Afi After 4 Years_2

8/7/2019 Afi After 4 Years_2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/afi-after-4-years2 1/25

Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary

NIGERIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION

by

Nigerian Conservation Foundation, South East Regional Programme Office, Calabar,

Cross River State, Nigeria.

Edited by

The Technical Programmes Department, NCF, Lagos.

Four Year Experience of Governance and Biodiversity

Conservation

2005 2009



2

Executive Summary

Since 2002, the Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary has been managed by the Cross River State

Forestry Commission in partnership with the Afi Partnership a coalition of four NGOs the

Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Pandrillus andFauna and Flora International (FFI). FFI provides the financial support.

Following the gazette of the Wildlife Sanctuary in the 2000, it became critical that active and fieldbased conservation efforts is required to compliment the past and on-going efforts on research and

biodiversity monitoring. This informed the decision to set up the Afi Mountain Conservation Projecthereafter referred to as the project.

In order to secure future and long term conservation of the Sanctuary and its rich population of

primates including the Cross River Gorilla, the Nigerian-Cameroon Chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes ellioti), the Drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus) and the red-eared guenon (Cercopithecus erythrotis) and

with funding support provided by the Fauna and Flora (FFI) the project has focused on the processof conservation planning and action to address challenges posed by habitat destruction and

fragmentation, illegal timber extraction, uncontrolled hunting and conversion of forest areas tofarmlands by members of neighboring communities in the Sanctuary.

Over the past four years, the intervention of the Afi Partnership has raised more awareness, to the

value of the Afi Mountain biodiversity particularly at the community level. it has also increased thelevel of protection of the sanctuary and has made attempts to harmonize decisions aimed at reducing

the expansion of farmlands in the wildlife sanctuary. Furthermore it has improved the level of understanding and commitment of various stakeholders involved in biodiversity conservation and

research in Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary.

This report is a summary of the efforts of the Nigerian Conservation Foundation administeredmanagement team. It is focused on biodiversity protection and field monitoring, community

participation and community based conservation education, community (economic) developmentactivities, efforts at addressing conservation challenges and ends with recommendations and way

forward on the long term future of Afi Mountains Wildlife Sanctuary (AMWS).



3

Introduction

This report focuses on activities, achievements and challenges experienced within the specifiedperiod; March 2005 to May 2009. Mr. Ubi, Sam became the Conservation Coordinator of the

Sanctuary on March 15, 2009. On assumption of office, there were 8 rangers consisting of 5 former

research staff converted to Cross River State Forestry Commission (FC) rangers and 3 other rangersrecruited by the FC. Hunting (both by day and in the night) was very high in 2005. At this time, thesanctuary coordinator operated from a rented apartment in the village and thus was close to the

community and had first hand notice of the dynamics of the community. The land lordcommunities were polarized on the concept and consequently, acceptance of the sanctuary goals.

Development activities like the Education Development Fund (EDF) that was given to a select (7) of the landlord communities made corporation among the Land lord communities worse because some

hunting communities felt marginalized and used it as excuse to heighten poaching inside thesanctuary. There was high community restiveness resulting from low community awareness of best

practices within the sanctuary. The farming activities remained and even worsened. A site chosenby the former Conservation Coordinator to build a rangers post in someone private farmland outside

the Sanctuary was changed to a more appropriate site at the edge of the sanctuary. The present site isclose to a perennial stream to provide the staff water and its also an entry point to the core area of the

sanctuary normally use by poachers. To enhance the effectiveness of patrols in the south, a rangerpost was also built at the old research camp

Before, the intervention under review in 2005 there was one careered hunter living inside the

sanctuary. He was the law to himself. rangers were few, patrols were far between and lowcorporation from the communities weakened the institutional infrastructure instituted to deal with

infringement reported by rangers to management. Often, therefore, no action was taken against thealleged culprits.

Within the reporting period the following advances has been made

1. Number of patrol rangers was increased from 8 to 23 in 2006 and currently there are 18rangers actively patrolling the sanctuary.

2. 28 shot guns were confiscated from poachers apprehended.3. Number of wire snares removed in an operation has reduced.

4. Introduction of a strategy that enabled rangers to effectively ambush hunters inside thesanctuary.

5. Documentation of data on key primate (gorilla, drills, and chimpanzees) activities as well ashuman activities such as poaching locations, farms, and paths to streams. Potential important

tourism sites like caves and waterfalls were also documented.6. Production of AMWS maps that shows land lord communities, ranger posts and altitude

preference of primates (gorillas, drills and chimpanzees).7. Acquisition and renovation of building currently used as sanctuary headquarters. This

building provides living quarters and office for the coordinator while three rooms arefurnished for use by visitors.

8. Renovation of three primary schools located in three landlord communities with fundsprovided through the Education Development Fund.



4

9. Construction of two ranger posts in the sanctuary. The ranger posts are located in thesouthern and northern sector. The northern post has a separate cabin for visitors, a kitchen

and a spacious lodge for rangers.10. Arrest and prosecution of the career hunter Peter Otu aka Akpola.

11. Involvement of communities as stakeholder in the management of the sanctuary through

meetings with community delegates, meetings with community chiefs, community leadersand youths.12. Enhancement of capacity of staff through training in use of navigational equipment and

training in GIS application.13. Strengthening of collaboration with other institutions like Cross River National Park. The

sanctuary provided training for the park rangers in the use of field navigational equipment.14. provide support to the successfully completed a feasibility study on possible gorilla

habituation in the sanctuary.15. Provision of enabling conditions that made it possible for communities to enact and enforce

byelaws on anti conservation practices such as fishing and hunting with toxic substances,uncontrolled bush burning and logging in the sanctuary and community forest areas.

