COMMUNITY ECO-GUARD PATROL PROGRAM. Report of activities undertaken in and around the Proposed Grebo-Krahn National Park, Liberia

Transcription

1 COMMUNITY ECO-GUARD PATROL PROGRAM Report of activities undertaken in and around the Proposed Grebo-Krahn National Park, Liberia January 2016 to January 2017 Report prepared by the Wild Chimpanzee Foundation in collaboration with the Liberia Forestry Development Authority March 2017 Tel: +231 (0) Website:

2 Executive Summary In 2016, the Wild Chimpanzee Foundation (WCF) and the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) continued the Community Eco-guard Patrol (CEP) Program developed in 2014 for the Proposed Grebo-Krahn National Park (PGKNP) in southeast Liberia. The two CEP program teams includes eight community members who are trained to patrol and collect data primarily on anthropogenic threats, two FDA staff members trained as team leaders, and two WCF supervisors. To complete the two teams, an additional FDA staff member, one auxiliary, is trained in computer use, data entry, mission planning, and report preparation. The methodology used in 2016 builds upon improvements made in 2015 following-on the results from the 2014 pilot phase. The Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology (SMART) conservation software was used to collect data on anthropogenic threats and the database created in 2015 was further utilized. These methods continued to be effective in report preparation and communicating information to FDA for targeted law enforcement in the PGKNP. In summary, the two CEP program teams patrolled km of the proposed park, covering 95.5 % of the park s surface. Grids most under threat from human activities are: grids 98, 89 and 100 in the isolated patch in Glaro District; grids 62, 64, 69, 68, 63, and 65 along the border with Côte d Ivoire; and grids 78, 25, 33, 43, 16 and 34 in Grand Gedeh. Grids 6, 11 and 1 are the least threatened. We recommend the CEP program continues with technical assistance from WCF in Future efforts should prioritize further capacity building of the FDA in the use of the SMART software, an important conservation tool. 2 P a g e

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Table of Contents... 3 List of Tables... 5 List of Figures... 5 List of Acronyms... 5 Introduction... 6 Methods... 6 Patrol Area... 6 Design... 7 Data Collection... 9 Results Summary of 2016 CEP Patrols Review of Observations Areas of PGKNP Under Threat from Human Activity Observations of Wildlife in the PGKNP Discussion Comparisons with Regions of PGKNP Most Under Threat Changes to Patrolling Protocol and FDA Targeted Law Enforcement Capacity Building of FDA and Use of SMART Conclusion Acknowledgements Literature Cited Appendix 1: List of GPS locations of hunting threats discovered Appendix 2: List of GPS locations of deforestation threats P a g e

4 Appendix 3: List of GPS locations of camps/settlements Appendix 4: List of GPS locations of people encountered in the forest Appendix 5: Counts of all human activities per grid Appendix 6: Counts of direct observations of wildlife per grid Appendix 7: Counts of indirect observations of wildlife per grid P a g e

5 List of Tables Table 1: Table showing the overall patrol achievements for the two CEP teams during Table 2: Table showing the efforts of each of the team members during the 2016 CEP missions Table 3: Table showing encounter rates and numbers of observations of human activity within PGKNP Table 4: Table showing encounter rates and numbers of observations for key large mammal species within PGKNP List of Figures Figure 1: Map showing CEP grids and new PGKNP boundary line for the 2016 missions... 8 Figure 2: Graph of the total number of human activities observed per grid during CEP missions in Figure 3: Map showing the exact locations of people, camps, deforestation threats and hunting threats that were discovered in the northern area of PGKNP during CEP missions in Figure 4: Map showing the exact locations of people, camps, deforestation threats and hunting threats that were discovered in the southern area of PGKNP during CEP missions in Figure 5: Encounter rates of human activities in the areas of PGKNP patrolled by the CEP team in the north of the park during CEP missions in Figure 6: Encounter rates of human activities in the areas of PGKNP patrolled by the CEP team in the south of the park during CEP missions in Figure 7: Graph showing the total number of direct observations of wildlife per grid during CEP missions in Figure 8: Graph showing the total number of indirect observations of wildlife per grid during CEP missions in Figure 9: Map of wildlife encounter rates in the northern area of PGKNP during CEP missions in Figure 10: Map of wildlife encounter rates in the southern area of PGKNP during CEP missions in List of Acronyms CEP: Community Eco-guard Patrols CCF: Cavally Classified Forest FDA: Forestry Development Authority FMC F: Forestry Management Contract F GKNP: Grebo-Krahn National Park GNF: Grebo National Forest PGKNP: Proposed Grebo-Krahn National Park TGSFC: Taï-Grebo-Sapo Forest Complex TNP: Taï National Park WCF: Wild Chimpanzee Foundation 5 P a g e

