SotA3 Composite WEB

2017
Infrastructure development in Africa and Asia is expanding at breakneck
State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

speed, largely in biodiversity-rich developing nations. The trend reflects
governments’ efforts to promote economic growth in response to increas-
State of the Apes 3. 9781108436410 Cover. C M Y K
ing populations, rising consumption rates and persistent inequalities.

Large-scale infrastructure development is regularly touted as a way to
State of the Apes

meet the growing demand for energy, transport and food—and as a
key to poverty alleviation. In practice, however, road networks, hydro-
power dams and “development corridors” tend to have adverse effects
on local populations, natural habitats and biodiversity. Such projects
typically weaken the capacity of ecosystems to maintain ecological
functions on which wildlife and human communities depend, particu- Infrastructure Development and
larly in the face of climate change.
This volume—State of the Apes: Infrastructure Development and Ape
Conservation—presents original research and analysis, topical case
Ape Conservation
studies and emerging tools and methods to inform debate, practice
and policy with the aim of preventing and mitigating the harmful impacts
of infrastructure projects on biodiversity. Using apes as a proxy for wild-
life and ecosystems themselves, it identifies opportunities for reconcil-
ing economic and social development with environmental stewardship.
This title is available as an open access eBook via Cambridge Core
and at www.stateoftheapes.com.
“ State of the Apes is one of those rarely seen, truly groundbreak-

ing publications. Through keen analysis and vivid research, the series
considers the survival of the world’s ape species in light of both long-
standing and newly emerging threats, such as mineral extraction,
energy exploration, agricultural expansion and land conversion—
forces that will continue to shape not only the future of wild apes,
but also of all remaining blocks of wild habitat and the extraordinary
biodiversity they contain. By examining the complexity of develop-
ment forces across range states, State of the Apes offers an informed
and realistic assessment of the prospects for ape conservation, as
well as outlining the potential of policies that may spell the difference
”
between destruction and survival of these extraordinary beings.
Matthew V. Cassetta
Facilitator, Congo Basin Forest Partnership
U.S. Department of State
State of the Apes
Infrastructure Development and
Ape Conservation
Infrastructure development in Africa and Asia is expanding at breakneck speed, largely in

biodiversity-rich developing nations. The trend reflects governments’ efforts to promote
economic growth in response to increasing populations, rising consumption rates and per-
sistent inequalities. Large-scale infrastructure development is regularly touted as a way to
meet the growing demand for energy, transport and food—and as a key to poverty allevia-
tion. In practice, however, road networks, hydropower dams and “development corridors”
tend to have adverse effects on local populations, natural habitats and biodiversity. Such
projects typically weaken the capacity of ecosystems to maintain ecological functions on
which wildlife and human communities depend, particularly in the face of climate change.
This volume—State of the Apes: Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation—
presents original research and analysis, topical case studies and emerging tools and methods
to inform debate, practice and policy with the aim of preventing and mitigating the harm-
ful impacts of infrastructure projects on biodiversity. Using apes as a proxy for wildlife and
ecosystems themselves, it identifies opportunities for reconciling economic and social
development with environmental stewardship.
This title is available as an open access eBook via Cambridge Core and at www.stateof
theapes.com.
State of the Apes
Series editors
Helga Rainer Arcus Foundation
Alison White
Annette Lanjouw Arcus Foundation
The world’s primates are among the most endangered of all tropical species. All great ape
species – gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo and orangutan – are classified as either Endangered or
Critically Endangered. Furthermore, nearly all gibbon species are threatened with extinction.
Whilst linkages between ape conservation and economic development, ethics and wider envi-
ronmental processes have been acknowledged, more needs to be done to integrate biodiversity
conservation within broader economic, social and environmental communities if those con-
nections are to be fully realized and addressed.
Intended for a broad range of policymakers, industry experts and decision-makers,
academics, researchers and NGOs, the State of the Apes series will look at the threats to these
animals and their habitats within the broader context of economic and community devel-
opment. Each publication presents a different theme, providing an overview of how these
factors interrelate and affect the current and future status of apes, with robust statistics, welfare
indicators, official and various other reports providing an objective and rigorous analysis of
relevant issues.
Other Titles in this Series

Arcus Foundation. 2015. State of the Apes: Industrial Agriculture and Ape Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Arcus Foundation. 2014. State of the Apes: Extractive Industries and Ape Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Other Language Editions

Bahasa Indonesia
Arcus Foundation. 2018. Negara Kera: Pembangunan Infrastruktur dan Konservasi Kera.
Arcus Foundation. 2015. Negara Kera: Pertanian Industri dan Konservasi Kera.
Arcus Foundation. 2014. Negara Kera: Industri Ekstraktif dan Konservasi Kera.
French
Arcus Foundation. 2018. La planète des grands singes: Le développement des infrastructures et la conservation des
grands singes.
Arcus Foundation. 2015. La planète des grands singes: L’agriculture industrielle et la conservation des grands singes.
Arcus Foundation. 2014. La planète des grands singes: Les industries extractives et la conservation des grands singes.
State of the Apes
Infrastructure Development and
Ape Conservation
iv
Credits
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, Editors

United Kingdom Helga Rainer, Alison White and
Cambridge University Press is part of the University Annette Lanjouw
of Cambridge.
Production Coordinator
It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating
Alison White
knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and
research at the highest international levels of excellence. Editorial Consultant and Copy-editor
www.cambridge.org Tania Inowlocki
Information on this title: Designer
www.cambridge.org/9781107139688 Rick Jones, StudioExile
DOI: 10.1017/9781108436427
© Cambridge University Press 2018

Cartographer
Jillian Luff, MAPgrafix
This work is in copyright. It is subject to statutory
exceptions and to the provisions of relevant licens- Fact-checker
ing agreements; with the exception of the Creative Rebecca Hibbin
Commons version, the link for which is provided
below, no reproduction of any part of this work may Proofreader
take place without the written permission of Sarah Binns
Cambridge University Press.
An online version of this work is published at http://

Referencing
dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108436427 under a Creative Eva Fairnell
Commons Open Access license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
which permits re-use, distribution and reproduction
Indexer
in any medium for non-commercial purposes pro- Caroline Jones, Osprey Indexing
viding appropriate credit to the original work is given.
You may not distribute derivative works without per-
mission. To view a copy of this license, visit https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.
All versions of this work may contain content repro-

duced under license from third parties. Permission to
reproduce this third-party content must be obtained
from these third-parties directly. When citing this
work, please include a reference to the DOI 10.1017/
9781108436427.
First published 2018
Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc,

Elcograf S.p.A.
A catalogue record for this publication is available from Cover photographs:

the British Library
Background: © Jabruson
ISBN 978-1-108-42321-2 Hardback Bonobo: © Takeshi Furuichi
ISBN 978-1-108-43641-0 Paperback
Gibbon: © IPPL
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for Gorilla: © Annette Lanjouw
the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or
third-party internet websites referred to in this publica- Orangutan: © Jurek Wajdowicz, EWS
tion, and does not guarantee that any content on such Chimpanzee: © Nilanjan Bhattacharya/
websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Dreamstime.com

v
Foreword dramatically increase the amount of CO2 in

our atmosphere. When we abuse our lands,
we severely weaken our position in the fight
O
ur world is on the verge of unprec- against climate change.
edented economic and environ- In other words, when apes are displaced
mental change. While access to —when their forests are degraded and their
technology and opportunity are dramatically lives are devalued—humans are too. When
improving many parts of the planet, we also we ignore the larger consequences of these
see climate change and widening inequal- massive infrastructure projects, especially
ity putting that progress in jeopardy. Even in the name of inequitable and unjust gain,
though new infrastructure investments—in the whole world suffers.
roads, dams, pipelines and railways—prom- Our planet and our communities are in
ise economic prosperity for poorer coun- urgent need of a more sustainable, equitable
tries, the risks such projects pose threaten kind of economic development—one that
to outweigh the benefits. empowers everyone, while protecting the
Look no further than what is happen- planet’s life and resources.
ing to the world’s population of apes across At the Ford Foundation, we understand
Africa and southeast Asia. The fragmenta- that all these issues are deeply intertwined,
tion and exploitation of tropical forests is a and to address them comprehensively, the
direct threat to apes—compromising their solutions must be similarly interconnected.
habitat, making food scarce, and bringing The question is: how do we strike a balance
dangers like poaching and disease. As a result, that enables development while also allowing
their numbers are decreasing everywhere. apes and other species, local communities,
Today, many ape species are on the precipice the environment and the economy to thrive?
of extinction. This book is aimed at helping us answer
As this latest volume of State of the Apes that difficult question. Through reasoned,
argues, our well-being is inextricably linked peer-reviewed science and practical exam-
to the well-being of our environment—and ples, State of the Apes shows that though
the well-being of all species that call our there may always be trade-offs, smart policy
planet home. comes from considering what will create
That is in part because this same forest long-term benefits for all. It offers real solu-
destruction is equally devastating to forest- tions for how we plan, organize and educate
dependent people. Industrial-scale infra- to produce socially inclusive and green
structure development has a significant, infrastructure. And it reminds us that both
detrimental impact on local communities long-term environmental sustainability
that have a long-term relationship with the and long-term economic progress are the
forest. These rural and indigenous com- result of equitable and just solutions—not
munities frequently don’t see the economic unsustainable or corrupt investments.
benefits brought by new roads and power Most importantly, this volume demon-
plants; instead they see their land taken away, strates how equitable development is not only
without any just compensation or respect a possibility, but a necessity.
for their voices or rights. We know we can’t stop the world from
Moreover, these developments have even developing, but we can make sure inevitable
wider ramifications for our environment. and necessary developments in infrastruc-
When we eliminate forests and fail to lift ture also contribute to the larger march of
up the communities that protect them, we progress for all people, and protect the
Foreword
vi
environment. It’s up to all of us to ensure

that these projects are executed thoughtfully,
responsibly and sustainably—that they are
not destructive, but truly constructive.
At this critical moment—when govern-
ments, businesses and civil society organi-
zations across the world are coming up
against the dual threats of climate change
and economic inequality—it has never been
more essential that we keep our shared
future in mind.
The State of the Apes series makes clear
that charting a path forward is not about
the state, or fate, of any one species, but
about the fair and sustainable solutions that
our world so desperately needs.
Darren Walker
President
Ford Foundation

vii
Contents
The Arcus Foundation ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ix

Notes to Readers ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ix
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... x
Apes Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ xii
Section 1
Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Towards More Sustainable Infrastructure: Challenges and
Opportunities in Ape Range States of Africa and Asia .......................................................................................... 11
Introduction 11
Infrastructure: A Game Changer 13
Drivers of Infrastructure Expansion 18
Emerging Threats to Ape Habitats 22
Social and Political Concerns 27
A Dire Need for Better Infrastructure Planning 28
Priorities for Change 31
2. Impacts of Infrastructure on Apes, Indigenous Peoples and

Other Local Communities ........................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Introduction 41
Ecological Impacts of Infrastructure on Apes 43
Steps Forward 54
Social Impacts of Infrastructure 60
Overall Conclusion 78
3. Deforestation Along Roads: Monitoring Threats to Ape Habitat ..................................................... 81

Introduction 81
Proposed New Approaches to Road Monitoring 83
Case Study Approach 86
Recommendations for Road Infrastructure in Ape Habitat 86
The Potential of Remote Sensing Tools to Detect and Monitor Changes in Ape Habitat 104
4. Apes, Protected Areas and Infrastructure in Africa ....................................................................................... 107

Introduction 107
African Ape Ranges and Protected Areas 109
Threats to Protected Areas from Infrastructure 111
Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing and Degazettement (PADDD) in Africa 116
The Mitigation Hierarchy: Reconciling Infrastructure and Ape Conservation 119
Future Threats and Prospects 128
Contents
viii
5. Roads, Apes and Biodiversity Conservation: Case Studies from the

Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar and Nigeria ................................................................................... 137
Introduction 137
Overall Conclusion 164
6. Renewable Energy and the Conservation of Apes and Ape Habitat ......................................... 167
Introduction 167
Global Hydropower: Drivers and Trends 171
Impacts of Hydropower 172
Hydropower and Apes 174
Conclusion 195
Section 2
The Status and Welfare of Great Apes and Gibbons
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 198
7. Mapping Change in Ape Habitats: Forest Status, Loss,
Protection and Future Risk .................................................................................................................................................................... 201
Introduction 201
A Summary of the State of the Apes through the Lenses of Forest Cover and Protection, 2000–14 207
Forest Dynamics and Loss from 2000 to 2014 207
Annual Forest Loss Trends in Ape Habitat 216
Regular Monitoring of Forest Change 220
Conclusion 222
8. The Status of Captive Apes ................................................................................................................................................................ 225

Introduction 225
I. Beyond Capacity: Sanctuaries and the Status of Captive Apes in Shrinking Natural Habitats 227
Conclusion 254
II. The Status of Captive Apes: A Statistical Update 255
Conclusion 262
Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 264

Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................................. 279
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 282
References ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 291
Index ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 344

ix
The Arcus Foundation Notes to Readers
The Arcus Foundation is a private grant- Acronyms and abbreviations

making foundation that advances social A list of acronyms and abbreviations can
justice and conservation goals. The Foun be found at the back of the book, starting
dation works globally and has offices in on p. 279.
New York City, USA and Cambridge, UK.
For more information visit: Annexes
arcusfoundation.org. All annexes can be found at the back of the
Or connect with Arcus at: book, starting on p. 264, except for the
Abundance Annex, which is available from
twitter.com/ArcusGreatApes; and
the State of the Apes website:
facebook.com/ArcusGreatApes. www.stateoftheapes.com.
Great Apes Program Glossary

The long-term survival of humans and the There is a glossary of scientific terms and
great apes is dependent on how we respect keywords at the back of the book, starting
and care for other animals and our shared on p. 282.
natural resources. The Arcus Foundation
seeks to increase respect for and recognition Chapter cross-referencing
of the rights and value of the great apes and Chapter cross-references appear through-
gibbons, and to strengthen protection from out the book, either as direct references in
threats to their habitats. The Arcus Great the body text or in brackets.
Apes Program supports conservation and
policy advocacy efforts that promote the Ape Range Maps
survival of great apes and gibbons in the wild The ape range maps throughout this edition
and in sanctuaries that offer high-quality show the extent of occurrence (EOO) of each
care, safety and freedom from invasive species. An EOO includes all known popu-
research and exploitation. lations of a species contained within the
shortest possible continuous imaginary
Contact details boundary. It is important to note that some
New York office: areas within these boundaries are unsuitable
and unoccupied.
44 West 28th Street, 17th Floor
The Arcus Foundation commissioned
New York, New York 10001, United States
the ape distribution maps in the Apes Over
+1 212 488 3000 / phone view, Figures AO1 and AO2, to provide the
+1 212 488 3010 / fax most accurate and up-to-date illustration
of range data. These maps were created by
Cambridge office (Great Apes program):
the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
CB1 Business Centre Anthropology, who manage the A.P.E.S.
Leda House, 20 Station Road portal and database. This volume also fea-
Cambridge CB1 2JD, United Kingdom tures maps created by contributors who used
+44 (0)1223 653040 / phone ape range data from other sources. As a con-
+44.1223.451100 / fax sequence, the maps may not all align exactly.
Notes to Readers
x
Photographs Acknowledgments
We aim to include photographs that are rele-
vant to each theme and illustrate the content
The aim of the State of the Apes series is to
of each chapter. If you have photographs that
facilitate critical engagement on conserva-
you are willing to share with the Arcus Foun
tion, industry and government practice and
dation, for use in this series, or for multiple
to expand support for great apes and gib-
purposes, please contact the Production
bons. We are grateful to everyone who played
Coordinator (awhite@arcusfoundation.org)
a part, including meeting participants, our
or the Cambridge office.
authors, contributors and reviewers, and
those involved in the production of the book.
The support of Jon Stryker and the Arcus
Foundation Board of Directors is essential
to the production of this publication. We
thank them for their ongoing support.
A key element outside of the thematic
content is the overview of the status of apes,
both in their natural habitats and in captivity.
We extend our thanks to the captive-ape
organizations that provided detailed infor-
mation and to all the great ape and gibbon
scientists who contribute their valuable data
to build the A.P.E.S. database. Such collabo-
rative efforts are key to effective and efficient
conservation action.
Authors, contributors, reviewers and
those who provided essential data and sup-
port are acknowledged at the end of each
chapter. We could not have produced this
book without them, and we thank them for
their enduring patience and participation, in
sickness and in health. Many of the photo-
graphs included were generously shared by
their creators, who are credited alongside
each one. Respect and thanks to those who
read and reviewed the whole publication—
no small task: Mihai Coroi, Cindy Rizzo and
Tommaso Savini.
Particular thanks go to the following
individuals, organizations and agencies:
Marc Ancrenaz, Iain Bray, Stanley Brunn,
Genevieve Campbell, the Center for Inter
national Forestry Research (CIFOR), Susan
Cheyne, Bruce Davidson, Eric Dinerstein,

xi
the Ford Foundation, Forest Peoples Pro anonymous comments or strategic advice,
gramme (FPP), Getty Images, Hao Chunxu, and by helping with essential administra-
Matthew Hatchwell, Randy Hayes, Tatyana tive tasks. Marie Stevenson deserves par-
Humle, Jack Hurd, the Jane Goodall Insti ticular thanks for her logistical support. We
tute (JGI), Lin Ji, Anup Joshi, Justin Kenrick, also thank everyone who provided much-
Josh Klemm, Bill Laurance, Cath Lawson, appreciated moral support.
Liz Macfie, the Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology, Linda May, Helga Rainer, Alison White
Adriana Gonçalves Moreira, Mott Mac and Annette Lanjouw
Donald, Steve Peedell, Adam Phillipson, Editors
Refuge for Wildlife, RESOLVE, Martha
Robbins, Ian Singleton, Tenekwetche Sop,
Gideon Suharyanto, the Sumatran Orang
utan Conservation Programme (SOCP),
Bob Tansey, The Biodiversity Consultancy
(TBC), The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
Anne Trainor, University of Minnesota,
Steve Volkers, Darren Walker, Wildlife Con
servation Society (WCS), Laura Wilkinson,
Jake Willis and the World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF).
Our thanks also to Katrina Halliday and
the team at Cambridge University Press for
their support and commitment to this series.
We are committed to ensuring that these
books are available to as many stakehold-
ers as possible, not least by providing them
in English, French and Bahasa Indonesia.
Our thanks go to our cartographer, copy
editor, graphic designers, indexer, proof-
readers, reference editor and translators:
Sarah Binns, Eva Fairnell, Tania Inowlocki,
Caroline Jones, Rick Jones, Hyacinthe Kemp,
Jillian Luff, Anton Nurcahyo, Islaminur
Pempasa, Hélène Piantone, Erica Taube,
Beth Varley and Rumanti Wasturini. All
language editions are provided on the State
of the Apes website, and our thanks go to
the Arcus Communications team for man-
aging this site, especially Stephanie Myers,
Sebastian Naidoo and Bryan Simmons.
Many others contributed in a number
of ways that cannot be attributed to spe-
cific content, by providing introductions,
Acknowledgments
xii
Apes Overview
APES INDEX
Bonobo (Pan paniscus)
Distribution and Numbers in the Wild
The bonobo is only present in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), bio-
geographically separated from chimpanzees and gorillas by the Congo River
(see Figure AO1). The population size is unknown, as only 30% of the species’
historic range has been surveyed; however, estimates from the four geograph-
ically distinct bonobo strongholds suggest a minimum population of 15,000–
20,000 individuals, with numbers decreasing (Fruth et al., 2016).
The bonobo is included in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix I and is categorized as
endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red
List (Fruth et al., 2016; see Box AO1). The causes of population decline include poaching; habitat loss and degradation; disease;
and people’s lack of awareness that hunting and eating bonobos is unlawful. Poaching, which is mainly carried out as part of
the commercial wild meat trade and for some medicinal purposes, has been exacerbated by the ongoing effects of armed
conflict, such as military-sanctioned hunting and the accessibility of modern weaponry and ammunition (Fruth et al., 2016).
Physiology
Male adult bonobos reach a height of 73–83 cm and weigh 37–61 kg, while females are slightly smaller, weighing 27–38 kg.
Bonobos are moderately sexually dimorphic and similar in size and appearance to chimpanzees, although with a smaller head
and lither appearance. The maximum life span in the wild is 50 years (Hohmann et al., 2006; Robson and Wood, 2008).
The bonobo diet is mainly frugivorous (more than 50% fruit), supplemented with leaves, stems, shoots, pith, seeds, bark, flowers,
honey and fungi, including truffles. Only a very small part of their diet consists of animal matter—such as insects, small reptiles,
birds and medium-sized mammals, including other primates.
Social Organization
Bonobos live in fission–fusion communities of 10–120 individuals, consisting of multiple males and females. When foraging, they
split into smaller mixed-sex subgroups, or parties, averaging 5–23 individuals.
Male bonobos cooperate with and tolerate one another; however, lasting bonds between adult males are rare, in contrast to the
bonds between adult females, which are strong and potentially last for years. A distinguishing feature of female bonobos is that
they are co-dominant with males and form alliances against certain males within the community. Among bonobos, the bonds
between mother and son are the strongest, prove highly important for the social status of the son and last into adulthood.
Together with chimpanzees, bonobos are the closest living relatives to humans, sharing 98.8% of our DNA (Smithsonian
Institution, n.d.; Varki and Altheide, 2005).
Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)

