

7. État de conservation actuel et gestion

Cette partie répond à la question : « Comment pouvons-nous focaliser et atténuer les menaces à la

persistance de l’espèces et assurer la viabilité de la population à long terme dans l’aire de distribution

actuelle de l’espèce ? ». Elle devrait identifier les mesures de conservation actuellement en place qui

contribuent à la vision de la conservation de l'espèce au niveau du site et au niveau de la (politique de)

distribution géographique ; identifier les meilleures pratiques en matière de conservation, gestion et (si

nécessaire) de restauration de l'espèce ; et reccomander des stratégies de conservation et de gestion

appropriées. Il peut s'agir d'une poursuite des mesures de conservation qui sont déjà en cours et/ou, le cas

échéant, de l’'introduction de mesures nouvelles et supplémentaires.

L’EDO a un énorme potentiel pour devenir l’espèce phare et aider à conserver l'ensemble de l'écosystème unique du PNNK. L’EDO est protégé par la loi sénégalaise. Les efforts de conservation Des tentatives portées sur la conservation de l’EDO par la planification de reproduction ex-situ de San Diego Animal Park (USA) à la fin des années 1970 ou les plans de projets de l'UICN à la fin des années 1990 n'ont pas abouti. Une autre tentative pour la conservation de l’EDO était un projet de création d'un enclos de réproduction in-situ directement dans le PNNK près du poste de Lengue Kountou, proposé par UTSV (République Tchèque) entre 2000 et 2002. Cette tentative non plus n’a pas été couronnée de succès. Les premiers efforts de conservation véritablement efficaces pour la population de l’EDO ont démarré en 1999 et 2000 avec la capture de 9 animaux dans la nature et leur transfert dans un enclos spécial séparé dans la Réserve de Bandia (Akakpo et al. 2004). Cette opération exigeante, très coûteuse, mais extrêmement importante a été organisée par la DPN et SPEFS, plus tard soutenues par des spécialistes d’UTSV. Ainsi, la première population semi-captive de l’EDO au monde a été établie dans la Réserve de Bandia en 2000 et un programme de conservation de l’EDO avec une gestion de la population élaborée a été lancée par les partenaires coopérants, SPEFS, UTSV et DPN, en 2002. La reproduction a commencé par 6 fondateurs (1 mâle et 5 femelles) en 2002. Depuis, la gestion de cette population semi-captive a apporté de nombreuses réalisations telles que la reproduction réussie et l'établissement de 5 troupeaux reproducteurs dans deux réserves naturelles géographiquement séparés au Sénégal (Bandia et Fathala) avec un nombre total de 83 animaux en 2012. La population semi-captive fait l’objet d’un suivi continu basé sur l'identification annuelle des individus dans le troupeau (Antonínová et al. 2004; Nežerková et al. 2004; Antonínová et al. 2006) et depuis 2008, de la publication annuelle d’un registre (p. ex. Koláčková et al. 2011; Koláčková et al. 2012). La population de reproduction semi-captive obtenue par le programme de conservation est devenue cruciale pour l'ensemble de la population sauvage de l’éland de Derby occidental, fournissant non seulement un patrimoine génétique et un fond d'animaux, mais aussi un outil unique pour la collecte de fonds et de sensibilisation du public à l'égard de l'écosystème unique de PNNK qui est répertorié par l'UNESCO comme un site du patrimoine mondial en péril (UNESCO 2012).


19

Stratégie de conservation actuelle La meilleure stratégie pour une protection à long terme est de préserver la population dans l'habitat naturel de l'espèce (Primack 2000). Le PNNK en tant qu'habitat naturel de l’EDO lui offre les meilleures conditions écologiques pour la vie. Cependant, l'étude pilote (Nežerkova et al. 2004) et plus tard, des relevés aériens et terrestres (Mauvais Ndiaye 2004; Renaud et al. 2006) ont confirmé que la condition de la sécurité de la région n'a jusqu'à présent été respectée. Dans ce cas, la conservation in-situ peut difficilement être réussie et des stratégies ex-situ ont pris sa place légitime. L’élevage de conservation ex-situ dans une zone spécialement clôturée au sein d'une réserve naturelle aménagée a constitué une solution raisonnable pour la préservation de l’EDO. Ainsi, les Réserves de Bandia et de Fathala au Sénégal (Fig. 3) ont été choisies comme lieux adéquats, et en raison de l'opération de capture préméditée et coordonnée dans le PNNK en 2000, le programme d'élevage de conservation ex-situ a été mis en place. Notre stratégie consiste à assurer la population en établissant un nombre suffisant de troupeaux de reproduction sur plusieurs sites appropriés, notamment pour mettre la population à l'abri contre la chasse illégale incontrôlée et contre diverses catastrophes éventuelles ou des épidémies de maladies. Un autre objectif est de gérer la population afin de conserver la diversité génétique la plus élevée que possible, parce que les animaux des Réserves de Bandia et de Fathala sont les seuls animaux des sous-espèces occidentales détenues en captivité dans le monde ! Voilà pourqoui un programme de conservation unique a été lancé et il fonctionne jusqu'à présent grâce à une étroite coopération coordonnée des partenaires. Gestion actuelle de la population semi-captive L’actuelle population de l’EDO en semi-captivité a pour base six animaux nés à l’état sauvage (1 mâle et 5 femelles) et elle continue de se reproduire sous une surveillance permanente de la parenté et selon un plan génétique. Conformément à ce plan (Antonínová et al. 2008; Koláčková et al. 2010), une série de divisions du troupeau d'origine et de séparations des animaux sélectionnés au profit de nouveaux troupeaux a eu lieu entre 2006 et 2012. La réalisation de ce plan prévoyait également transferts d'animaux vers la Réserve de Fathala, de nouveaux troupeaux ont également été établis dans la Réserve de Bandia (pour plus de détails, voir l'Annexe 2). En juin 2012, la population semi-captive formait une population de 83 individus vivants. La population a été divisée en 5 troupeaux reproducteurs (trois dans la Réserve de Bandia et deux dans la Réserve Fathala) et deux troupeaux de mâles. Parmi ceux-ci, l’on trouve 57 adultes (30 mâles, 27 femelles), 14 sub-adultes (11 mâles, 3 femelles) et 12 veaux (6 mâles et 6 femelles). Quatre mâles reproducteurs ont reproduits avec succès en 2012. En juillet 2012, certaines des clôtures de la Réserve de Bandia ont été enlevées et les deux troupeaux reproducteurs se sont mélangés. Cette activité n'a pas été pris en charge par l'équipe tchèque et elle pourrait détruire l'effort à long terme pour la gestion des ressources génétiques de la population semi-captive.


20

La structure par sexe des troupeaux actuels (juin 2012) va suivre (emplacement + désignation numérique des enclos): Troupeaux de reproduction Bandia 1 : 5 mâles and 14 femelles Bandia 2 : 4 mâles and 9 femelles Bandia 3 : 3 mâles and 8 femelles Fathala 1 : 2 mâles and 5 femelles Fathala 3 : 1 mâle, 2 femelles Troupeaux de mâles Bandia 4 : 17 mâles Fathala 2 : 15 mâles


21

RÉFÉRENCES Akakpo A.J., Al Ogoumrabe N., Bakou S., Bada-Alambedji R., Ndiaye S. (2004) Essai d’élevage de l’eland de

Derby (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) à la Réserve de faunede Bandia: prélude à une opération de sauvegarde de cette espèce au Sénégal. Révue Africain de Santé et Production Animale 2, 257–261. (In French).

Antonínová M., Hejcmanová P., Koláčková K., Verner P.H. (2008) African Studbook: Western giant eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus (Gray, 1847)). First edition, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, 91 pp.

Antonínová M., Hejcmanová P., Váhala J., Mojžíšová L., Akakpo A. J., Verner P.H. (2006) Immobilisation and transport of Western Giant Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) from the Bandia Reserve to the Fathala Reserve in Senegal. Gazella 33, 75-98.

Antonínová M., Nežerková P., Vincke X., Al-Ogoumrabe N. (2004) Herd structure of the Giant eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus GRAY 1847) in the Bandia Reserve, Senegal. Agricultura tropica et

subtropica 37, 1-4. Ba Diao M. (2006) Livestock production and conservation in and around protected areas: the Project for

Integrated Ecosystem Management in Senegal. Unasylva, 57, 16-21. Baillie J. E. M., Groombridge B., Gärdenfors U., Stattersfield A.J. (1996) IUCN List of Threatened Animals.

IUCN, Gland Switzerland. Benoit M. (Ed.) (1993) Le parc national du Niokolo Koba – Livre Blanc. DPNS, Dakar, 52 pp. (Unpublished

repport). Bigalke R. C. (1968) The Contemporary Mammal Fauna of Africa. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 43, 265-

300 Bouché P., Renaud P.C., Lejeune P., Vermeulen C., Froment J.M., Bangaras A., Fiongai O., Abdoulayei A.,

Abakar R., Fay M. (2009) Has the final countdown to wildlife extinction in Northern Central African Republic begun? African Journal of Ecology, 48, 994-1003.

Bro-Jørgensen J. (1997) The ecology and behaviour of the Giant Eland (Tragelaphus derbianus, Gray 1847) in the wild. Master‘s thesis, University of Copenhagen, 106 pp.

Chardonnet P. (1999) Survol e´cologique de 3 zones du sudouest du Mali en vue du de´nombrement des e´lands de Derby et des autres grands mammife` res. - Final report. IUCN Mali, DNCN, 24 pp. (In French).

Darroze S. (2004) Western giant eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) presence confirmed in Mali and Guinea. In Chardonnet, B., Chardonnet, P. 2004. Antelope survey update, IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group report. Fondation internationale pour la souvegarde faune, Paris, 9: 21-23

Dekeyser P.L. (1956) Mammifères, In: Le Parc national du Niokolo Koba, fasc. I, Mém. IFAN. No 48, 1956, DAKAR, pp. 266.

Diop P.A. (2004) Wildlife and development, contribution to the fight against poverty: the case study of the hunting in Senegal. In Chardonnet, P.;Lamarque, F.;Birkan, M. (Eds.): Wildlife: a natural resource. Proceedings of the 6th International Wildlife Ranching Symposium, 6-9 July 2004, Paris, France. Game & Wildlife Science 2004, vol. 21 (4), pp. 633-641.

Dollman G. (1936) African Antelopes. Journal of the Royal African Society, 35 (141), 1-28 Dorst J., Dandelot P. (1970) A field guide to the larger mammals of Africa. Collins, London, 287 pp. Dupuy A. R. (1969b) Mammifères (Deuxième note). In: Le parc national du Niokolo Koba, fasc.III, Mém.

IFAN, No 84, 1969, Dakar, pp. 487. Dupuy A. R. (1970b) Le récensement général de la faune au Parc national du Niokolo Koba.- Notes

Africaines, IFAN Dakar No 127, pp: 94 - 96. Dupuy A. R. (1971) Le récensement aérien de faune d’avril 1971 au Parc national du Niokolo Koba, Notes

Africaines, IFAN Dakar No 131, pp: 67 - 70. Dupuy A. R.(1969a) Comportement du Cobe du Buffon au Parc national du Niokolo Koba (Sénégal).- Notes

Africaines, IFAN Dakar No 124, pp: 118 - 123. Dupuy A. R., Verschuren J. C. (1982) Note d’introduction biologique sur le Parc national Delta du Saloum.

In: Recherches scientifiques dans les parcs nationaux du Sénégal. Mém. IFAN, No 92, 1982, Dakar, pp. 364.

East R. (1998) African Antilope Database. IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group Report, Gland, Suisse, 434 pp.


22

ECODIT (2008) Senegal biodiversity and tropical forests assessment. Prepared for USAID/Senegal under Prosperity, Livelihoods and Conserving Ecosystems (PLACE) Indefinite Quantity Contract number EPP-I-01-06-00010-00. Available at http://www.usaid.gov/.

Galat G., Benoit M., Chevillotte M., Diop A., Duplantier I. (1992) Dénombrement de la grande faune du parc national Niokolo Koba, Sénégal 1990 – 1991. DPN – Orstom, 54 pp.

Galat G., Galat-Luong A., Nizinski J.J. (2011) Diet preferences of aWestern giant’s (Lord Derby’s) eland group in a Sahelian dry habitat. Animal Biology 61, 485–492

Gentry A. W. (1971) Order Artiodactyla. In Meester, J., Setzer H. W. (eds.) (1971) Mammals of Africa. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington DC, not paginated

Graziani P, d’Alessio S.G. (2004) Monitorage radiotélémetrique de l’Eland de Derby (Tragelaphus

derbyanus gigas) dans le Nord de la République Centrafricaine. Programme Regional Ecofac Composante Zones Cynegetiques Villageoises (R.C.A.), Relation finale- Juillet 2004, I.E.A. (Istituto di Ecologia Applicata)- ROMA, 77 pp.

Groves C. P., Grubb P. (2011) Ungulate Taxonomy. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 336 pp. Hájek I., Verner P.H. (2000) Aerial censusof big game in Niokolo-National Park and Falemé Region in

Eastern Senegal. Proceed. 3rd All Africa Conference on Animal Production, Alexandria, 5-9 November 2000.

Hejcmanová P., Homolka M., Antonínová M., Hejcman M., Podhájecká V. (2010) Diet composition of Western Derby eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) in dry season in a natural and a managed habitat in Senegal using faeces analyses. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 40, 27–34.

Hejcmanová P., Vymyslická P., Koláčková K., Antonínová M., Havlíková B. Policht R., Stejskalová M., Hejcman M. (2011) Suckling behaviour of eland antelopes (Taurotragus spp.) under semi-captive and farm conditions. Journal of Ethology 29, 161-168.

Hejcmanová-Nežerková P., Hejcman M. (2006) A canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) of the vegetation-environment relationships in Sudanese savannah, Senegal. South African Journal of Botany 72, 256–262.

Howard P., Wangari E., Rakotoarisoa N. (2007) Mission Report: UNESCO/IUCN joint monitoring mission to Niokola-Koba National Park, Senegal. UNESCO. 22 pp.

IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. - IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (Accessed on 30 June 2010).

Kingdon J. (1982) East African mammals: An atlas of evolution in africa, Vol. IIIC. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 404 pp.