6 Introduction The year 2016 saw the continuation of the Community Eco-guard Patrol (CEP) program into its third year within the Proposed Grebo-Krahn National Park (PGKNP), located in Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties, southeast Liberia. The pilot phase of eco-guard patrols was implemented in 2014 and the structured program continued through 2015 and Law enforcement, patrols, and permanent presence are some of the most effective means of protecting national parks and wildlife, and are thus a priority for the conservation of the PGKNP (Köngden et al., 2008; Campbell et al., 2011, Kablan et al., in press). The purpose of the CEP program is to support the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) to protect and create the PGKNP. The CEP program enables community members to work alongside FDA rangers to patrol, identify, and locate threats within the park and raise awareness in local communities. In addition, these patrols help in deterring poachers and illegal settlers because of their presence in the PGKNP. During patrols, data is primarily collected to identify areas most threatened by human activities such as hunting, mining, harvesting of forest products and farming. Exact location data is collected and subsequently reported back to the FDA, who can then organize targeted law enforcement patrols in these key areas. To conclude each mission, the CEP teams dedicate several days to raise awareness in the local communities about their work and the benefits of protecting the park and its wildlife. This report presents a summary of the results for the 2016 CEP program in and around the PGKNP between 1 January 2016 and 1 January Included are proposed recommendations to ensure the conservation and sustainable management of the PGKNP and the long-term maintenance of the CEP program. Methods Patrol Area Status of PGKNP In 2016, the boundary lines of PGKNP remained under discussion with communities as part of the process of becoming a national park. In general, the boundary lines follow the Cavalla and Dugbe Rivers, and the original Grebo National Forest (GNF), bar a few areas where concessions have been made with communities for their farmland. FDA is aiming to gazette the park in Description of PGKNP in 2016 In the heart of the Taï-Grebo-Sapo Forest Complex (TGSFC), the PGKNP is a wet evergreen forest in Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties in southeast Liberia. The PGKNP is currently 970km 2 in size, about one-third of the Grebo National Forest (GNF), and is contiguous to the Ivorian Cavally Classified Forest (CCF) on its northern edge and is near the Ivorian Taï National Park (TNP) on its eastern edge. The forest type present in the PGKNP consists of mature and open secondary forest. Annual rainfall is bimodal with two main peaks, June-July, and September-October, and 6 P a g e

7 varies from 1700 to 2300mm. Average annual temperature is 25.7 C. The PGKNP provides habitat for several large mammal species including the critically endangered western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus), endangered western red colobus monkey (Procolobus [Piliocolobus] badius), and Diana monkey (Cercopithecus diana diana), which is listed as vulnerable (IUCN 2017). The PGKNP is also home to the forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis), endemic pygmy hippopotamus (Hexaprotodon liberiensis), and Jentink s duiker (Cephalophus jentinki). Design Community Eco-guard Patrolling Design CEP missions have two primary goals: 1. Locate new hunting tents, farms, chewing stick camps and any other illegal settlements within the forest, and 2. Increase the positive permanent presence of eco-guards in the park. To accomplish these goals, the CEP program teams follow new human paths which may lead to new settlements within the forest. This method increases the amount of data collected in the most threatened grids. As a result, the FDA law enforcement missions will be able to target specific locations and increase the efficiency of law enforcement missions. In 2016, based on the original 2014 design, the PGKNP has been divided into 88 grids; out of the 104 girds from 2014 (the other grids have been removed as they are located in community land). The same numbering system was kept to allow for comparison with previous phases and to keep the same database, avoiding confusion. Figure 1 presents a map of the original grid system (in green) and the new current boundary lines of the PGKNP (red line). 7 P a g e