16. Confirmation of the presence and utilization of the sanctuary by gorillas through documentedgorilla foraging patterns which seem to be prevalent in the northern sector of the sanctuary

during the dry season and south during the raining season.17. Purchase of an additional (new) patrol vehicle.

18. Active participation in the documentation and processes involved in the revision of the statewildlife laws.

These were not without challenges. Some key challenges during the reporting periods include:

1. Illegal farms in the Sanctuary: Farming inside the sanctuary is the biggest challenge facedby the project over the year. Negotiations that may lead to the removal of farm and

abolition of future farms within the sanctuary is slow at present. The project has heldseveral meetings with the Partnering NGOs and government on strategies for resolving this

challenge.2. Prosecution of arrested poachers: non speedy prosecution of poacher arrested in the

sanctuary and sometimes outright abandonment of cases in the police stations delaysadministration of justice. This tends to weakens collaboration with major agencies like the

police.3. State wildlife law: Absence of realistic penalties in the state and Federal Wildlife laws. For

instance. The penalty for the killing of a gorilla is N200. The revision of the state wildlifelaws is in progress and requires sustained lobbying from all conservation NGOs to

facilitate this process. Currently this is lacking.4. Gang hunting: Introduction of gang hunting by poachers is a recent strategy to resist arrest

especially from small team of rangers.

Current threats facing the sanctuary are farming, uncontrolled bush burning, logging, and hunting.Poaching has been reduced through the deployment of all the rangers as a team when necessary and

institution of intensive Xmas patrol before, during and immediately after Christmas coupled with theintroduction of ambush strategies. The problem of bush fire was reduced through intensive

awareness campaigns in the surrounding communities. Tension between the communities and theSanctuary was drastically reduced through increases participation of the communities in the



5

management of the project through community delegate s scheme. Illegal farming in the sanctuary isyet to be resolved fully.

The project was designed to be community driven with direct involvement of the community in

management decision making as well as benefits sharing. Community development activities

undertaken and staff capacity enhancement activities were implemented. These are reported here andlessons learned documented. Strategies challenges and problems experienced during the period arepresented discussed. Patrol data, report card (table 1) and graphic displays from the GIS are also

presented.

Table 1. Score Sheet of sanctuary status

Index/indicator Status

Threats 2005 2006 2007 200 8 2009

Poaching 1 1 4 3 3

Logging 3 3 3 4 5

Farming 1 1 1 1 1

Biodiversity 4 4 4 4 4Benefits to community 4 4 2 2 2

Snares removals 5 4 3 3 2

Hunting shed destroyed 5 4 3 3 3

Shotguns confiscation 4 5 3 3 3

No. of shotgun sounds

heard1 2 3 1 4

Community support 3 4 5 5 5

Arrest/prosecutions 5 1 1 2 1

KeyCritical Poor Fair Good Very Good

1 2 3 4 5

The Afi Mt Wildlife Sanctuary

Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary (AMWS) lies within latitude 6025 North and 9

015 East covering

an area of approximately 95 km2

It was part of the Afi River Forest Reserve. The terrain ismountainous and rugged. The vegetation is made up of patches of dry high forest, intersperse with

rock out crops with herbs dominated forest gaps resulting from wind throws. It is the sole watershed

for the rivers and the streams that provide the water need for the 16 communities around thesanctuary.





7

therefore, twelve days in a month. In the northern sector, the rangers use the ranger post duringintensive patrol while in the southern part they use Ranger post in the south and caves for camping.

In 2006, the rangers spent 137 days in the field, in 2007 they spent 114 and 2008 they spent 101 daysin the core area. The planning of core area patrols are done to coincide with festive periods and

celebrations within the communities. Intensive patrols may also be mounted based on informants

report, and intelligence. Sometimes the rangers start a patrol due to curiosity on their own part.

Extensive patrol, on the other hand, comprises of patrols that are undertaken at the periphery of the

sanctuary and rangers return to their homes at end of each day. This type of patrol under normalcircumstances last for only 6 days in a months.

Ambush operations involve cordoning off sections of paths/poachers paths by team of rangers

capable of overwhelming single or group of poachers. This is the activity where shotguns and otherhunting gears are mostly confiscated. The frequency of this technique depends on informants

reports. The successes of this technique depend on the Community/Sanctuary relationship sinceinformation provided by

community members is vitalto the use of this technique.

Christmas Patrol usually

starts at the beginning of every December and ends

middle of the followingJanuary. During this patrol

ambush is given priority andalso the communities are

forewarned using theservices of town criers,

informing the communitiesof Rangers presence and

who are instructed to arrestany trespass into the

Sanctuary.

INDICATORS OF POACHING

During patrols, rangers collect evidence of the presence of poachers such a wire snares, shot gunshells, evidence of camping and tracks/trails. Number of shot guns confiscated and arrests made are

also considered as indicators of poaching. Table 2 shows trends of indicators of poaching asrecorded during patrols. Between 2005 and 2006, the rangers used global position systems GPS to

record locations where these indicators are observed. CIEarth units were introduced in June 2007

Figure 2: Rangers returning from Patrol



8

and since then all data including time, location of wildlife species observed and indicators of poaching as well as illegal farms are documented using these units.