Kingdon J. (1997) The Kingdon field guide to African mammals. AP Natural World Academic Press, Harcourt Brace & Company, San Diego, 363-365 pp

Kock R. A., Wambua J. M., Mwanzia J., Wamwayi H., Ndungu E.K., Barrett T., Kock N. D., Rossiter P. B. (1998) Rinderpest epidemic in wild ruminants in Kenya. Vet. Rec., vol. 145, pp. 275-283.

Koláčková K., Haberová T., Vymyslická P., Žáčková M., Hejcmanová P., Brandl P. (2012) African Studbook. Western Derby Eland, Taurotragus derbianus derbianus (Gray, 1847), 5th edition, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 103 pp.

Koláčková K., Hejcmanová P., Antonínová M., Brandl P. (2011) Population management as a tool in the recovery of the critically endangered western Derby eland Taurotragus derbianus in Senegal, Africa. Wildlife Biology 17, 299-310.

Koláčková K., Hejcmanová P., Antonínová M., Svitálek J., Vymyslická P., Žáčková M., Policht R., Brandl P., Verner P.H. (2010) Ten years of the Western Derby eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) conservation programme. Gazella 37,168-181.

Lawesson J.E. (1995) Study of woody flora and vegetation in Senegal. Opera Botanica 125, 172pp. Madsen J., Dione D., Traoré S.A., Sambou B. (1996) Flora and vegetation of Niokolo Koba National Park,

Senegal. In: van der Maesen, J., et al., (Eds.), The Biodiversity of African Plants. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 214– 219

Mauvais G. (2002) Dénombrement aérien de la moyenne et grande faune et localisation des points d’eau, 2001 – 2002. DPN – FFEM, 13 pp (unpublished report).

Mauvais G., Ndiaye A. (2004) Aerial census of wildlife in Niokolo Koba National Park, Senegal. In: Antelope Survey Update, Number 9: November 2004, IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group Report (eds. Chardonnet, B., Chardonnet, P.). Paris: Fondation Internationale pour la Sauvegarde de la Faune, pp. 14-17.


23

Mbow C., Nielsen T.T., Rasmussen K. (2000) Savanna Fires in East-Central Senegal: Distribution Patterns, Resource Management and Perceptions. Human Ecology, 28, 561-583.

MEPN (2004) Stratégie biodiversité du Sénégal. Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Protection de la Nature 94 pp.

MEPN (2009) Parcs et reserves (online). Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Protection de la Nature. Actualised 10th February 2009. Cited 2012-11-25. Available at http://www.environnement.gouv.sn/.

Nežerková P., Verner P.H., Antonínová M. (2004) The conservation programme of the Western giant eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) in Senegal – Czech Aid Development Project. Gazella 31, 87–182.

Nowak R. M., Paradiso J. L. (1983) Walker´s Mammals of the World, 4th ed., Vol.I, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1362 pp.

OIE (2011) No more deaths from rinderpest (online). Published 25th May 2011. Cited 2012-11-25. Available at http://www.oie.int.

Pedersen A.B., Jones K.E., Nunn C.L., Altizer S. (2007) Infectious Diseases and Extinction Risk in Wild Mammals. Conservation Biology, 21, 1269–1279.

Pence D.B., Ueckermann E. (2002) Sarcoptic mange in wildlife. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 21, 385–398. Primack R.B. (2000) A primer of Conservation Biology. Boston University, Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Publisher, Sunderland, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 319 pp. Prince Philip, Fisher J. (1970) Wildlife Crisis. Cowles, 256 pp. Pruetz J.D., Ballahira R., Camara W., Lindshield S., Marshack J.L., Olson A., Sahdiako M., Villalobos-Flores U.

(2012) Update on the Assirik Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) Population in Niokolo Koba National Park, Senegal. Pan Africa News, 19, 8-11.

Renaud P.C., Gueye M.B., Hejcmanová P., Antonínová M., Samb M. (2006) Inventaire aérien et terrestre de la faune et relevé des pressions au Parc National du Niokolo Koba. Plan d’Urgence, Rapport Annexe A, Aout 2006. Dakar, APF, DPNS, 74 pp.

Ruggiero R. (1990) Lord Derby‘s eland.- Swara, East African Wildlife Society, 13, 10–13. Sournia G., Dupuy A. (1990) Senegal.- In: EAST, R.: Antilopes. Global survey and regional action plans, Pt 3:

West and Central Africa, IUCN Gland. Sournia G., Dupuy A.R. (1991) Senegal. In: Antelopes. Global survey and regional action plans. Part 3: West

and Central Africa. Pp 29-32 (R. East, ed.). IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland. Tappan G.G., Sall M., Wood E.C., Cushinga M. (2004) Ecoregions and land cover trends in Senegal. Journal of

Arid Environments, 59, 427–462. Traoré S.A. (1997) Analyse de la flore ligneuse et de la végétation de la zone Simenti (Parc National du

Niokolo Koba), Se´ne´gal Oriental. Thèse de doctorat du 3ème cycle, ISE UCAD, p 136. UNESCO (2011) State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the List of World

Heritage in Danger. 85 pp. UNESCO (2012) Niokolo-Koba National Park (online). Cited 2012-11-24. Available at

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/153. Verschuren J. C. (1982) Notes de bio-écologie des grands mammiferes du Parnc National du Niokolo Koba.

Examen comparé avec le Zaire et l’Afrique de l’Est. In: Recherches scientifiques dans les parcs nationaux du Sénégal. Mém. IFAN, No 92, 1982, Dakar.

Wilson D.E, Reeder D.M. (eds.) (2005) Mammals species of the World: Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, Vol.1. The John Hopkins University Press, 142 pp.

Wirtu G. (2004) Developing embryo technologies for the eland antelope (Taurotragus oryx). Dissertation. Louisiana State University. 159 pp.


24

ANNEXES

1. Surveillance Rapport de l'UNESCO et de l'UICN au Niokolo-Koba National Park, Sénégal (Howard et al. 2007)

2. Aperçu de la gestion de l'élevage et les opérations de transport de la population de l'EDO en semi-captivité

3. Les paramètres démographiques et génétiques de la population de l'EDO en semi-captivité dans le programme de conservation (Koláčková et al. 2011)

Derby eland illustration published in Rothschild 1905.


ANNEX I

Surveillance Rapport de l'UNESCO et de l'UICN au Niokolo-Koba National Park, Sénégal

Howard P., Wangari E., Rakotoarisoa N. 2007. Mission Report - UNESCO/IUCN joint monitoring mission to Niokola-Koba National Park, Senegal. 31st session of the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO, New Zealand, 22 pp.

1

WHC-07/31.COM/7A.Add

WHC-07/31.COM/7B.AddWHC-07/31.COM/7B

WHC-07/31.COM/7A

World Heritage Patrimoine mondial

31 COM

Distribution limited / limitée

Paris, 23 May / mai 2007 Original: English

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L'EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE / COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL

Thirty-first session / Trente et unième session

Christchurch, New Zealand / Christchurch, Nouvelle Zélande

23 June - 2 July 2007 / 23 juin - 2 juillet 2007

Item 7 of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and/or on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Point 7 de l’Ordre du jour provisoire: Etat de conservation de biens inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial et/ou sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril

MISSION REPORT / RAPPORT DE MISSION

Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal) (N 153) / Parc National de Niokolo-Koba (Sénégal) (N 153)

21-27 January 2007 / 21-27 janvier 2007

This mission report should be read in conjunction with Document: Ce rapport de mission doit être lu conjointement avec le document suivant:

2

Mission Report UNESCO/IUCN joint monitoring mission to

Niokola-Koba National Park, Senegal

21-27 January 2007

Consultant

Peter Howard (IUCN) World Heritage Centre

Elizabeth Wangari (UNESCO) Associate Expert

Noeline Rakotoarisoa (UNESCO)

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 4

SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Background To The Mission .......................................................................................................... 7

2. National Policy for Management of the World Heritage Property ............................................... 8

3. Identification and Assessment of Conservation Issues and Threats ............................................. 8 3.1 Threats ........................................................................................................................................ 8

3.1.1 Poaching .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.1.2 Illegal cutting of Borassus palms and other trees ............................................................... 9

3.1.3 Grazing of cattle and other domestic stock ......................................................................... 9

3.1.4 Other aspects of habitat degradation and change .............................................................. 10

3.1.5 Dam construction .............................................................................................................. 10

3.1.6 Road construction ............................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Management effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Historical perspective ....................................................................................................... 11

3.2.2 Recent developments and present management ............................................................... 12

3.2.3 Prospects for improved management ............................................................................... 12

4. Assessment of the State of Conservation of the Property ........................................................... 13 4.1 Maintenance of Outstanding Universal Values ...................................................................... 13

4.2 Conditions of Integrity ............................................................................................................ 13

4.3 Actions taken in response to previous world heritage committee decisions ........................... 15

5. Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................ 16 5.1 Site management actions to be taken by the State Party ......................................................... 16

5.2 Special protection measures for endangered large mammals ................................................. 17

5.3 International support and action .............................................................................................. 17

5.4 Benchmarks and timetable ...................................................................................................... 17

5.4.1 Changes to be effected within one year ........................................................................... 17

5.4.2 Changes to be effected within three years ....................................................................... 17

5.4.3 Changes to be effected within five years ......................................................................... 17

5.4.4 Conditions for removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger ............................... 18

5.4.5 Conditions for De-listing ................................................................................................. 18

6. ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................... 19 6.1 Terms of Reference ................................................................................................................. 19

6.2 Itinerary and Programme ........................................................................................................ 19

6.3 Composition of Mission Team ................................................................................................ 20

6.4 List and contact details of people met ..................................................................................... 21

6.5 Map of Niokola-Koba, showing current boundaries, topography and other features ............. 22

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Members of the UNESCO and IUCN mission acknowledge the goodwill and support provided by

the Head and staff of the Department of National Parks of Senegal. The Department provided air

and land transport which enabled the mission to view much more of this large park than would have

been possible without this support. Staff of the Department accompanied the mission throughout its

visit to the park. The Department also organized an inter-ministerial and inter-departmental

meeting for Dakar-based stakeholders with an interest in the conservation and protection of

Niokolo-Koba National Park.

SUMMARY

From 21 to 27 January 2007 a joint UNESCO/IUCN monitoring mission visited Niokola-Koba

National Park, in accordance with the world heritage committee decision 30 COM 7B.1 of July

2006. The mission spent three days at Niokola-Koba and two days in Dakar consulting with a wide

range of stakeholders. The results of a comprehensive recent field survey indicate that the site has

lost most its large mammal fauna to commercial poaching, and its integrity is threatened by high

levels of human activity, particularly cattle grazing. The site is further threatened by plans for a

new dam on the Gambia river. In view of this degradation, and the magnitude of the ongoing

threats, the mission concluded, in consultation with Senegal’s Department of National Parks, that

the site should be included on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Conservation values and integrity. The site is one of the largest protected areas in West Africa,

covering some 9,130 km2 of Guinea savanna woodland, and supporting a diverse fauna including

many rare species and taxonomically distinct types. The site was inscribed on the basis of its

diversity of wildlife and the presence of endangered species. It remains free of human settlement,

and agricultural encroachment is limited to a few small areas along the periphery of the park. The

integrity of the natural habitats within the park is quite well preserved across large areas, although

there are significant impacts from (1) illegal cutting of Borassus palms and other trees, (2)

uncontrolled use of fire, often associated with hunting, (3) drying of flooded grasslands (so-called

‘Mares’) and invasion of these critical dry-season habitats by woody vegetation, (4) heavy grazing

pressure by cattle and other domestic stock, (5) bush encroachment in areas formerly kept open by

elephants and (6) agricultural encroachment along the periphery of the park where the boundary is

not physically demarcated.

Despite the relatively good condition of the habitats within the park, the site is perilously close to

becoming an ‘empty forest’, as most of the large mammal fauna has been lost to commercial

poaching. The results of a detailed census (carried out in May 2006 by the African Parks

Foundation, a Dutch NGO), suggest that populations of all ungulate species have suffered serious

recent declines, with elephant now on the verge of extinction, buffalo reduced to about 457

individuals from an estimated 8,000 in 1990, roan numbering only 710 (from 6,000), and hartebeest

149 ( from 5,000 in 1990). Overall, there are now estimated to be a total of only about 2,115 large

and medium sized ungulates (belonging to 11 species) in the park, and these are outnumbered by

three times as many cattle, goats and sheep.

Threats. Clearly, the most significant threat is poaching for the commercial bushmeat trade. The

high value of bushmeat provides a strong incentive for poaching, particularly in this poor rural area

with few alternative livelihood options. Other threats that are already affecting the integrity of

5

habitats within the park are mentioned above, and potential new threats include (1) the proposed

construction of a new dam on the Gambia river, just outside the park and (2) the proposed

construction of a major trans-national highway linking Senegal (Tambacounda) with Guinea

(Koundara).

The mission evaluated each of the existing and potential threats in relation to the Outstanding

Universal Values for which the park was inscribed on the world heritage list, and concluded that all

threats could be ameliorated sufficiently to allow recovery of the site. Most of the site management

problems can be attributed to inadequate infrastructure, equipment, funding, expertise and political

will (in the past) to enable the authorities to manage the park effectively. A potentially more

serious long-term threat is the proposed construction of a dam on the Gambia river at Mako, just

upstream of the park. As far as the road construction is concerned, a decision to re-align the road

outside the park (some distance to the west of its boundary) has been taken, and its long-term

impact on the park remains to be seen.

Management effectiveness. It is clear that the high standards of site management which existed at

the time of inscription on the world heritage list have not been sustained, despite the efforts of the

Department of National Parks, and recent support from the international donor community. The

park’s location close to international borders, regional insecurity and the proliferation of automatic

weapons during the 80s and 90s resulted in unrelenting poaching pressure at a time when park

budgets and staffing levels were being cut. Furthermore, the park has not yet gained the trust and

support of local communities, many of whom were evicted from park lands when it was established,

and still feel alienated. For many years there was a progressive deterioration in park infrastructure,

withdrawal of staff from critical security posts, and general deterioration in management capacity.