8 Figure 1. Map showing CEP grids and new PGKNP boundary line for the 2016 missions. 8 P a g e

9 Data collection For the year 2016, the CEP program staff was organized into two teams, the North and South teams. Each team was comprised of four members of the local community, supervised by one WCF staff member and led by one FDA ranger. Protocol The protocol for each CEP mission included, minimally, at least ten days of effective patrolling with one grid surveyed per day (4 km per day remaining on human paths as much as possible). Days leading up to and following each mission were spent travelling to and from different camps, entering and exiting the forest. Each mission was followed by two to three days of raising awareness in the local communities. Per team, this equates to a minimum of 13 days of eco-guard work, and a maximum of 21 days of eco-guard work. Patrols were conducted on both recces and human paths. Data was collected on all signs of human presence and activity, including gun cartridges, hunting tents, human paths, mining sites, farms, and chewing stick harvest sites, among other human activities. Upon encountering people during patrols, interviews were conducted to collect information about who they were, where they came from and what their purpose was in the PGKNP. They were then informed about the creation of the park and what human activities, such as farming, hunting, mining, and extraction of non-timber forest products, would no longer be tolerated. The FDA ranger would issue a warning to the persons: if they were met again, they would be arrested, per Liberian law. To monitor habitat encroachment, habitat disturbance through farms and mines was mapped. Data was collected to monitor the presence of various wildlife including chimpanzees (i.e. nests, feeding sites or vocalizations), elephants (footprints, boli), pygmy hippopotamus (footprints), and leopards (footprints, feces). For bovids, only direct observations were recorded. For monkeys, both vocalizations and direct observations were recorded. Data was always recorded during the full 4 km of patrols per grid. Important observations recorded off the 4 km patrol were recorded separately and entered into a separate database. Local Capacity Building In February and March 2016, team members were trained in patrol protocol and data collection during two workshops conducted jointly by WCF and FDA. Training for the North team took place at the WCF office in Zwedru, whilst training for the South team took place in River Gbeh. Changes in Methodology in 2016 There were no changes in methodology from the 2015 CEP program. As in the previous two years, CEP mission protocol required teams to reach 4 km per day using human paths as much as possible. If the teams entered a grid where no new human paths were discovered in 2015, the team looked at where the recce took place in 2015 and patrolled a different area of the grid. This was done to find new observations of human activity. Data Analysis As in 2015, data from the 2016 CEP missions were analyzed using SMART conservation software. SMART conservation software is a user-friendly software package that can speed up data entry and allow for automatic reporting. From a previously created data model, data was manipulated and analyzed using the SMART query functions to produce an automated report. Microsoft Excel was used to calculate encounter rates (total number of observations/total distance patrolled). During the 2016 phase of CEPs, the SMART conservation software was used to produce a report from each mission. This enables all stakeholders to be rapidly informed about the level of illegal activities occurring within the PGKNP. Copies are disseminated to both the FDA regional office and the PGKNP office. 9 P a g e

