Issues in International Conservation

Sinking the Flagship: the Case of Forest Elephantsin Asia and Africa

Introduction

Species conservation initiatives shouldbe based on sound science and reli-able evidence; too often this is notthe case. Although there is grow-ing appreciation among conservationpractitioners of the dangers of us-ing nonstandard or out-of-date meth-ods, poorquality data, and incom-plete knowledge (e.g., Karanth et al.2003; Sutherland et al. 2004), thisappreciation is growing too slowlyand is not having sufficient impacton conservation strategies, even forhigh-profile species. Perfect informa-tion is impossible; gathering data istime-consuming and expensive; andalthough improving knowledge is im-portant, it is at least equally impor-tant to ensure adequate protectionof known populations of high con-servation value. For many forest ele-phant populations, existing knowl-edge is often so inadequate that evendeciding which are the most impor-tant populations to protect is not pos-sible.

Our analysis of forest elephant sta-tus is based on a review of publishedand unpublished reports and ourown experiences of elephant conser-vation projects. We restrict our analy-sis to Asian elephants (Elephas max-imus) and those African elephants(Loxodonta africana) that dwell inthe forests of Central and West Africa.Nevertheless, many of our conclu-sions would apply equally to otherAfrican elephant populations and in-deed to wild cattle, large carnivores,and a host of other flagship species.

For Asia we argue that the currentestimates of 35,000–50,000 Asian ele-phants are highly inaccurate. Withfew exceptions, all we really know

about the status of Asian elephantsis the location of some (probablymost) populations and in some casesa crude idea of relative abundance.For some large parts of the speciesrange we do not even know wherethe populations are or if they are stillextant. What is known suggests thatAsian elephants are in serious trou-ble, with habitat loss and poachingthe most serious threats. We furtherargue that uncritical acceptance ofpoor-quality data (such as the cur-rent estimates of Asian elephant pop-ulations) impedes planning for ef-fective elephant conservation; conse-quently, a major effort to address thislack of good data is long overdue.

Although knowledge of the statusof African elephant populations isbetter than that of Asian elephants,current knowledge of the forest ele-phants of West and Central Africa isbased on 15-year-old data and guessesand is inadequate for effective con-servation planning. Despite this, theincreasing number of national parksin Central Africa and protected pop-ulations in West Africa provide an im-mediate and obvious structure for ef-fective protection of a number of crit-ically important populations.

Although forest elephants arecharismatic flagship species, we arespending too little on their conser-vation to protect even the better-studied populations inside nationalparks. Rational, science-based strate-gic plans for these species require farbetter information and investment.

Forest Elephants

Among African elephants, those thatlive in the forests of Central and WestAfrica are morphologically, ecologi-

cally, and socially distinct from themore familiar savannah-dwelling ele-phants of East and Southern Africa(Spinage 1994; Shoshani & Tassey1996; Grubb et al. 2000). Geneticevidence (Roca et al. 2001) sup-ports these distinctions and suggeststhat African elephants should bedivided into at least two distinctspecies: savannah elephants (Lox-odonta africana) and forest ele-phants (L. cyclotis). Eggert et al.(2002) suggest that at least threedistinct taxa should be recognizedbased on genetic, geographic, andmorphological characteristics: Cen-tral African forest elephants, for-est and savannah elephants of WestAfrica, and savannah elephants ofEast, Central, and Southern Africa.

The range of African forest ele-phants today extends from Liberiain West Africa, through the IvoryCoast, Ghana, Togo, Benin, and Nige-ria, and into the Central Africanforests of Cameroon, Gabon, Equa-torial Guinea, Congo (Brazzaville),the Central African Republic, and theDemocratic Republic of Congo. Tothe east, forest elephants also occurin Uganda and possibly Rwanda, andto the south they may still be presentin Angola (Cabinda).

We treat all Asian elephants as for-est elephants because most of theircurrent range is within forested areas.This distribution may be the resultof humans excluding Asian elephantsfrom other habitat types (Sukumar2003). Wild Asian elephants occurtoday in 13 countries in South andSoutheast Asia. Three subspecies arerecognized primarily on the basisof body size and minor differencesin coloration (Shoshani & Eisenberg1982): E. m. indicus on the Asian

1191

Conservation Biology, Pages 1191–1202Volume 18, No. 5, October 2004

1192 Issues in International Conservation Blake & Hedges

Table 1. Published “““estimates” of total wild Asian elephant population.

Estimates Area ofelephant

minimum probable maximum range (km2) Year Source

28,000 — 42,000 — — Olivier (1978)23,000 — 41,000 — 1982 Shoshani & Eisenberg (1982)34,470 — 53,710 — 1990 Santiapillai & Jackson (1990)34,390 — 56,045 436,230 1992 Sukumar (1992)35,000 — 50,000 — 1995 WWF (2002a), the data based on 1995 “rough estimates” and

that several populations have experienced steep declinessince that time

34,594 42,705 50,998 — 2000 Kemf & Santiapillai (2000): World Conservation Union/SpeciesSurvival Commission Asian Elephant Specialist Group(AsESG) cited as the source of data and almost all figures arevery approximate

identified as“speculative

numbers”34,594 — 50,998 — 2000 WWF for Nature (2002b), AsESG cited as the source and all

figures are very approximate41,410 — 52,345 486,800 2003 Sukumar (2003)

mainland; E. m. maximus on Sri Lanka;and E. m. sumatranus on the In-donesian island of Sumatra. Borneo’selephants have traditionally been in-cluded in E. m. indicus (Shoshani &Eisenberg 1982) or E. m. sumatranus(Medway 1977).

The Sri Lankan subspecies designa-tion is weakly supported by analysisof allozyme loci (Nozawa & Shotake1990) but not by analysis of mito-chondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences(Hartl et al. 1996; Fernando et al.2000; Fleischer et al. 2001). Cur-rent patterns of mtDNA variation sug-gest that the Sumatran subspecies ismonophyletic (Fleischer et al. 2001);consequently, this taxon could bedefined as an evolutionarily signifi-cant unit (ESU). Similarly, Borneo’selephants, traditionally considered tobe descended from animals intro-duced in the sixteenth through theeighteenth centuries, have recentlybeen shown to be a distinct ESU na-tive to the island (Fernando et al.2003). Wild Sumatran and Borneanelephants are therefore particularlyhigh conservation priorities

Status of Forest Elephants in Asia

Asian elephants formerly ranged fromWest Asia along the Iranian coast intothe Indian subcontinent, eastwardinto Southeast Asia, including Suma-tra, Java, and Borneo, and into China

at least as far as the Yangtze-Kiang.This former range covered over 9 mil-lion km2 (Sukumar 2003). Asian ele-phants are now extinct in West Asia,Java, and most of China (Olivier 1978;Sukumar 2003). They still occur inisolated populations scattered across13 Asian range states, but many ofthese populations are threatened byhabitat loss, poaching, and conflictwith humans (Santiapillai & Jackson1990; Sukumar 1992; Duckworth &Hedges 1998; World Wildlife Fund2002a; Leimgruber et al. 2003).