There have been three major donor-assisted projects at Niokola-Koba since 1994. Two of these

were regional projects supported by the European Community with significant components aimed at

improving natural resource management in and around the trans-frontier Niokola-Koba-Badiar park

complex on either side of the Senegal-Guinea border. These two projects were operational between

1994-99 and 2001-05, and resulted in improvements in park infrastructure, surveillance and the

participation of local communities in sustainable resource use. The third project, supported by the

French government between 1998 and 2002, involved the development of a park management plan,

institutional support, further rehabilitation of park infrastructure and additional activities designed

to provide income-generating opportunities for local communities associated with the park. Despite

the considerable investment in these three projects animal populations have continued to decline

throughout this period, and the second of the regional projects (Projet AGIR) was closed before the

committed funding had been fully utilised. The donor community is now interested in supporting

new approaches to park management, rather than ‘more of the same’. Public- private partnership

arrangements, such as those proposed by the Dutch-based African Parks Foundation (see below) are

seen by several key donors as providing the greatest hope for reversing the fortunes of Niokola-

Koba.

Prospects for change. A significant recent development has been the invitation by the government

of Senegal to the Dutch-based NGO African Parks Foundation to consider a partnership

arrangement for conservation of the site. With support from the Royal Netherlands government,

African Parks Foundation has conducted an extensive needs assessment at Niokola-Koba,

(including a detailed animal census) and submitted a proposal for the establishment of a new

autonomous foundation to oversee management of the park under a 25-year contract. The African

Parks Foundation would provide 25% of the necessary finance, with government providing 17%,

and the remaining 58% coming from other sources (not yet identified) in a public-private

6

partnership. A three-year emergency rehabilitation plan has been proposed at a cost of 6.4 million

Euro.

Whilst these assessments and negotiations are underway, the Department of National Parks has

made significant changes in its management operations at the park level. Staffing levels have been

doubled over the past three years, staff have been re-deployed to the field, salaries and operational

budgets have been substantially increased; and several new vehicles deployed to help with anti-

poaching patrols. The mission was impressed by the sense of purpose, commitment, understanding

of issues and pragmatism of the new management team in the field.

Conclusion and recommendations. The mission recommends that the site be included on the List

of World Heritage In Danger, at least until such time as monitoring programmes indicate a

reduction in the level of threat and a significant recovery in large mammal populations.

Furthermore, the mission recommends that the State Party undertakes the following immediate

actions to secure the site:

• Implement urgent steps to halt poaching, using the DPN’s aircraft for surveillance, with

ground support provided by a mobile ‘striking force’;

• Develop and implement an emergency action plan to address the urgent threats to the OUV

and integrity of the property. The emergency action plan recently developed by the expert

mission funded by APF can be an excellent base for this plan;

• Accord the necessary priority to conservation of the site in national policy, planning and

budgets, and take pro-active measures to solicit donor support for site management;

• Provide urgent training to the newly-recruited staff in the park, focussing on park security

procedures and general ‘orientation’ to integrated management approaches;

• Survey and demarcate the park boundary;

• Introduce a long-term moratorium on the hunting of giant eland, and a hunting quota system

in buffer areas surrounding the park that is based on reliable animal census statistics.

• Modify the park ecological monitoring programme to focus on a limited number of

indicators and benchmarks which can be measured in a cost effective manner, including

elements not previously included (such as animal flight distances and numbers of Borassus

palms);

• Enhance trans-boundary co-operation, and measures to protect buffer zone and ecological

corridor areas outside the park;

• Revise the 2000 Management Plan, and begin implementation of the new plan, including all

aspects of infrastructure rehabilitation, re-equipping the park, institutional reform and

capacity building, community relations, tourism development, etc;

• Develop and implement ‘Species Survival Plans’ for key endangered species, in

collaboration with appropriate international expertise;

• Consider rejecting the proposed dam project which would potentially have important

negative impacts to the values of the property and its conditions of integrity.

Indicators and benchmarks. Because of the difficulty of obtaining precise estimates of most

ungulate populations in the field, the mission recommends that a combination of different measures

and techniques be employed to monitor recovery and provide appropriate benchmarks against

which to measure success. Some suggestions are made on changes that could be expected after

periods of one, three and five years; and criteria that might be used to trigger decisions by the

World Heritage Committee over the site’s inclusion on (and subsequent removal from) the List of

World Heritage In Danger.

7

1. Background To The Mission

Niokolo Koba National Park, which covers a vast area of 913,000 hectares, was created as a hunting

reserve in 1926, and was later re-classified as a forest reserve in 1951, then a fauna reserve in 1953,

and finally as a national park in 1954. The Park was enlarged by Decrees in 1962, 1965, 1968 and

1969, and given international recognition as a Biosphere Reserve under UNESCO's Man and the

Biosphere Programme. Niokolo Koba was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 under

Criteria X, which recognises a site “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 and conservation”.

The current conservation issues facing the park and its fauna and flora were brought to public

attention in 1993, when the National Parks authorities produced a “white book” (livre blanc), and

began to solicit donor support. An impressive number of organizations (nearly twenty) were

supporting the park during the 90s, with projects in the interior and the buffer zones and

communities surrounding the park. Nevertheless, the park continued to degrade and organized

poaching intensified, whilst the capacity of the National Parks authority declined.

Contrary to the recommendations contained in the ‘White Book’ the Department of National Parks,

in collaboration with its partners, began in 1994 to transfer certain mammal species from Niokolo

Koba National Park to other protected areas. Initially, three Buffon’s Kob were transferred to

Bandia (private) reserve, followed by further translocations of roan (to a wildlife ranch in South

Africa), derby’s eland and other species (to the privately run parks of Bandia and Fathala in

Senegal).

By 2000, the World Heritage Committee noted the alarming state of conservation of Niokolo Koba

and at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns (Australia) requested the Government of Senegal to invite

a reactive monitoring mission to review the state of conservation of the property. The mission took

place in July 2001, aiming to: (1) make an estimate of the population status of key large mammals

such as roan, Derby’s eland, hartebeest, kob and buffalo; (2) examine the condition of the park’s

natural habitats; (3) examine the impact of the translocation of animals on the wildlife populations;

and (4) determine the measures necessary for rehabilitating the park and its wildlife.

Despite the recommendations of the 2001 mission and the subsequent decisions of the Committee,

Niokolo Koba continued to deteriorate. In 2006, through its Decision 30COM7B.1, the Committee

having examined its Document WHC-06/30.COM/7B.Add, and having noted with great concern the

reports of ongoing and potential threats to the values and integrity of the property, requested the

State Party of Senegal to submit to the World Heritage Centre:

1. a full copy of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of the proposed road

upgrading project as well as the final report on the wildlife inventory that took place

in May/June 2006;

2. invitation for a joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN mission to assess the state of

conservation of the property, in particular the status of key wildlife populations and

the causes of the reported declines in their population sizes, as well as potential

impacts of the proposed road construction project; and requested the State Party to,

8

3. provide the World Heritage Centre with a detailed report by 1 February 2007 on the

state of conservation of the property, in particular the status of key wildlife

populations, the causes for their decline and steps to be taken to improve the

management of the property and potential impacts of the proposed road construction

project, for examination by the Committee at its 31st session in 2007.

2. National Policy for Management of the World Heritage Property

Senegal has six national parks, covering about 4% of the country's total area. Furthermore, 11% of

Senegal's total land area is protected within some kind of national park or reserve, including forest

reserves (where large mammals are classified by law as partially or completely protected).

The national policy for conservation and protection of natural resources is further enhanced by

Senegal’s participation in international agreements under the Conventions on World Heritage,

Biodiversity, Climate Change, Traffic in Endangered Species, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea,

Marine Life Conservation, Nuclear Test Ban, Ozone Layer Protection, Wetlands and Whaling. The

country has also signed but not ratified the Conventions on Desertification and Marine Dumping.

At present Senegal has four properties inscribed in the World Heritage List: two cultural and two

natural. This is commendable in view of the fact that several African countries that have ratified the

1972 Convention are yet to nominate national properties for inscription. Niokolo Koba National

Park is one of the biggest national parks in West Africa, and supports a unique suite of species and

taxa, some of which are restricted to the West African sub-region.

In the vicinity of Niokola Koba, efforts have been made to initiate projects aimed at improving the

livelihood of the surrounding populations, thereby reducing the pressure on the park. The extent to

which these projects and initiatives have assisted the park is not evident, as the park continues to

degrade and the animal populations continue to decrease. In recent years the Department of

Environment and Nature Protection has carried out various donor-assisted studies in Niokolo Koba

National Park which have documented the alarming state of conservation of the park and its

wildlife.

3. Identification and Assessment of Conservation Issues and Threats

3.1 Threats

3.1.1 Poaching

Commercial poaching is undoubtedly the single most important threat to the site. Animal census

statistics suggest that it has been a major threat throughout the period since the property was

inscribed on the world heritage list in 1981. There has been a progressive, ongoing reduction in all

large mammal species throughout this period, up to the present day. The most recent census of the

park, (conducted by African Parks Foundation in May 2006) recorded poaching activity throughout

the park, with 17 poaching locations visible from the air (see map 1) and a further 27 locations

found along walked transects where poachers’ camps, traps or the remains of animal carcasses

killed by poachers were found.

9

Map 1. Distribution of illegal human activities in the park in May 2006 (from African Parks

Foundation report)

3.1.2 Illegal cutting of Borassus palms and other trees

The Borassus palm (‘Ronier’) is a highly valued tree providing a durable timber, palm wine and

other products from its fruits and leaf fibres. As can be seen from Map 1, it is being harvested

extensively in the park, especially along the Koulountou River in the west. This illegal activity is

having a major impact on one of the principle park habitats, and is likely to be irreversible given

that regeneration is largely dependent on elephants, which are now on the verge of extinction in the

park.

3.1.3 Grazing of cattle and other domestic stock

The African Parks Foundation aerial census of May 2006 revealed very extensive grazing of

domestic stock, especially in the Koulountou sector, and to the north of the main Tambacounda-

Kedougou road (see Map 1). An estimated 4,679 cattle, 1,242 sheep and 75 goats were found inside

the park, three times the number of wild animals. Although it is recognised that these figures

probably represent a seasonal peak, the occurrence of so many domestic stock – and more

importantly the herders who accompany them – represents a major threat to the integrity of the

park. The mission was told that pastoralists drive their animals into the park primarily because of

the lack of permanent water outside the park, for animals to drink. There was a suggestion that

10

provision of water points outside the park could ameliorate this threat. However, whilst this may be

true in some areas, the majority of the domestic stock recorded during the African Parks survey was

seen near the settlements of Dar Salam and Missirah Gounass, from where they could have been

driven to permanent water without entering the park. Undoubtedly dry season grazing around the

Mares (seasonally flooded grasslands along the banks of the rivers) is a major attraction for the

pastoralists. Yet it is the Mares which should be providing a critical dry-season habitat for wildlife,

which is now displaced by the domestic stock.

3.1.4 Other aspects of habitat degradation and change

In addition to habitat change brought about by tree cutting and grazing of domestic stock in the

park, wildlife habitats are changing in the following important ways:

Burning. Frequent burning, especially when applied late in the dry season as a ‘hot burn’, is

eroding some of the gallery forests along watercourses, and the remnant patches of forest on Mount

Assirik. These fires are often used by poachers to drive animals from cover, and by pastoralists to

reduce woody vegetation and stimulate early growth of pasture. The consequences are most

significant for forest-dependent species such as chimpanzee and red colobus monkey, both of which

are endangered species.

Drying of Mares. Many of the seasonally flooded grasslands (so called ‘Mares’) along the banks

of all the major rivers are drying out and being taken over by Mimosa pigra and Mitragyna. The

‘Mares’ owe their existence to the changing course of the rivers, and originally formed part of the

riverbed, before being isolated as oxbow lakes. It is a part of the natural succession that these are

progressively filled with silt, and eventually dry out and become overgrown with woody vegetation.

However, this is now occurring unnaturally fast because of the dramatic reductions of large

mammal populations, and the disappearance of elephants which would otherwise prevent the spread

of woody elements in the Mares. The proposed construction of a dam on the Gambia river at Mako,

just upstream of the park would have a devastating impact on the Mares and very probably lead to

their total elimination within a couple of decades.

Bush encroachment. Bush encroachment of the park’s more open habitats has not been

documented, as far as the mission can tell, but it is an inevitable result of the loss of elephants,

which were previously abundant and undoubtedly served a key role as ‘habitat engineers’ at

Niokola-Koba, as they do elsewhere in Africa. The encroachment of the Mares by woody

vegetation is just one symptom of these changes, which are probably widespread. On a more

positive note, encroachment by natural woody vegetation is no doubt also occurring in parts of the

park that were cultivated before its creation.

Agricultural encroachment. Agricultural encroachment of park land is not a major problem, the

mission was told, but there are a few instances along the periphery of the park, where the boundary

has not been demarcated. The African Parks Foundation aerial survey found areas of agricultural

encroachment around Dienoundala and Missirah Gounnas and a few other places (Map 1).

3.1.5 Dam construction

There has been a long-standing proposal to build a new dam on the Gambia river at Mako, a few

kilometres upstream, to the east of the park. Although this will not flood park lands, it could have a

very severe long-term impact on it, by altering the hydrological regime in two important ways.

Firstly, the new dam would prevent flooding of the Gambia river during the rainy season, and stop

it replenishing the seasonally-inundated Mares along the rivers banks (this flooding is not an annual

event, but something that occurs periodically, during exceptionally wet years). This is likely to

11

accelerate the drying of these mares and the encroachment of woody vegetation, thereby denying

wildlife a crucial dry season food resource (as well as losing one of the park’s few visitor

attractions). Secondly, the gradual release of water from the dam (for power generation etc) will

result in a steady year-round water level in the park, and prevent it dropping to levels that enable

animals to cross, and sandbanks to be created in the dry season. The long-term ecological effects of

these changes are difficult to predict, and the mission was unable to trace an environmental impact

assessment of the proposed dam development.