10 Results Summary of 2016 CEP Patrols For the year 2016, the North and South teams completed 9 missions overall. The two CEP teams patrolled for a total of 93 days. These patrols covered a total distance of km. Total patrolling time amounted to hours. The teams completed 500 person-days of patrols in the forest. Overall, 84 of the 88 grids in the park were patrolled, giving a total of 95.5 % of the park patrolled in A summary of patrol achievements is provided in Table 1. Difficulties in access to the park during the rainy season inhibited much patrolling for various months due to the bad road conditions and broken bridges. Table 1: Overall patrol achievements for the two CEP teams during Team Number of Days Distance (km) Number of Hours Number of Employees Person - Days CEP Team North CEP Team South As in 2015, Steek Tompoe completed the highest number of days (72) and the furthest patrolling distance (289.50). A summary of the efforts by individual team members is in Table 2. Table 2: The efforts of individual team members during the 2016 CEP missions. Name Organization Number of Days Distance (km) Number of Hours Jimmy Parker WCF Michael Teah Community Joe Wesseh FDA Steek Tompoe FDA Aaron T. Barway Community Sunnyboy Bando WCF Marcus Teah Community Frank Teah Community Philip Nimley Community Zoro Berenger WCF William Massah Community Alphonso Zarley Community Anthony Solo Community P a g e

11 Review of Observations Anthropogenic Observations Overall, 1,993 observations of anthropogenic threats were made during 2016 CEP missions. Although observations made off patrols (when walking to and from the camp) were recorded, these data were not included in the analysis. Table 3 shows the frequency of each type of observation, and the calculated encounter rate. Hunting is the primary threat with 3.72 signs per km. Table 3: Table showing encounter rates and numbers of observations of human activity within PGKNP. Category General Observation Detailed Observation Number of Observations Encounter Rate (N/km) Cartridges Gunshot Hunting Poaching Hunter (people met) Hunting tent Poacher's track Traps TOTAL HUNTING OBSERVATIONS Farming Farm Clearing made by humans Total farming observations Garcinia root extraction Chewing sticks Cut Garcinia tree Chewing-stick camp Extracted Chewing Sticks Habitat Disturbance Total chewing stick observations Logging Old logging roads Total old commercial logging observations Local logging Pit-sawing Cut trees (new, local) Total local logging observations Mining Mining sites Prospection sites P a g e

12 Total Mining observations TOTAL HABITAT DISTURBANCE OBSRVATIONS Other Human Activity Hamlet Human paths TOTAL OTHER HUMAN ACTIVITY OBSERVATIONS GRAND TOTAL Wildlife Observations Few data are collected on wildlife during the patrols. This is because the main purpose of the patrols is to collect information on anthropogenic threats. As such, these results will not be discussed at length, but a summary of the signs of presence and encounter rates is given in Table 4. Table 4: Table showing encounter rates and numbers of observations for large mammal species within PGKNP. Category General Observation Number of Encounter Rate Observations (N/km) Bovids Monkeys Elephants Felids Pygmy hippopotamus Chimpanzees WILDLIFE GRAND TOTAL P a g e

13 Areas of PGKNP Under Threat from Human Activity Figure 2 shows the total number of human activities observed per grid during CEP missions in This data contains all observations including the locations of permanent human structures, persons met, cartridges, etc. Grids 62, 98 and 64 had the highest number of human activities observed, and grids 6, 11 and 1 had the fewest. Figure 2. Total number of human activities observed per grid during CEP missions in P a g e

14 The SMART maps (Figures 3 and 4) include the locations of permanent human structures and persons met. Deforestation threats seemed clustered along the border of grids 25 and 34 as well as grids 43 and 44 in the north of the park (Figure 3) as well as in grids 89, 81 and 98 in the south of the park (Figure 4). Hunting threats were scattered throughout the park, although there was a cluster in grid 100 in the south (Figure 4). Exact GPS locations of these threats can be found in various Appendices: hunting threats in Appendix 1; deforestation threats in Appendix 2; camps/settlements in Appendix 3; and people encountered in Appendix 4. Figure 3. Exact locations of people, camps, deforestation threats, and hunting threats that were discovered in the northern area of PGKNP during CEP missions in P a g e

15 Figure 4. Exact locations of people, camps, deforestation threats, and hunting threats that were discovered in the southern area of PGKNP during CEP missions in P a g e