Table2. Patrol data 2005 to 2008

S/N Activity 2005 2006 2007 2008 Remarks

1No. of shot guns

confiscated7 13 4 4

17 seized

shotguns werehanded over to the

police at Okundiand 11 are with

ForestryCommission

2No. of wire snares

removed1028 233 180 70

Removed snaresare in the HQ and

some in Calabar

office.

3No. number of

arrest14 0 1 2

3 poachers wereprosecuted and

only one wasremanded for 9

months and 2were remanded

for 4 months.Other cases could

not be concludeddue to lack of

funds to pay forlogistics.

4No. of hunters

encountered19 14 0 17

This accountsmostly for

poachers that beatambush and

escaped.

5No. of hunting

sheds destroyed18 12 5 14

Sheds were

shredded.

6No. of used shot

gun shell recovered72 26 11 28

Kept in the HQs

and some buried

7 No. of un-used shotgun shell recovered 15 4 0 9

8Logging incidents

recorded3 4 2 2

Cases reported toFC and offences

compounded.

9No. of shot gun

sound heard14 8 4 18

10 No. of days Data not 137 114 101



9

S/N Activity 2005 2006 2007 2008 Remarks

patrolled in the corearea (intensive)

available

11No. of days

patrolled in the

periphery(extensive)

Data not

available104 118 135

12 No. of ambush

14(all

ambushwere

December)

28(15

ambusheswere in

December)

16(all

were inDecember)

21(5

ambushwere in

December)

This patrols are

done duringperiods for

peripheral patrols

13 No. of patrol staff 8 23 18 18

10 Community

rangers were hiredin August, 2005, 4

rangersredeployed to

other forestry post

and one staff incapacitated byillness in 2007.

Since 2007, onranger is

permanently postto the

headquarters toserve as day

security.

The actual total times Rangers are supposed to be in the field within the year are;

· intensive or core area patrol in a year = 168 days· extensive or local area patrol in a year = 84days

· off times in a year = 84days

· time input for the coordinator = 365days

Between 2005 and 2008 twenty eight shot guns were confiscated and handed over to police and FCfor custody. Of this, 7 shotguns were confiscated in 2005, 13 shotguns confiscated in 2006, 4

shotguns confiscated in 2007 and 4 shotguns confiscated in 2008. The number of shotgunsconfiscated in 2006 remains the highest. This can be attributed to the fact that the hunters ambush

strategy adopted that year was new to the hunters and it was very effective. Since then effectivenessof this strategy of checkmating hunters has been on the decline due to a number of reasons for

example poachers now go out in large gangs while manpower available for patrol and ambush is indecline. In 2008, the Forestry Commission redeployed 5 rangers to other duties.



10

The number of wire snares collected

reduced with time throughout thereporting period. Other indicators of

poaching such as number of arrest,

number of hunting sheds destroyed etc.were on the decline between 2005 and2007 but these appear to rise again in

2008. Our patrol frequency andmethodologies are principally

determined by the kind of threatoccurring at any given period. More

time is spent carrying out peripheralpatrols in 2007 and 2008. See figures 4

to 6 below.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2006 2007 2008

No. of days of core area

patrol in weeks

No. of days of peripheral

area patrol in weeks

No. of shot gun

confiscated

Figure 4: Number of patrol days compared with the number of gun seizures

Figure 5: Number of ambush compared with available manpower



11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2006 2007 2008

No. ambush in days

No. of shot gun

confiscated

No. of patrol staff

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2006 2007 2008

No. of days of core area

patrol in weeks

No. of days of peripheralarea patrol in weeks

No. of wire snares

removed in hundreds

In 2005 the numbers of field staff available for patrol were 8, the number increased to 23 withemployment of 10 community Rangers in 2006, this number was reduced to 18 in 2007 and 2008

with redeployment of some Forestry Commission Rangers to other duties. 14 ambushes were carriedout in 2005, 28 in 2006, 16 in 2007 and 21 in 2008.

Between 2005 and 2008, several methods have been noted to be used by poachers to evade arrest.

These include gang hunting, night hunting and avoidance of popular cave used for camping by

Figure 6: number of wire snares removed compared with patrol man-days



12

rangers. The hunters continuous change of tactics contributes to the decline in number of shot gunsconfiscated and poachers apprehended in 2007 and 2008. Shotguns sounds were heard both at

nights and day times in 2005 and 2006 while they were mostly heard only at nights in 2007 and2008. Our response to the new trend of poachers going in gangs is to increase the size of patrol

teams. This has additional cost that was not anticipated at project development.

The number of wire snares removed declinedover the years. In 2005, 1028 wire snares were

removed from the sanctuary, 233 wire snareswere removed in 2006, 180 wire snares were

removed in 2007 and 70 wire snares wereremoved in 2008. The probable reasons for the

progressive decline in use of wire snares mightbe its labour cost and low return on efforts. We

work to discourage this method of hunting. It isvery wasteful because trappers who are mostly

youths are known to abandon their trapsimmediately there are alternatives source of

income.

Currently, the management is challenged by theadoption of gang hunting by poachers and ex

research employees using knowledge of thesanctuary to hunt valued species like

chimpanzees. Thegang hunting is a strategy to resist arrest when confronted by small group of rangers. To address

these problems, management is re-strategizing especially on the area of recruitment of extra hands.Other areas of controlling poaching under consideration, is the review of the State wildlife laws,

intensive conservation education awareness program and focused patrols during festive periods likeChristmas, Alobe , new yam and cassava festivals.