3.1.6 Road construction

Two recent road developments have a direct impact on the park, affecting the conditions of integrity

of the world heritage site. The most significant of these is the upgrading of the Tambacounda to

Kedougou road which took place in the mid-90s, effectively slicing the park in two. This is now a

fast, wide, surfaced road, raised above the level of the land on either side. Inevitably it creates a

barrier for wildlife, but more importantly it provides easy access for poachers. Some park

checkpoints have been installed on this road, and there is a low speed limit, but it is an open

question how effective these controls have been in mitigating the impacts of this road. An

alternative route, passing to the north of the park, was considered (and endorsed by the world

heritage bureau) but regrettably this was rejected on cost grounds.

The second (more recent) road development to impact the park is a new road to the west of the park,

linking the town of Medina Gounas in Senegal, with Koundara in Guinea. This road was subject to

a detailed EIA, and a route was chosen which takes the road away from the park boundary, passing

through the village of Linkiring. Because it will pass some distance from the park boundary, it may

even serve to draw people away from the park. Thus, this new road, which is now under

construction, is no longer considered a major threat to the park. The State Party is to be commended

for its approach to the planning and selection of this route.

3.2 Management effectiveness

3.2.1 Historical perspective

It is clear that the high standards of site management which existed at the time Niokola-Koba was

inscribed on the world heritage list have not been sustained, despite the best efforts of the

Department of National Parks, and recent support from the international donor community. The

park’s location close to international borders, regional insecurity and the proliferation of automatic

weapons during the 80s and 90s resulted in unrelenting poaching pressure at a time when park

budgets and staffing levels were being cut. Furthermore, the park has not yet gained the trust and

support of local communities, many of whom were evicted from park lands when it was established,

and still feel alienated. For many years there was a progressive deterioration in park infrastructure,

withdrawal of staff from critical security posts, and general deterioration in management capacity.

There have been three major donor-assisted projects at Niokola-Koba since 1994. Two of these

were regional projects supported by the European Community with significant components aimed at

improving natural resource management in and around the trans-frontier Niokola-Koba-Badiar park

complex on either side of the Senegal-Guinea border. These two projects were operational between

1994-97 and 2001-05, and resulted in improvements in park infrastructure, surveillance and the

participation of local communities in sustainable resource use. The third project, supported by the

French government between 1998 and 2002, involved the development of a park management plan,

institutional support, further rehabilitation of park infrastructure and additional activities designed

to provide income-generating opportunities for local communities associated with the park. Despite

12

the considerable investment in these three projects animal populations have continued to decline

throughout this period, and the second of the regional projects (Projet AGIR) was closed before the

committed funding had been fully utilised because it was not having the expected impact in

reversing this trend.

3.2.2 Recent developments and present management

The Department of National Parks has made significant recent changes in its management

operations at the park level. Staffing levels have been doubled over the past three years, staff re-

deployed from offices to the field, salaries and operational budgets have been substantially

increased; and several new vehicles deployed to help with anti-poaching patrols. The mission was

impressed by the sense of purpose, commitment, understanding of issues and pragmatism of the

new management team in the field. At the same time, it is clear that the challenges are immense.

Most of the park tracks, and all but one of the river crossing points are now impassable, so it is

impossible to make rapid deployments of personnel, even if a threat is detected. There is no aerial

surveillance capacity - even though a plane has been donated for this purpose – because of lack of

funds for fuel (and cumbersome government procedures for transferring funds). Only 19 of the

park’s 34 surveillance posts are manned, and there’s very little communications equipment. The

newly recruited staff – who come from a diverse range of training institutions - have received no

training in patrol techniques and park management issues, relying instead on what they have picked

up informally by working alongside more experienced peers. There are thus still significant

challenges of management capacity.

3.2.3 Prospects for improved management

It is clear that the park requires substantial external resources if present trends in resource depletion

and degradation are to be reversed. And this support needs to come urgently, as populations of

several species – including keystone species such as elephant - are now critically low and face

imminent extinction.

Based on past experience, the donor community seems reluctant to support ‘more of the same’ type

of park management projects that have been tried, but failed to reverse the downward trend in

animal populations and conservation status of the park. The mission held meetings with

representatives of the European Union, USAID, the French and Dutch embassies and UNDP, and

received a consistent message that donors are looking for opportunities to support park management

initiatives that will be transformative and enduring. There is clearly strong donor interest in public-

private partnership arrangements, such as those proposed by the Dutch-based African Parks

Foundation (see below).

Towards the end of 2005 the government of Senegal invited the Dutch-based NGO African Parks

Foundation to consider a partnership arrangement for conservation of the site. With support from

the Royal Netherlands government, African Parks Foundation has subsequently conducted an

extensive needs assessment at Niokola-Koba, (including a detailed animal census) and submitted a

proposal for the establishment of a new autonomous foundation to oversee management of the park

under a 25-year contract. This new foundation would be directed by a board of trustees including

representatives of the government, African Parks Foundation, donors, and other stakeholders. The

African Parks Foundation would provide 25% of the necessary finance, with government providing

17% (in the form of staff salaries and maintenance of existing levels of operational budgets), and

the remaining 58% coming from other sources (not yet identified) in a public-private partnership. A

three-year emergency rehabilitation plan has been proposed at a cost of 6.4 million Euro.

13

The significance of this proposal is that it offers an opportunity to manage the property in a

fundamentally different way, which would overcome many of the constraints experienced in the

past. Some of the advantages of such an arrangement are that it would provide:

• continuity of funding and management for at least 25 years, long enough to ensure success;

• increased funding due to leverage of private sector funds;

• independence of management and the ability to respond to situations as they arise;

• introduction of a performance-based ‘business culture’, with managers able to hire and fire

staff based on performance;

• freedom from cumbersome government bureaucratic procedures, such as those affecting

flow of funds and procurement ;

4. Assessment of the State of Conservation of the Property

4.1 Maintenance of Outstanding Universal Values

The outstanding universal values for which the property was inscribed correspond closely with

criterion (x) in the new Operational Guidelines, namely:

(x) containing 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.

These criterion is still met, although, as discussed elsewhere the drastic reduction in large mammal

populations is inevitably having a deleterious impact on the natural processes of evolution of

ecosystems and habitats. The near-extinction of elephants, which were abundant in the park at the

time it was inscribed on the world heritage list is of special concern because of the role these large

mammals play in driving habitat change, dispersing seeds and maintaining habitats on which other

species depend.

It is notable that there is no known case of any species becoming extinct in the property since it was

inscribed, and although populations of many species are now critically low there remains a

modicum of hope that adequate protection can be provided to allow all species to recover to more

natural levels.

4.2 Conditions of Integrity

In terms of site integrity, it is clear that there has been a severe reduction in the populations of all

larger mammal species since it was inscribed on the world heritage list. The mission was unable to

source more than a sample of the historical literature and scientific records for the site, and has

depended heavily on the work of the African Parks Foundation team (which carried out the needs

assessment in 2006) in compiling the present report. The African Parks Foundation report is

thorough and quite voluminous (341 pages), so it is clearly beyond the scope of this report to do

anything more than quote a few examples to illustrate the degree of change that has occurred. A

note of caution is appropriate: collecting and interpreting animal census statistics is difficult and

rarely achieves a high level of precision. Nevertheless, censuses have now been carried out using

broadly similar techniques (i.e. aerial and ground transects), with international technical support, on

a number of occasions since before the site was inscribed, so even if the figures on any one

occasion may be subject to wide margins of error, the downward trend is very clear.

14

Indicator 1. Comparison of total estimated populations of selected large mammals in NKNP in

1990/91 (data collected by ORSTOM) and 2006 (data from African Parks Foundation)

Species Population 1990/91 Population 2006 % change 1990-2006

Hartebeest 5,000 149 - 97%

Buffalo 8,000 457 - 94%

Kob 24,000 92 - 99%

Waterbuck 3,300 10 - 99%

Giant Eland 150 (max) 171 + 14%

Roan antelope 6,000 710 - 88%

Elephant 30 (max) 10 (max) - 66%

Indicator 2. Comparison of total estimated populations of Hartebeest, Buffalo and Roan antelope

over the most recent 5-year period.

Indicator 3. Status of elephants. At the time of inscription (1981) there were reckoned to be

several hundred elephants in Niokola-Koba, and they were a prominent feature of any visit to

Simenti Hotel. These were mostly hunted out during the 80s and by 1990 ORSTOM estimated a

remnant population of 20-30 individuals. No elephants were seen during the African Parks census

of 2006, but their signs were detected at 6 locations in the remotest part of the park to the south and

west of Mount Assirik. These signs could indicate a maximum surviving population not exceeding

10 individuals.

Indicator 4. Status of giant eland. This species is of special interest because Niokola-Koba

probably represents the only remaining viable population of the western race of the world’s largest

antelope. According to Dupuy (1972) there were more than 300 individuals in the park in the 70s,

but the population had declined to an estimated maximum of 150 by the time of the first ORSTOM

census in 1990. This population seems to have been maintained, or even increased by 2006, when

an estimated population of 171 was recorded (although the reliability of this estimate is

questionable because it is based on detection of a single group of 67 animals in a 40% sample of the

park).

15

Indicator 5. Map of Niokola-Koba National Park showing all records of large mammals (except

roan antelope) made during the 2006 census. Records are restricted to an area in the centre of the

park, representing just 34% of its total area.

4.3 Actions taken in response to previous world heritage committee decisions

In 1990, the committee expressed concern over the alignment of the Tambacounda to Kedougou

road, and urged the State Party to source the necessary additional funds to allow alignment outside

the property. Regrettably, this option was not followed, and the road was constructed in the mid-

90s straight through the property.

More recent recommendations of the World Heritage Committee focussed on the management of

giant eland, following the capture and translocation of 9 individuals from Niokola-Koba to Bandia

reserve in May 2000. In accordance with these recommendations, there have been no further

captures of giant eland (or other species) from the park, and six individuals surviving the

translocation to Bandia have formed the basis of a successful semi-captive breeding herd numbering

43 individuals. This provides essential security for the western race of the giant eland, which

otherwise survives only at Niokola-Koba and a few other scattered locations. Census data for the

wild population at Niokola-Koba suggest that it has remained stable over the six-year period since

the capture operation, despite the heavy poaching pressure that has impacted other species.

Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the captive population has increased at a rate close to 40%

annually, against a modest 5% annual increase (at best) in the wild population. Priority attention

must be given to protection of the wild population, and no re-introductions should be attempted at

present, since there is a risk of disease transmission from individuals in the semi-captive herd, if

they are brought back to Niokola-Koba.

16

5. Conclusions and Recommendations In conclusion, the mission notes that the integrity of the site has suffered a dramatic and continuing

decline since the property was inscribed on the world heritage list. This is due primarily to

excessive poaching pressure, which the authorities have been unable to bring under control.

Populations of several key species are now critically low, and there is a real possibility of local

extirpation. The site now requires substantial, urgent assistance if this decline is going to be halted

and reversed, and should immediately be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Unless

remedial actions are taken urgently, further degradation of the site is likely to result in irreversible

change, forcing removal of the site from the list of world heritage properties.

5.1 Site management actions to be taken by the State Party

A comprehensive three-year emergency action plan has been developed for the site with the

assistance of the African Parks Foundation. The mission considers that implementation of such a

plan would go a long way towards saving the site, but notes that the necessary funding and other

commitments are not yet in place. A comprehensive integrated programme of park management is

clearly necessary, and the elements of such a programme are already well articulated in the African

Parks Action Plan. The mission’s recommendations are therefore focussed on short-term measures

that should be taken within the next twelve months, prior to implementation of the African Parks

plan (or an alternative). The mission recommends that the State Party should take the following

urgent actions to secure the site:

• Implement urgent steps to halt poaching, using the DPN’s aircraft for surveillance, with

ground support provided by a mobile ‘striking force’;

• Develop and implement an emergency action plan to address the urgent threats to the OUV

and integrity of the property. The emergency action plan recently developed by the expert

mission funded by APF can be an excellent base for this plan;Accord the necessary priority

to conservation of the site in national policy, planning and budgets, and take pro-active

measures to solicit donor support for site management;

• Provide urgent training to the newly-recruited staff in the park, focussing on park security

procedures and general ‘orientation’ to integrated management approaches;

• Survey and demarcate the park boundary;

• Introduce a long-term moratorium on the hunting of giant eland, and a hunting quota system

in buffer areas surrounding the park that is based on reliable animal census statistics.

• Modify the park ecological monitoring programme to focus on a limited number of

indicators and benchmarks which can be measured in a cost effective manner, including

elements not previously included (such as animal flight distances and numbers of Borassus

palms);

• Enhance trans-boundary co-operation, and measures to protect buffer zone and ecological

corridor areas outside the park;

• Revise the 2000 Management Plan, and begin implementation of the new plan, including all

aspects of infrastructure rehabilitation, re-equipping the park, institutional reform and

capacity building, community relations, tourism development, etc;

• Consider rejecting the proposed dam project which would potentially have important

negative impacts to the values of the property and its conditions of integrity.

17

5.2 Special protection measures for endangered large mammals

Given the dramatic decline in large mammal populations at Niokola-Koba, and the critically low

numbers of certain key species, it is recommended that Species Survival Plans are developed and

implemented for selected species, including (initially) derby’s eland, elephant, hartebeest and

chimpanzee. These should be developed in close collaboration with international experts, including

members of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission (SSC). These plans are likely to differ in detail,

but there would be elements common to all of them, including the need to carry out a more detailed

assessment of present population levels and present range within the park, and a focussed

monitoring programme linked to improvements in park management. In the case of Derby’s eland,

the management and genetic viability of the semi-captive population needs to be carefully

considered and a plan developed to manage all viable sub-populations (including the semi-captive

population) within the broader meta-population. This may require genetic enrichment of the semi-

captive population (i.e. the translocation of an additional male from Niokola-Koba, since the present

semi-captive population is based on a single founder male), and may ultimately involve re-

introduction to Niokola-Koba.

5.3 International support and action

In the short to medium term the future of the property will depend to a large extent on financial and

technical support from the international community. Therefore the mission recommends that all

signatories to the convention consider ways in which they might assist.

Furthermore, in order to draw attention to the state of conservation of the site the World Heritage

Committee should include it on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee should

monitor the site closely, and must consider the case for De-listing if it suffers irreversible

degradation.