16 The SMART maps (Figures 5 and 6) show spatial distribution and consider all observations, thus correspond directly to Figure 2. These maps show exact locations of the patrols and areas of each grid most threatened by human activity. The most threatened areas were found at the midpoint of grids 61, 62, 67 and 68, as well as the border of grids 63 and 69 in the north of the park (Figure 5), and grid 78 in the south (Figure 6). Counts of all human activities per grid can be found in Appendix 5. Figure 5. Encounter rates of human activities in the areas of PGKNP patrolled by the CEP team in the north of the park during CEP missions in (The darker the color, the more threatened the area.) 16 P a g e

17 Figure 6. Encounter rates of human activities in the areas of PGKNP patrolled by the CEP team in the south of the park during CEP missions in (The darker the color, the more threatened the area.) 17 P a g e

18 Observations of Wildlife in the PGNKP Although the primary objective of the CEP program is to gather data related to anthropogenic activity, data are also collected on a specific set of large mammals which inhabit the forest. Direct signs of all primates, bovids, elephants, golden cats, and leopards are collected, whilst indirect observations of all primates, elephants, pygmy hippopotamuses, golden cats, and leopards are also recorded. The below results summarize both direct (Figure 7) and indirect (Figure 8) wildlife observations during the 2016 CEP missions. Additionally, see Appendix 6 for counts of direct observations of wildlife and Appendix 7 for counts of indirect observations of wildlife. Numbers of Direct Observations per Grid Figure 7. Total number of direct observations of wildlife per grid during CEP missions in P a g e

19 Numbers of Indirect Observations per Grid Figure 8. Total number of indirect observations of wildlife per grid during CEP missions in P a g e

20 Wildlife Encounter Rates The maps below present wildlife encounter rates in PGKNP during 2016 CEP missions in the north (Figure 9) and the south of the park (Figure 10). Figure 9. Map of wildlife encounter rates in the northern area of PGKNP during CEP missions in P a g e

21 Figure 10. Map of wildlife encounter rates in the southern area of PGKNP during CEP missions in P a g e

22 Discussion As the CEP program concludes its third year, results continue to demonstrate that Community Eco-guard Patrols are critical to supporting the FDA in their efforts to protect the PGKNP. The North team retained all staff members and continued to maintain a high standard of data collection and the South team gained 1 new staff member. The continuing employees built on their knowledge gained after two years of patrols. Throughout 2016, the aim of the CEP program continued to revisit the areas previously most affected by human disturbances to obtain more data on anthropogenic threats, and serve as a positive human presence within the PGKNP. The number of grids to be patrolled remained 88, the same as in Two CEP teams patrolled 95.5% of the park. These teams covered a distance of km during their patrols. Community awareness was again prioritized in 2016, as CEP teams led discussions surrounding the creation of PGKNP in villages after their missions. Community members hired as eco-guards continued to benefit from the presence of the park due to their employment in the CEP program. Comparisons with 2014 and 2015 Data Collections Caution must be used when making comparisons between data collected during the 2014, 2015 and 2016 CEP program missions. Unlike 2014, data collection in 2015 and 2016 excluded areas of community land and concentrated exclusively on human paths. Additionally, the Ebola outbreak may have influenced the 2015 program data. In 2016, the rate of hunting activity was 3.72 signs/km, up from 2015 when the rate was 3.03 signs/km, which was down from 2014, when hunting activity demonstrated an overall encounter rate of 4.32 signs/km. Hunting signs within the park remaining high show that poaching and bush-meat consumption are still a major issue in the areas surrounding PGKNP. As for farming signs, it dropped from 0.05 signs/km in 2015 to 0.03 signs/km in This may also be due to boundary line adjustments. Signs of chewing stick harvesting were 0.6 signs/km in 2016 showing a decrease from This could either indicate a decrease in chewing stick activity within the park, or that chewing sticks are now rarer within PGKNP. Overall human activity encounter rates were 5.18 signs/km in 2016 showing stabilization from the 2015 results of 5.17 signs/km, though it is clear the park is still under heavy pressure from illegal human activities within its boundaries. Encounter rates for wildlife in 2016 were 0.79 signs/km again, showing a seemingly consistent encounter rate over the three years of the CEP program. Regions of PGKNP most under threat Hunting in PGKNP is widespread. This emphasizes how important it is for FDA to conduct long-cross-park patrols to demonstrate a comprehensive presence in the park. 22 P a g e