Unfortunately, unreliable surveymethods have generally been ap-plied, so despite decades of researchand conservation effort, significantgaps persist in our knowledge ofthe distribution of Asian elephantpopulations in Southeast Asia. Lit-tle is known about population sizesand trends across all of Asia. Suku-mar (1992) and Kemf and Santiapil-lai (2000) could provide only a gen-eral overview for the Indian sub-continent; Duckworth and Hedges(1998) and Duckworth et al. (1999)concluded that there were insuffi-cient data with which to estimate na-tional elephant population sizes forIndochina (Cambodia, Lao Peoples’Democratic Republic, Vietnam, andYunnan [China]); and Hedges et al.(2003) argue that there are no reli-able elephant population estimatesfor Indonesia outside of LampungProvince; consequently, there is no

valid estimate of Indonesia’s nationalelephant population size.

The frequently cited global esti-mate of 30,000–50,000 Asian ele-phants is often acknowledged as lit-tle more than an educated guess(Kempf & Santiapillai 2000; WorldWildlife Fund 2002a, 2002b). How-ever, conservationists and the mediahave repeated this estimate so oftenthat it has come to be accepted asfact. Astonishingly, these estimates ofthe global population have been ac-cepted without revision for a quarterof a century (Table 1), despite majorlosses of Asian elephant habitat overthis period.

Estimates of global population sizeshould be based on rigorous popula-tion estimates, but few exist. Recentestimates of elephant populationsizes for Indonesia’s Bukit Barisan Se-latan National Park and Way KambasNational Park are the first such esti-mates for Southeast Asian elephantpopulations to be based on rigorousmethods, satisfying the assumptionsof the models used (Hedges et al.2003). There are no other popula-tion estimates available for SoutheastAsia based on technically sound sur-vey methods except, perhaps, thosefrom a recent survey in Sabah (Ray-mond J. Alfred, unpublished data).

Most attempts to estimate popu-lation size have relied on (1) guess-ing, (2) information from local peo-ple, (3) counts made from roads or

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

Blake & Hedges Issues in International Conservation 1193

brief reconnaissance trips that oftenfailed to penetrate sufficiently far intothe forest, (4) nonstandard methodsthat have never been subject to peerreview, such as counts of elephantfootprints, and (5) surveys based ondung counts used either without ap-propriate data on defecation or dung-pile decay rates and/or based on as-sumptions that were not demonstra-bly valid at the time of the survey(Duckworth & Hedges 1998; Hedgeset al. 2003). At best, for most parts ofthe region, the data allow us to sayonly which areas contain elephantsand in some cases to provide a roughidea of relative abundance. In someareas, however, even elephant distri-bution remains unknown (Table 2).

The Indonesian island of Sumatraprovides an example of the prob-lems with current data. Hedges et al.(2003) show that only 3 of 12 ele-phant populations known to occur inSumatra’s Lampung Province in 1984(Blouch & Haryanto 1984) were ex-tant in 2002. Outside Lampung, 32elephant populations were identifiedin the early to mid-1980s (Blouch &Haryanto 1984; Blouch & Simbolon1985), but how many of these are stillextant is unknown.

The status of Asian elephants inSouth Asia, at least in India, is betterknown. There are a number of high-quality population estimates basedon direct sightings along line tran-sects. However, the majority of pop-ulation estimates for India rely onother, less rigorous methods, includingso-called total direct counts, countsat waterholes, and “block counts”(Asian Elephant Research & Conser-vation Centre 1998; Bist 2003), allof which fail to address the criti-cal issues of observability and spatialsampling (Nichols & Karanth 2002;Williams et al. 2002). Consequently,the relationship between the countstatistic and the real number of ele-phants is unknown for those siteswhere these methods were used.Therefore, it is not possible to esti-mate the total elephant populationof India or to compare populationnumbers among sites. Totals cited for

India should therefore be regardedas educated guesses. The situation inthe rest of South Asia is similar to thatin Southeast Asia (Table 2).

Status of Forest Elephants in Africa

There are dramatic differences inthe conservation status of forest ele-phants between Central and WestAfrica. In West Africa elephants havea several-thousand-year history ofpersecution for their ivory (Spinage1994). European colonization hugelyincreased their exploitation, and by1910 populations had been severelydepleted and have never recovered(Barnes 1999). By 1984 elephants oc-cupied just 232,000 km2, or 6–7% oftheir estimated range in 1900 (Roth& Douglas-Hamilton 1991).

Today, West Africa’s remaining for-est elephants are found in just 35isolated populations, containing ap-proximately 4784 forest elephants(IUCN 2003). Only 11 of the 35 popu-lations are thought to contain 100 ormore elephants. Rapidly expandinghuman populations compete withelephants and other wildlife for land,and elephants may be “a luxury WestAfrica cannot afford” (Barnes 1999).However, a recently completed Ac-tion Plan for West African Elephants(World Conservation Union 2003),promoted and endorsed by range-state governments, gives hope thatthis is no longer the case.

At first glance, the context of ele-phant conservation in the equato-rial forests of Central Africa seemto be the antithesis of that in WestAfrica. Forest cover is approximately1.86 million km2 (Minnemeyer etal. 2003), most of which is accept-able elephant habitat. Much of theforest has historically been inacces-sible to humans, trade and com-merce with the rest of the worldhas been slow, and human popula-tions are among the lowest in sub-Saharan Africa. However, despite oc-curring in relatively high numbers invast tracts of seemingly intact habi-tat, Central Africa’s elephants are farfrom immune to large-scale poaching

and consequent population reduc-tion (Michelmore et al. 1994; Barneset al. 1995a).

In the late 1980s, following an in-tense wave of elephant poaching, bi-ologists recognized that almost noth-ing was known of the basic biology,abundance, distribution, or conserva-tion status of forest elephants (Barneset al. 1995a). Existing status reportswere either speculative (i.e., derivedfrom models based on unrealistic as-sumptions; Anonymous 1984; Martin1986) or were extrapolations fromlimited data sets (Burrill & Douglas-Hamilton 1987). Preliminary studiesof forest elephant ecology had beencompleted in human-dominated land-scapes in West Africa (Alexandre1978; Merz 1981; Short 1981, 1983;Merz 1986a, 1986b, 1986c), butecological information from CentralAfrica was largely anecdotal (Carroll1988).

In response, in the late 1980s a re-gional survey was conducted acrosssix Central African countries: theDemocratic Republic of Congo (DRC,formerly Zaire), Congo, Cameroon,Gabon, the Central African Repub-lic (CAR), and Equatorial Guinea. Thegoal was to provide baseline data onthe distribution and abundance of for-est elephants in Central Africa and toassess the impact of the ivory trade(Barnes 1989).