5.4 Benchmarks and timetable

5.4.1 Changes to be effected within one year

It is recommended that the actions outlined in section 5.1 and 5.2 above be undertaken within the

next twelve months. Substantial funding commitments are required from the State Party’s

development partners during this period, if the decline of large mammal populations is to be

arrested and reversed in subsequent periods.

5.4.2 Changes to be effected within three years

Within three years, implementation of the three year ‘emergency action plan’ should be advanced,

and there should be early signs of recovery in large mammal populations. Illegal grazing and

cutting of Borassus and other trees should have been completely halted.

5.4.3 Changes to be effected within five years

Within five years the recovery of fauna at Niokola-Koba should be well underway (though clearly

full recovery will take very much longer and require a sustained effort for several decades). Useful

indicators of recovery might include monitoring data showing (1) a 90% reduction in the number of

signs of human activity encountered within the park; (2) an extension of the area in which signs of

large ungulates are encountered, from the present 34% to 85% of the area of the park; (3) an

increase in counts of all species of larger ungulate for three consecutive years; and (4) a reduction in

animal flight distances along selected sections of road in the park interior. These benchmarks can

18

be readily measured using existing monitoring techniques, and evaluated against the ‘baseline’ data

derived from the recent African Parks Foundation census.

5.4.4 Conditions for removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger

Assuming that the Committee accepts the mission’s recommendation to include the property on the

List of World Heritage in Danger, it will become necessary to define the benchmarks and indicators

which could be used to monitor its recovery and lead to its removal from the Danger list.

Achievement of the benchmarks recommended in section 5.3.3 would provide a strong indication

that the present trends in resource degradation have been halted and could be used to guide a

committee decision to remove it from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

5.4.5 Conditions for De-listing

As indicated above, there is still considerable uncertainty over the future management of the site,

and it is conceivable that insufficient resources and political will are mobilised soon enough to

prevent further, irreversible degradation. Compared with other African savanna woodland sites,

Niokola-Koba’s large mammal fauna is relatively species-poor, and one key species (giraffe) has

become extinct during the past half-century. Any further large mammal extinctions from the site

would signify a loss of Outstanding Universal Value, and should lead to De-listing from the world

heritage list. Similarly, construction of the dam at Mako, without adequate provision to mitigate its

impact on the flooding regime and hydrological cycles in the park should trigger a decision to De-

list the site.

19

6. ANNEXES

6.1 Terms of Reference

Undertake the joint UNESCO-WHC / IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission from 22 to 26 January

2007 to the Niokolo-Koba National Park World Heritage property in Senegal.

The mission should:

(i) Assess the state of conservation of this property and the factors affecting the

Outstanding Universal Value of the property, in particular the status of key wildlife

populations and the causes of the reported declines in their population sizes, as well

as potential impacts of the proposed road construction project;

(ii) Hold consultations with the Senegalese authorities and relevant stakeholders in

examining the progress made in relation to the recommendations of the joint 2001

UNESCO-WHC / IUCN monitoring mission and the detailed report requested by the

last World Heritage Committee (see Decision 30 COM 7B.1 attached);

(iii) On the basis of the foregoing findings, make recommendations to the Government of

Senegal and the World Heritage Committee for a better conservation and

management of the property;

(iv) Prepare a joint report on the findings and recommendations of this Reactive

Monitoring Mission, following for example the attached format, and submit it to the

UNESCO World Heritage Centre and IUCN Headquarters by 28 February 2007 at

the latest in hard copy and an electronic version.

6.2 Itinerary and Programme

Monday 22 Feb 07 Briefing UNESCO/ Directrice

Travel by charter plane from Dakar to Simenti, Niokola-Koba NP

Canoe trip on Gambia River through park near Simenti

Tuesday 23 Feb 07 a.m. Field visit to sites around Simenti: Poste de garde du Damantan- Gué de Damantan-

Mare de Kountadala- Mare de Simenti –

p.m. Field visit to Camp du lion

Meeting with senior parks staff at Simenti

Wednesday 24 Feb 07 a.m. Meeting with senior parks staff at Simenti

p.m. return by charter plane to Dakar

Thursday 25 Jan 07 09h00: Meeting at Union Européenne

10h00: Meeting at Ambassade Pays Bas

13h30: Meeting at Ministère de l’Environnement et de la protection de la Nature

16h00: Meeting with Wetlands International

Friday 26 Jan 07 09h00: Stakeholders debriefing at the Direction des PARCS NATIONAUX

15h00 : Meeting at USAID

20

6.3 Composition of Mission Team

UNESCO: Dr. Elisabeth Wangari, Chief, WHC/Africa, UNESCO

Dr. Noëline Rakotoarisoa, Programme Specialist, UNESCO/Dakar

IUCN Dr. Peter Howard, IUCN consultant

DPN Dakar: Dr. Mame Balla Gueye, Director of National Parks, Senegal

Cpt Fatou Samb, Responsible for Training and WH sites, Direction des Parcs Nationaux

21

6.4 List and contact details of people met

Union Européenne : Mme Bénédicte Génin, Chargée de programme

Ambassade Pays Bas : Jan Hijkoop, Premeir Secrétaire

Alioune Diallo, Chargé de programme

Ministère de l’Environnement et de la protection de la Nature :

Souleye Ndieye, Conseiller

Wetlands International : Seydina Issa Sylla, Représentant régional

USAID: Peter C. Trenchard, Agriculture and Natural Resources Advisor

Staff of the Direction des Parc Nationaux who accompanied the mission at Niokola-Koba

Name Grade Function

Mame Balla Gueye Colonel Directeur Parcs Nationaux

Samuel Diémé Commandant Conservateur PNNK

Fatou Samb Capitaine Division Formation (DPN)

Cheikh Mouktar Sylla Sous Lieutenant Chef de Zone Centre au PNNK

Sarany Diédhiou Sergent Chef de Poste de Simenti

Arouna Seydi Caporal Chef Garde

Waly NGom Garde

Alassane Sané Garde

Adama Diarra Garde

Alioune Sylla Garde

Mambel Nakouye Garde

List of Persons attending the Stakeholders Debriefing at DPN on 26 January 2007

Name

Organisation Email Contact

Amadou Kébé USAID/CE [email protected]

Hamady Bocoum Directeur du Patrimoine culturel [email protected]

Aminata Diarra Patrimoine culturel [email protected]

Noëline Rakotoarisoa UNESCO [email protected]

Souleye NDiaye MEPN [email protected]

NDeye Sène Thiam DEA/DPN [email protected]

Jean Michel Berges SCAC/Ambassade de France [email protected]

Amadou Matar Diouf UICN-Sénégal [email protected]

Oumar Wane PMF/FEM/PNUD (GEF/SGP) [email protected]; [email protected]

Peter Trenchard USAID [email protected]

Peter Howard IUCN [email protected]

Moussa Fall DAMP-ZH/DPN [email protected]

Dr. Djibril Diouck DEA/DPN djibrildiouck@hotmail;com

Ousmane Wane Cono- DPN [email protected]

Daouda NGom MRS/Comité MAB [email protected]

Samuel Diémé PNNK [email protected] (221) 577 73 98

Fatou Samb DFC/DPN [email protected] (221) 5484924

Alioune Diallo Ambassade Pays Bas [email protected]

Elizabeth Wangari UNESCO/WHC [email protected]

33-(0) 145681419

22

6.5 Map of Niokola-Koba, showing current boundaries, topography and other

features

Source: http://www.senegalaisement.com/senegal/carte_niokolo.html, Image retrieved 30/04/07


ANNEX II

Aperçu de la gestion de l'élevage et les opérations de transport de la

population de l'EDO en semi-captivité

Neuf individus (un jeune male, cinq femelles adultes et trois jeunes femelles) ont ete

captures dans le PNNK à 2000 et ont ete places dans la Reserve de Bandia. Suite au

stress qui a suivi leur transfert, 3 femelles adultes sont mortes dans un camp de

quarantaine, l'une d'entre elles avec son veau nouveau-ne (Akakpo et al. 2004). Ce sont

donc 6 individus (1 male,.5 femelles) qui sont devenus les fondateurs du programme

d'elevage en semi-captivite au Senegal (Nežerkova et al. 2004). Tout d'abord, les

animaux ont ete places dans un camp de quarantaine (30 x 15m), puis en aout 2000 ils

ont ete liberes dans l'enceinte speciale (25 ha), separes des autres especes d'animaux

sauvages presents dans d'autres parties de la Reserve de Bandia. Plus tard, l'enceinte a

ete etendue a 31 ha, 50 ha, 70 ha et 250 ha en 2002, 2004, 2006 et 2007,

respectivement. En 2006, le deuxieme troupeau de reproduction et un groupe de 9

jeunes males ont ete separes du troupeau de base. Le seconde troupeau de reproduction

(1 male,.3 femelles) a ete placee dans une zone close (70 ha) dans la Reserve de Bandia.

Le groupe des jeunes males a ete transporte avec succes a la reserve de Fathala, une

reserve de faune naturelle et cloturee dans le parc national du Delta du Saloum, pour

verifier l'aptitude des animaux nes en captivite a se readapter a la savane soudano-

guineenne de la Reserve de Fathala qui est proche de leur environnement naturel. Tous

les individus ont ete soigneusement choisis en fonction de leur age, sexe et parente

(Antoninova et al. 2006). En 2008, le troisieme troupeau de reproduction (1 male,.5

femelles) a ete creee dans la Reserve de Fathala, le male reproducteur a ete selectionne

dans le groupe des males adolescents de la Reserve de Fathala et 5 femelles ont ete

transportees a partir du noyau des troupeaux d'elevage dans la Reserve de Bandia. Le

quatrieme troupeau de reproduction a ete creee en 2009, et a ete placee dans la reserve

de Bandia. Elle etait constituee d’un male et de cinq femelles du troupeau de base. Tous

les troupeaux de reproduction etablies ont ensuite ete enrichies par les jeunes femelles

du troupeau de base en fonction de leur parente. Les autres males excedents ont ete

transportes au troupeau des males adolescents vivant dans la Reserve de Fathala.

Jusqu'a present, les animaux ont ete captures afin de gerer leur elevage dans deux

reserves naturelles, la Reserve de Bandia et de Fathala au Senegal. En juin 2010, l'eland

de Derby occidental en semi-captivite formait une population de 62 individus vivants. La

population etait divisee en 4 troupeau de reproduction: trois dans la Reserve de Bandia

(Bandia 1: 11 males, 15 femelles, Bandia 2: 5 males, 7 femelles, Bandia 3: 2 males, 5

femelles) et une dans la reserve de Fathala (Fathala 1: 1 male, 3 femelles), et un

troupeau de jeunes males (Fathala 2: 13 males). Parmi ceux-ci il y avait 37 adultes (17

males, 20 femelles), 17 subadultes (9 males, 8 femelles) et 8 jeunes (6 males, 2 femelles).

Tous les quatre males geniteurs ont reproduit en 2010.

En juin 2012, l'eland de Derby occidental en semi-captivite formait une population de 83

individus vivants. La population etait divisee en 5 troupeau de reproduction: trois dans


la Reserve de Bandia (Bandia 1: 5 males, 14 femelles, Bandia 2: 4 males, 9 femelles,

Bandia 3: 32 males, 8 femelles) et deux dans la reserve de Fathala (Fathala 1: 2 male, 5

femelles, Fathala 3: 1male, 2 femelles), et deux troupeau de jeunes males (Bandia 4: 17

males, Fathala 2: 15 males). Parmi ceux-ci il y avait 57 adultes (30 males, 27 femelles),

14 subadultes (11 males, 3 femelles) et 12 jeunes (6 males, 6 femelles). Les quatre males

geniteurs ont reproduit en 2012.

Les détails peuvent être trouvés dans le Registre Africain pour l'EDO publié depuis 2008

chaque année par l'équipe tchèque.


ANNEX III

Les paramètres démographiques et génétiques de la population de

l'EDO en semi-captivité dans le programme de conservation

Koláčková K., Hejcmanová P., Antonínová M., Brandl P. 2011. Population

management as a tool in the recovery of the critically endangered western

Derby eland Taurotragus derbianus in Senegal, Africa. Wildlife Biology 17,

299-310.

Original articleWildl. Biol. 17: 299-310 (2011)

DOI: 10.2981/10-019

� Wildlife Biology, NKV

www.wildlifebiology.com

Population management as a tool in the recovery of the critically

endangered Western Derby eland Taurotragus derbianus inSenegal, Africa

Karolına Kolackova, Pavla Hejcmanova, Marketa Antonınova & Pavel Brandl

The critically endangered Western Derby eland Taurotragus derbianus derbianus, representing , 200 wild individuals,undoubtedly needs a coordinated conservation programme. To promote the survival of this subspecies, a singleworldwide semi-captive population was established in Senegal in 2000, with one male and five female founders

transferred from the Niokolo Koba National Park. To determine a long-term conservation strategy, we useddemographic and pedigree data based on continuous monitoring of reproduction during 2000 - 2009 in breedingenclosures in the Bandia and Fathala Reserves, in conjunction with modelling software. In 2009, the semi-captive

population consisted of 54 living individuals (26 males and 28 females), managed using the minimal kinship strategy.The female breeding probability was 84%, annual calf and adult mortality rates were 5.09% and 3.27%, respectively,and the annual population growth rate was 1.36. As the population grew, the animals were progressively separated into

five herdswithin two reserves.Apedigree analysis revealed an effective population size of 6.72 andanNe/N ratio of 0.13.The population retained 77% of the gene diversity (GD). The founder genome equivalent (FGE¼2.21) was relativelylow due to the overrepresentation of one founder male. Although the mean level of inbreeding (F) reached 0.119, asignificant potential GD (92%) was still retained. In this article, we predict GD development in this population in the

next 100 years with the inclusion of new founders. If the whole wild population were included, we could maintain 90%of GD. As this option is not practically feasible, we present three options with the goal of maintaining 75% GD. Wehighly recommend capturing new founders from the remaining wild population to ensure the survival of the subspecies

at least in semi-captivity, which could allow possible reinforcement of the wild population or reintroduction in thefuture. The semi-captive population, if appropriately constituted and genetically managed, could play a considerablerole in Western Derby eland conservation.