23 The areas of the park most under threat from human activity are relatively similar from the results in In the isolated patch human activities such as pit sawing and hunting are continuing. Along the border with Côte d Ivoire, chewing stick activity is continuing but compared with 2015 it is now more concentrated in the south of PGKNP in River Gee County. Chewing stick activity along the Cavalla River in Grand Gedeh County has now all but stopped after the law enforcement team visited the area and arrested 19 Ghanaian chewing stick harvesters, showing the effectiveness of law enforcement as a deterrent. Human activity is still occurring heavily in the area surrounding Boley Village where commercial scale hunting and also high level of farming activities are taking place. The forest between Garleo and Bilibo is still under threat from illicit gold mining and heavy hunting activity which has been maintained from 2015 into Changes to Patrolling Protocol and FDA Targeted Law Enforcement No changes were made to the CEP patrolling methodology for the 2016 patrols within the PGKNP. This is in part due to the success of the CEP North team locating a chewing stick camp at the end of a human path that harbored 19 Ghanaian chewing stick harvesters. These harvesters were arrested in a subsequent law enforcement mission led by FDA. Thus the methods devised on 2015 were shown to be effective in supporting FDA. The CEP program is critical to improve the efficiency of costly FDA law enforcement patrols. In 2016, FDA led 3 targeted law enforcement missions because of the data they received from the CEP program; in 2015, patrol data that informed FDA led to two targeted law enforcement missions. Thus, in 2016, WCF and FDA worked to define a law enforcement strategy for the PGKNP, which can then be replicated in other protected areas of Liberia. Capacity Building of FDA and Use of SMART Based on the recommendations from the 2015 CEP Annual Report, in 2016 the WCF emphasized building the capacity of FDA rangers and auxiliaries assigned to PGKNP. Further training was conducted for one FDA ranger and one FDA auxiliary, both who previously received training to lead forest missions and act as supervisors overseeing the work of the community eco-guards. During 2016, additional training was conducted with one FDA auxiliary (Steek Tompoe) on the use of a computer, how to upload and download patrol data from/to the GPS, how to plan missions, how to report on missions, and how to enter data in the SMART software. Generally, he no longer requires WCF supervision during patrols. Consistent with 2015, the use of the SMART software has been an effective means of data entry, automatically generating reports for each mission and reducing time spent to report on missions. In 2016, WCF trained one FDA law enforcement officer how to use the database for PGKNP as an instrument for reporting. The FDA law enforcement officer was also trained to manage the program in conjunction with FDA s targeted law enforcement missions. 23 P a g e