Infrastructure development

In 2005, 6 sign posts were constructed and put in key sanctuary entry points at Buanchor, Katabang,Esekwe, Ebok, Kakubok and Njua. The sign posts were made of metal so that they can not be

destroyed by wild fire, a phenomenon noted to be common during dry season in the project area.

In 2006, after extensive lobbying, the Boki Local Government Council donated a buildingcontaining nine rooms to the sanctuary within the local government headquarters at Boje. The

building was renovated with funds provided by Fauna and Flora International (FFI) and United StateFish and Wildlife Services (USFW). The relocation of the sanctuary head quarters to the new office

was done after completion of the renovation that same year of 2006. The new Project HQ building is

Figure 7: Filling of Shotguns to make them in effective for hunting



13

made up of 3 units with 3 rooms per unit. One unit serves as the office, while one serves asaccommodation for the Conservation Coordinator and the last unit serves as the project guest house

A ranger post was constructed in 2006 in the Southern part of the Sanctuary. The post consists of a

lodge (that can house 25 rangers at a time) and a kitchen. The post was built primarily to provide

shelter for patrol rangers especially during rainy season as alternative to camping in the open. TheRanger post lodge which has a raised wooden floor is located near a permanent water source, awayfrom private land. The biggest challenge during the construction of the ranger post was moving

construction materials to site.

In 2006, and within the approved budget, a six hundred and ninety thousand Naira (N690, 000)

Education Development Fund (EDF) was made availableto the communities through a bidding process. Three (3)

communities namely Katabang, Bitiah and Kakabok wonthe grant. Each community was given N230, 000 each as

grant to develop their schools. This was a follow up of the grant provided to seven land lord communities in

2004 for renovation of schools within the communities.The 3 communities used the money to renovate school

building, construct benches and tables in Katabangprimary school.

In Kakubok the funds were used for the construction of toilets and a well to provide water for theschool pupils. In Bitiah, the use of the fund for renovation of their primary school was never brought

to any logical conclusion. The EDF programme was well received in all the communities.

In 2007, the northern ranger post, in the Esekwe section of the sanctuary, was built with fundprovided by FFI and the USFW. The location was strategically chosen to stop further farm

encroachment into the sanctuary and to seal off the point used by poachers to enter the sanctuary.

In March 2008 and with funding from FFI and USFW an additional Toyota hilux vehicle waspurchased to facilitate transportation and patrols. The vehicle was necessary because the existing

vehicle was no longer reliable for field operations.

In 2005 FFI donated four Explorist GPS for data collection while in 2007 five (5) units of CIEarthequipments were added for data documentation. A computer that serves as bank for the field data

was also acquired. To effectively use the system training was provided for all the field staff of thesanctuary with practical demonstrations of the use of the equipment.

Conservation educationThe conservation education activities carried out during this period include establishment of schoolconservation clubs in the 8 schools used by 16 landlord communities, conservation film shows and

Figure 8: Guest Lodge



14

establishment of 16 forest management committees in the land lord communities. These activitiesbrought clear understanding of the need to protect resources of the sanctuary. The highlight of these

activities which is led by an Education Coordinator was the interpretation offered by Project duringthe running of the films to teaming crowds comprising of all ages in Enyi, Ebranta, Ebok, Buanchor,

Kakwagom, Bitiah, Esekwe, Ndemechang, Olum, Okubuchi and Kache in 2008. The conservation

coordinator used the opportunity of this program to explain the reasons and the needs for theenforcement of wildlife laws. We also provided justifications for actions of the patrol teams. Thefilm show was a good reference during community meeting at Ebok, Bitiah, Kakubok and Esekwe

where sanctuary objectives were explained to youths and community leaders.

There is now general respect and adoration for wildlife especially endangered species in the area.They hardly kill endangered species especially gorillas, chimpanzees and drill monkeys.

Staff

The current staff comprises of 10 community rangers, two wildlife officers, one senior ranger, fiverangers posted from the forestry commission and a coordinator. In 2005 we had 2 wildlife officers,

one senior ranger and 5 junior rangers, while in 2006 we had 3 wildlife officers, one senior ranger, 5 junior rangers and 10 community rangers and in 2007 they were 2 wildlife officers, 1 senior ranger,

5 junior rangers and 10 communities rangers. The ranger patrol 3 weeks in a month and take oneweek off. The coordinator however works through the year. Given the current trend of hunting, more

staff will be needed to stop poachers from entering the sanctuary.

Since January 2009, the coordinator has been offering advice to the State government on area of illegal logging in northern

sector of the State withfocus on Afi River Forest

Reserve.

Staff capacity biukding

The following staff capacitybuilding activities were

undertaken during thereporting period

1. The coordinatorand the wildlife

officer were part of the Nigerian team

that took part inTrans-boundary collaboration workshop in Cameroon from May 21 to May 24, 2008. The

goals of the workshop included building capacity aimed at ensuring harmony in field datadocumentation and improving relationship of managers of resources of the two countries.

Figure 9: Rangers being briefed by the Conservation Coordinator



15

2. Training on GIS principles and presentation of data in form of maps. This training wascarried out by Richard Bergl with support from USFW in 2008. The coordinator and the

sanctuary wildlife officer were amongst the team comprising of FC and WCS staff whotook part in the training.