Key words: conservation programme, demographic structure, endangered antelope, genetic management, pedigreeanalysis, Taurotragus derbianus, West Africa

Karolına Kolackova, Institute of Tropics and Subtropics, CzechUniversity of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 16521, Prague

6, Suchdol, Czech Republic - e-mail: [email protected] Hejcmanova, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 1176, 16521,Prague 6, Suchdol, Czech Republic - e-mail: [email protected]

Marketa Antonınova, Zakouma National Park, Wildlife Conservation Society, Chad - e-mail: [email protected] Brandl, Prague Zoological Garden, U Trojskeho zamku 120/3, Prague 7, Troja, Czech Republic - e-mail: [email protected]

Corresponding author: Pavla Hejcmanova

Received 22 February 2010, accepted 15 May 2011

Associate Editor: Paul J. Wilson

Survival of many endangered species depends upon

human assistance in captive breeding programmes,

particularly when the preservation of the entire

natural ecosystem is unlikely to be feasible (Eben-

hard 1995, Hanks 2001). Over time, captive breeding

may lead to the reinforcement or reestablishment of

the wild populations. However, this goal can be

reached only if captive populations are managed in

an appropriate genetic and demographic manner

(Ballou & Foose 1996).

� WILDLIFE BIOLOGY 17:3 (2011) 299

Captive populations of endangered species should

be managed to retain high levels of gene diversity

over long periods, so that small populations avoid

inbreeding and other genetic problems (Thevenon &

Couvet 2002, Armstrong & Cassey 2007, Trinkel et

al. 2008).When a loss of gene diversity occurs, itmay

reduce reproduction in the short term (Wildt et al.

1987, O’Brien et al. 1985) and diminish the capacity

of populations to evolve in response to environmen-

tal changes on a long-term basis (Ralls et al. 1988,

Zachos et al. 2009, Frankham et al. 2003). Thus,

minimising kinship is the most appropriate and

highly recommended genetic management strategy

(Ryder & Fleischer 1996, Montgomery et al. 1997).

Despite the genetic problems, it is possible for a

species to establish a viable population evenwith few

founding individuals, as long as appropriate man-

agement is applied to the captive breeding popula-

tion. In some cases, this approach has saved species

from extinction, e.g. as observed in European bison

Bison bonasus with 12 founders (Olech 2008),

Przewalski horse Equus przewalski with 13 founders

(Bouman 1979) or Arabian oryxOryx leucoryx with

, 20 founders (Henderson 1974, Sausman 2007).

Successful captive animal breeding programmes are

usuallybasedon theknowledgeof individual animals

registered in studbooks (Glatson 1986, Kus 2000)

and on pedigree analyses (Pemberton 2004, Ralls &

Ballou 2004, Grueber & Jamieson 2008). For the

precise origin of all wild-caught animals, careful

identification of individuals, and their life histories

are essential parts of the studbook system (Jarvis

1969).

The Giant eland Taurotragus derbianus is the

largest antelope in theworld and belongs among the

flagship species of Central and West Africa. Its

colour is ruddy fawn or chestnut, with vertical white

stripes on flanks and conspicuous black and white

markings on the face, ears, limbs and dewlap (Fig.

1). Males can weight up to 907 kg and both sexes

have long, spiralled horns reaching up to 123 cm

(Kingdon 1982). There are two subspecies of Giant

eland, distinguished until now on the basis of the

geographical distribution and morphological de-

scription. The Western subspecies T. d. derbianus

(Gray 1847), the Western Derby eland, alias the

Western Giant eland (Wilson & Reeder 2005) is

characterised by smaller size, bright rufous ground

Figure 1. Part of a semi-captive herd of the Western Derby elands in the Bandia Reserve (Photo by P. Brandl).

300 � WILDLIFE BIOLOGY 17:3 (2011)

colour and up to 17 body stripes (Kingdon 1982,Antonınova et al. 2008) and the Eastern subspeciesT. d. gigas (Heuglin 1863), alias the Eastern Gianteland has larger body size, sandy ground colour andaround 12 body stripes (Kingdon 1982).

The only confirmed wild population of T. d.derbianus occurs in eastern Senegal, Africa (Nezer-kova et al. 2004), and it is estimated at , 200 in-dividuals (Renaud et al. 2006). The presence of aviable population of this antelope in the surroundingstates of Mali, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau has notbeen confirmed (Darroze 2004). This low populationcount, which is a result of overharvesting for meatand habitat destruction caused by the expansion ofhuman and livestock populations, prompted theclassification of the Western subspecies as ’criticallyendangered’ (IUCN 2010).

Although the need to establish an in situ conser-vation programme (East 1998, Chardonnet 1999) aswell as an ex situ captive breeding programme(Sausman 1993) was recognised as early as in the1990s, conservation actions in Senegal were not setup until the 2000s (Nezerkova et al. 2004). In 2000,we aimed at establishing an in situ conservationprogramme with a protective breeding enclosuredirectly in the Niokolo Koba National Park(NKNP). In the end, the project was not feasibleand the Senegalese authorities recommended redi-recting focus onto the semi-captive population in theBandia Reserve (Nezerkova et al. 2004). As far as weknow, no other conservation action for the recoveryof the Western Derby eland has been performed inthe NKNP.

A semi-captiveWestern Derby eland population,unique in the world for the subspecies, was createdin Senegal in 2000, with the main objective ofconserving the subspecies and reinforcing wildpopulations in West Africa, in conformity with theIUCN recommendations to establish a captivebreeding programme when the number of wildindividuals drops below 1,000 (IUCN SSC 1987).The Society for the Protection of the Environmentand Fauna in Senegal and the Directorate ofNational Parks of Senegal captured nine individuals(one youngmale, five adult females and three youngfemales) in the NKNP in Senegal and transferredthem to the Bandia Reserve in western Senegal.Before reproduction started, three adult femalesdied in a quarantine camp (Akakpo et al. 2004), andtherefore, six individuals (onemale andfive females)became the founders of a semi-captive breedingprogramme in Senegal (Nezerkova et al. 2004).

The objective of our study was to assess thepotential of a long-term viable strategy for conser-vation breeding of the endangered Western Derbyeland.Wefirst assessed the current demographic andgenetic parameters within its semi-captive popula-tion using a set of parameters characterising both thestructure and dynamics of the population. We thenused these data to make predictions about genediversity dynamics in the long term and to providepractical recommendations for further conservationactivities.

Methods

Study area and breeding management

We studied the semi-captive population of WesternDerby eland in two nature reserves in westernSenegal, i.e. in the Bandia and Fathala Reserves,respectively (Fig. 2). In both reserves, we keptWestern Derby eland breeding herds in specialenclosures, separated from other antelope species.TheBandiaReserve is a fencednature reserve located65 km south of Dakar, in the Sudano-Sahelianecosystem with an annual mean rainfall of 484 mm(Hejcmanova et al 2010a). The Fathala Reserve is afenced nature reserve within the Delta du SaloumNational Park, located in southwestern Senegal, i.e.in the Sudano-Guinean savannah (Nezerkova-Hejc-manova et al. 2005). Annual mean rainfall therereached 839 mm (Banjul meteorological station;Lykke 1994).In the Bandia Reserve, the initial 50 ha enclosure

was gradually enlarged as the semi-captive popula-tion grew. As the population increased, we succes-sively constituted three breeding herds in enclosuresof 400 ha, 250 ha and 70 ha, respectively, in theBandia Reserve, and a breeding and a bachelor herdin enclosures of approximately 70 ha and 1,000 ha inthe Fathala Reserve in 2006, 2008 and 2009. Thegeographical separation of breeding herds wascarried out for two main reasons: 1) the ecosystemof the Fathala Reserve is similar to the WesternDerby eland’s natural habitat (Nezerkova et al.2004); therefore, the semi-captive animals are main-tained in an environment offering a natural diet; 2)separation serves as a protection against the risk ofdisease outbreaks in one of the locations, consistentwith basic veterinary principles (Snyder et al. 1996).Before transport, all individually selected animalswere immobilised using ethorphine hydrochloride incombination with xylazine (Chardonnet 2003, An-


tonınova et al. 2006). All individuals were examined

and then transferred either to another enclosure in

the Bandia Reserve or into the Fathala Reserve.

Animals were revived after approximately 30 min-

utes after the first application of immobilisation

drug. No animal mortality occurred during or after

transport. We carried out all actions with the

presence of the authorities of the Directorate of

National Parks of Senegal and Society for the

Protection of the Environment andFauna in Senegal

(Antonınova et al. 2006,Kolackova &Vahala 2009).

Breeding in the semi-captive Western Derby

eland population started in 2002. By June 2009,

the population had grown to 54 individuals. We

recorded all births, mortalities, sex of offspring and

calving dates during 2000 - 2009. In all years, except

2003, we recorded mother-offspring kinship based

on direct observation of mother-offspring interac-

tions. Based on the data from the Eastern subspe-

cies, we presumed males to be sexually mature at

two years of age (Shurter 1996), although the

presence of a dominant bull naturally postpones

breeding by the other males for many years in the

natural environment (Bro-Jørgensen 1997). As the

youngmales (up to three years of age)were regularly

removed from breeding herds to avoid mating, we

presumed that the dominant (or the only one) bull in

the herd was the sire of all offspring. Although there

are certain limits in the accuracy of mother-

offspring bonding (Vankova et al. 2001), and even

with sire certainty (De Young et al. 2006), we used

those data for the pedigree, as determining pedigree

using microsatellites was not technically possible.

We then completed the pedigree for all nine years of

captive breeding, namely from June 2000 to June

2009.

Data analyses

The pedigree data for theWestern Derby eland were

constructed andmaintained in the Single Population

Animal Record Keeping System (SPARKS), com-

piled by the International Species Information

System (ISIS 1992). Individuals alive in June 2009

and their ancestors were included in the pedigrees;

individuals who died without producing any descen-

dants were excluded from the gene-drop analysis.

The unknown mother-offspring kinship for the five

individuals born in the 2003 was set into the

SPARKS as ’unknown mother’ for every specific

individual. ’Founder’ means ’genetic founder’, i.e.

Figure 2. Distribution of the Western Derby eland and the locations of the Bandia and Fathala reserves.


wild-born individuals on top of the pedigree,presumed to be unrelated. We created a pedigreechart using Pedigraph 2.3 (Garbe & Da 2006).Wecalculated individual inbreeding coefficients (F)using SPARKS (ISIS 1992) and corroborated themusing Population Management 2000 (PM 2000)software (Lacy & Ballou 2002, Pollak et al. 2002).SPARKSandPM2000 used life tables and pedigreesto calculate deterministic population analyses, genedrop analysis, and the following measures of geneticvariability: actual population size (N), effectivepopulation size (Ne, including correction of theunequal sex ratio), Ne/N ratio, gene diversity (GD),potential GD, percentage of known genotypes,founder genome equivalents (FGE) and meankinship (MK).

Ne is defined as the size of an idealised populationwith a random union of gametes in each generation,which would have the same intergenerational vari-ance in allele frequencies as does the studiedpopulation. GD is defined as the variance in allelefrequencies at a genetic locus, equal to the heterozy-gosity expected in a population with random unionof gametes (i.e. in a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium),according to the equation GD¼1 -

P(pi2), in which

pi is the frequency of allele i, and the summation isover all alleles at that locus. Given that no foundersare added, natural selection, mutation and immigra-tion do not appear and that the population is bredrandomly, the GD in the population decays accord-ing to the equation:GDt¼GD0 - (1-1/2Ne)

t, inwhichthe subscripts denote generations and Ne in eachgeneration. The rate of decay of the GD is in-dependent of the initial level of GD and of the allelefrequencies at the loci. Hereafter, we refer to the GDas a proportional value to the baseline populationfromwhich founders come, GDt/GD0, where GD0¼1. FGE is the expected number of unrelated foundergenomes that should contain the observed level ofGD in the study population, FGE ¼ 0.5/(1 - GDt/GD0). MK is the average coefficient of kinship of ananimal to each living, non-founder animal in apedigree. The overallmeankinship of the population(mean MK) equals 1- GDt/GD0 (Lacy 1995).

Population management and gene diversity

modelling

To predict population development, we created along-term model of population parameters andpopulation growth using the PM 2000 software(Lacy & Ballou 2002) based on current knowledgeof kinship of the animals as well as demographic and

genetic parameters. The model included GD devel-opment in a 100-year period for cases of noinclusion of any new animal and under the conditionof inclusion of new founders from the wild. Acommon goal in population management is tomaintain a level of 90% of the original GD(Frankham et al. 2003). If ever this goal could notbe achieved, we determined an alternate GDcorresponding to the actual and feasible level ofGD in the current population, with the aim ofmaintaining it within the given period of 100 years.In addition, GD depends on demographic andgenetic parameters of the population, e.g. popula-tion growth rate or maximum allowable populationsize. The latter implies that a limited number ofanimals can be included in the ex situ conservationprogramme. Respecting the real possibilities andfeasibility of the ex situ conservation programme,we set the maximum allowable population size at800 individuals to retain 90% of the original GD,and at 400 individuals to retain 75% of the originalGD in order to create practically applicable optionsfor Western Derby eland conservation decision-makers.

Results

Demographic parameters

During 2000 - 2009, a total of 61 Western Derbyeland offspring were born (Fig. 3 and Table 1). It ismost likely that mating occurred synchronously,considering that the majority of calves were born inDecember (61%). Subsequently, 20%of birthswererecorded in January and 10% in February. The agestructure was evenly distributed between the sexes(Fig. 4).Considering that the gestation period of the

Eastern subspecies of the Giant eland lasts for 265days on average (with a range of 255 - 275 days; Bro-Jørgensen 1997), the conception of our animals wasassumed to take place at the beginning of March.This was later confirmed by opportunistic observa-tions of mating in the captive population. Theyoungest age at conception was 16.2 months;however, on average, this age was 29.97 (6 10.46SE) months or 31.94 (6 9.7 SE), excluding theextreme case. The female founders gave birth for thefirst time at an age of 35.07 (6 0.9 SE) months onaverage, while the youngest cow gave birth at only 25months. Females produced one offspring per yearand bred with a probability of 0.84 (breeding rate)


each year. In the BandiaReserve, the oldest cow that

gave birthwas 12 years old, while the oldestmalewas10 years old. These were the oldest animals in thebreeding population at that time. The annual calfmortality ratewas 5.09%(6 6.89SE)andoverall calfmortality was 6.56% (four out of 61 calves born); allcalf mortalities were males. The annual non-calf

mortality after the population stabilised (beginningin 2001) was 3.27% (6 3.72 SE) with an overall non-calf mortality of 14.3% (six females and three malesout of 63 total adult individuals). Analyses of the lifetable of the Western Derby eland (see Table 1)indicated that the deterministic annual population

growth rate was 1.36 (35.8% 6 12.9 SE).