Chimpanzees are widely distributed across equatorial Africa, with discontinuous
populations from southern Senegal to western Uganda and Tanzania (Humle et
al., 2016b; see Figure AO1).
Chimpanzees are listed in CITES Appendix I, and all four subspecies are cat-
egorized as endangered on the IUCN Red List. There are approximately
140,000 central chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes); 18,000–65,000 west-
ern chimpanzees (Pan t. verus); 181,000–256,000 eastern chimpanzees (Pan
t. schweinfurthii); and probably fewer than 6,000–9,000 Nigeria–Cameroon
chimpanzees (Pan t. ellioti). Populations are believed to be declining, but the
rate has not yet been quantified (Humle et al., 2016b).
Decreases in chimpanzee numbers are mainly attributed to increased poaching for the commercial wild meat trade, habitat loss
and degradation, and disease (particularly Ebola) (Humle et al., 2016b).

xiii
Physiology
Male chimpanzees are 77–96 cm tall and weigh 28–70 kg, while females measure 70–91 cm and weigh 20–50 kg. They share
many facial expressions with humans, although forehead musculature is less pronounced and they have more flexible lips.
Chimpanzees live for up to 50 years in the wild.
Chimpanzees are mainly frugivorous and opportunistic feeders. Some communities include 200 species of food items in a diet
of fruit supplemented by herbaceous vegetation and animal prey, such as ants and termites, but also small mammals, including
other primates. Chimpanzees are the most carnivorous of all the apes.
Social Organization
Chimpanzees show fission–fusion, multi-male–multi-female grouping patterns. A large community includes all individuals who
regularly associate with one another; such communities comprise an average of 35 individuals, with the largest-known group
counting 150, although this size is rare. The community separates into smaller, temporary subgroups, or parties. The parties
can be highly fluid, with members moving in and out quickly or a few individuals staying together for a few days before rejoining
the community.
Typically, home ranges are defended by highly territorial males, who may attack or even kill neighboring chimpanzees. Male
chimpanzees are dominant over female chimpanzees and are generally the more social sex, sharing food and grooming each
other more frequently. Chimpanzees are noted for their sophisticated forms of cooperation, such as in hunting and territorial
defense; the level of cooperation involved in social hunting activities varies across communities, however.
Gorilla (Gorilla species (spp.))

The western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) is distributed throughout western equatorial
Africa and has two subspecies: the western lowland gorilla (Gorilla g. gorilla) and
the Cross River gorilla (Gorilla g. diehli). The eastern gorilla (Gorilla beringei) is
found in the DRC and across the border in Uganda and Rwanda. There are two
subspecies of the eastern gorilla: the mountain gorilla (Gorilla b. beringei) and
Grauer’s gorilla (Gorilla b. graueri), also referred to as the eastern lowland gorilla
(see Figure AO1).
All gorillas are listed as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List. Population
estimates for the western gorilla range from 150,000 to 250,000, while as few
as 250–300 Cross River gorillas remain in the wild (Bergl, 2006; Oates et al., 2007; Sop et al., 2015; Williamson et al., 2013).
The most recent population estimate for Grauer’s gorilla is 3,800, which indicates a 77% loss since 1994 (Plumptre, Robbins
and Williamson, 2016c). Mountain gorillas are estimated to number at least 880 individuals (Gray et al., 2013; Roy et al., 2014).
The main threats to both species are poaching for the commercial wild meat trade, habitat destruction and degradation, and
disease (for the western gorilla, the Ebola virus in particular). The eastern gorilla is also threatened by civil unrest (Maisels, Bergl
and Williamson, 2016a; Plumptre et al., 2016c).
Physiology
The adult male of the eastern gorilla is slightly larger (159–196 cm, 120–209 kg) than the western gorilla (138–180 cm, 145–191 kg).
Both species are highly sexually dimorphic, with females being about half the size of males. Their life span ranges from 30 to 40
years in the wild. Mature males are known as “silverbacks” due to the development of a gray saddle with maturity.
The gorillas’ diet consists predominantly of ripe fruit and terrestrial, herbaceous vegetation. More herbaceous vegetation is
ingested while fruit is scarce, in line with seasonality and fruit availability, and protein gain comes from leaves and bark of trees;
gorillas do not eat meat but occasionally consume ants and termites. Mountain gorillas have less fruit in their environment than
lowland gorillas, so they feed mainly on leaves, pith, stems, bark and, occasionally, ants.
Social Organization
Western gorillas live in stable groups with multiple females and one adult male (silverback); in contrast, eastern gorillas are
polygynous and can be polygynandrous, with groups that comprise one or more silverbacks, multiple females, their offspring and
immature relatives. The average group consists of ten individuals, but eastern gorillas can live in groups of up to 65 individuals,
whereas the maximum group size for the western gorilla is 22. Gorillas are not territorial and home ranges overlap extensively.
Chest beats and vocalizations typically are used when neighboring silverbacks come into contact, but intergroup encounters
may escalate into physical fights. Mutual avoidance is normally the adopted strategy for groups that live in the same areas.
Apes Overview
xiv
Orangutan (Pongo spp.)

The orangutan range is now limited to the forests of Sumatra and Borneo,
but these great apes were once present throughout much of southern Asia
(Wich et al., 2008, 2012a; see Figure AO2). Survey data indicate that in 2015
fewer than 15,0001 Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) and just under
105,0002 Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus spp.) remained in the wild
(Ancrenaz et al., 2016; Wich et al., 2016). As a result of continuing habitat
loss and hunting, both the Sumatran orangutan and the Bornean orangutan
are classified as critically endangered (Ancrenaz et al., 2016; Singleton et al.,
2016). Both species are listed in Appendix I of CITES.
In November 2017, a new species of orangutan was described in three forest fragments in Sumatra’s Central, North and South
Tapanuli districts, which are part of the Batang Toru Ecosystem (Nater et al., 2017).3 The Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis)
has a total distribution of about 1,100 km² (110,000 ha) and a population size of fewer than 800 individuals (Wich et al., 2016).4
The main threats to all orangutan species are habitat loss and fragmentation, and killings due to human–ape conflict, hunting
and the international pet trade (Ancrenaz et al., 2016; Gaveau et al., 2014; Singleton et al., 2016; Wich et al., 2008).*
Physiology
Adult males can reach a height of 94–99 cm and weigh 60–85 kg (flanged) or 30–65 kg (unflanged). Females are 64–84 cm tall and
weigh 30–45 kg, meaning that orangutans are highly sexually dimorphic. In the wild, males on Sumatra have a life expectancy
of 58 years and females 53 years. No accurate data exist for the Bornean orangutan.
Fully mature males develop a short beard and protruding cheek pads, termed “flanges.” Some male orangutans experience
“developmental arrest,” maintaining a female-like size and appearance for many years past sexual maturity; they are known as
“unflanged” males. Orangutans are the only great ape to exhibit male bimaturism.
The orangutan diet mainly consists of fruit, but they also eat leaves, shoots, seeds, bark, pith, flowers, eggs, soil and invertebrates
(termites (Isoptera) and ants (Formicidae)). Carnivorous behavior has also been observed, but at a low frequency (preying on
species such as slow lorises (Nycticebus)).
Social Organization
The mother–offspring unit is the only permanent social unit among orangutans, yet social groupings between independent indi-
viduals do occur, although their frequency varies across populations (Wich, de Vries and Ancrenaz, 2009a). While females are
usually relatively tolerant of each other, flanged males are intolerant of other flanged and unflanged males (Wich et al., 2009a).
Orangutans on Sumatra are generally more social than those on Borneo and live in overlapping home ranges, with flanged males
emitting “long calls” to alert others to their location (Delgado and Van Schaik, 2000; Wich et al., 2009a). Orangutans are character-
ized by an extremely slow life history, with the longest interbirth interval (6–9 years) of any primate species (Wich et al., 2004, 2009a).
Gibbons (Hoolock spp.; Hylobates spp.; Nomascus spp.; Symphalangus spp.)

All four genera of gibbon generally share ecological and behavioral attributes, such as social monogamy in territorial groups;
vocalization through elaborate song (including complex duets); frugivory and brachiation (moving through the canopy using only
the arms). Gibbons primarily consume fruit but have a varied diet including insects, flowers, leaves and seeds. Female gibbons
have a single offspring every 2.5–3 years (S. Cheyne, personal communication, 2017). Gibbons are diurnal and sing at sunrise and
sunset; they dedicate a significant part of the day to finding fruit trees within their territories.
Hoolock genus
Three species comprise the Hoolock genus: the western hoolock (Hoolock
hoolock), the eastern hoolock (Hoolock leuconedys) and the newly discov-
ered Gaoligong or Skywalker hoolock (Hoolock tianxing) (Fan et al., 2017). The
Mishmi Hills hoolock (Hoolock h. mishmiensis), the most recently discovered
subspecies of western hoolock, was officially named in 2013 (Choudhury, 2013).
The western hoolock’s distribution spans Bangladesh, India and Myanmar.
The eastern hoolock lives in China, India and Myanmar (see Figure AO2). To
date, the Gaoligong hoolock has only been seen in eastern Myanmar and
southwestern China (Fan et al., 2017).

xv
With an estimated population of 2,500 individuals, the western hoolock is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List. The eastern
hoolock has a much larger population, numbering 293,200–370,000, and is listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Both
species are listed in CITES Appendix I, with the main threats identified as habitat loss and fragmentation, and hunting for food,
pets and medicinal purposes. The Gaoligong hoolock is likely to be categorized as endangered but has not yet been formally
listed on the IUCN Red List (Fan et al., 2017).
Physiology
An individual hoolock can have a head and body length of 45–81 cm and weigh 6–9 kg, with males slightly heavier than females.
Like most gibbons, the Hoolock genus is sexually dichromatic, with the pelage (coat) of females and males differing in terms of
patterning and color. Pelage also differs across species: unlike the western hoolock, the eastern one features a complete separa-
tion between the white brow markings and a white preputial tuft.
The diet of the western hoolock is primarily frugivorous, supplemented with vegetative matter such as leaves, shoots, seeds, moss
and flowers. While little is known about the diet of the eastern hoolock, it most likely resembles that of the western hoolock.
Social Organization
Hoolocks live in family groups of 2–6 individuals, consisting of a mated adult pair and their offspring. They are presumably territorial,
although no specific data exist. Hoolock pairs vocalize a “double solo” rather than the more common “duet” of various gibbons.
Hylobates genus
Nine species are currently included in the Hylobates genus, although there
remains some dispute about whether Abbott’s gray gibbon (Hylobates
abbottii), the Bornean gray gibbon (Hylobates funereus) and Müller’s gibbon
(Hylobates muelleri) represent full species (see Table AO1).
This genus of gibbon occurs discontinuously in tropical and subtropical for-
ests from southwestern China, through Indochina, Thailand and the Malay
Peninsula to the islands of Sumatra, Borneo and Java (Wilson and Reeder,
2005; see Figure AO2). The overall estimated minimum population for the
Hylobates genus is about 360,000–400,000, with the least abundant species
being the moloch gibbon (Hylobates moloch) and most abundant being, collectively, the “gray gibbons” (Abbott’s, the Bornean
and Müller’s gibbons), although no accurate population numbers are available for Abbott’s gray gibbon.
All Hylobates species are listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List and are in CITES Appendix I. Three hybrid zones occur
naturally and continue to coexist with the unhybridized species in the wild. The main collective threats facing the genus are
deforestation, hunting and the illegal pet trade (S. Cheyne, personal communication, 2017; Mittermeier et al., 2013).
Physiology
Average height for both sexes of all species is approximately 46 cm and their weight ranges between 5 kg and 7 kg. With the
exception of the pileated gibbon (Hylobates pileatus), species in the genus are not sexually dichromatic, although the lar gibbon
(Hylobates lar) has two color phases, which are not related to sex or age.
Gibbons are mainly frugivorous. Figs are an especially important part of their diet and are supplemented by leaves, buds, flowers,
shoots, vines and insects, while small animals and bird eggs form the protein input.
Social Organization
Hylobates gibbons are largely socially monogamous, forming family units of two adults and their offspring; however, polyandrous
and polygynous units have been observed, especially in hybrid zones. Territorial disputes are predominantly led by males, who
become aggressive towards other males, whereas females tend to lead daily
movements and ward off other females.
Nomascus genus
Seven species make up the Nomascus genus (see Table AO1).
The Nomascus genus, which is somewhat less widely distributed than the
Hylobates genus, is present in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and southern China
(including Hainan Island; see Figure AO2). Population estimates exist for some
Apes Overview
xvi
taxa: there are approximately 1,500 western black crested gibbons (Nomascus concolor), 130 Cao Vit gibbons (Nomascus nasutus)
and 23 Hainan gibbons (Nomascus hainanus). Population estimates for the white-cheeked gibbons (N. leucogenys and N. siki)
are not available except for some sites, yet overall numbers are known to be severely depleted. The yellow-cheeked gibbons
(N. annamensis and N. gabriellae) have the largest populations among the Nomascus gibbons.
All species are listed in CITES Appendix I; in the IUCN Red List, four are categorized as critically endangered (N. concolor,
nasutus, hainanus and leucogenys) and two as endangered (N. siki and N. gabriellae), while one—the northern yellow-cheeked
crested gibbon (Nomascus annamensis)—is yet to be assessed (IUCN, 2017). Major threats to these populations include hunt-
ing for food, pets and for medicinal purposes, as well as habitat loss and fragmentation.
Physiology
Average head and body length across all species of this genus, for both sexes, is approximately 47 cm; individuals weigh around
7 kg. All Nomascus species have sexually dimorphic pelage; adult males are predominantly black while females are a buffy
yellow. Their diet is much the same as that of the Hylobates genus: mainly frugivorous, supplemented with leaves and flowers.
Social Organization
Gibbons of the Nomascus genus are mainly socially monogamous; however, most species have also been observed in poly-
androus and polygynous groups. More northerly species appear to engage in polygyny to a greater degree than southern taxa.
Copulations outside monogamous pairs have been recorded, although infrequently.
Symphalangus genus
Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) are found in several forest blocks across
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (see Figure AO2); the species faces
severe threats to its habitat across its range. No accurate estimates exist
for the total population size. The species is listed in CITES Appendix I and
is classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List.
Physiology
The siamang’s head and body length is 75–90 cm, and adult males weigh
10.5–12.7 kg, while adult females weigh 9.1–11.5 kg. The siamang is minimally sexually dimorphic, and the pelage is the same
across sexes: black. The species has a large inflatable throat sac.
Siamang rely heavily on figs and somewhat less on leaves—a diet that allows them to be sympatric with Hylobates gibbons in
some locations, since the latter focus more on fleshy fruits. The siamang diet also includes flowers and insects.
Social Organization
Males and females call territorially, using their large throat sacs, and males will give chase to neighboring males. One group’s
calls will inhibit other groups nearby, and they will consequently take turns to vocalize. The groups are usually based on monog-
amous pairings, although polyandrous groups have been observed. Males may also adopt the role of caregiver for infants.
Notes:
All information is drawn from the Handbook of the Mammals of the World, Volume 3: Primates (Mittermeier, Rylands and Wilson, 2013), unless otherwise cited.
* For the Bornean orangutan, additional threats include forest fires and people’s lack of awareness that they are protected by law. For the Sumatran orangutan,
the current most important threat is a land use plan issued by the government of Aceh in 2013. The plan does not recognize that the Leuser Ecosystem is a
National Strategic Area, a legal status that prohibits cultivation, development and other activities that would degrade the ecosystem’s environmental functions
(Singleton et al., 2016).
Photo Credits:
Bonobo: © Takeshi Furuichi, Wamba Committee for Bonobo Research
Chimpanzee: © Arcus Foundation and Jabruson, 2014. All rights reserved. www.jabruson.photoshelter.com
Gorilla: © Annette Lanjouw
Orangutan: © Perry van Duijnhoven 2013
Gibbons: Hoolock: © Dr. Axel Gebauer/naturepl.com; Hylobates: © International Primate Protection League (IPPL); Nomascus: © IPPL;
Symphalangus: © Pete Oxford/naturepl.com

xvii
Ape Socioecology Chimpanzees and bonobos form dynamic

communities, fissioning into smaller par-
This section presents an overview of the ties or coming together (fusioning) accord-
socioecology of the seven non-human apes:
ing to food availability and the presence of
bonobos, chimpanzees, gibbons (including
reproductively active females (Wrangham,
siamangs), eastern gorillas, western gorillas,
1986). Chimpanzee communities average 35
and Bornean and Sumatran orangutans.5
members, with a known maximum of 150
Gorillas, whose range extends across
members (Mitani, 2009). Bonobo commu-
ten central African countries, are the largest
nities are usually composed of between 30
living primate species and the most terres-
trial of all the apes. Chimpanzees are the most and 80 individuals (Fruth, Williamson and
wide-ranging ape species in Africa, occur- Richardson, 2013).
ring in 21 countries (Humle et al., 2016b). Gorillas live in cohesive social groups.
Orangutans are found in Asia—in both The median group size in eastern gorillas is
Indonesia and Malaysia—and are the only ten, with groups consisting of one or more
ape species to have two distinct male types. silverback males with several females and
Gibbons are the most numerous of the apes, their offspring, although group sizes can be
with 20 species across Asia (see Table AO2). much larger. Western lowland gorillas differ
from eastern gorillas, with groups frequently
comprising more than 20 individuals and
Great Ape Socioecology about 40% of groups having a multi-male
Social organization differs considerably structure. Their large body size and largely
across the three great ape genera. vegetation-based diet enable them to live in
BOX AO1 Table AO1

IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, and Criteria for Categorization as Vulnerable,
CITES Appendices Endangered and Critically Endangered
The IUCN Species Survival Commission assesses the conser-
IUCN Risk of Number Rate of
vation status of each species and subspecies using IUCN Red
Red List extinction of mature population
List categories and criteria. As all great apes and gibbons are
category in the wild individuals decline over
categorized as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered,
in the wild the past 10
this box presents details on a selection of the criteria for these
years or 3
three categories (see Table AO1). Full details of the IUCN Red
generations
List categories and criteria (in English, French and Spanish)
can be viewed and downloaded at: Vulnerable High <10,000 >50%
http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-
and-criteria. Endangered Very high <2,500 >50%
Detailed guidelines on their use are available at: Critically Extremely <250 >80%
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf. endangered high
Appendices I, II and III to the Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) are when the purpose of the import is not commercial, for instance
lists of species afforded different levels or types of protection for scientific research. In these exceptional cases, trade may
from overexploitation. take place, provided it is authorized by both an import permit
All non-human apes are in Appendix I, which comprises species and an export permit (or re-export certificate). Article VII of
that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals the Convention provides for a number of exemptions to this
and plants. As they are threatened with extinction, CITES pro- general prohibition. For more information, see:
hibits international trade in specimens of these species, except https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#VII.
Apes Overview
xviii
Table AO2
Great Apes and Gibbons
GREAT APES
Pan genus
Bonobo Pan paniscus Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

(a.k.a. pygmy chimpanzee)
Central chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes Angola Cameroon

Central African Republic DRC
Equatorial Guinea Gabon
Republic of Congo
Eastern chimpanzee Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii Burundi Central African Republic

DRC Rwanda Sudan Tanzania
Uganda
Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee Pan troglodytes ellioti Cameroon Nigeria
Western chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau

Ivory Coast Liberia Mali
Senegal Sierra Leone6
Gorilla genus
Cross River gorilla Gorilla gorilla diehli Cameroon Nigeria
Grauer’s gorilla Gorilla beringei graueri DRC

(a.k.a. eastern lowland gorilla)
Mountain gorilla Gorilla beringei beringei DRC Rwanda Uganda
Western lowland gorilla Gorilla gorilla gorilla Angola Cameroon

Central African Republic
Equatorial Guinea Gabon
Republic of Congo
Pongo genus
Northeast Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus morio Indonesia Malaysia
Northwest Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus Indonesia Malaysia
Southwest Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii Indonesia
Sumatran orangutan Pongo abelii Indonesia
Tapanuli orangutan7 Pongo tapanuliensis Indonesia
GIBBONS (excluding subspecies)
Hoolock genus
Eastern hoolock Hoolock leuconedys China India Myanmar
Gaoligong hoolock Hoolock tianxing China Myanmar

(a.k.a. Skywalker hoolock)
Western hoolock Hoolock hoolock Bangladesh India Myanmar

xix
Table AO2
Continued
Hylobates genus
Abbott’s gray gibbon Hylobates abbotti Indonesia Malaysia
Agile gibbon Hylobates agilis Indonesia Malaysia

(a.k.a. dark-handed gibbon)
Bornean gray gibbon Hylobates funereus Indonesia Malaysia Brunei

(a.k.a. northern gray gibbon)
Bornean white-bearded gibbon Hylobates albibarbis Indonesia

(a.k.a. Bornean agile gibbon)
Kloss’s gibbon Hylobates klossii Indonesia

(a.k.a. Mentawai gibbon)
Lar gibbon Hylobates lar China Indonesia

(a.k.a. white-handed gibbon) Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR)
Malaysia Myanmar Thailand
Moloch gibbon Hylobates moloch Indonesia

(a.k.a. Javan gibbon, silvery gibbon)
Müller’s gibbon Hylobates muelleri Indonesia

(a.k.a. Müller’s gray gibbon, southern gray gibbon)
Pileated gibbon Hylobates pileatus Cambodia Lao PDR Thailand

(a.k.a. capped gibbon, crowned gibbon)
Nomascus genus
Cao Vit gibbon Nomascus nasutus China Viet Nam

(a.k.a. eastern black crested gibbon)
Hainan gibbon Nomascus hainanus China (Hainan Island)

(a.k.a. Hainan black crested gibbon, Hainan black gibbon,
Hainan crested gibbon)
Northern white-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus leucogenys Lao PDR Viet Nam
(a.k.a. northern white-cheeked gibbon,
white-cheeked gibbon)
Northern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus annamensis Cambodia Lao PDR Viet Nam
(a.k.a. northern buffed-cheeked gibbon)
Southern white-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus siki Lao PDR Viet Nam
(a.k.a. southern white-cheeked gibbon)
Southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus gabriellae Cambodia Lao PDR Viet Nam
(a.k.a. red-cheeked gibbon, buff-cheeked gibbon,
buffy-cheeked gibbon)
Western black crested gibbon Nomascus concolor China Lao PeDR Viet Nam
(a.k.a. black crested gibbon, black gibbon,
concolor gibbon, Indochinese gibbon)
Symphalangus genus
Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus Indonesia Malaysia Thailand
Sources: Susan Cheyne, personal communication, 2017; Elizabeth Macfie, personal communication, 2017; Mittermeier et al. (2013); Serge Wich, personal communication, 2017
Apes Overview
xx
environments with little fruit and to maintain fatty cheek pads and large size, lead a semi-
stable groups, due to a lack of competition solitary existence (Emery Thompson, Zhou
over highly nutritious foods. and Knott, 2012). Compared to flanged indi-
Orangutans have loosely defined com- viduals, the smaller, unflanged adult males
munities. Flanged males, characterized by are more tolerant of other orangutans and,
Figure AO1
Ape Distribution in Africa8
N Cross River gorilla

Kashimbila
MAURITANIA MALI Game
Reserve
NIGERIA
Cross
River
SENEGAL NIGER
Cross River
GAMBIA CAMEROON
BURKINA FASO National Park
CH
GUINEA-
BISSAU
BENIN
GUINEA NIGERIA
IVORY GHANA
COAST Oba Hills
SIERRA Mt Peko Duekoue
Duékoué TOGO
Ogbesse
LEONE Nizoro Ala

CENT
Niouniourou Bafut-Ngemba
LIBERIA
Tamin
Nkwende Hills R
South Bakundu
A T L A N T I C Go Bodienou
Cape Three Points
CAMEROON
EQ
Mt. Kopé Port Gauthier

O C E A N Okromodou U
G AT O
UI
N E AR I A L
Dassiekro
Monogaga
SÃO TOMÉ AND
All apes probably extinct PRÍNCIPE
REPUBLIC
Apes locally extirpated
Bonobo conservation landscapes GABON OF
IUCN A.P.E.S. Database survey data coverage
CONGO
Protected areas (IUCN categories I to IV)
Gorilla genus
Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) DEMOC
Grauer’s gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) REPUP
Mountain gorilla (Gorilla b. beringei) CON
Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla g. gorilla)
Pan genus
Central chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes)
Eastern chimpanzee (Pan t. schweinfurthii)
Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee (Pan t. ellioti) ANGO
Western chimpanzee (Pan t. verus)

xxi
like some adult females, they can travel Habitat

together for a few hours and up to several
Most great apes live in closed, moist, mixed
days. Sumatran orangutans occasionally
tropical forest, occupying a range of vari-
congregate when food is abundant (Wich
ous forest types, including lowland, swamp,
et al., 2006).
seasonally inundated, gallery, coastal, sub-
montane, montane and secondary regrowth.
Some bonobo populations and eastern and
western chimpanzees also live in savannah–
woodland mosaic landscapes. The largest
Mountain gorilla populations of great apes are found below
Virunga
National 500 m elevation, in the lowland forests of
Park Bwindi
National Asia and Africa (Morrogh-Bernard et al.,
DRC Park 2003; Stokes et al., 2010). Bonobos have a
UGANDA restricted, discontinuous range in the DRC,
south of the Congo River (Fruth et al., 2016).
Volcanoes
National Park Eastern chimpanzees and eastern gorillas can
HAD RWANDA
range above 2,000 m altitude, and orangu-
Gishwati National Park tans well above 1,000 m in both Sumatra
and Borneo (Payne, 1988; Wich et al., 2016).
Most chimpanzees and bonobos inhabit
evergreen forests, but some populations
exist in deciduous woodland and drier
SOUTH SUDAN
savannah–woodland-dominated habitats
TRAL AFRICAN interspersed with gallery forest. Although
REPUBLIC many populations inhabit protected areas,
a great number of chimpanzee communi-
ties, especially on the western and eastern
UGANDA coasts of Africa, live outside of protected
areas, including the majority of individuals
Kitechura in countries such as Guinea, Liberia and
Matiri
Ibambaro 0° Sierra Leone (Brncic, Amarasekaran and
McKenna, 2010; Kormos et al., 2003; Tweh
Echuya
Masisi
RWANDA et al., 2014). In Indonesian Borneo, more
than half of the remaining orangutan popu-
BURUNDI
lations are currently found outside of pro-
CRATIC TANZANIA tected areas and large numbers of Sumatran
PLIC OF orangutans also occur outside of protected
NGO areas (Wich et al., 2011, 2012b).
Daily Behaviour Patterns

Great apes are adapted to a plant diet, but
ZAMBIA all taxa consume insects, and some kill and
OLA eat small mammals. Succulent fruits are
0 500 1,000 km the main source of nutrition for bonobos,
chimpanzees and orangutans, except at
Apes Overview
xxii
Figure AO2
Ape Distribution in Asia9
BHUTAN
INDIA Tram Tau CHINA

Muong Do
BANGLADESH
Xuan Son
Nangunhe Long Luong
TAIWAN
MYANMAR Hang Kia-Pa Co

Khe Net
Xuan Nha Thach Tuong
Pu Huong Ngoc Son-Ngo Luong
Pu Luong
Pu Hoat
LA Ben En
O Pu Hu Hainan
island
PD
Khe Giua
R
Bach Ma
THAILAND Thua Thien Hue
Ngoc linh
PIN E S
VIET NAM
South
CAMBODIA China
Andaman
IL I P
Sea Sea
PH
Gulf of Nui Ong
Thailand
Sulu Sea
Kudat No
rth
e
as
Tenom
tB
Keningau
BRUNEI
ornean oranguta
M A L A Y S an I A
e
rn C
Bo tan
I N
u
ora est
ng
East Singkil
hw
Borneo
D
Nort
n
SINGAPORE
I A
0°
N
Sumatra
O
C
ou
S
thw
I
E
est
N N Born
A
ean oranguta n
D O N E S I A
Java Sea
0 500 1,000 km
Map sources: U.S. National Park Servic

xxiii
altitudes where few fleshy fruits are available

(Wright et al., 2015). Gorillas rely heavily
on herbaceous vegetation but consume a
N Apes locally extirpated significant amount of fruit in nearly all
IUCN A.P.E.S. Database survey locations (Robbins, 2011). During certain
data coverage
Protected areas
periods, African apes concentrate on terres-
(IUCN categories I to IV) trial herbs or woody vegetation, such as
Hoolock gibbons bark. Similarly, in Asia, orangutans consume
Eastern hoolock (Hoolock leuconedys) more bark and young leaves when fruits
Western hoolock (Hoolock hoolock)
are scarce. Sumatran orangutans are more
Hylobates gibbons frugivorous than their Bornean relatives
Abbott’s gray gibbon
(Hylobates abbotti) (Russon et al., 2009).
Agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis) The area used habitually by an individual,
Bornean gray gibbon group or community of a species is referred
(Hylobates funereus)
Bornean white-bearded gibbon to as a home range. Establishment of a home
(Hylobates albibarbis) range helps secure access to resources within
Kloss’s gibbon (Hylobates klossii)
it (Delgado, 2010). Foraging in complex for-
Lar gibbon (Hylobates lar)
Moloch gibbon (Hylobates moloch) est environments requires spatial memory
Müller’s gibbon (Hylobates muelleri) and mental mapping. The great apes’ daily
Pileated gibbon (Hylobates pileatus) searches for food are generally restricted to
Nomascus gibbons a particular location, an area of forest that a
Cao Vit gibbon (Nomascus nasutus) group or individual knows well. Chimpanzees
Hainan gibbon (Nomascus hainanus)
Northern white-cheeked crested
are capable of memorizing the individual
gibbon (Nomascus leucogenys) locations of thousands of trees over many
Northern yellow-cheeked crested years (Normand and Boesch, 2009); the
gibbon (Nomascus annamensis)
Southern white-cheeked crested other great ape species are likely to possess
gibbon (Nomascus siki) similar mental capacities.
Southern yellow-cheeked crested Most great apes not only feed in trees, but
gibbon (Nomascus gabriellae)
Western black-crested gibbon also rest, socialize and sleep in them (although
(Nomascus concolor) gorillas are largely terrestrial). Being large-
Symphalangus genus brained, highly intelligent mammals, they
Siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus)
need long periods of sleep. With the excep-
Celebes
Pongo genus
tion of gorillas, who nest primarily on the
Sea Bornean orangutan
subspecies boundaries ground, great apes tend to spend the night
Bornean orangutan in nests that they build high up in the trees,
(Pongo pygmaeus)
Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii)
10–30 m above ground (Morgan et al., 2006).
0° African apes are semi-terrestrial and often
rest on the ground during the daytime, but
orangutans are almost exclusively arboreal.
More or less restricted to the canopy,
orangutans typically do not travel great
distances. Bornean flanged adult males
and adult females move 200 m each day,
unflanged adult males usually double that
distance. Sumatran orangutans move far-
ce, Esri, COGS
ther, but still less than 1 km each day on
Apes Overview
xxiv
average (Singleton et al., 2009). The semi- 2008). Bornean orangutans living in highly
terrestrial African apes range considerably seasonal dipterocarp forests are most likely
longer distances and the most frugivorous to conceive during mast fruiting events,
roam several kilometers each day: bono- when fatty seeds are plentiful (Knott, 2005).
bos and western lowland gorillas average Sumatran orangutans do not face such
2 km, but sometimes 5–6 km, while chim- severe constraints (Marshall et al., 2009;
panzees travel 2–3 km, with occasional Wich et al., 2006). Meanwhile, gorillas show
excursions up to 8 km. Savannah-dwelling no seasonality in their reproduction, as they
chimpanzees generally range farther daily are less dependent on seasonal foods.
than their forest-dwelling counterparts. All great apes have slow reproductive
rates, due to the mother’s high investment
in a single offspring and the infant’s slow
Reproduction
development and maturation. Infants sleep
Male apes reach sexual maturity between with their mother until they are weaned
the ages of 8 and 18 years: chimpanzees (4–5 years in African apes; 5–6 years in
attain adulthood at 8–15 years, bonobos at Bornean orangutans; 7 years in Sumatran
10, eastern gorillas around 12–15 and west- orangutans) or a subsequent sibling is born.
ern gorillas at 18. Orangutan males mature Weaning marks the end of infancy for
between the ages of 8 and 16 years, but they African apes, but orangutan infants remain
may not develop flanges for another 20 dependent on their mothers until they reach
years (Wich et al., 2004). Female great apes 7–9 years of age (van Noordwijk et al.,
become reproductively active between the 2009). Females cannot become pregnant
ages of 6 and 12 years: gorillas at 6–7 years, while an infant is nursing because suckling
chimpanzees at 7–8, bonobos at 9–12 and inhibits the reproductive cycle (Stewart, 1988;
orangutans at 10–11. They tend to give birth van Noordwijk et al., 2013). Consequently,
to their first offspring between the ages of births are widely spaced, occurring on aver-
8 and 16: gorillas at 10 (with a range of age every 4–7 years in African apes, every
8–14 years), chimpanzees at 13.5 years (with 6–8 years in Bornean orangutans and every
a mean of 9.5–15.4 years at different sites), 9 years in Sumatran orangutans. Interbirth
bonobos at 13–15 years and orangutans at intervals can be shortened by the death or
15–16 years. killing of unweaned offspring. Infanticide,
Gestation periods in gorillas and orang typically by an unrelated adult male, has been
utans are about the same as for humans; observed in gorillas (Harcourt and Greenberg,
they are slightly shorter in chimpanzees and 2001; Watts, 1989). Infanticide has not been
bonobos, at 7.5–8.0 months. Apes usually observed in orangutans or bonobos, but if
give birth to one infant at a time, although a female chimpanzee with an infant transfers
twin births do occur (Goossens et al., 2011). to a different group, her offspring is likely
Births are not seasonal; however, concep- to be killed by a male in her new group,
tion requires females to be in good health. resulting in early resumption of her repro-
Chimpanzees and bonobos are more likely ductive cycle (Wilson and Wrangham, 2003).
to ovulate when fruit is abundant, so in some Long-term research on mountain goril-
populations there are seasonal peaks in the las and chimpanzees has allowed female
numbers of conceiving females, with contin- lifetime reproductive success to be evaluated.
gent peaks in the birth rate during particular The mean birth rate is 0.2–0.3 births per
months (Anderson, Nordheim and Boesch, adult female per year, or one birth per
2006a; Emery Thompson and Wrangham, adult female every 3.3–5.0 years. Mountain