3. Training of all patrol staff including the CC of the sanctuary in the use of CIEarth units.

This training was done by HELVETA in 2007 after providing the CIEarth units.4. Training of all patrol rangers on use of GPS and other field navigational equipments(compass etc.) was carried out 2005.

5. The sanctuary also provided training on field use of the CIEarth units and ex situmanagement principles to international collaborating project staff Mr. Pierre

Ngangoumoun in 2007 through 2008. Currently, Mr. Mami Jeans of FFI, Guinea isundertaking training in the use of the CIEarth field appliance and patrol techniques.

6. The 10 community rangers hired in 2005 were given two days in house trainingimmediately they were hired. The training was basic introduction to the importance of the

sanctuary and how to protect the biological resources of the sanctuary as well as what themanagement expects from the rangers in regard to morals and ethics of their new

responsibilities and most importantly basic patrol techniques.7. 16 Community delegates from the 16 landlord communities were trained jointly in April

2006 after a selection process that involved their entire communities. The communitiesdelegate forum also presents opportunities for informal training interaction with the

communities. For example. The second community delegate forum was actually a meetingthat was solely interactive. Prior to the date of the meeting, all delegates held meetings in

their respective communities and strategies of ensuring their assistance in the protection of the sanctuary were explored. Feedback on outcome of their meeting with their communities

was received and discussed during the meeting.

Benefits of project to the communitiesIn the reporting period,

1. Ten local community youths were employed as community rangers. The ten rangers camefrom land lord communities of Ebok, Kache, Katabang, Olum, Esekwe, Kakubok, Bitiah and

Kakwagom2. Three school blocks were renovated.

The school blocks renovatedcompletely was in Katabang,

Kakubok.3. In Bitiah, the community was

sanctioned for inability to justifyexpenditure of N170, 000 given to

them as first installment for therenovation of class room blocks.

4. Youths from the landlord communities

were used to maintain sanctuaryboundary. This activity was supported



16

by the Forestry Commission (FC). This is an annual activity.5. Support community initiatives through projects, research that directly or indirectly support

sustainable protection for habitat and wildlife in the sanctuary, Pandrillus gave a grantmaximum of 100,000 naira to two beneficiaries namely Mr. Banabas Etika of Ndemechang

and Miss Juliana Nsan of Kakwagom in 2007.

6.

Level of consciousness raised in the management of fragile watershed and natural resourcesthrough conservation education and enforcement of local byelaws and other related laws.This consciousness is demonstrated through enactment of laws prohibiting water poisoning,

uncontrolled fire and used of toxic substances to kill wildlife. This specific activity isachieved during formal and informal meetings in Ndemechang, Esekwe, Enyi, Kache,

Katabang, Buanchor and Olum in 2006 and 2007.7. Protection of the communities water catchment area through the effective protection of the

sanctuary8. Construction of more than 400meters long canopy walks way at Buanchor to enhance the

tourism potential of the Sanctuary. This walkway is the second and longest canopy walkwayin Africa.

Research/surveys

The Afi Mountain Partnership coordinated five research activities between 2005 to May 2009. Thesesurveys were aimed at providing reliable estimate of key primate (gorillas, drills and chimpanzees)

populations. The research is carried out with teams of between 5 to 11 persons made up of rangersand some external hands. The results so far has not provided a definite population estimate of these

key species. It is hope that the results of the most recent surveys will provide these answers. TheSouth East Regional Office, NCF working through NCF Lagos is seeking collaboration with Wood

Hole Research Center towards calculating/estimating carbon stocks in the Sanctuary. This is inreadiness for Nigeria s particicipation in climate change mitigation.

Gorilla habituation feasibility study

Feasibility studies on possible habituation of the gorilla population started in 2005 with socio

economic studies carried out by a team of consultants. In 2007 feasibility studies took in-depthanalysis of market information and services, terrain and gorilla ranging patterns and impact analysis.

Completion of assessment and presentation of the draft gorilla tourism feasibility report to keystakeholders was also carried out in 2007 through 2008.

THREATS

Before the creation of the sanctuary from the Afi River Forest Reserve, it had status that allowedsome form of farming using particularly the taungya system. Selective logging was also allowed.

With this, there was no meaningful protection under the reserve status; hunting for wildlife becamea status symbol within the communities. With the environmental education activities that started

even before the creation of the sanctuary, levels of hunting is noted to have reduced. More so, thecommunity has formally banned the killing of primates.

A small percentage of the community population is still involved in commercial hunting. They hunt

mostly during festive periods. There are also opportunistic hunters that are active during off-cocoaharvesting and food crop planting periods.



17

The largest threat to the sanctuary and its fragile resource is un-controlled bush burning. Below is

detailed discussion of the current threats and suggestions on how best to address them.

Hunting

Hunters set wire snares, hunt in the night and day with shot guns as well as use of toxic poisonouschemical to bait and kill duikers and rodents Use of

poisonous chemical to bait animals is a recentdevelopment, Some of these poisonous chemical

known locally as Arata bomb were seized recentlybut yet to be analyzed for its chemical ingredient. The

number of snares removed is an indication of thehunting pressure on the sanctuary. Happily, the

numbers has been on the decline with time. Youthsand middle aged men are the principal wire snare

hunters. The fact that snare material is cheap andavailable makes it convenient for individuals looking

for short term cash to involve in it and they oftenabandon traps at sites if personal cash needs are met.