Genetic parameters

With an actual population size of 54 individuals, the

current effective population size estimated from twomale and 10.5 female breeders was 6.72. The Ne/Nratio was 0.13. The animals in the pedigree had91.7% of the known origin in the population. Thepopulation had retained 77% of GD from thefounders. The overall mean level of inbreeding in

the population was F ¼ 0.119 and FGE was 2.21(Table 2). On the other hand, a significant potentialGD of 92% still remained in the population.

Furthermore, the population had retained some ofthe original GD of the founders; this amount can beevaluated through proper management by MK(Table 3), which was at 0.226 on average.

Population genetic models

For the first model, we set the maximum populationsize at 800 individuals. If any wild founder wereadded to this population, GD would decline to 69%at the end of 100 years. When we combined thecurrent ex situ population with the whole freeranging population, estimated at 170 individuals(which means 170 founders), the model resulted inreaching and maintaining 90% of GD at the end of100 years. The final population size was 735 in-dividuals (Fig. 5A). This option, however, did notseem practically feasible. Therefore, we set the al-ternate goal of 75%of theGD in subsequentmodels,

Figure 3. Pedigree of the population ofWesternDerby elands bred in semi-captivity (during June 2000-June 2009). The symbols represent:&¼males; u¼ females; empty symbols¼ living animals; black symbols¼dead animals.

Table 1. Demographic parameters of the semi-captive populationof theWesternDerby eland in Senegal during June 2000-June 2009.

Variable ?? //

Founders 1 5

Present number of individuals (N) 26 28

Number of adults in the population 14 13

Total births 32 29

Total deaths 7 6

Generation length* 6.12 5.86

* Generation length is defined as the average age of parents ofnewborn individuals in the population.

Figure 4. Male and female age structure of the living individualsof the Western Derby elands held in semi-captivity in June 2009.The wild-born proportion (founders) is indicated by empty barsand the captive-born by black bars.


and set the maximum allowable population size at

400 individuals. If no founders were added, GD will

decline to 65% at the end of 100 years. Considering

the new goal, we chose three options for including

new founders from thewild: only one inclusion at the

beginning, two inclusions and four inclusions during

the 100-year period. The first model option revealed

the need for 15 founders, and a final population size

of 374 animals (see Fig. 5B). The option of two

inclusions revealed the need to include five founders,

with a repetition after 45 years (10 founders in total).

The population size needed to reach the goal was

determined to be 326 animals (see Fig. 5C). The

model with a repetition every 25 years counted the

inclusion of two founders each time (eight founders

in total), and set the necessary population size at only

301 animals (see Fig. 5D).

Discussion

When establishing a captive breeding programme

of an endangered species, at least 20-30 wild-born

founders are considered necessary for establishing a

viable population (Lacy 1987). If practical, even

more founders are preferable (Wilson et al. 2005).

Once a breeding population is established, its early

management can greatly influence the potential for

future generations (Mace 1986). The unique semi-

captive breeding programme of Western Derby

elands started with only one male and five females.

Despite the small number of founders, however, the

population has responded well, due in part of

careful monitoring of breeding history and kinship

in the population. This is not always the case in

pedigree analyses in endangered species conserva-

tion programmes (Zechner et al. 2002, Goyache et

al. 2003).

Demographic parameters

The Western Derby elands in the Bandia Reserve

have reproduced each year since the establishment of

the first semi-captive herd. The reproduction delay

occurred after each animal transfer, directly follow-

ing captures from the wild (Akakpo et al. 2004) and

after the creation and transfer of new herds to new

breeding enclosures (Antonınova et al. 2008). This

also led to prolonged generation length in respective

females. However, the population exhibited, in gen-

eral, an ability to grow continuously.

The reproductive parameters of the Western

Derby eland kept in semi-captivity, such as age at

first conceptionandgivingbirth,werehigher than for

captive breeding females of the Eastern subspecies of

Giant eland in zoo facilities. For instance, first

conception in Giant eland was at an age of 18.5

months (Shurter 1996), whereas 13-24 months was

reported for the common eland T. oryx (Hayssen et

al. 1993) andother related species (Rubes et al. 2008).

Our recordedbreeding ratewashigher in comparison

with that of the Giant eland, recorded at 74%, but

similar to the 83% found for undisturbed common

eland populations (Bro-Jørgensen 1997). Calving

periods in both related taxons of common eland and

Giant eland usually peak in wet seasons when food

availability is greatest (Kingdon 1982, Spinage 1986,

Bro-Jørgensen 1997, Pappas 2002). In spite of this, it

seems that the calving of wildWestern Derby elands

in the NKNP (P. Hejcmanova & M. Antonınova,

Table 2. Founder contributions for the genetic management of the pedigree in the semi-captive Western Derby eland population inSenegal.

Founder Sex AgeCurrent foundercontribution Descendants

Target foundercontribution

Status ofcontribution

1 ? 10 0.64 48 0.17 Over

2 / 12 0.09 10 0.17 Under

3 / 12 0.05 5 0.16 Under

4 / 10 0.06 5 0.17 Under

5 / 10 0.06 6 0.17 Under

6 / 10 0.10 12 0.17 Under

Table 3. Mean kinship (MK) distribution in the semi-captiveWestern Derby eland population in Senegal in June 2009.

MK range No of individuals % of population

, 0.0256 5 10.2

0.1776 - 0.1989 27 42.9

0.1992 - 0.2665 9 16.3

. 0.3154 13 30.6


pers. obs.), as well as in the Bandia reserve, peaks at

the beginning of the dry season (November-Decem-

ber).

Greater maternal expenditure on male offspring

has been widely documented in polygynous dimor-

phic ungulates (Trivers &Willard 1973, Hogg et al.

1992, Berube et al. 1996, Zschokke et al. 1998), but

in others the maternal expenditure was equal for

both sexes (e.g. Kojola 1998, Mysterud et al. 2007,

Ungerfeld et al. 2008). For 61 births in the semi-

captive population of Western Derby elands, we

determined a birth sex ratio close to 1:1. On the

other hand, males suffered greater juvenile mortal-

ity, similar to that described by Bro-Jørgensen

(1997) in the Eastern Giant eland. In our study, one

of these four juvenile mortalities was caused by self-

injury, one by the death of the mother just after

parturition, and two for unknown reasons.

The wild-born founders of the semi-captive

population approached the threshold age of repro-

duction (11 years for males and 14 years females) by

the endof our study (Bro-Jørgensen 1997).However,

the semi-captive Western Derby elands actually

represent a young stock, with a short life history

and a relatively low number of individuals. Despite

this, our demographic estimates are the only data

existing for the Western Derby eland worldwide.

Genetic parameters

Weconsidered thegenetic situationof thepopulation

unsatisfactory due to a low number of founders, and

in particular a solitary male. Ne is almost always

lower than N but can be increased by good genetic

management (Folch & Jordana 1998, Wilson et al.

2005). An Ne of 6.72 as well as an Ne/N ratio of 0.13

were relatively low in comparison with common Ne/

N ratios of 0.2-0.4 or 0.1-0.5 in other captive pop-

ulations of endangered species (Frankham et al.

2003, Lacy 1995), or 0.3-0.5 in genetically unman-

agedpopulations (Kleimanet al. 1996).Compared to

2008 (Antonınova et al. 2008), these parameters

increased slightly due to the first reproduction of a

young male in the breeding herd created in 2006

(Antonınova et al. 2006). We expect yet another

Figure 5. Predicted development of gene diversity over time in the case of inclusion of new founders from free-ranging population: A)shows inclusion of 170 individuals; B) inclusion of 15 individuals at once; C) inclusion of five individuals twice in a 100-year period; andD)inclusion of two individuals four times in a 100-year period. (N¼the lowest number of individuals we have to keepwithin the conservationprogramme to meet the required GD level).


increase in the future, if another two young males inrecently created breeding herds (2008, 2009) start toreproduce. Disproportionate reproduction by par-ticular individuals favours the survival of genes fromancestors from differential reproduction, and in-creases the chance of loss of genes from other an-cestors (Ryder & Fleischer 1996, Wilson et al. 2005).The distribution of the founders’ contribution washeavily skewed due to the exclusive position of thebreeding male, and so an overrepresentation of hisgenes in the subsequent generations was found. Thisunequal genetic contribution of founders caused theFGE tobe lower than the actual number of founders,and consequently, there was a lower gene diversity(Lacy 1989). Such a situation could be improved byselecting individuals with low MK values who carrygenes uncommon in the population, and breedingthem more than individuals with common genes(Wilson et al. 2005).

Since complete and accurate pedigrees are suchimportant tools, the correction of inaccurate infor-mation and the filling-in of missing information areworthwhile (Ryder & Fleischer 1996). In our study,data were missing concerning mother-offspringkinship in the five births of early 2003 in theWesternDerby eland pedigree, and thus, in the analysis, thesewere evaluated as more inbred (higher F) than otherindividuals of the same consanguinity. This factnegatively affected the overall parameters of thepopulation. With the knowledge of all the otherindividuals, wemanaged them in the end as a distinctlineage, male with females born in the same year,along with their descendants, according to a min-imising kinship strategy (Ballou &Lacy 1995).Man-agement of the population would benefit from thefuture confirmation of the pedigrees and estimates ofgenetic diversity and inbreeding based on microsat-ellite data.

Conservation and management implications

Although proper genetic management may slightlyincrease the GD, the potential GD can never bereached without new founders brought into thepopulation (Lacy & Ballou 2002). If both wild andsemi-captive Western Derby elands could be inte-grated and managed as one population, we couldaccomplish the goal of maintaining 90%GD at theend of 100 years. However, this option is onlytheoretical and is not applicable in practice withinthe framework of rational conservation efforts. Onthe other hand, the alternate goal of 75%GD at theend of 100 years was shown to be feasible for all

three proposed options. Based on our 10 years ofexperience in the management of semi-captivepopulation of Western Derby elands, namely withforaging behaviour, supplementary feeding (Hejc-manova et al. 2010b, P. Hejcmanova, unpubl. data)and with animal transfers (Antonınova et al. 2006,Kolackova & Vahala 2009), we expect that themortality of the Western Derby elands after thecaptures from the wild will be significantly reducedfrom that observed during the initial wild captures.From an economical and behavioural point of view,the best optionwould be to capture 15 individuals atonce, preferably five males and 10 females. Thismale:female ratio was determined consideringbreeding behaviour. Males can breed with morefemales; therefore, females limit the reproductionrate within the population. First and foremost, thiswould bring a definite long-term improvement forthe Western Derby eland semi-captive population.Furthermore, it would require the organisation ofonly one capture operation, which is generally verycostly and logistically demanding. At once, it as-sumes the close cooperation and agreement of allSenegalese authorities and international organisa-tions, as well as an agreement with local communi-ties, which consider the Western Derby elands to betheir cultural and traditional property.Other optionsseem to be easier in the short term, however, the needfor repetitive captures presents a higher risk for thefuture. Indeed, the survival of the Western Derbyelands in the NKNP appears very uncertain and thedevelopment of this situation in the coming years isunpredictable. Therefore, the semi-captive WesternDerby eland population, if appropriately constitutedand genetically managed, could play a considerablerole as a potential source of individuals for reinforc-ing the wild population or for possible reintroduc-tions. Therefore, we emphasise the importance ofinvolving new founders from the wild population ofWestern Derby elands in the NKNP into the currentsemi-captive population, while simultaneously mon-itoring the wild population and starting an in situprogramme for the subspecies. We encourage pre-meditated and well-coordinated conservation ac-tions by the respective authorities.

Acknowledgements - we are deeply grateful to the Societyfor the Protection of Environment and Fauna in Senegaland its directors Georges Rezk, Christian Dering, LucienHaddad, Souhel Fourzoli and Jacques Rezk for their help,andparticularly for the conservation of theWesternDerby


eland in Senegal. A special acknowledgement is due to therepresentative of the Ministry of the Environment andProtection of Nature of Senegal, Souleye Ndiaye, and theDirector of the National Parks of Senegal, Mame BallaGueye. We conducted the management plans and conser-vation actions within the Czech Aid Development Coop-eration RP10/2007. Our research was supported by theAcademy of Sciences of the CzechRepublic, grantN8 IAA609 3404 ’Species diversity and ecology of selected verte-brates in West Africa’.

References

Akakpo, A.J., Al Ogoumrabe, N., Bakou, S., Bada-

Alambedji, R. & Ndiaye, S. 2004: Essai d’elevage de

l’eland de Derby (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) a la

Reserve de faunede Bandia: prelude a une operation de

sauvegarde de cette espece au Senegal. - Revue Africain

de Sante et Production Animale 2: 257-261. (In French).

Antonınova, M., Hejcmanova, P., Kolackova, K. &

Verner, P.H. 2008: African Studbook: Western Giant

Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus (Gray, 1847)).

1st edition. - Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague,

Czech Republic, 91 pp.

Antonınova, M., Hejcmanova, P., Vahala, J., Mojzısova,

L., Akakpo, A.J.B. &Verner, P.H. 2006: Immobilization

and transport of Western Giant Eland (Taurotragus der-

bianus derbianus) from the BandiaReserve to the Fathala

Reserve in Senegal. - Gazella 33: 75-98.

Armstrong,D.P.&Cassey, P. 2007: Estimating the effect of

inbreeding on survival. - Animal Conservation 10: 487-

492.

Ballou, J.D. & Foose, T.J. 1996: Demographic and genetic

management of captive populations. - In: Kleiman,

D.G., Lumpkin, S., Allen, M., Harris, H. & Thompson,

K. (Eds.); Wild mammals in captivity. Chicago, Univer-

sity of Chicago Press, USA, pp. 263-283.