This groundbreaking research re-sulted in a number of important con-clusions. First, an estimated 172,400forest elephants remained in Cen-tral Africa (Michelmore et al. 1994;Barnes et al. 1995a). The DRC con-tained the most elephants, an es-timated 72,000 (Michelmore et al.1994), although low sampling cover-age meant that extrapolations wereunreliable and confidence in this es-timate is low. Using a more conserva-tive method to analyze the same data,Alers et al. (1992) estimated 64,000elephants in the DRC. In Gabon,where sampling coverage was moreextensive, the population was esti-mated at 61,800 ± 20,200 by Barneset al. (1995b) and 55,000 by Michel-more et al. (1994) based on the

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

1194 Issues in International Conservation Blake & Hedges

Table 2. Status of Asian elephant populations in 2003: population estimates versus reality.

Population “estimates”

Country minimum maximum Reality

India 26,390 30,770 distribution well known; some valid population estimates but majorityare less rigorous (Karanth & Sunquist 1992; Sukumar 1992; AsianElephant Research & Conservation Centre 1998; Choudhury 1999;Bist 2003); no national population estimate possible

Nepal 100 125 distribution moderately well known; probably three main populations(Smith & Mishra 1992); no population estimates available, no nationalpopulation estimate possible

Bhutan 250 500 distribution poorly known or published; resident populations exist butmany elephants shared with India (Santiapillai & Jackson 1990; Kemf& Santiapillai 2000); no population estimates available, no nationalpopulation estimate possible

Bangladesh 150 250 no recent studies of distribution; no population estimates available; nonational population estimate possible

China 200 250 distribution moderately well known (Duckworth & Hedges 1998);crude information on relative abundance; no population estimatesavailable; no national population estimate possible

Myanmar 4,000 5,000 distribution moderately well known; crude information on relativeabundance (Lynam 2003; P. Leimgruber, personal communication; A.Lynam, personal communication); no population estimates available;no national population estimate possible

Thailand 2,500 3,200 distribution well known; crude information on relative abundance(Kemf & Santiapillai 2000; Lanka 2000; A. Lynam, personalcommunication); no population estimates available; no nationalpopulation estimate possible

Laos 500 1,000 distribution well known; crude information on relative abundance; nopopulation estimates available (Duckworth & Hedges 1998;Duckworth et al. 1999); no national population estimate possible

Cambodia 250 600 distribution moderately well known; some crude information on relativeabundance; no population estimates available (Duckworth & Hedges1998); no national population estimate possible

Vietnam 70 150 distribution of relic populations generally well known; crudeinformation on relative abundance available; no population estimatesavailable, but most recent guesses suggest fewer than 150 elephantsremain (Duckworth & Hedges 1998)

Malaysia 2,100 3,100 distribution moderately well known on peninsula, well known in Sabah;crude information on relative abundance on peninsula (Santiapillai &Jackson 1990; Khan 1994), with better data available for Sabah(Boonratana 1997; Alfred 2002; Ambu et al. 2002); Sabah’s elephantsshared with Indonesian Borneo; few if any high-quality populationestimates available; no national population estimate possible

Indonesia 2,400 3,400 in the mid-1980s, 44 discrete elephant populations were known to existin Sumatra’s 8 provinces, 12 of these in Lampung Province (Blouch &Haryanto 1984; Blouch & Simbolon 1985); in 2003, only 3 ofLampung’s 12 populations were extant (Hedges et al. 2003) and anunknown number of Sumatra’s other elephant populations remain;distribution moderately well known on Kalimantan; robust estimatesfor two Sumatran sites (Bukit Barisan Selatan and Way Kambas NPs;Hedges et al. 2003); some crude information about relative abundanceexists for other sites, but no national population estimate possible

Sri Lanka 2,500 4,000 distribution moderately well known; crude information about relativeabundance (Santiapillai & Jackson 1990; Santiapillai & Wijeyamohan2003); no population estimates are available, no national populationestimate possible

Total 41,410 52,345 poor data across range, range-wide population estimate impossible;global estimates not revised for 25 years, but all evidence suggestssignificant decline across much of range

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

Blake & Hedges Issues in International Conservation 1195

same data. In 1989, therefore, Cen-tral Africa probably contained closeto one-third of Africa’s elephants(Barnes et al. 1995a), and the ma-jority of these were forest elephants.Second, forest elephants, except per-haps in Gabon, had not escaped theonslaught of poaching witnessed inthe rest of Africa. Third, humans ap-parently determined the distributionof forest elephants, even in the mostremote areas where poaching pres-sure seemed low.

Since 1989, when the above surveyresults were first published and theinternational ban on the ivory tradewas introduced, there have been dra-matic changes in the context for con-servation of forest elephants and theirhabitat in Central Africa. During the1990s, several factors conspired withlawlessness and huge increases in theavailability of firearms to foster condi-tions promoting elephant poaching:an upswing in access into the inte-rior of the forest and in trade routesto large population centers, the con-tinuing ineffectiveness of wildlife de-partments, continued consumer de-mand for ivory from Asian marketsand a strong upswing in demand inChina (Milliken et al. 2002), and de-creasing supplies of bush meat fromsmaller mammals, which fostered anincreased consumption of elephantmeat.

In addition, during the same pe-riod, logging, along with concomitantroad development and immigration-induced human population expan-sion, dramatically increased in extentand intensity in Central Africa (Fig. 1).In the 1970s, the penetration of log-ging concessions was relatively lowthroughout the basin, with most ac-tive logging close to the coast and ma-jor towns. By the late 1990s, over halfof Gabon’s forest was locked up inlogging concessions (Collomb et al.2000), and in Cameroon more than75% of forested areas were classifiedas timber concessions (Bikie et al.2000). In Congo (Brazzaville) almostall exploitable terra firma forest out-side national parks is production for-est. All terra firma forests outside na-

tional parks in Central Africa westof the Congo River and most to theeast in the DRC will almost certainlybe selectively logged during the next20 years. Although selective loggingitself is not necessarily detrimentalto forest elephant populations in theshort term, and may even increaselocal density, the negative impact ofroads, increased river traffic, and hu-man distribution on elephant abun-dance across Central Africa has beendemonstrated (Barnes et al. 1991;Michelmore et al. 1994; Barnes et al.1997).

At the same time that logging haseaten into the wilderness refuges offorest elephants, development of na-tional parks and protected areas hasalso proceeded apace. In 1970, therewere just over 50,000 km2 of desig-nated national park land in the for-est zone of Central Africa, which by2001 had risen to 98,265 km2. Thir-teen national parks were establishedin Gabon in 2002, creating a totalpark area of 128,000 km2, or approx-imately 7% of the remaining equato-rial forest. Undoubtedly, the nationalparks of Central Africa must formthe basis of any successful conserva-tion plan for forest elephants, thoughmanagement capacity remains woe-fully inadequate.