xxv
gorilla females produce an average of 3.6 patterns were conducted in the Virunga
offspring during their lifetimes (Robbins et Volcanoes, the only habitat in which gorillas
al., 2011). Although female chimpanzees occa- eat almost no fruit as it is virtually unavail-
sionally have twins, they usually give birth able (Watts, 1984). These conclusions were
to a single surviving offspring approximately adjusted once detailed studies were con-
every 5 to 6 years. However, in their lifetime, ducted on gorillas living in lower-altitude
female chimpanzees typically produce only habitats (Doran-Sheehy et al., 2009; Masi
1 to 4 offspring who will survive to reproduc- et al., 2015; Rogers et al., 2004; Wright et al.,
tive age (Thompson, 2013). 2015; Yamagiwa et al., 2003).
Key points to be noted are (1) that doc- Gorillas incorporate a notable amount
umenting the biology of long-lived species of fruit into their diets when it is available,
takes decades of research due to their slow but they are less frugivorous than bonobos
rates of reproduction, and (2) that great ape and chimpanzees, preferring vegetative
populations that have declined in numbers matter even at times of high fruit availability
are likely to take several generations to (Head et al., 2011; Morgan and Sanz, 2006;
recover (generation time in the great apes is Yamagiwa and Basabose, 2009). They rely
20–25 years) (IUCN, 2014d). These factors heavily on terrestrial herbaceous vegetation,
make great apes far more vulnerable than which often increases in availability in dis-
smaller, faster-breeding species. Orangutans turbed landscapes, such as abandoned farm-
have the slowest life history of any mam- land or plantations, selectively logged land,
mal, with later age at first reproduction, and areas that border on human settlements.
longer interbirth intervals and longer gen- Mountain gorillas are primarily terrestrial.
eration times than African apes (Wich et Although western gorillas are more arboreal,
al., 2009a, 2009b); as a result, they are the they still primarily travel on the ground and
most susceptible to loss. not through the tree canopy. The distance
traveled per day by gorillas declines with
increasing availability of understory vegeta-
Gorillas
tion, varying between approximately 500 m
Gorillas live in a broad range of habitats and 3 km per day (Robbins, 2011).
across Africa. As a result of their dietary Eastern gorillas range over areas of
patterns, they are restricted to moist forest 6–34 km2 (600–3,400 ha) (Robbins, 2011;
habitats (at altitudes ranging from sea level Williamson and Butynski, 2013a); western
to more than 3,000 m) and are not found in gorilla home ranges average 10–20 km2
forest–savannah mosaics or gallery forests (1,000–2,000 ha), and potentially up to 50 km2
inhabited by chimpanzees and bonobos. (5,000 ha) (Head et al., 2013). Gorillas are
Across their range, gorillas rely more not territorial but have overlapping home
heavily than any other ape species on herba- ranges that they do not actively defend.
ceous vegetation, such as the leaves, stems However, there is evidence that they have
and pith of understory vegetation, as well non-overlapping, exclusive core areas (the
as leaves from shrubs and trees (Doran- zone used the most by a group), suggesting
Sheehy et al., 2009; Ganas et al., 2004; Masi, that groups do partition their habitat (Seiler
Cipolletta and Robbins, 2009; Wright et al., et al., 2017).
2015; Yamagiwa and Basabose, 2009). Early As the density of gorillas increases, the
research suggested that gorillas ate very degree of home range overlap can increase
little fruit, a finding that can be attributed to dramatically, as can the frequency of inter-
the fact that initial studies of their dietary group encounters (Caillaud et al., 2014);
Apes Overview
xxvi
results can include increased fighting, inju- After a fight, victors may seize females or
ries and mortality. Encounters between territory from the vanquished.
groups can occur without visual contact, as Bonobo communities share home ranges
silverbacks may exchange vocalizations and of 20–60 km2 (2,000–6,000 ha) (Fruth et al.,
chestbeats until one or both groups move 2013). Bonobos exhibit neither territorial
away. Some encounters between groups defense nor cooperative patrolling; encoun-
involve more than auditory contact, how- ters between members of different commu-
ever, and can escalate to include aggressive nities involve excitement rather than conflict
displays or fights (Bradley et al., 2004; (Hohmann et al., 1999).
Robbins and Sawyer, 2007). Physical aggres- Chimpanzees and bonobos both live in
sion is rare, but if contests escalate, fighting multi-male and multi-female groups and
between silverbacks can be intense. Some are semi-terrestrial. The size of their home
gorillas have died from infections of inju- ranges varies in line with their group size,
ries sustained during such interactions the quality of the habitat and food avail-
(Williamson, 2014). ability, which may change from season to
season. Bonobos are not territorial, whereas
chimpanzees are generally highly intolerant
Chimpanzees and Bonobos
of neighboring groups; intergroup encoun-
Chimpanzees eat mainly fruit, although ters can result in lethal aggressive attacks
they have an omnivorous diet, which may among males in particular. The frequency
include plant pith, bark, flowers, leaves and of such encounters can be exacerbated by
seeds, as well as fungi, honey, insects and shifts in home ranges linked to habitat loss,
mammal species, depending on the habitat changes in habitat quality and disruptions
and the community; some groups may con- in their environment (e.g. roads, logging)
sume as many as 200 plant species (Humle, (Watts et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2014b).
2011). Terrestrial and arboreal, chimpanzees Bonobos are generally frugivorous but
live in multi-male–multi-female, fission– are more dependent on terrestrial herba-
fusion communities. A single community ceous vegetation, including aquatic plants,
will change size by fissioning into smaller than chimpanzees (Fruth et al., 2016).
parties according to resource availability Wherever gorillas and chimpanzees are
and activity (food and access to reproductive sympatric, dietary divisions between the
females). Parties thus tend to be smaller species limit direct competition for food
during periods of fruit scarcity. Adult female (Head et al., 2011). If the area of available
chimpanzees frequently spend time alone habitat is restricted, such mechanisms for
with their offspring or in a party with other limiting competition are compromised
females. (Morgan and Sanz, 2006).
Chimpanzees have home ranges of 7–
41 km2 (700–4,100 ha) in forest habitats
Orangutans
and more than 65 km2 (6,500 ha) in savannah
(Emery Thompson and Wrangham, 2013; Male orangutans are the dispersing sex:
Pruetz and Bertolani, 2009). Male chimpan- upon reaching sexual maturity, they leave
zees are highly territorial and patrol the the area where they were born to establish
boundaries of their ranges. Parties of males their own range. A male orangutan’s range
may attack members of neighboring com- encompasses several (smaller) female ranges.
munities and some populations are known High-status flanged males are able to monop-
for their aggression (Williams et al., 2008). olize both food and females to a degree and

xxvii
may thus temporarily reside in a relatively 2013). Consequently, orangutans are able to
small area—typically 4–8 km2 (400–800 ha) cross open artificial infrastructures to a cer-
for Bornean males (Mittermeier et al., 2013). tain extent. In Sabah, Malaysian Borneo, for
Orangutan home range overlap is usually example, orangutans have been seen cross-
extensive, but flanged orangutans establish ing sealed and dust roads when traffic is not
personal space by emitting long calls. As too heavy. Greater terrestriality in orang
long as distance is maintained, physical utans will increase the risk of contracting
conflicts are rare; however, close encounters diseases that the animals are not usually
between adult males trigger aggressive dis- exposed to when they live in the tree canopy;
plays that sometimes lead to fights. If an however, there is a dearth of information
orangutan inflicts serious injury on his about such new risks. When territories of
opponent, infection of the wounds can result resident individuals are destroyed, it is dif-
in death (Knott, 1998). ficult for them to establish a new territory if
Although they are primarily fruit-eaters, other animals already reside in nearby areas.
orangutans are able to adapt their diet to Indeed, resident animals who have lost their
what is available in the forest. In Borneo, territory, and cannot easily establish a new
they feed on more than 500 plant species range, slowly die off. However, adult unflanged
(Russon et al., 2009). The resilience of orang males do not have a territory and can thus
utans and their ability to cope, albeit tem- move away from a disturbed area and return
porarily, with drastic habitat changes is after the source of nuisance has been elimi-
further illustrated by recent records of spe- nated (Ancrenaz et al., 2010).
cies presence in acacia plantations in East
Kalimantan (Meijaard et al., 2010a); a mosaic
of mixed agriculture in Sumatra (Campbell- Gibbon Socioecology
Smith et al., 2011a); oil palm plantations in Gibbons are the most diverse and wide-
Borneo (Ancrenaz et al., 2015b); and in for- spread group of apes. Currently, 20 species
ests exploited for timber (Ancrenaz et al., of gibbon in 4 genera are recognized:
2010; Wich et al., 2016).
It must be noted, however, that orang 9 Hylobates species;
utan presence in these human-altered land
7 Nomascus species;
scapes does not imply the species’ long-term
survival. Orangutan survival is still depend- 3 Hoolock species; and
ent on a landscape mosaic with adequate the single Symphalangus species (Fan et
forest patches for food, shelter and other al., 2017; IUCN, 2017).
needs. Today, half of the wild orangutan
populations in Indonesian Borneo are sur- Gibbons inhabit a wide range of habitats,
viving outside of protected forests, in areas predominantly lowland, submontane and
that are prone to human development and montane broadleaf evergreen and semi-
transformation (Wich et al., 2012b). evergreen forests, as well as dipterocarp-
Orangutans are the largest arboreal dominated and mixed-deciduous (that is,
mammals in the world, but recent studies non-evergreen) forests. Some members of
have shown that they also walk on the the Nomascus genus also occur in limestone
ground for considerable distances in all karst forests and some populations of Hylo
types of natural and man-made habitats bates live in peat-swamp forest (Cheyne,
(Ancrenaz et al., 2014; Loken, Boer and 2010). Gibbons occur from sea level up
Kasyanto, 2015; Loken, Spehar and Rayadin, to around 1,500–2,000 m above sea level,
Apes Overview
xxviii
although their distribution is taxon- and 1994). Notable exceptions include extra-pair
location-specific; Nomascus concolor, for copulations (mating outside of the pair bond),
example, has been recorded at up to 2,900 m individuals leaving the home territory to
above sea level in China (Fan, Jiang and take up residence with neighboring individ-
Tian, 2009). uals and male care of infants (Lappan, 2008;
All gibbons are heavily impacted by the Palombit, 1994; Reichard, 1995). Research
extent and quality of forest as they are also indicates that the more northerly Cao
arboreal. Only rarely do they move biped- Vit, Hainan and western black crested gib-
ally and terrestrially across forest gaps or to bons commonly form polygynous groups
access isolated fruiting trees in more degraded with more than one breeding female (Fan
and fragmented habitats (Bartlett, 2007). and Jiang, 2010; Fan et al., 2010; Zhou et
Gibbons are reliant on forest ecosystems al., 2008). There is no conclusive argument
for food. Gibbon diets are characterized by regarding these variable social and mating
high levels of fruit intake, dominated by structures; they may be natural or a by-
figs and supplemented with young leaves, product of small population sizes, compres-
mature leaves and flowers (Bartlett, 2007; sion scenarios or suboptimal habitats.
Cheyne, 2008; Elder, 2009). Siamangs are Both males and females disperse from
more folivorous than other gibbons (Palombit, their natal groups and establish their own
1997). Reliance on other protein sources, territories (Leighton, 1987); females have
such as insects, birds’ eggs and small verte- their first offspring at around 9 years of age.
brates, is probably underrepresented in the Data from captivity suggest that gibbons
literature. The composition of the diet changes become sexually mature as early as 5.5 years
with the seasons and habitat type, with of age (Geissmann, 1991). Interbirth inter-
flowers and young leaves dominating during vals are in the range of 2–4 years, with 7
the dry season in peat-swamp forests and figs months gestation (Bartlett, 2001; Geissmann,
dominating in dipterocarp forests (Cheyne, 1991). Captive individuals have lived upwards
2010; Fan and Jiang, 2008; Lappan, 2009; of 40 years; gibbon longevity in the wild is
Marshall and Leighton, 2006). Since gibbons unknown but thought to be considerably
are important seed dispersers, their frugiv- shorter. Due to gibbons’ relatively late age
orous nature is significant in maintaining of maturation and long interbirth intervals,
forest diversity (McConkey, 2000, 2005; their reproductive lifetime may be only
McConkey and Chivers, 2007). 10–20 years (Palombit, 1992). Population
Gibbons are highly territorial and live in replacement in gibbons is therefore rela-
semi-permanent family groups defending a tively slow.
core area to the exclusion of other gibbons. Group demography changes only in the
Their territories average 0.42 km2 (42 ha) event of a death of one of the adults, as there
(Bartlett, 2007); however, there is consider- is no regular immigration or emigration into
able variation and some indication that the these social groups. Gibbons in habitat frag-
more northerly Nomascus taxa maintain ments are isolated from other groups and
larger territories, possibly related to lower dispersal is compromised, which may cause
resource abundance at some times of year long-term issues regarding the sustainabil-
in these more seasonal forests. ity of these populations. There is insufficient
Gibbons have been typified as forming information about dispersal distances for
socially monogamous family groups. Some subadult gibbons to determine maximum
studies, however, reveal that they are not distances over which they could disperse
necessarily sexually monogamous (Palombit, (perhaps with the assistance of canopy

xxix
bridges). Gibbons have not been observed further to 47,000 individuals by 2025. [. . .] many
to crop-raid—either from plantations or populations will be reduced or become extinct in
the next 50 years (Abram et al., 2015).”
small-scale farms—but this lack of informa-
3 The Tapanuli orangutan was described and dis-
tion does not mean gibbons will not exploit tinguished from the Sumatran orangutan as this
disturbed areas if necessary. volume of State of the Apes was being finalized
for publication. As a consequence, this new spe-
cies is only mentioned in the Apes Index, Table AO2
of this Overview and Case Study 6.4, and not in
Acknowledgments the rest of the volume.
Principal authors: Annette Lanjouw, Helga Rainer 4 The distribution and population estimates for the
and Alison White Tapanuli orangutan are based on earlier surveys
in the area where the species occurs. Since these
Socioecology section: Marc Ancrenaz, Susan M.
individuals were still being identified as Sumatran
Cheyne, Tatyana Humle, Benjamin M. Rawson,
orangutans at the time of the surveys, the cited ref-
Martha M. Robbins and Elizabeth A. Williamson
erence does not mention the Tapanuli orangutan.
Reviewers: Elizabeth J. Macfie and Serge Wich 5 For more detailed information, refer to Emery
Thompson and Wrangham (2013), Reinartz,
Ingmanson and Vervaecke (2013), Robbins (2011),
Wich et al. (2009b), Williamson and Butynski
Endnotes (2013a, 2013b), and Williamson et al. (2013).
1 This estimate for Sumatran orangutans is higher 6 Some of these countries were erroneously omitted
than that of about 6,500 individuals cited in the in the previous volume of State of the Apes. Benin,
previous volume of State of the Apes because it Burkina Faso, Gambia and Togo have been removed
considers three new factors: “a) orangutans were from the list as Pan troglodytes verus are extinct/
found in greater numbers at higher altitudes than possibly extinct in these countries.
previously supposed (i.e., up to 1,500 m asl [above 7 See Endnote 3.
sea level] not just to 1,000 m asl), b) they were
8 The Arcus Foundation commissioned the ape dis-
found to be more widely distributed in selectively-
tribution maps (Figures AO1 and AO2) for this
logged forests than previously assumed, and c)
publication, so as to provide the most accurate
orangutans were found in some previously unsur-
and up-to-date illustration of range data. This vol-
veyed forest patches. The new estimate does not,
ume also features maps created by contributors
therefore, reflect a real increase in Sumatran orang
who used ape range data from different sources. As
utan numbers. On the contrary, it reflects only much
a consequence, the maps may not all align exactly.
improved survey techniques and coverage, and
hence more accurate data. It is extremely impor- 9 See Endnote 8.
tant to note, therefore, that overall numbers con-
tinue to decline dramatically” (Singleton et al., 2016).
2 This estimate for Bornean orangutans is higher
than the figure cited in the previous volume of
State of the Apes, which suggests that about 54,000
individuals inhabited 82,000 km² (8.2 million ha)
of forest (Wich et al., 2008). Modeling and the
latest field data available for Borneo were used to
revise the map of the current distribution of
Bornean orangutans; the range now covers an
estimated 155,000 km² (15.5 million ha), or 21% of
Borneo’s landmass (Gaveau et al., 2014; Wich et
al., 2012b). As Ancrenaz et al. (2016) explain: “If
the mean average orangutan density recorded in
2004 (0.67 individuals/km²) is applied to the
updated geographic range, then the total popula-
tion estimate would be 104,700 individuals. This
represents a decline from an estimated 288,500
individuals in 1973 and is projected to decline
Apes Overview
Photo: Large dams affect the political, social and environmental landscape of a region. Bakun Hydroelectric Dam, Malaysia © MOHD RASFAN/AFP/Getty Images xxx

1
INTRODUCTION
Section 1: Infrastructure
Development and Ape
Conservation
T
his, the third in the State of the Apes
series, focuses on the impact of infra-
structure—such as roads, railways
and hydroelectric power plants—on
ape conservation and welfare. While infra-
structure for transport, energy and other pur-
poses may be designed to improve peoples’
lives, it often has negative consequences for
local communities and biodiversity. The
first two volumes of State of the Apes briefly
considered the impact of infrastructure on
apes and their habitat in relation to extrac-
tive industries and industrial agriculture;
this volume explores that relationship more
explicitly, featuring in-depth analysis of
large-scale infrastructure projects.
The State of the Apes

Series
Commissioned by the Arcus Foundation,
the State of the Apes series strives to raise
awareness of the impacts of human activi-
ties on all great ape and gibbon popula-
tions. Apes are vulnerable to a range of
threats that are primarily driven by humans,
Introduction Section 1
2
including hunting associated with the trade Infrastructure

in wild meat, body parts and live animals;
deforestation and degradation of habitat;
Development and
and the transmission of disease. Interactions Ape Conservation
between humans and apes continue to Both Africa and Asia are facing a number
increase as development and human popu- of development challenges, with expanding
lation growth drive further incursions into populations and increasing urbanization;
spaces that are inhabited by apes. By using rising demand for water, energy, food and
apes as an example, this publication series other commodities on a local, regional and
also aims to underscore the importance of global scale; predicted hydrological varia-
“
wider species conservation. bility due to climate change; and persistent
Infrastructure State of the Apes covers all non-human poverty and inequality.
encompasses bridges, ape species, namely bonobos, chimpanzees, Dams appear to offer a tempting range of
geothermal power gibbons, gorillas and orangutans, as well as benefits to meet development needs—they
plants, hydropower their habitats. Ape ranges are found through- can reduce floods, store water for irrigation,
dams, power lines and out the tropical belt of Africa and South provide energy for burgeoning populations
distribution networks, and Southeast Asia. Robust statistics on the and contribute to regional integration. The
ports and industrial status and welfare of apes are derived from social, environmental and economic costs
installations, such as the Ape Populations, Environments and and benefits of dams are not distributed
mines and pipelines, Surveys (A.P.E.S.) Portal (Max Planck Insti evenly, however, and oftentimes they are not
railways, roads and tute, n.d.-a). Abundance estimates of the
”
viable investments due to excessive cost and
tunnels. different ape taxa are presented in the Abun time overruns (International Rivers, n.d.-b).
dance Annex, available on the State of the Large dams also affect the political, social
Apes website at www.stateoftheapes.com. and environmental landscape of a region.
The annex is updated with each new volume Similarly, the development of road net-
in the series, to allow for comparisons over works is promoted as contributing to eco-
time. Details on the socioecology and geo- nomic and social development by providing
graphic range of each species are provided
in the Apes Overview.
Each volume in the State of the Apes
series is divided into two sections. Section 1 BOX I.1
focuses on the thematic topic of interroga- Definition of Infrastructure
tion, which in this case is infrastructure State of the Apes focuses on physical
development (see Box I.1). The immediate infrastructure and defines the term to refer
objectives are to provide accurate informa- to large, diverse structures that are built
to enable the provision of services for
tion on the current situation, present vari- households, industry and other entities
ous perspectives and, where applicable, (e.g., government buildings, state hospi-
highlight best practice. In the longer term, tals and schools) and that are closely
aligned with economic development. For
the key findings and messages are intended the purposes of this publication, infra-
to stimulate debate, multi-stakeholder col- structure refers to fixed assets that can
laboration and changes to policies and prac- form part of a large network. The term
encompasses bridges, geothermal power
tice that can facilitate the reconciliation of
plants, hydropower dams, power lines and
economic development and the conserva- distribution networks, ports and industrial
tion of biodiversity. Section 2 presents more installations, such as mines and pipelines,
railways, roads and tunnels.
general details on the status and welfare of
apes, in their natural habitat and in captivity.