24 Conclusion The 2016 year of CEP missions has shown that the PGKNP remains threatened by various anthropogenic activities. CEP missions support the FDA by quickly transmitting information about specific threatened areas back to the FDA for the appropriate actions to be taken. Furthermore, the presence of community eco-guard teams is a valuable tool to prevent hunting and settling activity. It continues to be important for the FDA to lead large scale ranger patrols in key areas to target threats and reduce their imminent pressure on the wildlife and the forest. The following recommendations are offered based on the results of the 2016 CEP program: Discuss the possibility of creating a third, all female, CEP team in Grand Gedeh: To enable more intensive patrolling in the forest it may be advisable to create a new team in Grand Gedeh. As there are currently no female members of the CEP program, it would be more inclusive to create an all-female team. This would allow for two teams to patrol the larger Grand Gedeh area of PGKNP and may also allow revisiting in some grids during the course of an annual phase. Such a team could focus their efforts on patrolling the boundary line; ensuring people are not encroaching, while monitoring entry points to the forest. Continue law enforcement patrols within PGKNP: Continue law enforcement in 2017 to target the areas of the park most threatened by human activity. From the 2016 results, we can see a huge decrease in chewing stick activity in the areas of the park which were visited by the law enforcement teams. Continue the training for SMART conservation software: SMART has now become an essential park management tool for PGKNP and all rangers and park staff should be trained to a sufficient level to enable them to utilize this tool for park activities. Discuss potential specialized law enforcement team for Region 4: With reports of high levels of human encroachment in Sapo National Park and the results from this report, it is necessary to discuss the potential for a specialized law enforcement team. This team could follow up all eco-guard patrols based on the SMART reports from CEP missions. Having this team based in Zwedru would enable them to serve both PGKNP and Sapo National Park. Complete the pre-gazettement package: In order for full government protection to fall on PGKNP it is essential that the final national level consultation and the submission of the gazettement package are not delayed. Full funding is already in place for all activities leading to the completion of the aforementioned activities. 24 P a g e

25 Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone who participated in the patrols, especially the following FDA staff, Steek Tompoe and Joe Wesseh, WCF staff, Sunnyboy Bando, Zoro Goné Bi Irié Berenger and Benjamin Queminee, and local community members, Aaron T. Barway, William Massah, Philip Nimley, Jimmy Parker, Anthony Solo, Frank Teah, Marcus Teah, Michael Teah, and Alphonso Zarley. Thanks go to the Managing Director of the FDA, Hon. Harrison Karnweh, and the FDA team in Monrovia, specifically, Darlington Tuagben, Theo Freeman, Jerry G. Yonmah and Blamah Goll. For their enduring administrative and logistical support in the field, we extend our thanks to Paul Duo (Regional Manager Region 4 FDA) and Abednego Gbarway (GKNP Chief Park Warden). We are grateful for the financial assistance of Furuviksparken, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the Great Ape Conservation Fund (GACF), Global Giving, Rainforest Rescue, and WWF. Literature Cited Campbell, G., Kuehl, H., Diarrassouba, A., N Goran, P. K. and C. Boesch (2011) Long-term research sites as refugia for threatened and overharvested species. Biology Letters doi: /rsbl The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 04 March Köndgen, S., Kühl, H.S., Ngoran, P., Walsh, P.D., Schenk, S., Ernst, N., Biek, R., Formenty, P., Mätz-Rensing, K., Schweiger, B., Junglen, S., Ellerbrok, H., Nitsche, A.,Briese, T.,Lipkin, WI., Pauli, G.,Boesch, C., Leendertz FH (2008) Pandemic human viruses cause decline of endangered great apes. Current Biology 18: P a g e

26 Appendix 1: List of GPS locations of hunting threats discovered Waypoint ID Waypoint Date X Y Type of Sign Age of Sign Feb Hunting Tent Old Apr Trap Old Apr Hunting Tent Old Apr Hunting Tent Old Apr Hunting Tent Old Jul Hunting Tent Old Aug Hunting Tent New Aug Hunting Tent New Aug Trap Old Jun Hunting Tent New Jun Hunting Tent Old Jul Trap Old May Hunting Tent New May Hunting Tent Old May Trap Old May Trap Old May Hunting Tent Old May Trap New May Trap Old May Hunting Tent Old Nov Hunting Tent New Nov Hunting Tent New Nov Hunting Tent New Dec Hunting Tent New 26 P a g e