Since the surveys of the late 1980s,the African Elephant Database (Blancet al. 2003) remains the best singlereference on the population status offorest elephants; unfortunately, it can-not be used to determine trends inelephant numbers. The compilers ofthe database note that “. . .the datapresented. . .cannot give any indica-tion of overall changes in elephantpopulations [in the period betweenthe two reports]” (p. 16 of the 2002report).

The database includes four cate-gories of population estimate for eachnation and subregion (known, prob-able, possible, and speculative), eachwith a rather complicated definitionbased on the quality of the data usedto make the estimate (Blanc et al.2003). It is instructive to look at thebreakdown of population estimates

by region (Table 3). The differencein the state of knowledge of ele-phant populations by region is ob-vious. In Central Africa, only 16,450elephants are “definitely” known toexist, whereas the speculative esti-mate is 82,563, a ratio of definiteto speculative of 0.2:1. In East andSouthern Africa, by contrast, definiteis by far the dominant category, witha ratio of definite to speculative of20:1 and 32:1, respectively. In WestAfrica, the two estimates are similar,with a ratio of definite to speculativeof 1.6:1).

In Central Africa, only four sur-veys are listed as meeting the re-quirements of producing an abun-dance estimate and reporting a 95%confidence interval (CI) and mea-suring the decay rate of elephantdung piles on-site. Two of these wereconducted more than a decade agoin 1993, one in 2000, and one in2002. The rate of surveying is improv-ing. Between 1987 and 2000, 17 sur-veys were recorded; since 2000, 29surveys have been completed, withmany based on dung-count estimates.In the absence of real data, expertopinion is useful but can be highlymisleading (e.g., the speculative esti-mate of over 82,000 forest elephantsis literally a guess). In the DRC, all but3 of 21 population estimates are ei-ther informed or “other” guesses ac-counting for 32,267 elephants in anarea of 849,561 km2. There is littlediscernable difference between theinformed and other guesses in termsof their validity. This is not said tobelittle those supplying the guesses,for the authors are honest in theirappraisal of the low quality of their“data.” Our point is made simply tohighlight the inadequacy of currentknowledge about one of the mostecologically, culturally, and econom-ically important wildlife species inAfrica.

Thus, in Central Africa, the knowl-edge needed to make informed man-agement decisions is simply unavail-able. With only 16,450 elephants“known” to exist, the only possi-ble management strategy would be a

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

1196 Issues in International Conservation Blake & Hedges

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

Blake & Hedges Issues in International Conservation 1197

Table 3. The African Elephant Database’s population estimates (adapted from Blanc et al. 2003).

Estimate typeRatio of definite to Range

Region definite probable possible speculative speculative area (km2)

Central Africa∗ 16,450 32,263 64,447 82,563 0.2:1 2,060,763East Africa 117,716 17,702 22,511 5,738 20:1 969,113Southern Africa 246,592 23,722 26,098 7,508 32:1 1,680,130West Africa∗ 5,458 1,188 3,039 3,498 1.6:1 219,868

∗In Central and West Africa, no distinction is made between forest and savannah elephants.

precautionary approach, which treatsall threats as valid without clear link-age of cause and effect. This trans-lates into a strong emphasis on pro-tection of remaining populations anda reduction of threats to these ele-phants, including threats from thetrade in ivory. In West Africa, ele-phant numbers are fairly well known,but the population is so small andfragmented that complete protectionand strong efforts to expand habitatand range represent the only appro-priate course of action (World Con-servation Union 2003). Only in South-ern and East Africa can managementdecisions be based on reasonable in-formation.

There is a desperate need for bet-ter information on forest elephantdistribution and numbers, as wasrecognized over a decade ago byBarnes et al. (1995a), who statedthat ignorance of basic elephant bi-ology was one of the four major con-straints on forest elephant conserva-tion. Barnes et al. further suggestedthat “[d]etailed surveys of elephantnumbers and distribution should bemade in each country and then re-peated at regular intervals to deter-mine trends.” In 2004, 15 years afterthe last region-wide survey in Cen-tral Africa, such a system is still notin place; however, the pieces of oneare coming together as a result of theMonitoring the Illegal Killing of Ele-phants (MIKE) programs of the Con-

Figure 1. The growth of the logging industry in (a) Cameroon and (b) Gabon (used with permission of GlobalForest Watch, Washington, D.C., images provided by S. Minnemeyer of Global Forest Watch). Abbreviations: WCMC,World Conservation Monitoring Centre; TREES, Tropical Ecosystem Environment Observation by Space; EC,European Commission; IUCN, World Conservation Union; CETELCAF, Centre de Teledetection et de CartographieForestiere.

vention on International Trade in En-dangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES).

Results of Poor Data andInformation

Effective protection of forest ele-phants is possible, despite the lackof quality data on distribution, pop-ulation sizes, and threats. But it isalso important to highlight the dan-gers of conservation planning basedon poor-quality data. We provide oneexample from Sumatra, but we couldjust as easily have picked examplesfrom other range states in Asia orAfrica.

In 1998 the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) Asian Rhino & Elephant Ac-tion Strategy (AREAS) reviewed dataon elephant distribution and abun-dance to select priority sites forconservation action. Their actionshelped put elephants “on the map,”but poor data made priority settingdifficult. For example, Bukit BarisanSelatan National Park (BBSNP) insouthern Sumatra was selected as apriority site for rhinoceros conserva-tion but not for elephant conserva-tion, on the grounds that elephantswere only thought to be “present insmall numbers” (WWF 2002a). How-ever, the first elephant survey in BB-SNP, conducted in 2001 as the AREAS

report was going to press, revealedapproximately 500 elephants in thepark (498, with 95% CI [373, 666];Hedges et al. 2003), making BBSNP acritically important area for elephantconservation. The WWF was workingwith the best available information,but a lack of data affected the settingof conservation priorities and the al-location of scarce resources.

Monitoring the Illegal Killing ofElephants (MIKE)

In 1997 the CITES Conference of theParties resolved to establish a moni-toring system across the entire rangeof the African and Asian elephants(Resolution Conf. 10.10). This sys-tem was intended to facilitate deci-sion making by the parties regard-ing the protected status of elephants.It was also the first attempt to pro-vide a systematic and detailed assess-ment of the impact of the parties’ de-cisions to allow, restrict, or suspendtrade in a particular species (and/orits parts and derivatives). The moni-toring system, known as MIKE, wasendorsed at the 41st meeting of theCITES Standing Committee in Febru-ary 1999.