3
access to markets and resources, without What makes potential investors want to
taking account of the environmental and invest and what makes them able to do so?
social costs. At least 25 million kilometers To arrive at meaningful answers, it is help-
of additional roads are anticipated world- ful to split the determinants of infrastruc-
wide by 2050—90% of them in developing ture investment into two broad categories:
nations, including many regions with excep- incentives and capacity. Factors that increase
tional biodiversity and vital ecosystem ser- incentives and capacity to invest while also
vices (Global Road Map, n.d.). As much of reducing disincentives can be expected to
the planned infrastructure is to be built in accelerate investment—and vice versa.
developing countries, ape habitat across the Incentives can be economic, political or
tropical belt of Africa and Asia will certainly both. Economic motives include generating
be affected. export revenues, opening land for agricul-
Before presenting chapter-by-chapter ture, accessing raw materials and moving
highlights of Section 1, this introduction goods between locations. Common political
explores the factors that influence the rate rationales are establishing government pres-
and extent of infrastructure development. ence, populating border regions, building
Summaries of Chapters 7–8 appear in the geopolitical alliances and capturing votes.
introduction to Section 2 (see p. 198). Key disincentives include high construc-
This volume describes various efforts to tion costs and political or local opposition.
mitigate the effects of infrastructure, such Even when elites want infrastructure, they
as roads and hydropower, across specific sec- will not get it unless they have the capacity
tors, including activism, planning, ecology, to produce and maintain it. That requires
legislation and advocacy. To understand and political support, funds, technical and man-
be able to address the adverse impacts of agerial capacity, and the ability to overcome
infrastructure development, it is important regulatory and administrative hurdles.
to know where these investments are likely to Generating new sources of tax revenue
occur and how rapidly they are developing. and implementing fiscal decentralization
The following sections explore the role of provide both incentives and capacity for
incentives, capacity, institutions, corruption infrastructure investment (Kis-Katos and
and finance in shaping infrastructure. Suharnoko Sjahrir, 2014).
Incentives and Capacity Institutions, Instability

Most reports about infrastructure invest- and Corruption
ment depend on government budgets, policy Political instability, inadequate planning,
documents, official pronouncements and limited administrative capacity, a lack of
company press releases for specific figures. trained staff and bureaucratic delays typi-
These sources have often proved unrelia- cally reduce a government’s ability to provide
ble, however, as many planned projects infrastructure, while also undermining pri-
never materialize, while others have large vate interest in partnerships (Berg et al., 2012;
cost overruns. Moreover, both proponents Galinato and Galinato, 2013; Gillanders,
and critics of infrastructure investments 2013; Kikawasi, 2012; Percoco, 2014). These
can benefit from exaggerating the rate at factors cause delays, disruptions and poor
which investors support development pro- maintenance, impeding effective investment
jects. In some cases, the rate actually exceeds (see Case Study 5.3). While opportunities
expectations. for bribes may motivate officials to promote
4
projects, corruption raises the costs and goals, strengths and weaknesses and oper-
slows progress (Collier, Kirchberger and ates in distinct environments. For decades,
Soderbom, 2015). national governments in developing coun-
“
In principle, strong judicial and regula- tries usually had to secure some funding from
In principle, tory systems, which ensure that projects MDBs and/or bilateral development agen-
strong judicial and meet environmental and social standards, cies if they wished to undertake large infra-
regulatory systems, can deter harmful infrastructure investments structure investment projects. Their weak
which ensure that in forest regions. That has certainly happened tax base limited their ability to finance
projects meet environ on some occasions. On balance, however, large projects on their own. Conversely, the
mental and social instability, institutional limitations and MDBs were interested in making large loans
standards, can deter corruption are probably greater constraints and had few resource constraints.
harmful infrastructure on infrastructure investments than well- After the World Bank and other MDBs
investments in forest functioning regulatory systems (Collier et adopted environmental and social safe-
”
regions. al., 2015; Galinato and Galinato, 2013). guards in the 1980s, the environmental
impacts of large infrastructure projects came
under greater scrutiny. It became harder
Political Support for national governments to borrow for pro-
and Opposition jects that were likely to harm the environment
(Currey, 2013). The MDBs were concerned
All the dominant economic paradigms see
about their reputation and pressure from
infrastructure investments as inherently
non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
positive. That applies as much to the more
Over the last decade or so, however,
developmental state visions as to the more
various trends have made it easier for
neoliberal, free-market views. This consensus
national governments to obtain funds for
gives these investments legitimacy and makes
controversial projects. Emerging-market
it easier to promote them. Nonetheless, in
development banks—such as the Asian
some regions, indigenous peoples and rural
Infrastructure Investment Bank, Brazilian
communities adamantly oppose such invest-
Development Bank, China Development
ments, particularly when they are linked to
Bank, Development Bank of Southern Africa
large-scale mining and energy projects or
and New Development Bank—have par-
plantations. National and international envi-
tially replaced the traditional MDBs. These
ronmental groups often support such oppo-
new banks put a premium on geopolitical
sition. Through demonstration, litigation,
considerations, such as gaining political
advocacy and other strategies, they have
allies, securing access to markets and raw
blocked or delayed many projects (see Case
materials, and supporting national compa-
Study 6.2).
nies. They tend to be less concerned about
environmental considerations and less
susceptible to pressure from NGOs (Kahler
Changes in Investment
et al., 2016). There has also been an upswing
Sources in private funding, as market-friendly ideol-
Most funds for infrastructure come from ogies and low international interest rates have
the governments of developing countries, led governments to work with private banks
multilateral development banks (MDBs), and construction companies. Meanwhile,
bilateral aid agencies, emerging-market to remain competitive, some believe that
development banks and private companies. the World Bank has weakened its own
Each type of agency or lender has different safeguard policies (see Box 1.4 and Box 5.1).

5
These evolving dynamics can greatly areas—in the face of large-scale infrastruc-
affect levels of investment, as can domestic ture development. Results suggest that as
instability. In Brazil, for example, corrup- roads spread across sub-Saharan Africa,
tion scandals and the national political and they will cut through one-third of all exist-
economic crisis recently forced the Brazilian ing protected areas. The chapter encourages
Development Bank to curtail its activities a more considered approach to land use
beyond the country’s borders (Molina et and infrastructure planning, as well as the
al., 2015). application of the “mitigation hierarchy” to
reduce threats to critical habitats. Chapter 5
presents three case studies on proposed road
Chapter Highlights: developments in the ape ranges of Cross River
State, Nigeria; the Dawei region connecting
Infrastructure Thailand and Myanmar; and the northern
Development and region of the Democratic Republic of Congo
Ape Conservation (DRC). In documenting the role of con-
“
servation organizations in these cases, the
The first six chapters of this volume of State chapter identifies a variety of approaches and Over the last
of the Apes interrogate the interface between common challenges. Chapter 6 considers decade or so, various
ape conservation and large-scale infrastruc- the engagement of social and environmen- trends have made it
ture development. Chapter 1 presents an tal actors in relation to energy development. easier for national
overview of proposed infrastructure pro- It presents case studies involving dam con- governments to obtain
jects in the ape habitats of Asia and Africa. struction projects in Cameroon and Sarawak, funds for controversial
It explores the role of major economies Malaysian Borneo, a geothermal project in infrastructure projects
such as China and multilateral financial Indonesia’s Leuser ecosystem, as well as a through emerging-
institutions in the expansion of infrastruc- planning approach developed by a conser- market development
ture in the tropical belt and considers the vation organization to mitigate the impacts banks and private
”
potential impacts of specific planned infra- of hydropower development. funding.
structure projects. Chapter 2 assesses the Section 2 provides updates on in situ ape
impacts of infrastructure development on conservation in Africa and Asia (Chapter 7)
apes and people, highlighting issues ranging and the welfare of apes in captivity (Chap
from displacement and loss of ancestral ter 8). The highlights for these two chapters
land, and habitat destruction and forest are included in the Introduction to Section 2
degradation, to disruptions in access to (see p. 198).
food, clean water and shelter, to road kills,
increased poaching and the introduction
of disease. Chapter 3 discusses the findings Chapter 1: Challenges and
of a historical analysis of road construc- Opportunities in Sustainable
tion in three ape sites and describes how
these infrastructure projects have affected
Infrastructure Development
ape forest habitat over time. The chapter pro- This chapter considers the current unprec-
poses approaches that can serve to mini- edented rate of global infrastructure expan-
mize environmental damage, as well as tools sion and the factors that typically prevent
that allow for effective forest monitoring. resulting benefits from being distributed
Chapter 4 explores the robustness of one equitably. It explores the role of multilat-
of the most commonly used conservation eral financial institutions and major econ-
strategies—the establishment of protected omies, such as China, in backing proposed
6
infrastructure projects in the ape range states species ecology into infrastructure plan-
of Africa and Asia. Specifically, it examines ning is required. Significant knowledge gaps
the extent to which ape habitat is likely to remain, however.
be degraded by “development corridors” In assessing the social impacts of infra-
such as the LAPSSET (Lamu Port, South structure development, the chapter considers
Sudan, Ethiopia Transport) corridor, which road and rail projects in southern Cameroon,
“
is to slice through the Congo Basin; the as well as the Chad–Cameroon pipeline.
This volume Central African Iron Ore Corridor, which When undertaken in customary land, such
demonstrates the will cross the Republic of Congo, Cameroon infrastructure development can have a neg-
value of anticipating and Gabon, comprising road, rail and hydro ative impact on the livelihoods, cultural
development, planning power components; and the Simandou iron practices and norms of indigenous peoples,
early, forming partner ore project in southeastern Guinea. The who traditionally manage and utilize forest
ships, establishing chapter identifies promising alternatives to resources sustainably. Conservation efforts
robust monitoring such destructive development projects, high- designed to mitigate and offset adverse
and relying on lighting the advantages of “leapfrogging” effects of infrastructure development on bio-
empirical evidence traditional grid-based energy infrastruc- diversity can also have negative impacts on
to reconcile conserva ture in favor of decentralized renewables, as indigenous peoples.
tion objectives with well as the benefits of carrying out strategic
those of infrastructure land use planning to protect ape habitat and
”
development. biodiversity more broadly. Chapter 3: Effects of Road
Projects in Ape Landscapes
Chapter 2: Impacts of This chapter presents analysis of changes
in forest cover around roads that were sub-
Infrastructure on Apes stantially upgraded between 2000 and 2014
and People in ape forest habitat in Northern Sumatra,
This chapter assesses the environmental and Indonesia, and western Tanzania, as well as
social impacts of infrastructure develop- in Peru’s tropical forest, which is home to
ment, highlighting issues ranging from dis- primates but not apes. In these case studies,
placement, loss of land and habitat, and satellite imagery and associated spatial data
forest degradation to disruptions in access analysis tools are used to reveal changes
to food, clean water and shelter. Among the in canopy cover. The studies demonstrate
most serious environmental impacts is the that geospatial data can serve to inform
increased access that infrastructure-related road siting and the design of measures to
roads and settlements provide to critical minimize the impact of infrastructure on
habitat. Such access tends to exacerbate wildlife habitat.
illegal hunting, habitat loss and fragmenta- The findings show that forested areas
tion, degradation of ecological integrity, the near roads are highly vulnerable to defor-
frequency of disease outbreaks, and wild- estation. In particular, roads facilitate the
life mortality and injury rates. Projections development of uncontrolled settlements,
show that, by 2030, fewer than 10% of ape which tends to be accompanied by a rise in
ranges in Africa and only about 1% of poaching and farming; they also enable
those in Asia will remain untouched by illegal access to protected areas, such as the
infrastructure development and the asso- Leuser Ecosystem. The chapter argues that
ciated habitat disturbance. If this trajectory an integrated approach to infrastructure
is to be avoided, greater incorporation of planning is required if critical habitats are

7
to be preserved. In instances where roads Chapter 5: Case Studies

cannot be rerouted to avoid protected areas,
of Large-Scale Road
such planning can ensure that road design
incorporates measures to mitigate negative Development
impacts on natural areas. The chapter illus- This chapter explores how advance planning
trates the value of satellite imagery and that is evidence-based and inclusive can
platforms such as Global Forest Watch to help to minimize the negative impacts of
both forest monitoring and sustainable road development on biodiversity. To that
road development. end, it presents three case studies on pro-
posed road development in ape ranges in
Africa and Asia: the Cross River superhigh-
Chapter 4: Apes, Protected way of Cross River State, Nigeria; the Dawei
Areas and Infrastructure road between Thailand and Myanmar; and
in Africa the Pro-Routes project in the DRC. By inter
rogating how conservation actors are engag-
In Africa, many development corridors are ing with different road projects that present
being planned or are already under con- major threats to great ape and gibbon habi-
struction in areas of high environmental tat, the analysis reveals a range of approaches
value, including critical ape habitat. This and common challenges.
chapter shows that as road networks and The case studies demonstrate that sus-
related infrastructure spread across equa- tainable infrastructure development requires
torial Africa, they are likely to cut through the active participation of a range of stake-
more than one-third of all existing pro- holders. Specifically, the chapter highlights
tected areas in sub-Saharan Africa. Bwindi the importance of advocacy by local and
Impenetrable National Park, a stronghold international conservation NGOs in Nigeria,
of the mountain gorilla, is among the areas civil society engagement with industry and
at risk. Across the continent, protected government actors in Myanmar, and the
areas that are considered to be obstacles inclusion of conservation actors early on in
to large-scale infrastructure development the planning and implementation of mitiga-
are particularly vulnerable to reduction or tion measures in the DRC. All case studies
degazzettement. underscore the importance of integrating
The chapter encourages a more consid- ecosystem and wildlife considerations in the
ered approach to land use and infrastruc- planning and design of roads. Unless polit-
ture planning. It argues for an expanded ical actors and decision-makers prioritize
application of the “mitigation hierarchy” to environmental concerns, however, conserva-
reduce threats to critical habitats while also tionists will remain reliant on standards and
calling for viable financial strategies to help safeguards that may be weakly enforced or
developing nations meet pressing economic poorly applied, if at all.
and food-production needs. The chapter
presents the DRC’s Virunga National Park
as an example of a successful approach to Chapter 6: Case Studies of
balancing economic and environmental
priorities; as part of its program of socio-
Renewable Energy Projects
economic development, the park provides Hydropower is by far the largest source of
energy and tourism revenue to local com- renewable energy, and projections suggest
munities and businesses. that its global capacity may double by 2040.
8
This expansion is likely to entail the con- most likely at the opposite extremes. At one
struction of thousands of new large dams end of the spectrum, weak, unstable and
and tens of thousands of small dams. The corrupt governments are unable to fund,
plans are proceeding despite the availabil- construct or maintain projects that would
ity of more sustainable, more cost-effective threaten forests, thus inadvertently pre-
energy alternatives, and notwithstanding serving habitat. At the other end, in stable
evidence that the oft-touted economic ben- countries with transparent governments
efits of dams rarely materialize for the vul- and effective regulatory systems, opposition
nerable sectors of society. The rapid growth forces and civil society can put a brake on
of hydropower is certain to have substan- harmful projects. The greatest risks to
tial environmental and social ramifications, wildlife and their habitat lie between these
ranging from the disruption of hydrological extremes, in countries where institutions are
connectivity and the destruction of upstream weak, rulers and officials are corrupt, and
terrestrial habitats to the emission of high conservation actors are silenced or treated
levels of greenhouse gases. The chapter indi- with indifference.
cates that hydropower development is likely Many ape range states sit in the middle
to impact apes in Asia more significantly of this spectrum. This volume of State of the
than in Africa, with gibbons identified as Apes seeks to avert situations in which the
particularly vulnerable. natural world is particularly vulnerable to
Two of the chapter’s case studies explore infrastructure development, by providing
the environmental and social impacts of dam accurate information on the current situa-
development in ape ranges in Cameroon tion, identifying challenges and possible
and in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. The first solutions, and leveraging the iconic status
considers the challenges of implementing of apes to contribute to the overall conserva-
best practices designed to protect apes once tion of tropical forest ecosystems. It demon-
a project shifts from the planning to the strates the value of anticipating development,
construction phase; the second explores planning early, forming partnerships, estab-
how community activism and collaboration lishing robust monitoring and relying on
between communities and scientists can empirical evidence to reconcile conserva-
block the construction of destructive dams. tion objectives with those of infrastructure
Given that hydropower is not the only form development in the ape ranges of Africa and
of renewable energy associated with adverse Asia—and in wildlife habitat elsewhere.
impacts, the chapter also features a case
study on the implications of a proposed
geothermal plant in Sumatra’s Leuser Eco
Acknowledgments
system. The chapter also presents a system-
scale hydropower planning and design Principal authors: David Kaimowitz1 and Helga Rainer2
framework—“Hydropower by Design”—
which was developed to mitigate the impacts
of hydropower development. Endnotes
1 Ford Foundation (www.fordfoundation.org)
2 Arcus Foundation (www.arcusfoundation.org)
Conclusion
On a spectrum of government capacity to
undertake infrastructure development, the
conservation of ape habitat appears to be

9
SECTION 1
Photo: By 2050, an additional 25 million kilometers of paved roads are expected to crisscross the earth—enough to encircle the planet more than 600 times. © Waldo Swiegers/Bloomberg via Getty Images 10

11
CHAPTER 1
Towards More Sustainable

Infrastructure: Challenges and
Opportunities in Ape Range
States of Africa and Asia
Introduction
We are living in one of the most dramatic
eras of infrastructure expansion in human
history. By 2050, an additional 25 million
kilometers of paved roads are expected to
crisscross the earth—enough to encircle
the planet more than 600 times. In addi-
tion to the growth in road networks, work on
other infrastructure projects—such as rail-
roads, hydroelectric dams, power lines, gas
lines and industrial mines—is expected to
increase sharply over the next few decades
(Laurance and Balmford, 2013; Laurance
and Peres, 2006).
Roads and other infrastructure have
strong and intimate links with economic
growth, frontier expansion, globalization,
land colonization, agriculture and economic
Chapter 1 Challenges and Opportunities

12
and social integration (Hettige, 2006; Roads and other infrastructure often open
Weinhold and Reis, 2008; Weng et al., up remote areas to a range of human
2013). Unfortunately, such projects can also pressures, such as deforestation, poach-
have severe impacts on many ecosystems ing, illegal mining and land speculation.
and species (Adeney, Christensen and Rising demands for natural resources
Pimm, 2009; Blake et al., 2007; Fearnside and energy, as well as the rapid growth
and Graça, 2006; Forman and Alexander, of multinational transportation net-
1998; Laurance, Goosem and Laurance, works, are providing a key impetus for
2009; Laurance et al., 2001; see Chapter 2). building new infrastructure.
Roads that penetrate into wilderness areas, The explosive pace of infrastructure
for example, often have profound and pro- development is partly the result of ambi-
liferating environmental effects—such as tious schemes to promote economic
promoting habitat loss and fragmentation, growth via increased access to land and
poaching, illegal mining and wildfires natural resources, and partly an indirect
(Adeney et al., 2009; Laurance et al., 2001, symptom of more fundamental driv-
2009; see Chapter 3). Even relatively narrow ers, such as rising population growth,
(10–100-m wide) clearings associated with increased per capita consumption, eco-
forest roads can hinder or completely halt nomic disparity and the heavy national-
the movements of some ecologically special- level focus on extractive industries.
ized fauna, such as forest-interior or strictly
Via its ambitious international policies,
arboreal species that require a continuous
China is having a dramatic impact on
canopy (Laurance, Stouffer and Laurance,
infrastructure expansion in developing
2004; Laurance et al., 2009).
nations. This expansion is designed to
The remarkable pace of infrastructure
gain access to natural resources.
expansion in developing nations—and its
Environmental assessment and mitiga-
very real potential to provoke profound envi-
tion efforts for many infrastructure pro-
ronmental harm—underscores an urgent
jects are inadequate, often seriously so.
need for better planning and management
of new infrastructure projects to allow for Alarmingly, major multilateral lenders
the mitigatation of their adverse effects are loosening some environmental and
(Laurance and Balmford, 2013). This chapter social safeguards. In target nations, large
identifies key issues revolving around the influxes of foreign capital for infrastruc-
proliferation of large-scale infrastructure, ture projects and extractive industries
often provoke a variety of negative eco-
focusing in particular on their potential
nomic and social consequences, unless
effects on critical ape habitats in equatorial
managed carefully.
Africa and Asia.
Innovative solutions, such as an increased
emphasis on “green” energy sources and
natural capital, could lessen the nega-
Key Findings
tive impacts of some infrastructure.
The contemporary pace of infrastructure In view of the rapid pace of infrastruc-
expansion is unprecedented. A majority ture expansion, two urgent priorities
of the projects are planned or underway emerge: the need for (1) strategic regional
in biodiversity-rich developing nations, planning, and (2) efforts to prevent infra-
including all ape range states in the structure from expanding into remain-
African and Asian tropics. ing wilderness and protected areas.