The following is suggestions to reduce community indulgence in this act-

1. The ranger s patrols system currently in place should be sustained.2. The number of rangers on patrol should be increase to at least 10 rangers per patrol team at

any given patrol.3. Poachers arrested should be prosecuted and penalties that sufficiently serves as deterrent be

given.4. Environmental education awareness campaign should be extended to magistrates and law

enforcement officers. This will reduce frustrations from this arm of government when tryingto bring justice to wildlife.

Figure 11: Hunters captured with bush meat



18

Farming

The process of farm elimination that started in 2003 is yet to be concluded. The approach was toinvolve all stakeholders including the communities in the design of a time table for the removal of

farms. Currently the outcome of meetings with stakeholders reveals that the communities are

demanding for boundary adjustment that will confine the sanctuary to the steep slopes of themountain while the lowland is exploited for agricultural purposes. With the prevailing circumstancewhere portions of pristine forest in the lowland are lost continuously to illegal farms, we need

leadership from relevant government agencies in this process. The destruction of farms through thecutting down of crops like cocoa might not be feasible because of a number of reasons one of which

is the size of the areas already planted up. The other is the possibility of the action leading to crisisand unwieldy court cases. A possible solution to the farming issue is for the Government of the day

to give the community a period of say One to two months for any body that has crop in theSanctuary to harvest same after the grace period any body that is found illegally in the sanctuary is

arrested and prosecuted. Government must make sure that the prosecutions are brought to logicalconclusions. I am sure if this does not total stop illegal farms it will drastically reduce the number of

people participating in the act. The farms so abandon will definitely revert to bush after a couple of months without human maintenance

Logging

The rugged sanctuary terrain provides natural shields to operations of logging. Small scale selective

felling has been recorded inside the sanctuary and reported to FC for action. The sanctuarymanagement main worry was the government revenue expectations from the forest reserves through

fees from sawn timber. This has the potential to cause intensified action within and around theSanctuary and thus fragmentation of forest around the sanctuary in the near future thereby making

the sanctuary an island with its predictable long term consequences. The habitat serving as corridorbetween the sanctuary and CRNP was severely disturbed by activities of logging and illegal farming.

The status of this important area should be upgraded from reserve to an annex of the sanctuary foreffective monitoring and protection. The current moratorium on logging and transportation of logs

in the state has substantially reduced logging in ARFR and other adjoining habitats..

Uncontrolled bush burning

These activities are normally experienced during the months of February through April. Traditional

farming method is mostly the cause of this fire outbreak. Campaign that will create awareness withinthe landlord communities is required and should be sustained. The importances of fire tracing and

farming techniques that will ensure prolong use of same farmland for farming should be encouraged.These issues should be discussed with entire community at their town halls or play grounds. From

experience, most representatives invited to meetings with NGOs do not report back properly to theircommunities. The benefit of this method is that all persons who have reached farming age will be

reached and they are estimated to be less than 150 persons per landlord community of the sanctuary.



19

ACHIEVEMENTS

Community support

Within 2005 and 2008 there has been good community support of activities of the management.

Communities have through their chiefs offered advice and reported infringement of wildlifeconservation laws within their domain. Outstanding of these communities are the Esekwe andKakubok communities. The support from these communities has been in form of provision of

information on infringement and offer of suggestions on ways of achieving protection objectives.

Formation of community delegates

The sixteen landlord communities elected individuals to represent their respective communitiesduring project organised meetings. The representatives or delegates were chosen and their

acceptance was verified during a community meeting which involved entire village community. Thisactivity was carried out in 2005 and has been the channel through which information and

intelligence has moved from communities to management and back.

Bylaws

Between 2005 and 2008 nine communities out of the 16 landlord communities have enactedcommunity bylaws and a system of fines and sanctions for infringements on forestry and wildlife

laws. The community bylaws are to support the state government forestry and wildlife laws. Finescollected from individuals of these communities are put into the community development fund.

Some of the infringements that attract penalty and fines are water poisoning for purpose of fishing,uncontrolled bush burning and logging. The bylaws have fines represented in monetary value like

members of these communities are to pay N5000 for fishing with poison in any of the streamsaround the sanctuary and a fine of N3000 for logging in the sanctuary and forfeiture of chainsaw if

caught. However, these laws are not effectively enforced as the communities tend to pardon offencesand accept excuses. For example, in Esekwe and katabang violators were given a second chance

after being caught fishing with poisonous substances. The next stage will be for the Project to assistthe communities in any way possible to enforce their community bylaws. Such would include,

instituting a system of incentives

Employment opportunities

Since 2005 AMWS has been one of the main sources of employment in the area. In August 2005, the

sanctuary employed 10 community rangers. Also a day security man was hired for sanctuaryheadquarters. Apart from long term contract staff, communities youths are employed during

operations like boundary clearing an activity supervised and funded by FC where scores of youthsare hired to maintain sections of the sanctuary boundary close to their communities. Community s

youths are also hired as field assistants by researchers and tourists

Boundary maintenance

In addition to boundary cleaning mentioned above, 160 seedlings of indigenous tree species such as

Bush mango Avengia garbonesis, Ebony Diospyros alata, Mimosop Bailnella toxiperma weer



20

planted in boundary areas where boundary beacons have been removed. By end of 2008, over 60%of the boundary has been mapped using the handheld CIEarth units.