The MIKE program was discussedagain at the 11th Conerence of theParties in 2000, which led to a revi-sion of Resolution Conf. 10.10, and

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

1198 Issues in International Conservation Blake & Hedges

the objectives previously agreed towere broadened to include “estab-lishing an information base to sup-port the making of decisions onappropriate management, protectionand enforcement needs” and “build-ing capacity in range States.” TheMIKE program aims “To provide in-formation needed for elephant rangeStates to make appropriate manage-ment and enforcement decisions, andto build institutional capacity withinthe range States for the long-termmanagement of their elephant pop-ulations.” More specific objectiveswithin this aim are to (1) “mea-sure levels and trends in the ille-gal hunting of elephants, (2) “deter-mine changes in these trends overtime,” and (3) “determine the fac-tors causing such changes and to as-sess to what extent observed trendsare related to CITES changes in list-ings or ivory trade resumptions”(www.cites.org/eng/prog/mike).

The MIKE program is collectingdata on elephant population trends,the incidence and patterns of illegalkilling, and the effort and resourcesused to detect and prevent illegalhunting and trade. The MIKE pro-gram is also charged with developingand using a standardized methodol-ogy for data collection and analysis.

In 2001 a pilot project at threesites in the Central African forestblock demonstrated that implemen-tation of MIKE in forests is feasible,and a full-scale program involving 55sites across Africa was initiated there-after. The plan is to repeat surveysin each site every 2–3 years. Withinthe range of forest elephants in Cen-tral Africa, 11 sites were chosen, eachbased around a protected area. Popu-lation surveys of elephants and apeswithin six of these sites have beenunderway since 2003 in conjunctionwith the MIKE law enforcement mon-itoring program. In all sites, MIKE isproviding the best, and in many casesthe only, systematic, design-unbiasedsurvey of forest elephants and apesever undertaken. The Wildlife Con-servation Society (WCS) is collabo-rating with the range states and the

MIKE program by providing techni-cal and administrative coordinationof these surveys.

The start of the MIKE programwas delayed in Asia, due to a com-bination of political problems and alack of funds. However, there hasbeen significant progress in the last12 months. Fifteen sites and 16 siteshave been selected in South Asia andSoutheast Asia, respectively. Surveysshould begin in at least some of thesesites in 2004.

The MIKE program has had promis-ing beginnings in Central Africa, buta number of problems need to beresolved as it moves forward. Per-haps most important, the suite ofMIKE sites as currently defined inCentral Africa is strongly biased to-ward protected areas, ignoring muchof the range of the species outsideprotected areas. The survey sites donot provide a statistically valid sam-ple of forest elephant abundancesacross the range of the taxon. In-stead, the sites represent the largestpopulations of elephants in some ofthe most heavily protected areas inthe region. Therefore MIKE data onillegal killing and population sizesand trends are biased toward repre-senting the best conservation con-ditions available. Given the logisti-cal difficulties and the chronic lackof human capacity and funding avail-able to monitor elephants and otherwildlife (Walsh & White 1999), andgiven that the battle for forest ele-phants will likely be won or lost inand around protected areas, this is anunderstandable, if not technically de-fensible, strategy.

The notion that this highly biasedsample of sites can be a barometerfor the conservation status of for-est elephants throughout their rangeis questionable, given that the greatmajority of forest elephant range inAfrica is still outside protected areas.In some circumstances, trends withinprotected areas may reflect trendsin populations outside protected ar-eas, but this assumption needs tobe tested. If MIKE is to meet thechallenge of effectively monitoring

the conservation status of forest ele-phants, it must continue to evolveinto an unbiased, statistically rigorousprogram across the full range of ele-phants. If this occurs, and it should,the MIKE program will increasinglyhelp fill the information void acrossthe range of forest elephants in bothAfrica and Asia.

We believe that for Asian elephantsand especially Southeast Asian ele-phants, MIKE will result in moremoney and other resources becom-ing available than would otherwisebe the case. More specifically, thereis a realistic possibility of initiatinglaw enforcement monitoring workin many of the 16 MIKE sites inSoutheast Asia over the next 12–18months (in many cases these will befirst-ever surveys). Of particular im-portance, the MIKE program surveyswill be conducted with standardizedmethodology that has been approvedby the program’s Technical AdvisoryGroup. Indeed, one of the most ben-eficial outputs of MIKE to date hasbeen the increased attention paid tosurvey methods. For example, MIKEhas resulted in improved methods forestimating elephant density from sur-veys based on dung counts (MIKEDung Survey Standards, CITES/MIKEDung Survey Task Force).

The MIKE program is also build-ing essential management capacity byputting wildlife managers, field staff,and researchers into the forest reg-ularly and systematically, which ac-cords benefits such as collection ofdata on wildlife, poaching, and ille-gal logging and opportunities to ar-rest poachers. The direct tangible ef-fects of trained eyes and ears in theforests are perhaps even more valu-able than the data produced.

Potential for Protection in theAbsence of Good Information

Even if MIKE and other initiativesevolve quickly to address the knowl-edge gap and funds become availableto support and sustain these initia-tives, it will be many years before the

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

Blake & Hedges Issues in International Conservation 1199

distribution, population density, andtrends in illegal killing and popula-tion size of forest elephants are reli-ably documented. A strong and im-mediate focus on the conservation ofknown viable populations, in thoseareas where the chances of successare relatively high, is therefore essen-tial. In the absence of better data, theexisting protected-area networks inforest elephant range states providea framework for planning and imple-mentation. But what are the manage-ment conditions upon which conser-vation depends? A case study fromCentral Africa is informative.

Most of Central Africa’s wildlife de-partments and national park manage-ment authorities are dysfunctional asa result of limited human capacity,low budgets, lack of infrastructure,and corruption. The following exam-ples come from very different na-tions, the Democratic Republic ofCongo and Gabon. The DRC is one ofthe poorest nations on Earth, and thecountry is just emerging from years ofviolent civil war. In contrast, Gabonis the most stable and prosperous na-tion within Central Africa.

In the heart of DRC is the SalongaNational Park, a massive 36,000-km2

wilderness in the most remote lo-cation in the region. Salonga is thesecond-largest national park in Africa(WDPA 2004). In 2003 Salonga had175 registered national park staff,with an average age of 50, in sixdispersed administrative centers (O.Ilambu, personal communication).Park authorities possessed three high-frequency radios, no boats, no vehi-cles, and no field equipment, withthe exception of old semiautomaticweapons and a few bullets. There hadbeen no operating budget from gov-ernment for several years. In early2004, the salary of a park guardwas the equivalent of $2/month,but no staff had been paid for sev-eral months. A bonus of $30/month,which was to have been paid by theUnited Nations Educational, Scien-tific, and Cultural Organization (UN-ESCO), was months in arrears. Theprice of raw ivory in Kinshasa in 1999

was $20–60 per kg for small tusks;hence, one small elephant tusk wasworth more than 10 times the an-nual salary of a Salonga national parkguard.