13
Infrastructure: The threats to wildlife from humans Photo: A researcher exam-

ines the skull of a western
entering into their habitats are indisputable.
A Game Changer From 2002 to 2011 alone, nearly two-thirds
lowland gorilla found in
Nouabalé-Ndoki National
Park, Republic of Congo,
Global Infrastructure of Africa’s forest elephants were slaughtered November 2016. The
cause of the ape’s death
(Maisels et al., 2013). Ape populations are
The contemporary scale of global infra- is unknown, although
particularly vulnerable to hunting because poachers are increasingly
structure expansion is unprecedented. From detected inside the park
they are highly desirable as wild meat in
2010 to 2050, the total length of paved near upgraded roads that
some areas, are diurnal and conspicuous, skirt its boundaries.
roads worldwide is expected to increase by © William Laurance
have delayed maturation and slow rates
more than 60% (Dulac, 2013). In Asia, scores
of reproduction, and have restricted geo-
of hydroelectric dams and associated energy
graphic distributions (Chapman, Lawes
and transportation projects are planned
and Eeley, 2006; Cowlishaw and Dunbar,
for the Mekong River and its tributaries
2000; Robinson, Redford and Bennett, 1999;
(Grumbine, Dore and Xu, 2012). Meanwhile,
Struhsaker, 1999; see Chapter 2).
several mega-dams are planned for Africa’s
Congo Basin (Laurance et al., 2015a). In fact,
Africa is currently experiencing unprece-
dented foreign investment for mineral exploi-
tation, with China alone investing more
than US$100 billion annually (Edwards et al.,
2014). Such investments are a key economic
impetus for 35 planned or ongoing “develop-
ment corridors” that would exceed 53,000 km
in length and crisscross sub-Saharan Africa,
opening up vast areas for economic exploita-
tion (Laurance et al., 2015b; Weng et al., 2013;
see Figure 1.1).
Environmental Impacts
The rapid proliferation of infrastructure is
having substantial and often irreversible
impacts on many ecosystems and species
(Adeney et al., 2009; Blake et al., 2007;
Clements et al., 2014; Fearnside and Graça,
2006; Laurance et al., 2001, 2009). In the
Brazilian Amazon, the construction of new
roads, hydroelectric dams, power lines and
gas lines is projected to cause major increases
in the rates of forest loss, fragmentation and
degradation (Laurance et al., 2001). In the
Congo Basin, more than 50,000 km of log-
ging and other roads have been built since
2000, greatly increasing access to forests for
poachers and hunters armed with modern
rifles and cable snares (Kleinschroth et al.,
2015; Laporte et al., 2007).

14
FIGURE 1.1
Status of Major Development Corridors in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2015
Northern (U)
Northern (A)
Dakar–Port Djibouti (F)
Harcourt (F)
Conakry–
Buchanan (F)
Gulf of Guinea (F)

Sekondi–Ouagadougou (F)
Douala–N’Djamena & Douala–Bangui (F) LAPSSET (F)
Douala–N’Djamena & Douala–Bangui (U) Mombasa (F)
Tanga (U)
Douala–N’Djamena & Douala–Bangui (A)
Central (F)
Cameroon–Chad (A) Central (A)
Mablam Railway (F) Uhuru–TAZARA (U)
Mtwara (A)
Libreville–Lomie (F)
Luanda–Cabinda (F)
Nacala (U)
Bas Congo (A)
Malanje (F)
Lobito (U)
Namibe (U)
Walvis Bay (A) Zambeze (U)
Beira (U)
0 1,000 2,000 km Limpopo (A)
Maputo (A)
Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests Lubombo (F)
Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests North–South (A)
Tropical and subtropical coniferous forests Montane grasslands and shrublands
Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests Mediterranean forests,
woodlands and scrub
Temperate coniferous forests
Deserts and xeric shrublands
Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannah
and shrublands Mangroves
Temperate grasslands, savannah and shrublands Lakes
Flooded grasslands and savannah A Already active
F Planned for the future
Source: Reprinted from Laurance et al., 2015b,
with permission from Elsevier U Upgrade planned or underway

15
Infrastructure projects related to natural new dams planned for the Tapajós River
resource exploitation, such as mining, fossil alone are projected to increase deforestation
fuel and hydroelectric projects, have direct by nearly 10,000 km2 (1 million hectares
environmental impacts and also provide a (ha)), predominantly by increasing access
key economic impetus for road building to remote forests for colonists and land
(Edwards et al., 2014; Laurance et al., 2009; speculators (Barreto et al., 2014). Scores of
WWF, 2006; see Box 1.1). Consequently, new dams planned for Southeast Asia
such projects and roads cannot be planned might have comparably serious impacts on
or studied independently of one another. great ape and gibbon habitats (Grumbine
In the Amazon–Andes region, for instance, et al., 2012).
proposals currently envision more than 330
hydroelectric dams (with a total capacity
of more than 1 megawatt); these projects
Inferring Long-Term Impacts
would require extensive road networks for of Infrastructure
both the dams and associated power line In the wet and humid tropical forests that
construction (Fearnside, 2016b; Laurance serve as ape habitat, rivers are a conspicu-
et al., 2015a). In the southeastern Amazon, ous feature. Used as natural “highways” for
BOX 1.1 logistical efficiency and increase frontier security (AgDevCo,

2013; Weng et al., 2013). Development corridors can also be
Infrastructure for Extractive Industries the legacy of investment in extractives long after closure of
Escalating Demand the initial resource extraction project.
In Africa, the 35 planned and initiatied development corridors
Starting in 2003, sharply rising prices for oil, gas and miner-
are sure to be transformational (Laurance et al., 2015b; WWF,
als—spurred in particular by growing demand from China and
2015b). In East Africa, for example, the Lamu Port, South
other developing Asian nations—made it economically fea-
Sudan, Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) corridor is to comprise
sible to exploit ever more remote regions of the world. Such
port facilities, airports, cities, tourist resorts, highways, railways,
conditions can create a powerful economic impetus for
pipelines and fossil fuel, hydropower and water-reticulation
building new roads, railroads and waterways, especially to
schemes. In 2013, projected costs for this venture were esti-
ferry low-value, high-volume commodities such as iron ore,
mated at more than US$29 billion (Warigi, 2015).
copper and coal over long distances to ports, refineries and
smelters. Conflicts with nature conservation can easily arise In Asia, the massive “Belt and Road” initiative, launched in
because many natural resources are located in remote regions 2013, is a prominent feature of China’s current Five-Year Plan
with high conservation value—including, in some cases, (2016–20). This scheme aims to reinvent ancient silk trade
critical habitats for apes (Nellemann and Newton, 2002). routes between China and Europe and to expand Beijing’s
political, economic and cultural influence. It also extends to
Since 2014, declines in commodity prices have slowed the
Africa, via a “21st-Century Maritime Silk Road.” Fueled by
expansion of new mining ventures, but this is probably just
massive investments from both China (US$40 billion) and the
a temporary respite.1 As demand and prices are likely to rise Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), this landmark
again in the future, the current economic slowdown may be venture will involve more than 70 nations. To date, the AIIB
seen as a “window of opportunity” in which to implement has been authorized to disburse US$100 billion to promote
direly needed environmental and social safeguards wherever new global infrastructure (Honjiang, 2016).
possible (Hobbs and Kumah, 2015).
Similarly, the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infra
structure of South America is etching new highways and
Development Corridors
other transportation and energy infrastructure across South
The construction of large-scale infrastructure, such as roads, America (Killeen, 2007; Laurance et al., 2001). Many of the
railroads, power lines and gas lines, is increasingly being initiatives’ projects are penetrating into remote regions of the
planned and concentrated along so-called “development Amazon, Andes and beyond, where they are likely to pro-
corridors” (Hobbs and Butkovic, 2016). Political support for voke sharp increases in rates of forest loss, fragmentation,
such corridors revolves around their potential to catalyze hunting and illegal gold mining. In the Brazilian Amazon, for
economic growth and trade, unlock private sector and instance, 95% of all deforestation occurs within 5.5 km of a
development finance, encourage regional integration, improve legal or illegal road (Barber et al., 2014).

16
Photo: Illegal dwellings millennia, rivers facilitate human movement, Rivers can thus be considered ecological
along a river in the interior
of the Leuser Ecosystem settlement, trade and hunting. They also analogs to roads—but ones that have existed
in northern Sumatra,
form long-term biogeographic barriers for for many millennia. Rivers might provide
Indonesia—critical habitat
for the Sumatran orangutan apes and other species, promoting genetic long-term insight into road impacts, just as
(Pongo abelii) and two
gibbon species, 2016.
isolation and the evolution of distinctive new land-bridge islands have been used to provide
© Suprayudi species or subspecies (Gascon et al., 2000; long-term perspectives on rates of popula-
Harcourt and Wood, 2012). tion extinction in fragmented habitats, since

17
they were once linked to mainland areas—

during past ice ages, when sea levels were BOX 1.2
lower—but have been isolated for millennia
Can Rivers Teach Us About Infrastructure?
since (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Wilcox,
1978). Although rivers differ from roads in As human activities penetrate ever deeper into ape habitats, maintain-
ing ecological connectivity within intact forest blocks—particularly
several respects, they might yield insight that across linear infrastructures such as roads, railways, pipelines and
is otherwise very difficult to infer (see Box 1.2). power lines—is vital to prevent the fragmentation of larger wildlife
populations into many smaller, isolated ones. Rivers have been used
as human transportation corridors for millennia and can also halt or
hinder animal movements; in that sense, they may share certain char-
acteristics with roads.
Given the explosive rate of infrastructure expansion, linear infra-
structure will increasingly allow for human access to remote areas,
facilitating hunting and wildlife trafficking, and hindering animal
movements (Blake et al., 2008; Laurance et al., 2004, 2008, 2009;
Van Der Hoeven, De Boer and Prins, 2010; Vanthomme et al., 2013,
2015). Navigable rivers play comparable roles as natural arteries for
human movements. In the rainforests of Central Africa, for example,
many human settlements are located along navigable rivers or their
estuaries, including major cities such as Bangui, Brazzaville, Douala,
Libreville, Kinshasa and Kisangani. In addition to being corridors,
however, rivers can also hinder human movement, as crossing them
requires bridges, rafts or boats.
In biogeographic terms, larger rivers have more profound impacts on
the distribution of wildlife than do smaller rivers. This “river-width
effect” was first noted in the 19th century in Amazonian monkeys and
has since been studied in detail (Ayres and Clutton-Brock, 1992;
Wallace, 1849). Ape distributions have been strongly influenced by
river barriers. While the Oubangui River marks the eastern limit of the
western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla), other rivers divide up genetically dis-
tinct subpopulations of this species (Anthony et al., 2007; Fünfstück
et al., 2014; Mitchell et al., 2015; Williamson and Butynski, 2013b).
Similarly, the Congo River has separated bonobos (Pan paniscus)
from other African ape populations for around two million years (Prüfer
et al., 2012; Reinartz, Ingmanson and Vervaecke, 2013).
In terms of their effects on wildlife, rivers and roads appear function-
ally similar in many respects. Wildlife responses to rivers are species-
specific; while gorillas are unwilling to cross deep rivers, elephants will
readily swim across them. Regardless of such distinctions, however,
bonobos, chimpanzees, elephants and a number of other wildlife spe-
cies all show consistent trends in terms of declines in population density
near roads and rivers used by poachers (Blake et al., 2007; Hickey et
al., 2013; Laurance et al., 2008; Maisels et al., 2013; Stokes et al.,
2010; WCS, 2015c). In a positive sense, the barrier effects of roads
and rivers can slow the spread of infectious diseases such as Ebola in
apes (Cameron et al., 2016; Walsh, Biek and Real, 2005). Such barriers
may be linked to the inability of apes or a disease-reservoir species to
traverse rivers or roads efficiently (Cameron et al., 2016).
Rivers can offer important analogs for roads, particularly as avenues
that are readily used by poachers. For non-swimming species, rivers are
likely to be stronger barriers than roads of comparable width, whereas
the two may be roughly similar for swimming species. Wildlife man-
agers could potentially learn much from studying river systems and
how they have affected the distributions of apes and other fauna over
large time periods.

18
Photo: Increasingly, China

is linking infrastructure Drivers of Infrastructure all global economic growth over the period
2011–15 (NBS of China, n.d.). Increasingly,
investments with policies
that promote overseas Expansion China is linking infrastructure investments
trade, economic and politi-
cal influence, and the acqui- Rapid Economic Growth from its corporations and multilateral lend-
sition of large stocks of
in Asia ers with policies that promote overseas trade,
minerals, fossil fuels, timber
and other natural resources. economic and political influence, and the
Kaleta, Guinea © Waldo Contemporary investment in infrastructure acquisition of large stocks of minerals, fossil
Swiegers/Bloomberg via
Getty Images
is unprecedented in terms of its scale and fuels, timber and other natural resources.
pace. Since just after 2000, rapid economic
growth in Asia—and especially in China
(see Box 1.3)—has been a major driver of Multilateral Financial
new infrastructure projects both within and
Institutions
outside the continent. In recent decades,
China’s gross domestic product has grown China is far from the only driver of infra-
at an average rate of 10% annually, from structure expansion around the globe. During
just over US$200 billion in 1980 to US$8.6 their 2014 global summit, the heads of state
trillion in 2013 (The Guardian, n.d.). of the G20 nations—comprising the world’s
China is now the world’s second-largest largest economies—committed to invest
economy, having contributed one-quarter of US$60–US$70 trillion in new infrastructure
BOX 1.3 Chinese overseas investments and contracts. As a result,

China’s direct international investment multiplied rapidly,
China’s Growth and Global Infrastructure from US$2.7 billion in 2002 to US$118 billion in 2015 (MoC,
Economic Expansion 2016b). During this period, the country became the second-
largest foreign investor worldwide, after the United States
China’s remarkable economic growth, together with its ambi- (MoC, 2014, 2016a).
tious development and international outreach policies, has had
The national government of Xi Jinpeng is continuing to pro-
major impacts on global infrastructure expansion. The nation’s
mote the Chinese model of infrastructure development as the
growth rate began to accelerate in 1978 with the government’s
first step to development internationally. Starting in 2013, Xi
landmark “reform and opening up” policy, which planted the
announced three major initiatives: (1) domestic supply-side
seeds of private enterprise. Growth was further promoted in
reform, (2) an acceleration of strategic adjustment of China’s
the 1980s and 1990s by rapid internal infrastructure expansion,
economic structure, and (3) the “Belt and Road” initiative,
and in the following decade by international expansion under named after the Chinese term for “one belt, one road.” The
the country’s “going global” policy. The latter was prompted government also established two major financial institutions
in part by China’s huge trade surpluses and accumulation of to support these initiatives, the Silk Road Fund and the Asian
foreign reserves, which it decided to use to invest abroad and Infrastructure Investment Bank (Knowledge@Wharton, 2017).
to obtain overseas assets (GEI, 2013).
On the strength of such ambitious efforts, the Chinese role in
China’s push to expand and improve its internal infrastructure developing international infrastructure has expanded rapidly.
began when the government, realizing that weak infrastruc- In 2014, for example, Chinese “build–operate–transfer pro-
ture was hindering its socioeconomic development, began jects”—in which the private sector builds an infrastructure
investing heavily in its energy, telecommunications and trans- project, operates it and eventually transfers its ownership to
portation sectors. The slogan “building roads is the first step the host government—generated 70% of Cambodia’s hydro-
to becoming rich” became popular across China’s villages and power electricity (GEI, 2016). In 2015, Chinese companies
cities. The length of the country’s roads nearly doubled from signed US$210 billion in new foreign-project contracts; trans-
1987 (0.89 million km) to 2000 (1.68 million km), giving China portation, electrical engineering and telecommunications are
the second-highest national road mileage in the world (Liu, the top three sectors, accounting for 60% of the contracted
2003; NBS of China, n.d.). Chinese hydropower, bridge, rail value for the year (MoC, 2016c).
and telecommunications industries underwent similarly rapid
expansion and upgrades (Liu, 2003). Addressing Social and Environmental Concerns
China’s “going global” strategy subsequently liberalized invest- Many Chinese firms invest in Southeast Asia and Africa, regions
ment policies and provided financial incentives to encourage rich in biodiversity but weak in environmental governance.

19
These investments have generated widespread environmen- management and other accepted environmental obliga-
tal and social concerns (Edwards et al., 2014; Grumbine et tions. Companies are also encouraged to implement prac-
al., 2012; Laurance et al., 2015b). A case in point is the tices such as “clean production, circular economy and
Myitsone Dam, a US$3.6 billion project in Myanmar that was green procurement” (GEI, 2015, p. 18).
halted because local communities believed the project Measures for Overseas Investment Management (2014).
would destroy natural landscapes and their livelihoods (Chan, Published by the Ministry of Commerce, this guidance
2016). In response to this fiasco, the Chinese government stipulates that foreign-funded enterprises must abide by
developed guidelines on environmental and social responsi- local laws, respect local customs, and perform social
bility, including: responsibility and effect measures for environmental and
A Guide for Chinese Enterprises on Sustainable Silvi labor protection and corporate-culture development
culture Overseas (2007). This manual was developed by (GEI, 2015).
the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the State Forestry
Administration (MoC, 2007). Challenges and Limitations
Green Credit Guidelines (2012). Published by the China While these guidelines demonstrate the Chinese govern-
Banking Regulatory Commission, this document stipu- ment’s commitment to promoting sustainable foreign invest-
lates that operational practices of financial institutions ment, the policies remain weak at the implementation level,
must be consistent with international good practice stand- with poor policy promotion and a lack of compliance by
ards, including environmental protection, land, and health Chinese industries (GEI, 2015). Environmental organizations
and safety laws and regulations. Financial institutions and researchers have begun to address these problems by
are also required to establish green credit strategies and conducting policy field studies and training Chinese compa-
policies, abide by local laws requiring disclosure of signifi- nies and local communities to strengthen their capacity for
cant environmental and social impact risks, and accept effective policy action.
market and stakeholder supervision (GEI, 2015). Another challenge is the inoperability of some of China’s cur-
Guidelines for Environmental Protection in Foreign Invest rent policies. Policy effectiveness depends on the framework
ment and Cooperation (2013). Published by the Ministries and implementation of environmental safeguarding policies
of Commerce and of Environmental Protection, these in host countries, as well as information disclosure, transpar-
guidelines require companies that invest overseas to ency and public participation. To achieve these goals, Chinese
comply with the relevant local laws and regulations. The and host-country governments, civil society organizations,
guidance relates specifically to environmental impact Chinese financiers and local communities must work together
assessments, pollutant discharge standards, emergency more effectively (GEI, 2015).