Elephants at the Afi River Forest Reserve

The coordinator was requested by the State Government to assess and confirm report of destructionof crops by elephants in November 2006. On assessment, it was confirmed that not more than threeelephants crossed from the Cross River National Park through Abu to the Afi River Forest Reserve

and 38 farmers were affected. The crops damage included cocoa, yams, cocoyam, banana, plantainand melon. The elephants came up to Iso Bendeghe before returning to the CRNP. Actually some of

these farms were in the wildlife corridor between the Sanctuary and the CRNP. From interviewswith locals, the last time the elephants visited the area was in1988. The report has been given to the

government and outcome is still awaited.

R anger posts have been constructed at the northern and southern sector of the sanctuary. Teams of 9

Rangers are now based at the northern sector of the sanctuary on a permanent basis. Due to itsstrategic location, potential hunters are for now prevented from entry into the core area of the

sanctuary using the Esekwe/ Lion cave ridge. Rangers now spend more quality time inside thesanctuary than before. The southern rangers post now serves as a hub that provides patrol access to

all locations in areas south of the sanctuary.

Staff kits:

The staff of the sanctuary are now kitted in uniforms (boots, beret, belt and machetes). Staffs wereissued these items twice during this reporting period. This uniform dignifies the rangers and

enhanced their social status in the communities. .

Community liaison:

A community intelligence reporting system where activities that are contrary to conservation goalsare reported to the coordinator exists. This facility has boosted protection and monitoring of the

sanctuary resources. There also exist a community liaison scheme which enabled efficientinformation sharing between the communities and the project.

Procurement and use of 5 CIEarth mapping device:

Data collected with CIEarth units on farms, hunting evidence, wildlife abundance, wildlife sighting,dung, calls and nest when displayed in Google earth, become very useful in management decision

making. One of the greater benefits of CIEarth units is monitoring of wildlife and staff movementsin the field. This has become more precise due to the use of the new hand held CIEarth devices.

Information collected by these devices show actual locations and dates. Currently, two of the unitsare faulty and unable to down load data from them. The other three are fully functional and are being

used in the field. The two bad ones still have information which if down loaded would enrich ourdata bank. Also, the program does not open as expected in the main computer where the soft ware is



21

installed. This difficulty makes data accessibility at times very difficult. One of the disadvantages of the equipment in the field is that it can not be use as a simple GPS in the field due to the way it was

configured

Opening of more trails:

Establishment of more trails inside the sanctuary has aided the rangers to patrol more remote areasof the sanctuary. For example, a trail to link the areas north of pig rock to Abortion cave was opened.

A second trail, opened in 2007 enable access to south west area of pig rock from pillar rock.

Arrest/Prosecution

Between 2005 and 2008, a career hunter called Peter Otu aka Akpola living in the sanctuary wasarrested in an ambush and remanded in prison custody for 9 months. Two other poachers from Bitiah

and Kakwagom were equally arrested and remanded in prison custody for 3 months.

Public awareness

Many people especially those living in local communities are increasingly becoming more aware of the importance of their natural resources, especially wildlife and the need to protect them.

Four newspaper articles were written on activities of the project in the sanctuary and two separate

radio broadcast has been made. The newspaper articles were in the Guardian newspaper of Monday,October 17,2005 titled Officials trail poachers over slaughtered drill monkey , Monday, December

12, 2005 titled Cross River, Conservationists clash over plan to develop Afi gorilla sanctuary andMonday, January 16, 2006 titled Poachers threatens Afi Mountain Sanctuary The radio broadcast

include broadcast informing the public of the killing of a drill and police request for good Samaritans

to disclose the where about of an accomplice to the police and the xmas period when three poacherswere arrested by rangers and handed over to the police. The press monitored and informed the publicof the court trials and this development deterred many ambitious poachers from entering the

sanctuary. Each of the broadcasts went on air for five days at no financial charge to the sanctuarymanagement.

Revision of State wildlife laws

The frustrations experienced during the process of prosecuting arrested poachers in the sanctuary

during the xmas period was what exposed the outrageous and the obsolete nature of the state wildlifelaws. The inadequacy of the State law include lack of appropriately stiff penalties for offenders, for

instance the fine for killing a gorilla is only N200 (two hundred naira). Moreover, endangeredspecies such as the drill monkey is not listed among the protected animal species in the State. The

revision of penalties and species list is in progress.



22

Tourism promotion

A total number of 54 tourists visited the sanctuary December 2007 to December 2008. Out of thisnumber, 5 were nationals and 49 were foreigners. Proceeds from sanctuary users fees realised was

fifty six thousand five hundred naira and this was paid to FC account by Pandrillus.

Wildlife evidence/movement

Wildlife sighting recorded to include drills (Mandrillus leucophaeus), red eared guenon (C.erythrotis), Allen and Demidoff s, bush babies, blue duikers (Cephalophus montocola),

Ogilby sduikers, AfricanGrey Parrots, rock hyrax

( Procavia ruficep)pangolin, hinge-back

tortoise, red river hog( Potamochoerus porcus),

mona monkeys, squirrels,African civet (Civettictis

civetta), prints of buffalo,putty nose monkeys and

mix group of mona andputty- nose monkeys,

Brush-tailed porcupine( Atherurus africanus) and

mongoose (probably black-

legged mongoose( Bdeogale nigripes). Afresh colony of rock fowl

was also recorded at Udoja lower cave, sighting of birds and butterflies was not given muchattention. Data collected, on evidence of gorilla presence, showed that gorilla were active in the

southern axis from June through November and moved to the northern axis of the sanctuary fromend of November through to March. Drills, on the other hand, were sighted more in the North central

areas within the month of May through November and again in the North East and North Westduring December through March. Mona monkeys did not show obvious migratory patterns.