27 Appendix 2: List of GPS locations of deforestation threats Waypoint ID Waypoint Date X Y Type of Sign Age of Farm, Age of Sign Clearing, Fallow Feb Prospection Site Old Feb Prospection Site Old Feb Farm New Apr Prospection Site Old Jun Clearing Made By Humans Jul Farm More than 3 Years Jul Farm More than 3 Years 9 14 Aug Mining/Gold Washing Site New Aug Mining/Gold Washing Site New Aug Prospection Site New Aug Mining/Gold Washing Site Old Aug Prospection Site New Jun Farm More than 3 Years Jun Prospection Site Old Jun Mining/Gold Washing Site New Jun Prospection Site New Jul Pit Sawing Site New May Clearing Made By Humans New May Clearing Made By Humans New May Farm less than 1 year May Farm less than 1 year May Clearing Made By Humans Abandoned Dec Prospection Site New Dec Mining/Gold Washing Site New Dec Mining/Gold Washing Site New Dec Prospection Site New Dec Prospection Site New 27 P a g e

28 Appendix 3: List of GPS locations of camps/settlements Waypoint ID Waypoint Date X Y Observation Category 0 Observation Category 1 Observation Category 2 Type of Settlement Usage Feb Human Activity Settlements Camp Other Used Feb Human Activity Settlements Camp Other Used Jun Human Activity Settlements Camp Other Used Jul Human Activity Settlements Camp Other Abandoned Jul Human Activity Settlements Camp Other Abandoned Aug Human Activity Settlements Hamlet Farmers Used Aug Human Activity Settlements Camp Other Used Aug Human Activity Settlements Camp Other Used May Human Activity Settlements Hamlet Farmers Used Dec Human Activity Settlements Camp Other Used Appendix 4: List of GPS locations of people encountered in the forest Waypoint ID Waypoint Date X Y Observation Action Taken Number of People People Armed Place of Origin Aug People Sensitised and 4 Unarmed Other Issued with Verbal Warning Nov People Sensitised and Issued with Verbal Warning 3 Unknown Ghana Dec People Sensitised and Issued with Verbal Warning 15 Bilibo 28 P a g e

29 Grid No. People Hunting Tent Appendix 5: Counts of all human activities per grid Cartridges Gunshot Trap Camp Hamlet Prospection Site Mining / Gold Washing Site Clearing Made By Humans Farm 29 P a g e

30 Grid No. People Hunting Tent Cartridges Gunshot Trap Camp Hamlet Prospection Site Mining / Gold Washing Site Clearing Made By Humans Farm 30 P a g e

31 Grid No. People Hunting Tent Cartridges Gunshot Trap Camp Hamlet Prospection Site Mining / Gold Washing Site Clearing Made By Humans Farm 31 P a g e

32 Grid No. Fallow Cut Garcinia Chewing Stick Root Extraction Chewing Sticks Extracted Pit Sawing Site Forest Exploitatio n Logged Trees Cut Down Trees Logging Road Poacher Trail Human Path 32 P a g e

33 Grid No. Fallow Cut Garcinia Chewing Stick Root Extraction Chewing Sticks Extracted Pit Sawing Site Forest Exploitatio n Logged Trees Cut Down Trees Logging Road Poacher Trail Human Path 33 P a g e

34 Grid No. Fallow Cut Garcinia Chewing Stick Root Extraction Chewing Sticks Extracted Pit Sawing Site Forest Exploitatio n Logged Trees Cut Down Trees Logging Road Poacher Trail Human Path 34 P a g e

35 Appendix 6: Counts of direct observations of wildlife per grid Grid No. Primates Bovids Carnivores P a g e

36 Grid No. Primates Bovids Carnivores P a g e

37 Grid No. Primates Bovids Carnivores P a g e

38 Appendix 7: Counts of indirect observations of wildlife per grid Grid No. Chimpanzee Other Primates Elephant Leopard Golden Cat Pygmy Hippopotamus P a g e

39 Grid No. Chimpanzee Other Primates Elephant Leopard Golden Cat Pygmy Hippopotamus P a g e

40 Grid No. Chimpanzee Other Primates Elephant Leopard Golden Cat Pygmy Hippopotamus P a g e