The coastal Gamba Complex is atthe heart of an area of oil extractionand lies within one of the wealthi-est local economies in Gabon. Un-til recently there were only threebrigade posts within the 12,000-km2

protected-areas complex, mannedby four qualified government war-dens and 11 temporarily recruitedstaff. Staff recruited from nongovern-mental organizations (WWF, WCS)brought the total to 50 working onprotection and monitoring duties.Four government employees workfor the Sette Cama brigade, and theyhave an monthly operational budgetof $315 (B. Huijbregts, personal com-munication). There is not a singlefunctional 4 × 4 vehicle, and thereare only one post with electricity,five boats with outboards, one tele-phone, and two high-frequency ra-dios. This is all that is available to pro-tect a contiguous elephant popula-tion of approximately 15,000 individ-uals (Thibault et al. 2001), more ele-phants than in South Africa, Namibia,or Zambia (Blanc et al. 2003).

Such inadequacies are taking theirtoll on effective protection of for-est elephants. Although data arenot yet available, observations fromthe MIKE program indicate thatpoached elephant carcasses are rou-tinely found in some of the best-known national parks in the region.

Along with political will and insti-tutional and individual commitment,adequate financial resources for con-servation and natural resource man-agement are critical to success. Fund-ing for conservation and natural re-source management in the Congobasin has increased consistently overrecent years, starting with a boomin the early 1990s (Fay & Agnagna1993). By 2003 the Congo Basin For-est Partnership (CBFP), under theumbrella of the Central African Re-gional Program for the Environment(CARPE) funded by the U.S. Agency

for International Development, dra-matically increased funding levels. A$36-million grant from the U.S. gov-ernment for landscape-level manage-ment based around national park andreserve cores was leveraged by therequirement of matching funds. Thecurrent annual biodiversity conser-vation budget across the equatorialforest is now perhaps $30 million,with the majority targeted toward 11landscapes identified as critical sitesfor biodiversity at a WWF-sponsoredpriority-setting exercise in 1999. Thesurface area of the 11 landscapesis some 738,038 km2, which meansan annual expenditure of $40/km2.Purely hypothetically, if the entire$30 million were spent on nationalparks alone in forest elephant range(an area of approximately 128,000km2), the annual expenditure wouldbe about $235/km2.

Thirty million dollars per year forconservation may seem like a lot, buteven this budget is paltry comparedwith national park budgets in otherparts of the world. For example, theannual budget of the South AfricanNational Parks authority is approx-imately $1350/km2, and 3000 peo-ple are employed in Kruger NationalPark alone. In Yellowstone NationalPark (U.S.A.), the operating budget in2003 was $28 million. Expenditure inYellowstone equates to $3076/km2,or 93 times more than in the Congobasin. It is not surprising, therefore,that elephant conservation and, moregenerally, biodiversity conservationin Africa’s forest parks is woefully in-adequate to mitigate the rising tide ofthreats.

Conclusions and Implications forForest Elephant Conservation

Despite decades of conservation ef-fort, we know far too little about thedistribution and status of forest ele-phants in both Asia and Africa. Sig-nificant funding has been obtainedin recent years, through sourcessuch as the CBFP in Africa and

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

1200 Issues in International Conservation Blake & Hedges

from single-species funds such asthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’sAsian and African Elephant Conser-vation Funds, each of which funds atlevels of >$1,000,000 per year. Butfunds are still inadequate, and manyrange-state governments expend sig-nificantly more than external donors.

Furthermore, a lack of statisticalrigor in survey design, the use ofnonstandard methods, and the beliefthat guesses are sufficient for the pur-poses of conservation planning havehindered conservation efforts. Thefrequent repetition of crude guesseshas created a false sense that weknow much more than we really doand has set back conservation ofthese species. When repeated overthe years, guesses assume a mantleof respectability, and people forgetthat the figures are guesses, despitethe caveats that accompany them.Consequently, little effort has beenexpended to collect the high-qualitydata of the kind needed for conser-vation, and guesses have been usedas if they were facts. This can resultin skewed priorities for conservationaction and poor allocation of limitedresources.

To address this unfortunate situa-tion in Asia, we believe the follow-ing elements are all urgently needed:(1) open acceptance of how little wereally know about the status of ele-phants in Asia, (2) adoption of ap-propriate peer-reviewed survey andmonitoring methods, (3) improvedinteragency cooperation and datasharing to effect a comprehensive re-view of conservation priorities forAsian elephants based on what we re-ally know, not guesses, (4) immediateefforts directed at protecting knownkey populations, and (5) surveys tolocate remaining large populations.In Africa, efforts must concentrate on(1) protecting elephants in large na-tional parks and conservation land-scapes where the chances of long-term success are highest, (2) develop-ing and implementing improved mea-sures to monitor the performance ofconservation efforts in these areas,and (3) conducting surveys and initi-

ating monitoring programs across therest of forest elephant range to bet-ter understand trends in illegal killingand population size at the regionallevel and to identify areas contain-ing significant numbers of elephantsoutside current protected-area net-works.

These high-priority actions all re-quire funds on a scale far larger thanthat currently available in African andAsian states in the ranges of forest ele-phants. At some point in the near fu-ture, the international community, in-cluding elephant range states, needsto decide whether it wants forest ele-phants to continue to exist. If it does,then the funds for the protection ofthese species and their habitats needto be very significantly increased ifthere are to be any elephants left toprotect.

Acknowledgments

We thank W. Duckworth, U. Karanth,P. Leimgruber, A. Lynam, F. Maisels,and M. Tyson for useful discussionsand J. Ginsberg for suggesting thispiece and for his helpful comments.The Wildlife Conservation Society,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, theNational Geographic Society, and theWWF funded much of our work onelephants in Asia and Africa. We aregrateful to all these organizations.

Stephen Blake∗

African Forest Elephant Coordinator, WildlifeConservation Society, 1700 Connecticut Av-enue NW, Suite 403, Washington D.C. 20009,U.S.A.

Simon Hedges

Asian Elephant Coordinator, Wildlife Conserva-tion Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx,NY 10460, U.S.A.

Literature Cited

Alers, M. P., A. Blom, C. Sikubwabo Kiyengo, T.Masunda, and R. Barnes. 1992. Preliminaryassessment of the status of the forest ele-phants in Zaire. African Journal of Ecology30:279–291.

Alexandre, D. Y. 1978. Le role disseminateurdes elephants en foret de Tai, Cote d’Ivoire.La Terre et Vie 32:47–72.

Alfred, R. 2002. Summary report on the status& distribution of Asian elephant in Sabah.World Wildlife Fund–Malaysia, Kota Kina-balu.

Ambu, L. N., P. M. Andua, S. Nathan, A. Tuuga,S. M. Jensen, R. Cox, R. Alfred, and J. Payne.2002. Asian Elephant Action Plan Sabah(Malaysia). Sabah Wildlife Department &World Wildlife Fund AREAS Project, KotaKinabalv, Malaysia.

Anonymous. 1984. Status and trends of ele-phant and rhino populations in Africa. InD. H. M. Cumming and P. Jackson, edi-tors. The status and conservation of Africa’selephants and rhinos.World ConservationUnion, Gland, Switzerland.