20
Photo: The presence of by the year 2030 (Alexander, 2014). This

apes, such as Sumatran
orangutans, should trigger would not only be the single largest finan- BOX 1.4
extra environmental safe-
cial transaction in human history, but would
guards for multinational Multilateral Lenders and
lenders. © Perry van more than double the current value of global Ape Conservation
Duijnhoven, 2013
infrastructure (Laurance et al., 2015a).
Safeguards
Large infrastructure investments are
To improve the sustainability outcomes
often disbursed via multilateral lenders. of their investments, multilateral lenders
These lenders are playing a major role in such as the World Bank and regional
infrastructure projects in ape range states in development banks have developed envi-
ronmental and social safeguards that iden-
Africa and the Asia–Pacific region (ICA, tify standards and procedures for project
2014; Ray, 2015). screening. These frameworks determine
Meanwhile, the landscape of infrastruc- the level of assessment and mitigation or
management the lenders and their clients
ture investment is changing. Large infra-
should apply.2 High-risk projects or initi-
structure investments were traditionally atives are subject to environmental and
disbursed via multilateral lenders such as social impact assessments or strategic
environmental assessments.
the African, Asian and Inter-American
Development Banks, the European Invest Critical Habitats
ment Bank and the World Bank Group. Environmental and social safeguards
While these lenders continue to play a major specify habitat value classifications that
role in infrastructure projects, including are determined through assessments of
the critical nature of biodiversity and eco-
in ape range states in Africa and the Asia– systems. “Critical habitat”3 is the most
Pacific region, their strongholds are being sensitive criterion and demands the most
challenged (ICA, 2014; Ray, 2015). The stringent avoidance or mitigation meas-
ures (EIB, 2013; IFC, 2012a, 2012c).
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
Habitat that is important for apes would
(AIIB), which opened for business in 2016, typically be classed as critical habitat
the Chinese Import–Export Bank and the because of the imperiled status of ape
species and their keystone role in support-
expanding Brazilian Development Bank
ing ecosystem functioning. Ecological
are all poised to become major interna- processes that support ape populations
tional lenders. are also considered critical habitat by many
As a consequence, the nature of infra- multilateral lenders “where feasible.”
structure funding is undergoing worrying In some project applications, the presence

of apes represents a fatal flaw—one that
changes. After drawing criticism for years, can cause a bank to decline investment
the big traditional lenders had elaborated or withdraw. Alternatively, the bank could
and implemented a number of environ- require demonstration that the project
will produce no adverse effects (AfDB,
mental and social safeguards. Since the 2013); no reduction in the ape popula-
emerging banks generally consider envi- tion (ADB, 2012); a positive conservation
ronmental and social constraints a lower outcome (EIB, 2013); or a net-gain out-
come (IFC, 2012a, 2012c; World Bank,
priority, however, they represent a formi- 2017). Such outcomes demand a compre-
dable challenge to the traditional lenders hensive assessment of the direct, indirect
(Laurance et al., 2015a; Wade, 2011; Withanage and cumulative impacts of the project and
rigorous application of impact reduction
et al., 2006). In 2015 the World Bank decided
measures (see the discussion of the
to “streamline” its environmental and social mitigation hierarchy in Chapter 4, p. 119).
safeguards in order to remain competitive For ape landscapes, such assessments
with the emerging lenders, especially the call for an appreciation of the complex
AIIB (see Box 1.4).

21
to reduce landscape-scale impacts and better inform project

design or location (ADB, 2008).
Limitations and Risks

Multilateral lenders acknowledge major deficiencies in data
and capacity. While a precautionary approach supported by
long-term monitoring is considered ideal, it is not always
applied. Time pressures coupled with sparse data can result
in inadequate baselines, which, in turn, constrain manage-
ment responses (see Box 1.6). Stakeholder engagement and
expert input are highly valued by many lenders, but may be
inadequate. The conservation community and species spe-
cialists have a vital role to play in ensuring that assessments
of critical habitats and environmental impacts are based on
sound ecological principles and the best available informa-
tion. It is vital that civil society helps lenders to uphold their
environmental and social impact requirements and holds them
to account should they fail to do so.
The rapid rise of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
(AIIB) as a more streamlined and borrower-friendly lender,
and the release of its environmental and social framework—
soon followed by the announcement of simplified safeguards
from the World Bank—have generated concerns about a
potential “race to the bottom” in environmental and social
protections (AIIB, 2016; CEE Bankwatch Network, 2015;
Humphrey et al., 2015; World Bank, 2016c, 2017). Some con-
sider the World Bank’s anticipated transition from a rules-
based compliance system towards one of “unprecedented
flexibility that favors using a borrower’s own laws and poli-
cies” in lieu of the Bank’s traditional safeguards as espe-
cially worrying (BIC, 2016). However, others believe that the
World Bank’s new Environmental and Social Standard (ESS)
64, and the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Perfor
mance Standard (PS) 6, continue to represent best practice
in the protection of biodiversity and habitats (TBC, n.d.).
There is deep concern about the impacts of the weakening of
some lenders’ environmental safeguards. In ape range states,
this relaxed approach is of particular concern when combined
with borrowers’ limited commitment and capacity, as well as
weak national regulatory frameworks, and enforcement,
which tend to be unable to prevent or mitigate the complex
social and environmental impacts of high-risk infrastructure
projects (BIC, 2016). Under these circumstances, approving
a mega-infrastructure project seems analogous to pressing
a car’s accelerator to the floor while unbuckling the seatbelt.
socio-ecology of affected apes, their role in maintaining eco The World Bank’s shift in approach reflects deep internal
system integrity and the potential of habitats to support conflicts within all multilateral lenders, as they seek to rec-
viable populations in the future; in practice, however, these oncile their primary business as profit-driven financial insti-
factors are often addressed poorly (see Box 1.6 and the Apes tutions with the fundamentals of long-term sustainability.
Overview, p. xii). Lenders have the ability to improve their environmental and
The timing and duration of a lender’s engagement, as well social frameworks by developing detailed guidance notes,
as its commitment and capacity to uphold environmental proper tools and well-resourced support for the critical
and social safeguards, can strongly affect its influence on implementation process (BIC, 2016). A great deal is going to
a project. In some cases, lenders take more of a lead by depend on how their environmental and social frameworks
requiring cumulative and strategic environmental assessments are implemented in the future.

22
Photo: Forest clearing for

a Chinese-operated road Emerging Threats to
construction camp in the
northern Republic of Congo. Ape Habitats
© William Laurance
Impacts on African
Ape Habitats
In broad terms, there are many reasons to
be concerned about Africa’s environment.
Indeed, nearly one-third of Africa’s pro-
tected areas could face degradation if the
entire suite of proposed and ongoing devel-
opment corridors proceeds (Sloan, Bertzky
and Laurance, 2016). The specific threats
posed to apes by infrastructure projects and
the further developments they catalyze are
less certain, but one modeling study sug-
gests that fewer than one-tenth of African
ape habitats would remain free from infra-
structure impacts by 2030 (Nellemann and
Newton, 2002).
As currently being constructed, the Lamu
Port, South Sudan, Ethiopia Transport
(LAPSSET) project in East Africa will not
directly threaten ape range states, but it
will affect Kenya’s imperiled Tana River
Primate Reserve, which harbors the highly
endangered Tana River red colobus (Proco
lobus rufomitratus) and Tana River crested
mangabey (Cercocebus galeritus) (Kabukuru,
2016; see Figure 1.1). But LAPSSET is nothing
if not ambitious. The long-term plan is to
provide a “great equatorial land bridge” that
would traverse Africa, linking Kenya on
the east coast with Cameroon on the west
coast (LAPSSET, 2017). If realized, this great
bridge would slice through the Congo Basin
and have substantial impacts on a number
of ape range states.
Several other development corridors aim
to access the mineral-rich region of the east-
ern Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda
and Uganda, as well as the goldfields of
western Tanzania (see Figure 1.1). The results
could increase human pressures on bonobos
(Pan paniscus), eastern chimpanzees (Pan
troglodytes schweinfurthii), Grauer’s gorillas

23

24
(Gorilla beringei graueri) and mountain of this project include the Chollet Hydro
gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei). power Dam near the Dja Biosphere Reserve,
In Africa, corridors that penetrate into the Mekin Dam inside the Dja Reserve and
equatorial forests are the greatest concern the Memve’ele Dam near the Campo Ma’an
for ape conservation (see Box 1.5). Chief Reserve, all of which are located in southern
among these is the Central African Iron Cameroon (Halleson, 2016).
Ore Corridor. The backbone of this project The greater Congo Basin harbors the
is the M’Balam railway, which will stretch second-largest expanse of rainforest on
for more than 500 km and traverse the earth. It includes the vast (146,000 km2, or
equatorial rainforests of Cameroon, Gabon 14.6 million ha) Tri-National Dja–Odzala–
and the Republic of Congo. The corridor Minkébé (TRIDOM) landscape, which is
will also include a new highway linking jointly managed under an agreement by
Brazzaville in the Republic of Congo with Cameroon, Gabon and the Republic of
Yaoundé in Cameroon. Key components Congo. TRIDOM contains a complex of
BOX 1.5 plier effect on the local economy, increasing local demand
and employment. The use of local resources can also
Africa’s Integrated Resource Corridors stimulate industrialization and domestic value-adding,
Development corridors are not new concepts in Africa. In which can promote transformational economic growth.
fact, corridors such as the Maputo Development Corridor, the Bringing together stakeholders from the government,
Walvis Bay Development Corridor and TRIDOM have been private and community sectors, aligning their incentives
promoted to varying degrees in different regions for many and improving coordination. Such synergies can provide
years. The potential for such multinational infrastructure pro- opportunities to embed robust environmental standards
jects to support sustainable development has been widely and practices into the project.
discussed and debated (ASI, 2015). Benefiting landlocked countries and their neighbors, ena-
Many organizations tout development corridors as transform- bling both to gain from resources in the landlocked country
ative vehicles through which to ensure equitable distribution and their export via coastal states.
of benefits from sector-specific operations. Corridor propo- Spreading benefits away from the anchor project to pro-
nents include: the New Partnership for Africa’s Development; vide opportunities, such as shared-cost infrastructure, for
the mining policy framework developed for the United Nations isolated towns and villages. Such infrastructure is vital for
by the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals remote communities, which can find themselves cut off from
and Sustainable Development; and, more recently, the Africa economic opportunities and political processes or domi-
Mining Vision (AU, 2009; IGF, 2013; NEPAD, n.d.). Development nated by local patronage systems that inhibit development.
corridors are also on the agendas of regional entities such as
Allowing affected communities to have a seat at the nego-
the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank,
tiating table. Large-scale extractives and infrastructure
and the East African and Southern African Development
projects can generate high expectations around jobs and
Communities (AfDB, OECD and UNDP, 2015).
the role of companies to provide services that should be
the mandate of the state. Inclusion can improve under-
Opportunities
standing and help to manage the expectations of local
Ideally, development corridors should be able to leverage communities.
large extractive industry investment in infrastructure, goods
Allowing planners to concentrate linear infrastructure
and services to bring about sustainable, inclusive economic
(such as roads, railroads, pipelines and power lines) along
development and diversification for a specific geographic area.
shared corridors, thereby reducing the overall impact by
Potential opportunities include:
leaving other areas intact (ASI, 2015).
Increasing prospects for governments and the private
sector to work together. Challenges
Developing supply chains that encircle the extractive While the potential benefits of Africa’s development corridors
industry, such as a major mine at the heart of a corridor. may be considerable, they are far from fully realized. Key chal-
The direct procurement of local supplies can have a multi- lenges include:

25
seven protected areas and harbors criti- demise as a contiguous forest landscape
cally endangered western lowland gorillas (Halleson, 2016).
(Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees In the imperiled forests of West Africa, a
(Pan troglodytes) (Ngano, 2010). The corri- global biodiversity hotspot, a major concern
dor is adding to stresses that the estimated is the massive Simandou iron ore project.
40,000 gorillas and chimpanzees in the Rights to explore the Simandou deposit were
region already face from industrial logging, first granted in 1997 and following a number
agro-industrial concessions and poaching. of issues and disputes, mining rights have
A combination of threats—including ongoing been held by the Aluminum Corporation of
forest loss and fragmentation, the increas- China Limited (Chinalco), Beny Steinmetz
ing isolation of protected areas, expanding Group Resources (BSGR), Rio Tinto Corpo
human settlements and now large-scale ration and Vale. The largest integrated mining
infrastructure projects—suggest that the and infrastructure project in Africa, it is
TRIDOM region may be facing imminent situated at the southern end of a biologically
Poor planning and inadequate community engagement A Success Story?

often plague corridor projects. Most active and planned Despite such challenges, some corridors appear promising.
corridors are currently unlikely to achieve sustainable The Maputo Development Corridor in southern Mozambique
development outcomes, particularly in relation to local eco- is often highlighted as a positive example (AfDB et al., 2015).
nomic benefits and environmental and social impacts. Providing a 500 km-long link between Maputo and the land-
Government agencies are often ill equipped, ill informed locked provinces of Gauteng, Limpopo and Mpumalanga in
and unable to apply an integrated approach to planning. South Africa, it will provide Swaziland with an alternative to
They fail to consider the cumulative impacts of numerous the port of Durban, South Africa, for international trade. The
ad hoc developments or synergies that could be created corridor’s anchor is the Mozal aluminum smelter, on the out-
among them. They do not or evidently cannot take advan- skirts of Maputo (Byiers and Vanheukelom, 2014).
tage of resource efficiencies that would result from econ- Arguably, the reported success of the Maputo Corridor is
omies of scale. attributable in part to an alignment of national and cross-
Cross-national corridors are bedeviled by a lack of coor- border interests. “From the perspective of the Mozambican
dination when key agencies work in relative isolation. government, the MDC was as an important signal to the
Limited dialog among government agencies, donors, outside world of stability and viability of carrying out major
civil society, the private sector and communities results foreign investments” (Byiers and Vanheukelom, 2014, p. 18).
in conflicts and inefficiencies. Challenges remain, however. Operational inefficiency—includ-
Corridors are often planned without adequate assessing deficient rail infrastructure and capacity, high prices and
ments of their potential social and environmental impacts, unequal trade flows within the corridor (given that the volume
such as: of goods South Africa exports to Mozambique is 120 times
greater than the volume it imports from its trade partner)—
demographic shifts and the subsequent demand for
highlights the importance of effective planning and political
additional services and infrastructure;
will at all levels (Bowland and Otto, 2012).
resilience considerations in relation to climate change;
As illustrated by the Maputo Development Corridor, five fac-
protection of areas with high conservation value; and tors stand out as being most critical to the goals of develop-
effects on water supplies. ment corridors to achieve sustainable economic progress and
reduce poverty:
This suite of factors can ultimately undermine the value of
a corridor, particularly for the poor and vulnerable. 1. government support up to and including the highest level;
Where they are carried out, assessments are usually 2. private sector involvement from the outset;
restricted to site-specific environmental and social impact
3. community engagement and capacity building through-
assessments of individual projects and therefore miss
out the project;
opportunities for key strategic decision-making through
the integration of environmental and social considerations 4. access to geospatial data; and
(ASI, 2015, p. 12). 5. good governance.

26
Photo: Plans for large-scale

highway expansion across
critical region—the Simandou Mountains Impacts on Asian
in southeastern Guinea. Transportation
Borneo could degrade
some of the last virgin and
Ape Habitats
unhunted forests on the
infrastructure needed to link the mine to
island, such as these in the coast for shipping ore overseas would Mapping the impacts of large-scale infra-
eastern Sabah, Malaysia.
span about 700 km and would bisect and structure on great ape and gibbon range
© William Laurance
fragment the habitat of the western chimpan- states in Asia, as well as the array of ancil-
zee (Pan troglodytes verus). Although it is not lary developments such projects can catalyze,
yet at the production phase, the Simandou is a daunting challenge. If all of the proposed
project demonstrates how large-scale infra- projects proceed, then the overall impacts
structure associated with industrial mines are sure to be substantial.
can have considerably greater environmen- China’s scheme to construct an Asian
tal impacts than mines themselves. “Belt and Road”—including a “21st-Century
Maritime Silk Road” that is to traverse Asia,
Europe and Africa—is certain to be world-
changing (see Box 1.1). This spate of projects
would have an impact on the habitats of
orangutans, in parts of Borneo and Sumatra,
and gibbons, whose ranges extend from
the islands of Southeast Asia northward to
Indochina, southern China and northeast-
ern South Asia. Projects such as the planned
high-speed railway linking southern China
(Kunming) to Singapore would cut across
Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia, affecting
important ecosystems for gibbons, including
parts of Malaysia’s critical Central Forest
Spine (Wu, 2016).
Ambitious plans for infrastructure expan-
sion are also afoot in insular Southeast
Asia. Indonesia’s large-scale development
is being structured around a “six-corridor”
scheme that would traverse large swaths of
Sumatra, Java, Indonesian Borneo (Kali
mantan), Sulawesi, the island chain from
Bali to West Timor and Indonesian Papua
(Indonesia Investments, 2011). The forests of
Malaysian Borneo will be further reduced
and fragmented by the “Pan-Borneo High
way” plan, which is expanding highway
networks across much of Sarawak and Sabah
(Property Hunter, 2016).
Expanding infrastructure could affect
Asian apes and other wildlife in a diversity
of ways, such as by promoting extractive
industries. Mining concessions already
overlap with 15% of the current distribution