Ballou, J.D. & Lacy, R.C. 1995: Identifying genetically

important individuals for management of genetic varia-

tion in pedigreed populations. - In: Ballou, J.D., Gilpin,

N. & Foose, T.J. (Eds.); Population management for

survival and recovery. New York, Columbia University

Press, USA, pp. 273-294.

Berube, C.H., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Jorgensen, J.T. 1996:

Reproductive costs of sons and daughters in Rocky

Mountain Bighorn Sheep. - Behavioural Ecology 7: 60-

68.

Bouman, J.G. 1979: Breeding Przewalski horses in captiv-

ity, a short introduction. - In: de Boer, L.E.M., Bouman,

J. & Bouman, I. (Eds.); Genetics and hereditary diseases

of the Przewalski horse. Proceedings of the Arnhem

study conference organized by the Foundation for the

preservation and protection of the Przewalski horse, 176

pp.

Bro-Jørgensen, J. 1997: The ecology and behaviour of the

Giant Eland (Tragelaphus derbianus, Gray 1847) in the

wild. - Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of Copen-

hagen, Denmark, 106 pp.

Chardonnet, P. 1999: Survol ecologique de 3 zones du sud-

ouest du Mali en vue du denombrement des elands de

Derby et des autres grands mammiferes. - Final report.

IUCN Mali, DNCN, 24 pp. (In French).

Chardonnet, P. 2003: Capture d’elands de Derby et pose de

colliers emetteurs en Republique Centrafricaine. -

Fondation International pour al Sauvegardede laFaune,

Paris, France, 19 pp. Available at: http://www.

wildlife-conservation.org/fr/rapports-publications/

rapports-techniques-et-scientifiques/%28page%29/9

(Last accessed on 9 July 2011).

Darroze, S. 2004: Western Giant Eland (Tragelaphus

derbianus derbianus) presence confirmed in Mali and

Guinea. - In: Chardonnet, B. & Chardonnet, P. (Eds.);

Antelope Survey Update 9. SSC Report, Paris, France

IUCN, 81 pp.

De Young, R.W., Demarais, S., Honeycutt, R.L., Gee,

K.L.&Gonzalez, R.A. 2006: Social dominance andmale

breeding success in captive white-tailed deer. - Wildlife

Society Bulletin 34: 131-136.

East, R. 1998: African antelope database 1998. - IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland, 454 pp.

Ebenhard, T. 1995: Conservation breeding as a tool for

saving animal species from extinction. - Trends in

Ecology and Evolution 10: 438-443.

Folch, P. & Jordana, J. 1998: Demographic characteriza-

tion, inbreeding and maintenance of genetic diversity in

the endangered Catalonian donkey breed. - Genetics

Selection Evolution 30: 195-201.

Frankham, R., Ballou, J.D. & Briscoe, D.A. 2003: Intro-

duction to conservation genetics. - Cambridge University

Press, UK, 617 pp.

Garbe, J.R. & Da, Y. 2006: Pedigraph version 2.3. -

University of Minnesota, USA, Available at: http://

animalgene.umn.edu/pedigraph/ (Last accessed on 11

July 2011).

Glatson, A.R. 1986: Studbooks: the basis of breeding

programmes. - International Zoo Yearbook 24/25: 162-

167.

Goyache, F., Gutierez, P., Fernandez, I., Gomez, E.,

Alvarez, I., Dıez, J. & Royo, L.J. 2003: Using pedigree

information tomonitor genetic variability of endangered

populations: the Xalda sheep breed of Asturias as an

example. - Journal ofAnimal Breeding andGenetics 120:

95-105.

Grueber, C.E. & Jamieson, I.G. 2008: Quantifying and

managing the loss of genetic variation in a free-ranging

population of takahe through the use of pedigrees. -

Conservation Genetics 9: 645-651.

Hanks, J. 2001: Conservation strategy for Africa’s large

mammals. - Reproduction, Fertility and Development

13: 459-468.

Hayssen, V., van Tienhoven, A. & van Tienhoven, A. 1993:

Asdell’s patterns of mammalian reproduction. A com-

pendium of species-specific data. - London, Comstock


Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, UK,

1023 pp.

Hejcmanova, P., Hejcman, M., Camara, A.A. & Antonı-

nova,M. 2010a: Exclusion of livestock grazing andwood

collection in dryland savanna: an effect on long-term

vegetation succession. - African Journal of Ecology 48:

408-417.

Hejcmanova, P.,Homolka,M.,Antonınova,M.,Hejcman,

M. & Podhajecka, V. 2010b: Diet composition of

Western Derby eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus)

in a natural and a managed habitat in Senegal using

faeces analyses. - South African Journal of Wildlife

Research 40: 27-34.

Henderson, D.S. 1974: Were they the last Arabian oryx? -

Oryx 12: 347-350.

Hogg, J.T., Hass, C.C. & Jenni, D.A. 1992: Sex-biased

maternal expenditure inRockyMountain Bighorn Sheep.

- Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 31: 243-251.

ISIS (International Species Information System) 1992:

SPARKS: single population animal keeping system

version 1.54. - Apple Valey/Eagan, Minnesota, USA.

Available at: http://www2.isis.org/Documents/

SPARKS_Order_Form.pdf (Last accessed on 11 July

2011).

IUCN 2010: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Version 2010.2. - IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available

at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (Last accessed on 30 June

2010).

IUCN SSC 1987: Prise de Position de l’UICN sur l’elevage

en captivite. - Rapport de 22e reunion du Conseil de

l’UICN, SSC/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 10 pp. (In

French).

Jarvis, C. 1969: Studying wild mammals in captivity:

stranded life histories with an appendix on zoo records.

- International Zoo Yearbook 9: 316-328.

Kingdon, J. 1982: East African mammals. Vol. III. Part C

and D (Bovids). - London, New York, Academic Press,

746 pp.

Kleiman,D.G., Allen,M.E., Thompson,K.V.&Lumpkin,

S. (Eds.) 1996: Wild mammals in captivity. Principles

and techniques. - The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, USA, 548 pp.

Kojola, I. 1998: Sex ratio and maternal investment in

ungulates. - Oikos 83: 567-573.

Kolackova, K. & Vahala, J. 2009: Immobilisation et

transfer de l’Eland de Derby de la Reserve de Bandia a

la Reserve de Fathala. - Rapport de l’operation, du 15

Fevrier au 7 Mars 2009, 9 pp. (In French).

Kus, E. 2000: International symposium for conservation of

Przewalski Horse, Prague Zoo. - Gazella 27: 9-14.

Lacy, R.C. 1987: Loss of genetic diversity from managed

populations: interacting effect of drift, mutation, immi-

gration, selection and population subdivision. - Conser-

vation Biology 1: 143-158.

Lacy, R.C. 1989: Analysis of founder representation in ped-

igree: founder equivalents and founder genome equiva-

lents. - Zoo Biology 8: 111-124.

Lacy,R.C. 1995: Clarification of genetic terms and their use

inmanagement of captive populations. - Zoo Biology 14:

565-578.

Lacy, R.C. & Ballou, J.D. 2002: Population Management

2000 user’s manual. - Brookfield, Illinois, Chicago

Zoological Society, USA, 36 pp.

Lykke, A.M. 1994: The vegetation of Delta du Saloum

National Park, Senegal. - University of Aarhus, Den-

mark, AAU Reports no 33, 88 pp.

Mace, G.M. 1986: Genetic management of small popula-

tions. - International Zoo Yearbook 24/25: 167-174.

Montgomery,M.E., Ballou, J.D.,Nurthen,R.K., England,

P.R., Briscoe, D.A. & Frankham, R. 1997: Minimizing

kinship in captive breeding programs. - Zoo Biology 16:

377-389.

Mysterud, A., Barton, K.A., Jedrzejewska, B., Krasinski,

Z.A., Niedziałkowska, M., Kamler, J.F., Yoccoz, N.G.

& Stenseth, N.C. 2007: Population ecology and conser-

vation of endangered megafauna: the case of European

bison in Białoweza Primeval Forest, Poland. - Animal

Conservation 10: 77-87.

Nezerkova, P., Verner, P.H. & Antonınova, M. 2004: The

conservation programme of the Western Giant Eland

(Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) in Senegal. Czech Aid

Development Project. - Gazella 31: 87-182.

Nezerkova-Hejcmanova, P., Hejcman, M., Camara, A.A.,

Antonınova, M., Pavlu, V., Cerny, T. & Ba, A.T. 2005:

Analysis of herbaceous undergrowth in woody savanna

in Fathala Reserve, Delta du Saloum National Park,

Senegal. - Belgian Journal of Botany 138: 19-128.

O’Brien, S.J., Roelke, M.E., Marker, L., Newman, A.,

Winkler, C.A., Meltzer, D., Colly, L., Evermann, J.F.,

Bush, M. & Wildt, D.E. 1985: Genetic basis for species

vulnerability in the cheetah. - Science 227: 1428-1434.

Olech, W. 2008: Bison bonasus in IUCN 2010. - IUCNRed

List of threatened species. Version 2010.2. Available at:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (Last accessed on 31 July

2010).

Pappas, L.A. 2002:Taurotragus oryx. -Mammalian Species

689: 1-5.

Pemberton, J. 2004: Measuring inbreeding depression in

the wild: the old ways are the best. - Trends in Ecology

and Evolution 19: 613-615.

Pollak, J.P., Lacy, R.C. & Ballou, J.D. 2002: PM2000

(Population Management 2000). - Brookfield, Illinois,

Chicago Zoological Society, USA. Available at: http://

www.vortex9.org/pm2000.html (Last accessed on 11

July 2011).

Ralls, K. & Ballou, J.D. 2004: Genetic status and man-

agement of California condors. - The Condor 106: 215-

228.

Ralls, K., Ballou, J.D. & Templeton, A.R. 1988: Estimates

of lethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in

mammals. - Conservation Biology 2: 185-193.

Renaud, P.C., Gueye,M.B., Hejcmanova, P., Antonınova,

M. & Samb, M. 2006: Inventaire aerien et terrestre de la

faune et releve des pressions au Parc National du


Niokolo Koba. - Plan of Urgence, Report Annex A,

August 2006. Dakar, APF, DPNS, Senegal, 74 pp. (In

French).

Rubes, J., Kubıckova, S., Pajacova, E., Cernohorska, H.,

Di Berardino, D., Antonınova, M., Vahala, J. &

Robinson, T.J. 2008: Phylogenomic study of spiral-

horned antelope by cross-species chromosomepainting. -

Chromosome Research 16: 935-947.

Ryder, O.A. & Fleischer, R.C. 1996: Genetic research and

its application in zoos. - In: Kleiman,D.G., Lumpkin, S.,

Allen, M., Harris, H. & Thompson, K. (Eds.); Wild

mammals in captivity. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, USA, pp. 255-262.

Sausman, K.A. 1993: Conservation assessment and man-

agement plan for antelope. - International Zoo Year-

book 32: 117-124.

Sausman, K. 2007: International studbook - Arabian oryx

(Oryx leucoryx) in ISIS (2009) Studbook library. -

Version 2006/2007/2008, CD-ROM.

Shurter, S. 1996: Giant Eland population management

plan. - White Oak Conservation Centre, USA, 40 pp.

Snyder, N.F.R., Derrickson, S.R., Beissinger, S.R., Wiley,

J.W., Smith, T.B., Toone, W.D. & Miller, B. 1996: Lim-

itations of captive breeding in endangered species re-

covery. - Conservation Biology 10: 338-348.

Spinage, C.A. 1986: The natural history of antelopes. -

Croom Helm, London, UK, 203 pp.

Thevenon, S. & Couvet, D. 2002: The impact of inbreeding

depression on population survival depending on demo-

graphic parameters. - Animal Conservation 5: 53-60.

Trinkel, M., Ferguson, N., Reid, A., Reid, C., Somers, M.,

Turelli, L., Graf, J., Szykman, M., Cooper, D., Haver-

man, P., Kastberger, G., Packer, C. & Slotow, R. 2008:

Translocating lions into an inbred lion population in the

Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, South Africa. - Animal Con-

servation 11: 138-143.

Trivers, R.L. & Willard, D.E. 1973: Natural selection on

parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. - Science

179: 90-92.

Ungerfeld, R., Gonzalez-Sierra, U.T. & Piaggio, J. 2008:

Reproduction in a semi-captive herd of pampas deer

Ozotoceros bezoarticus. -Wildlife Biology 14(3): 250-257.

Vankova, D., Bartos, L., Cızova-Schroffelova, D., Nespor,

F. & Jandurova, O. 2001: Mother-offspring bonding in

farmed red deer: accuracy of visual observation verified

by DNA analysis. - Applied Animal Behaviour Science

73: 157-165.

Wildt, D.E., Bush,M., Goodrowe,K.L., Packer, C., Pusey,

A.E., Brown, J.L., Joslin, P. & O’Brien, S.J. 1987: Re-

productive and genetic consequences of founding isolat-

ed lion populations. - Nature 329: 328-31.

Wilson, G.A., Nishi, J.S., Elkin, B.T. & Strobeck, C. 2005:

Effects of a recent founding event and intrinsic popula-

tion dynamics on genetic diversity in an ungulate

population. - Conservation Genetics 6: 905-916.

Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.A.M. (Eds.) 2005: Mammal

Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic

Reference. 3rd edition - Johns Hopkins University Press,

USA, 142 pp.

Zachos, F.E., Hajji, G.M., Hmwe, S.S., Hartl, G.B.,

Lorenzini, R. & Mattioli, S. 2009: Population viability

analysis and genetic diversity of the endangered red deer

Cervus elaphus population fromMesola, Italy. - Wildlife

Biology 15(2): 175-186.

Zechner, P., Solkner, J., Bodo, I., Druml, T., Baumung, R.,

Achmann, R., Marti, E., Habe, F. & Brem, G. 2002:

Analysis of diversity and population structure in the

Lipizzan horse breed based on pedigree information. -

Livestock Production Science 77: 137-146.

Zschokke, S., Studer, P. & Baur, B. 1998: Past and future

breeding of the Indian rhinoceros in captivity. - In-

ternational Zoo News 45: 261-276.


REVUE DU STATUT - IUCN

Documents

Transcript of REVUE DU STATUT - IUCN