Asian Elephant Research & Conservation Cen-tre (AERCC). 1998. The Asian elephant insouthern India: a GIS database for conserva-tion of Project Elephant Reserves. AERCC,Bangalore, India.

Barnes, R. F. W. 1989. The status of elephantsin the forests of Central Africa: results ofa reconnaissance survey. In S. Cobb, ed-itor. The ivory trade and the future ofthe African elephant. Ivory Trade ReviewGroup, International Development Centre,Oxford, United Kingdom.

Barnes, R. F. W. 1999. Is there a future forelephants in West Africa? Mammal Review29:175–199.

Barnes, R. F. W., K. Barnes, M. Alers, and A.Blom. 1991. Man determines the distribu-tion of elephants in the rain forests of north-eastern Gabon. African Journal of Ecology29:54–63.

Barnes, R. F. W., A. Blom, and M. P. T. Alers.1995a. A review of the status of forestelephants Loxodonta africana in CentralAfrica. Biological Conservation 71:125–132.

Barnes, R. F. W., A. Blom, M. P. T. Alers, and K.L. Barnes. 1995b. An estimate of the num-bers of forest elephants in Gabon. Journalof Tropical Ecology 11:27–37.

Barnes, R. F. W., K. Beardsley, F. Michelmore,K. Barnes, M. Alers, and A. Blom. 1997.Estimating forest elephant numbers withdung counts and a geographic informationsystem. Journal of Wildlife Management61:1384–1393.

Bikie, H., J.-G. Collomb, L. Djomo, S. Min-nemeyer, R. Ngoufo, and S. Nguiffo. 2000.An overview of logging in Cameroon.Global Forest Watch, Cameroon.

Bist, S. S. 2003. An overview of the methodsfor enumeration of wild elephants in India.Gajah 22:67–70.

∗Authors are listed in alphabetical order. Ad-dress correspondence to S. Hedges, WildlifeConservation Society–International Programs,c/o 1 Kearstwick Cottages, Kearstwick, KirbyLonsdale, Cumbria, LA6 2EB, United Kingdom,email shedges@wcs.org

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

Blake & Hedges Issues in International Conservation 1201

Blanc, J. J., C. R. Thouless, J. A. Hart, H. T.Dublin, I. Douglas-Hamilton, C. G. Graig,and R. F. W. Barnes. 2003. African Ele-phant Status Report 2002: an update fromthe African elephant database. World Con-servation Union/Species Survival Commis-sion, African Elephant Specialist Group,Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UnitedKingdom.

Blouch, R. A., and Haryanto. 1984. Ele-phants in southern Sumatra. Report onWorld Conservation Union/World WildlifeFund(WWF) project 3033. WWF, Bogor,Indonesia.

Blouch, R. A., and K. Simbolon. 1985. Ele-phants in northern Sumatra. Report onWorld Conservation Union/World WildlifeFund (WWF) project 3033. WWF, Bogor,Indonesia.

Boonratana, R. 1997. A state-wide survey to es-timate the distribution and density of theSumatran rhinoceros, Asian elephant, andBanteng in Sabah, Malaysia. Wildlife Con-servation Society, New York.

Burrill, A., and I. Douglas-Hamilton. 1987.African elephant database project. Fi-nal report. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme/Global Resource InformationDatabase (UNEP/GRID), Nairobi.

Carroll, R. W. 1988. Elephants of the Dzangha-Sangha dense forests of south-westernCentral African Republic. Pachyderm 10:12–15.

Choudhury, A. U. 1999. Status and conserva-tion of the Asian elephant Elephas max-imus in north-eastern India. Mammal Re-view 29:141–173.

Duckworth, J. W., and S. Hedges. 1998. Track-ing tigers: a review of the status of tiger,Asian elephant, gaur, and banteng in Viet-nam, Lao, Cambodia, and Yunnan (China),with recommendations for future conser-vation action. World Wildlife Fund In-dochina Programme, Hanoi.

Duckworth, J. W., R. E. Salter, and K. Khounbo-line, compilers. 1999. Wildlife in Lao Peo-ple’s Democratic Republic: 1999 status re-port. World Conservation Union, WildlifeConservation Society, and Centre for Pro-tected Areas and Watershed Management,Vientiane, Lao, PDR.

Eggert, L. S., A. C. Rasner, and D. S. Woodruff.2002. The evolution and phylogeographyof the African elephant inferred frommitochondrial DNA sequence and nu-clear microsatellite markers. Proceedingsof the Royal Society of London Series B269:1993–2006.

Fay, J. M., and M. Agnagna. 1993. Elephants andivory in the Congo since the ban: the lullbefore the storm? Pachyderm 16:51–58.

Fernando, P., M. E. Pfrender, S. E. Encalada, andR. Lande. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA varia-tion, phylogeography and population struc-ture of the Asian elephant. Heredity 84:362–372.

Fernando, P., T. N. C. Vidya, J. Payne, M. Stuewe,G. Davison, R. J. Alfred, P. Andau, E. Bosi,

A. Kilbourn, and D. J. Melnick. 2003. DNAanalysis indicates that Asian elephants arenative to Borneo and are therefore a highpriority for conservation. Public Library ofScience Biology 1:1–6.

Fleischer, R. C., E. A. Perry, K. Muralidharan, E.E. Stevens, and C. M. Wemmer. 2001. Phylo-geography of the Asian elephant (Elephasmaximus) based on mitochondrial DNA.Evolution 55:1882–1892.

Grubb, P., C. P. Groves, J. P. Dudley, andJ. Shoshani. 2000. Living African ele-phants belong to two species: Loxodontaafricana (Blumenbach, 1797) and Lox-odonta cyclotis (Matschie, 1900). Elephant2:1–4.

Hartl, G. B., F. Kurt, R. Tiedemann, C. Gmeiner,K. Nadlinger, K. U. Mar, and A. Rubel.1996. Population genetics and systemat-ics of Asian elephant (Elephas maximus):a study based on sequence variation atthe cyt b gene of PCR-amplified mito-chondrial DNA from hair bulbs. Zeitschriftfur Saugetierkunde–International Journalof Mammalian Biology 6:285–294.

Hedges, S., M. J. Tyson, A. F. Sitompul, M. F.Kinnaird, T. G. O’Brien, D. Gunaryadi, andAslan. 2003. Conservation assessment forSumatran elephants in Lampung Province,Sumatra, Indonesia: Final report to U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service. Wildlife ConservationSociety, New York.

Karanth, K. U., J. D. Nichols, J. Seidensticker,E. Dinerstein, J. L. D. Smith, C. McDougal,A. J. T. Johnsingh, R. S. Chundawat, and V.Thapar. 2003. Science deficiency in con-servation practice: the monitoring of tigerpopulations in India. Animal Conservation6:141–146.