Evidence and sighting of chimpanzees was recorded in January 06 at four locations in the NorthEast.

Stopping of road project

The road project that was being undertaken by Esekwe community was halted because the

community misinformed the state government agency which acts as recipient of the grant from theWorld Bank. The road was planned to link Esekwe to Buanchor community in the northern axis.

This could have provided access and enable farmers to establish more farms in the sanctuary as well

Figure 13: Ape nest in the sanctuary



23

as give hunters greater access. Moreover, the core area of the sanctuary could be exposed to trafficand other encroachment hazards.

Boki Heritage Day

Boki heritage day was the day set aside to show cases the natural endowments of the Boki people. In

recognition of activities of the sanctuary management, AMWS was one of the projects invited toexhibit and speak on the unique resources found in Boki LGA. The sanctuary had a stand and

displayed photos of conservation value of species found in the area. The project has participated inthe three Boki Heritage day celebrations held since 2006.

Women in Conservation

The formation of various women groups in the land lord communities carried out by the educationcoordinator in close consultation with the conservation coordinator made them to be actively

involved in conservation, a novel development in the region. So far 3 of such women group havebeen constituted in 3 communities of Esekwe, Kakwagom and Ebranta with focus on supporting

conservation in their community.

Students on industrial training:Between the 2005 and 2008, 17 students from College of wildlife management, New-Bussa came to

the sanctuary for industrialtraining and were given hands on

experience on techniques used forprotection, wildlife monitoring

and field identification of signs of wildlife presence in the field.

They were also exposed tocommunity activities. Other

students from other tertiaryinstitutions include 8 students

from the University of Uyo and 3from University of Calabar.

Sanctuary/Community challenges

The quick intervention and lobbying of the program on certain community issues ensure peace andharmony in the communities. An example was the crop raid by gorilla in the recent past that almost

Figure 14: Rangers with intern from Cameroon



24

resulted into protracted lawsuits. In 2007, 5 Bitiah farmers sued the coordinator for crops damagedby gorillas in illegal farms inside the sanctuary, and in the same year 15 Esekwe farmers sued the

coordinator and the community chief for expanding road to the northern ranger post to enable projectmaterial be taken to the site, all these were settled out of court due to the good rapport between the

communities and the Project.

Challenges

1. Illegal Farms: The unresolved illegal farming inside the sanctuary by the landlordcommunities is one of the biggest challenges faced by management.

2. CIEarth equipment: The recent difficulties to access data collected by the CIEarth unitsis affecting analysis of the data and impedes staff job assessment. Another issue is the

inability to use the CIEarth as GPS in the field making cross checking of importanceinformation/data in the field impossible. So its strongly recommended that GPS Unit be

provided for patrol3. New hunting strategies by Poachers: With the recent adoption of gang hunting, the

need to always have large patrol teams and at the same time have ranger presence in thetwo sectors of the sanctuary is a big challenge. There is need to employ more Rangers so

as to increase the number of rangers per patrol to check this new development.4. Prosecution of Offenders: delays in prosecution of offenders of wildlife laws impede

realization of project goals. It is not enough to report but to have good deterrent outcome.Poachers are now realizing that management can only bark but can not bite when it

comes to prosecution of arrested poachers. Prosecution of offenders is supposed to be thesole responsibility of the government through the FC. We shall investigate the legal

implications of the Partnership carrying out prosecutions as well as the probable costsuch that the Partnership may set up a small fund for this purpose.

5. Community Development/community support: There is the need for more communitydevelopment programme in form of income generating programme to divert attention of

youths from hunting and trapping. The strategy of providing conservation friendlyincome generating initiatives for communities are known to secure community support

and improve the project/community relationship

Conclusion

The operations of the sanctuary have evolved with time to positively accommodate communityinvolvement. The impact of community participation through willing divulgence of information

regarding poaching in their areas of the sanctuary is beneficial to overall planning and protectiongoals of the sanctuary. Although there is feeling of insufficient support and reward of conservation

amongst landlord communities, the acceptance of conservation values is impressive. Enforcement of enabling laws and sustained patrols in the sanctuary is truly the only mechanism for conservation

and protection of this fragile habitat and its valued wildlife. Effective management of the sanctuaryis known to depend on cooperation of the host communities. Use of informants and acceptance of

objectives establishing the sanctuary by communities is observed to be useful during planning of patrols. Within 2005 and 2008, the communities contribution in the overall management of

sanctuary influenced results and guided ambush operations. Hunting is noted to vary within seasonsand festive periods remained time of high threats.



Acknowledgement

We register our gratitude to FFI that has made the project modest achievements over the past few

years possible through her continuous funding and provision of the necessary field tools. We are

very grateful to the leadership and staff of the Cross River State Forestry Commission for theirinstitutional support and commitment to forest conservation activities in Afi Forest Reserve area andAfi Mountains Wildlife Sanctuary in particular. We also appreciate all other Afi partners, most

particularly Pandrillus and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) who are also involved inconservation and research activities in the area.

Documents

Afi After 4 Years_2