Kemf, E., and C. Santiapillai. 2000. Asian Ele-phants in the wild, 2000. Species statusreport. World Wildlife Fund–International,Gland, Switzerland.

Khan, M. M. 1994. The Malay elephant: aspecies plan for its conservation. Depart-ment of Wildlife & National Parks, KualaLumpur.

Lanka, K. 2000. Action plan for Asian elephantin Thailand 1999–2001. Siam Thong KitCompany, Bangkok.

Leimgruber, P., J. B. Gagnon, C. M. Wemmer,D. S. Kelly, M. A. Songer, and E. R. Sel-lig. 2003. Fragmentation of Asia’s remain-ing wildlands: implications for Asian ele-phant conservation. Animal Conservation6:347–359.

Lynam, A. 2003. A national action plan for theunion of Myanmar. Myanmar Forest Depart-ment, Ministry of Forestry, Myanmar, andWildlife Conservation Society, New York.

Martin, R. B. 1986. Establishment of Africanivory export quotas and associated controlprocedures. In R. B. Martin, J. R. Caldwell,and J. G. Barzdo, editors. African elephants,CITES, and the Ivory Trade. Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species,Lausanne, Switzerland.

Medway, Lord. 1977. Mammals of Borneo.

Monograph 7. Malaysian Branch of theRoyal Asiatic Society, Kuala Lampur.

Merz, G. 1981. Recherche sur la biologie de nu-trition et les habitats de l’elephant de foret.Mammalia 45:299–312.

Merz, G. 1986a. Counting elephants Lox-odonta africana cyclotis in tropical rain-forests with particular reference to the TaiNational Park, Ivory Coast. African Journalof Ecology 24:61–68.

Merz, G. 1986b. Movement patterns and groupsize of the African forest elephant Lox-odonta africana cyclotis in the Tai Na-tional Park, Ivory Coast. African Journal ofEcology 24:133–136.

Merz, G. 1986c. The status of the for-est elephant Loxodonta africana cyclo-tis Matschie 1900, in the Gola Forest Re-serve, Sierra Leone. Biological Conserva-tion 36:83–94.

Michelmore, F., K. Beardsley, R. F. W. Barnes,and I. Douglas-Hamilton. 1994. A model il-lustrating the changes in forest elephantnumbers caused by poaching. African Jour-nal of Ecology 32:89–99.

Mikissa, J.-G., J.-B., S. Minnemeyer, S. Mundun-ga, H. Nzao Nzao, J. Madouma, J. de DieuMapaga, C. Mikolo, N. Rabenkogo, S. Ak-agah, and A. M. Emmanuel Bayani-Ngoye.2000. A first look at logging in Gabon.Global Forest Watch, Washington D.C.

Milliken, T., R. W. Burn, and L. Sangalakula.2002. An analysis of trends of elephantproduct seizure data in ETIS: a report tothe 12th meeting of the Conference of theParties. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa

Minnemeyer, S., T. Walker, J. G. Collomb,L. Cotton, and D. Bryant. 2003. An anal-ysis of access into Central Africa’s rain-forests. World Resources Institute, Wash-ington, D.C.

Nichols, J. D., and K. U. Karanth. 2002. Pop-ulation monitoring: a conceptual frame-work. Pages 23–28 in K. U. Karanth andJ. D. Nichols, editors. Monitoring tigersand their prey: a manual for researchers,managers and conservationists in tropicalAsia. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore,India.

Nozawa, K., and T. Shotake. 1990. Geneticdifferentiation among local populations ofAsian elephant. Zeitschrift fur Zoologis-che Systematik und Evolutionsforschung28:40–47.

Olivier, R. 1978. Distribution and status of theAsian elephant. Oryx 14:379–424.

Roca, A. L., N. Georgiadis, J. Pecon-Slattery, andS. J. O’Brien. 2001. Genetic evidence fortwo species of elephant in Africa. Science293:1473–1477.

Roth, H. H., and I. Douglas-Hamilton. 1991.Distribution and status of elephants in WestAfrica. Mammalia 55:489–527.

Santiapillai, C., and P. Jackson. 1990. The Asianelephant: an action plan for its conser-vation. World Conservation Union/SpeciesSurvival Commission Asian Elephant Spe-cialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004

1202 Issues in International Conservation Blake & Hedges

Santiapillai, C., and S. Wijeyamohan. 2003.Counting elephants in the wild. Gajah22:1–2.

Short, J. 1981. Diet and feeding behaviourof the forest elephant. Mammalia 45:177–185.

Short, J. 1983. Density and seasonal move-ments of forest elephant (Loxodonta afri-cana cyclotis) in Bia National Park, Ghana.African Journal of Ecology 21:175–184.

Shoshani, J., and J. F. Eisenberg. 1982. Elephasmaximus. Mammalian Species 182:1–8.

Shoshani, J., and P. Tassey. 1996. The Pro-boscidea: evolution and paleoecology ofelephants and their relatives. Oxford Uni-versity Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Smith, J. L. D., and H. R. Mishra. 1992. Statusand distribution of Asian elephants in Cen-tral Nepal. Oryx 26:34–38.

Spinage, C. A. 1994. Elephants. T and A DPoyser, London.

Sukumar, R., 1992. The Asian elephant: ecol-ogy and management, 2nd edition. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom.

Sukumar, R. 2003. The living elephants: evo-lutionary ecology, behavior, and conser-vation. Oxford University Press, Oxford,United Kingdom.

Sutherland, W. J., A. S. Pullin, P. M. Dolman, andT. M. Knight. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology &Evolution 19:305–308.

Thibault, M., P. D. Walsh, D. Idiata, C. Mbina,Y. Mohindou, and L. J. T. White. 2001. In-ventaire de Grande Mammiferes dans leComplexe d’Aires Protegees de Gamba en1998 et 1999. Preliminary report to theWorld Wildlife Fund and the Direction dela Faune. Ministere des Eaux et Forets, Re-publique Gabonaise.

Walsh, P. D., and L. J. T. White. 1999. What itwill take to monitor forest elephant pop-ulations. Conservation Biology 13:1194–1202.

Williams, B.K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Con-

roy. 2002. Analysis and management ofanimal populations. Academic Press, SanDiego.

World Conservation Union (IUCN). 2003.Strategy for the conservation of West Africanelephants. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)Consortium. 2004. 2004 World Databaseon Protected Areas. World Conserva-tion Union (IUCN) and United NationsEnvironment Programme-World Conserva-tion Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC),Switzerland and Cambridge.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2002a. Savinga future for Asia’s wild rhinos and ele-phants: Asian rhino and elephant actionstrategy. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2002b. WWFfactsheet: Asian elephant (Elephas max-imus). Prepared for the 12th meeting of theconference of the parties to CITES Santi-ago, 3–15 November 2002. WWF, Godalm-ing, United Kingdom.

Conservation BiologyVolume 18, No. 5, October 2004