27
of Borneo’s orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) have had much difficulty in distributing ben-
and 9% of Sumatra’s (P. abelii) (Lanjouw, 2014, efits from large foreign investments equitably.
p. 155; Meijaard and Wich, 2014, pp. 18–19). As a result, many people and sectors of the
Case studies illustrating the impacts of economy have struggled. Developing nations
infrastructure projects on Asian ape habitats with weaker institutions and governance can
are provided in chapters 3, 5 and 6. be greatly challenged and even destabilized
under such conditions (Venables, 2016). The
catchphrases “blood diamonds” and “blood
Social and Political gold” vividly illustrate this concept.
Third, inflation typically increases in
Concerns the developing nation because demand for
Inequitable Social and goods and services rises. Wealthy elites are
troubled little by such inflation but those
Economic Benefits
struggling to meet their daily rent and food
Large-scale foreign investment is driving costs can suffer greatly. As a result, economic
much of the ongoing expansion in infrastruc- and social disparity can increase, rather than
ture and extractive industries in develop- decline (Auty, 2002).
ing nations (see Boxes 1.3–1.5). A common Fourth, corruption is a serious problem
assumption is that these types of investment in many developing nations, including vir-
typically yield broad societal benefits for tually all ape range states (Laurance, 2004).
developing nations; in practice, such benefits Even projects that are socially and environ-
rarely materialize, for five main reasons. mentally ill advised may be approved by
First, influxes of foreign capital, such as decision-makers who stand to reap large
the major investments in infrastructure and personal rewards from bribery or other
extractive industries in African nations, illicit benefits. Decision-makers may also
typically elevate the value of the nation’s cur- borrow from international lenders to advance
rency relative to other currencies (Ebrahim- projects for personal or political gain, know-
zadeh, 2003). By increasing costs for foreign ing that future governments and taxpayers
consumers, higher currency values reduce will have to bear the burden of servicing and
the competitiveness of agricultural and man- repaying the loan. Documented examples of
ufacturing exports, tourism, higher educa- such corruption-driven environmental mis-
tion and some other economic sectors. The management are far too numerous to detail
economy then becomes less diversified and here (Collier, Kirchberger and Söderbom,
more reliant on a few extractive industries or 2015; Shearman, Bryan and Laurance, 2012;
large projects, and therefore more vulnerable Smith et al., 2003).
to shocks from commodity price fluctuations Finally, environmental damage resulting
or boom-and-bust cycles when key natural from large-scale developments is typically an
resources are depleted (Venables, 2016). economic externality borne by the entire
Second, the benefits of foreign capital population and domestic economy. Even
are rarely distributed equitably. A few indi- in the most advanced nations, mechanisms
viduals, such as those in politically powerful to compensate the public for deforestation,
positions, can benefit dramatically, whereas water and air pollution, and mining dam-
many others see little benefit (Edwards et age are often far from adequate (Daily and
al., 2014; Venables, 2016). Even nations with Ellison, 2012). In turn, the absence of effective
strong governance, taxation and resource compensation measures creates perverse
rent-capture mechanisms, such as Australia, incentives in favor of polluting industries,

28
as they do not bear the full costs of their and host nations while overstating their
activities (Myers, 1998). potential to yield large profits and societal
benefits. The University of Oxford econo-
mist Bent Flyvberg describes how deceptions
Risks to Project Proponents and an incessant “optimism bias” by propo-
and Investors nents create a dynamic in which megapro-
jects continually proceed despite being “over
Risks from large-scale infrastructure and budget, over time, over and over again” (Ansar
extractive projects are not confined only to et al., 2014; Flyvberg, 2009).
the target nations. Multilateral lenders, cor-
porations and investors are also exposed to
considerable financial and reputational
risks when projects go awry. For example, A Dire Need for Better
the reputation of Asia Pulp and Paper, an Infrastructure Planning
“
Indonesia-based corporation that caused
Advocates of massive forest loss in Borneo and Sumatra, Optimizing Infrastructure
major infrastructure became so toxic that it lost a considerable Costs and Benefits
projects often share of the market and suffered widespread
Not all infrastructure is inherently “bad” for
downplay the risks international condemnation. Along with a
the environment. In appropriate contexts,
to investors and number of major oil palm and wood pulp
new infrastructure can yield sizeable social
host nations while corporations operating in Southeast Asia,
and economic benefits with only limited
overstating their Asia Pulp and Paper has since made a “no
environmental costs. For instance, road
potential to yield deforestation” pledge to limit public criti-
improvements in already settled areas can
large profits and cism and avoid threatened boycotts (Arcus
”
facilitate increases in agricultural produc-
societal benefits. Foundation, 2015, p. 159; Laurance, 2014).
tion and improve rural livelihoods, as they
Large infrastructure and extractive pro-
give farmers better access to urban markets,
jects also face other risks. These can arise
fertilizers and new agricultural technologies
from political instability, project cost over-
runs, labor disputes, liability for environmen- (Laurance and Balmford, 2013; Laurance et
tal disasters and an almost infinite variety al., 2014a; Weinhold and Reis, 2008). Such
of “unknown unknowns” that can bedevil roads can also provide rural residents with
major projects (Garcia et al., 2016; Laurance, better access to health care, schools and
2008). The failure of a large project can lead employment opportunities, while encourag-
to “stranded assets,” whereby major investing private investment (Laurance et al., 2014a).
ments are lost or offset by unanticipated In developing regions, those areas with
costs that outweigh the project’s benefits. improved roads might actually function like
In Aceh, Indonesia, for example, deforesta- “magnets,” attracting settlers away from
tion associated with road expansion has vulnerable forests and frontiers (Laurance
increased downstream flooding that is esti- and Balmford, 2013; Rudel et al., 2009).
mated to cost landowners US$15 million per In this way, improving transportation in
year (Cochard, 2017). Similarly, oil palm suitable areas could help to concentrate and
and wood pulp plantations on tropical peat- improve agricultural production, raising
lands are likely to incur long-term ecological farm yields while potentially promoting land
restoration costs that could exceed the value “sparing” for nature conservation (Hettige,
of the plantations (Bonn et al., 2016). 2006; Laurance and Balmford, 2013; Laurance
Advocates of major infrastructure pro- et al., 2014a; Phalan et al., 2011; Weinhold and
jects often downplay the risks to investors Reis, 2008).

29
However, efforts to plan roads strategi- First, agriculture is by far the dominant
cally to optimize their benefits and limit form of human land use globally (Foley
their costs face practical challenges. First, et al., 2005).
environmental impact assessments (EIAs) Second, global food demand is expected
often place the burden of proof on road to increase by 60%–100% from 2005 to
opponents, who rarely have sufficient infor- 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012;
mation on rare species, biological resources
“
Tilman et al., 2001).
and ecosystem services to determine the
Third, vast areas of land, especially in Many road
actual environmental costs of roads (Gullett,
developing nations, have already been assessments focus
1998; Laurance, 2007; Wood, 2003). Second,
settled but support relatively unproduc- only on the direct
many road assessments are limited in scope,
tive agriculture (Mueller et al., 2012). effects of road
focusing only on the direct effects of road
building while ignoring their critical indirect Fourth, the amount of additional farm- building while
effects, such as the promotion of deforesta- land needed to meet global food demand ignoring their critical
tion, fires, poaching and land speculation by 2050 is projected to reach up to 1 billion indirect effects, such
(Laurance et al., 2014a, 2015a). Finally, until hectares—an area the size of Canada— as the promotion of
recently, there was no strategic system for unless production on under-yielding deforestation, fires,
agricultural lands can be improved poaching and land
”
zoning roads regionally, and thus road pro-
jects had to be assessed with little informa- (Tilman et al., 2001). speculation.
tion on their broader context. As the pace
In this context, strategic road improve-
of contemporary road expansion intensi-
ments are a key prerequisite for achieving
fied, road planners and evaluators thus
the needed increase in agricultural pro-
carried a growing burden (Laurance and
duction (Laurance and Balmford, 2013;
Balmford, 2013).
Laurance et al., 2014a; Weng et al., 2013).
For these reasons, a strategic scheme
With concerted improvements in trans-
for prioritizing road building was recently
portation, farming technologies and crop
devised (Laurance et al., 2014a). This approach
varieties, global food demand this century
has two components:
could be met with a far smaller amount of
an environmental values layer that esti- new farmland than if a “business-as-usual”
mates the natural importance of eco- approach were employed (Alexandratos
systems, and and Bruinsma, 2012).
Combining the environmental values
a road benefits layer that estimates the
and road benefits layers allows areas to be
potential for increased agricultural
grouped into three categories:
production, in part via new or improved
roads.
areas where roads or road upgrades could
The environmental values layer integrates have large benefits;
data sets on species richness and endemism, areas where road building should be
threatened species, key habitats for wildlife, avoided; and
wilderness attributes, ecosystem represent- “conflict areas,” where the potential costs
ativeness and important ecosystem services. and benefits of roads are both sizeable.
The road benefits layer focuses on the
role of new or improved roads for enhanc- An example of this analysis at the global
ing agricultural production—which is a scale demonstrates its potential for strategic
crucial priority due to four main reasons: road zoning, although planning of roads in

30
real-world contexts would be undertaken FIGURE 1.2

at a smaller scale, be it regional, national or A Global Map for Prioritizing
local (Laurance et al., 2014a; see Figure 1.2). Road Building
Promoting Green Energy

Developing tropical nations such as those
that sustain great apes and gibbons often
have considerable potential to develop solar,
wind and other smaller-scale energy sources.
Sustainable energy sources could help to
meet their growing energy demands, reduc-
ing the need for expensive, large-scale energy
infrastructure such as hydropower or gas- or
coal-fired electricity plants, which also require
extensive road and power line networks.
Decentralized solar and wind technologies
could be particularly suitable for remote vil-
lages and settlements (McCarthy, 2017).
Thanks to its proximity to the equator, the
tropical Asia–Pacific region has high solar- Environmental Value
energy intensity, indicating a large poten- Agricultural Potential
tial for solar energy expansion. In 2010, the
Asia Solar Energy Initiative of the Asian
Development Bank announced plans to
install 3,000 megawatts of solar capacity in
the region, reflecting robust confidence and
employment potential in this sector (ADB,
2011; McCarthy, 2017). By 2015, total wind
power capacity had reached 175,000 mega-
watts in Asia, showcasing faster growth than
in any other region except the Middle East power (ESI Africa, 2016; IRENA, 2015). As
(Global Wind Report, 2015). In addition, Africa’s energy demand is expected to double
geothermal energy is being proposed or or even triple between 2015 and 2030, renew-
developed in a number of locales, although able energy advocates are urging African
several proposed plants would be in remote nations to “leapfrog” large-scale energy infra-
regions, such as forested areas of Sumatra structure in favor of solar, wind, geothermal
that are prime habitats for Sumatran oran- and biomass energy sources (IRENA, 2015).
gutans (see Case Study 6.4). Since such At present, however, such technologies have
installations require road networks for plant limitations in terms of energy storage and
and power line construction, they are far meeting base-load demand, and it is likely
less desirable than decentralized solar and that hydropower, coal-fired energy and other
wind energy in areas of high conservation large-scale projects will also expand rapidly.
significance. Nonetheless, there is much potential for
Equatorial Africa also has strong poten- growth in solar, wind, biomass and other
tial for solar, wind, geothermal and biomass small-scale energy technologies, especially in

31
Notes: Green areas have high conservation values. In red areas, transportation improvements have a high potential to improve agriculture.
Dark areas are “conflict zones,” where environmental and agricultural values are both high.
Source: Laurance et al. (2014a, p. 231)
the rural areas of Central and West Africa, increases in the human footprint worldwide,
which harbor vital ape habitats (IRENA, 2015). intensifying human pressures on protected
areas and driving rapid declines in the extent
of remaining wilderness, especially in the
tropics (Laurance et al., 2012; Venter et al.,
Priorities for Change 2016; Watson et al., 2016).
This final section highlights six urgent priori- A key priority is “avoiding the first cut”
ties for improving infrastructure finance, into remaining wilderness areas by keeping
planning and environmental sustainability. them road-free wherever possible. This goal
recognizes that deforestation is highly con-
1. Avoiding new infrastructure construc- tagious spatially, in that forest loss tends to
tion in and near critical habitat. From expand along new roads and then spread
a nature conservation perspective, infra- farther afield as the initial road spawns
structure is going many places it should not. secondary and tertiary roads (Boakes et al.,
Infrastructure expansion is promoting large 2010). Once the first road goes in, forest loss

32
Photo: Oil palms spread will typically increase exponentially unless

to the horizon in central
Sumatra, Indonesia. robust safeguards are in place to halt it. Such
© William Laurance
safeguards require long-term expenditures
for forest monitoring and protection.
The environmental impacts of new roads
and other infrastructure are often amplified
in developing nations where land use zoning
and the rule of law are limited, especially in
the remote frontier regions that are crucial
for wildlife. In the Brazilian Amazon, for
instance, there are nearly three kilometers
of illegal roads for every kilometer of legal
road (Barber et al., 2014). Such roads can
facilitate a range of illegal activities, including
timber theft, poaching, illicit drug produc-
tion and illegal gold mining, all of which can
defraud governments of needed revenues
while provoking serious environmental harm
(Asner et al., 2013; McSweeny et al., 2014).
2. Addressing the drivers of unsustainable
infrastructure expansion. Unsustainable
infrastructure expansion reflects deeper
challenges. We desire sustainability and
environmental quality—yet the average
per capita consumption of the human popu-
lation, which could exceed 11 billion people
this century, continues to rise (UN Popula
tion Division, 2015). Ultimately, life on earth
is a zero-sum game: when humanity con-
sumes land, water and other natural resources,
the planet’s health is typically degraded to a
similar extent.
While infrastructure expansion is among
the most important impacts of humankind
on nature, it is a proximate rather than an
ultimate driver—a symptom of a broader
malady revolving around a rapidly growing
human population and extractive econo-
mies, including in the developing nations
that harbor apes. Failing to confront the
broader drivers of unsustainable behavior
is nonsensical and dangerous.
3. Requiring strategic environmental and
social impact assessments. Too many impact
assessments are rubber-stamping exercises.

33
All too frequently, environmental and social

assessments for large infrastructure projects
rely on inadequate data on ecosystems and
biodiversity. They often fail to examine indi-
rect, secondary or cumulative impacts of a
project, and they do not assess the “bigger
picture” because the project is evaluated in
isolation from other human influences that
affect the same ecosystem. Indeed, most
major infrastructure corridors develop incre-
mentally on a project-by-project basis, with
little regional-scale planning (Laurance et
al., 2014a, 2015a). Many such assessments
fail to anticipate potential cumulative and
secondary impacts of projects; they may also
be subordinated to the priorities of differ-
ent government agencies with inconsistent
or even opposing interests.
Experts in financial institutions that fund
large projects argue that civil society and
expert knowledge can play a vital role in the
EIA process (see Boxes 1.3 and 1.4 and Case
Study 5.1). Yet many EIAs are conducted too
late in the project approval process to allow
for fundamental changes or to lead to the
cancellation of a project, even if they reflect
sound expert knowledge. Furthermore,
EIAs are often not made widely available to
interested parties outside of the project area
(Laurance et al., 2015a). When combined
with limited time frames for public com-
ment, such measures increase the likelihood
that a proposed project is effectively a fait
accompli—with modest “tweaking” of the
project and limited mitigation the only alter-
natives. The weakening of environmental
and social safeguards by major multilateral
lenders will only exacerbate this problem
(see Box 1.4).
Some EIAs are essentially boilerplate
documents that are written in dense bureau-
cratic language and lack key information.
In a striking example, an EIA that was carried
out for a large housing estate in Panama
claimed that 12 bird species were present
in the project area. Two experienced bird-

34
Photo: Today’s infrastruc- watchers surveyed the same area for two
ture projects must not
become tomorrow’s hours and documented 121 bird species,
environmental disasters.
Nam Ou Cascade Hydro
including several rare and threatened spe-
power Project, Lao PDR. cies (Laurance, 2007). EIAs for some major
© In Pictures Ltd/Corbis
via Getty Images
equatorial African and Amazonian highway
projects have been similarly inadequate
(Fearnside, 2006; Laurance, Mahmoud and
Kleinschroth, 2017b; see Case Study 5.1).
Not all EIAs are as weakly implemented as
these, but only a minority are truly robust
(Laurance, 2007; Laurance et al., 2015a).
One way to address the broader suite of
impacts that are often missed in localized
EIAs is to carry out strategic environmen-
tal assessments at an appropriate landscape
scale (see Box 1.4). Box 1.6 provides a check-
list of best practice in impact assessments
to enable developers to minimize adverse
impacts and to avert a net loss of biodiver-
sity, given that infrastructure development
in ape ranges, by its very nature, degrades
landscapes and habitats. As illustrated above
and throughout this publication, these best
practice actions are seldom fully or even
partially implemented; and sometimes, EIAs
are rather used as tools to greenwash destruc-
tive projects. Effective implementation of
EIA best practice can contribute to the con-
servation of biodiversity, including apes and
ape habitat, while also ensuring that financ-
ing is effectively allocated to preventive action,
rather than costly mitigation expenses.
4. Carrying out strategic land use plan-
ning for agriculture. Many observers call
for an increase in the productivity of agri-
culture in developing nations in order to
“spare” land for nature (Laurance et al., 2014a;
Mueller et al., 2012; Phalan et al., 2011). Yet
more productive agriculture is also more
profitable, and highly profitable agriculture
is likely to spread widely unless constrained
in some manner. An apt example is the
dramatic expansion of oil palm across the
humid tropics, where the crop is promot-
ing forest destruction both directly and

35

36
BOX 1.6 Assessing baselines. Initial baseline scoping studies

are useful tools for identifying which key species may be
Best Practice in Impact Assessment: affected by an infrastructure project. By covering both
A Checklist for Developers the immediate development zone as well as the surround-
ing area, they can reveal which parts of a landscape
An infrastructure project may have significant adverse impacts
may be harmed during the various project stages.
on biodiversity and local communities throughout its life-
Baselines are always required with respect to ape popu-
time—from its planning phase through to the construction
lations; additional assessments are typically needed to
and operation periods, and, if it ceases to operate, during its
fill any knowledge gaps regarding ape numbers, habitat
decommissioning. Impact assessments can serve to identify,
use or distribution. Consultation with local conservation
evaluate and mitigate such negative effects. More often than
NGOs, academic institutions and state agencies can help
not, carrying out such assessments is a statutory requirement
to establish what type of data is available. Field surveys
or a condition for disbursements from financial lenders.
are usually necessary to assess the state of species in
The following measures can assist developers as they seek project areas if they have not been studied in detail.
to achieve the objective of causing no net loss of biodiversity:
Collecting data. In the planning stages of impact assess-
Building and accessing expertise. Although some ments, the importance of gathering relevant baseline data
developers have in-house expertise to undertake impact that is robust and measurable, and allowing sufficient
assessments, few, if any, have specialists to cover all time for this collection and analysis, is essential. To cap-
relevant areas and most will be obliged to seek external ture seasonal variations in species behavior, surveyors
support and advice, often through private-sector consul- require at least one calendar year to collect and analyze
tancies that specialize in ecological and related services. relevant data. If less time is allocated to the task or if
If a project is likely to have a significant impact on sensi- inappropriate survey methods are employed, it will not
tive habitats and species, such as by causing the loss be possible to determine the project’s impact on target
or fragmentation of areas that support ape populations, species with any degree of accuracy, with the result that
building early relationships and trust with experts is cru- all future stages of the impact assessment will be com-
cial. A developer organization that contracts external promised. The chance to apply appropriate mitigation
consultants needs dedicated internal support staff to measures may therefore be missed, or measures may be
provide a bridge to outside agencies and other depart- applied on a speculative basis, which could lead to unpre-
ments. Such project managers can help to provide clear dicted detrimental impacts or costly—and potentially
justifications for actions, as external stakeholders may not unnecessary—actions.
always understand or support the need for detailed stud- Collaborating. Undertaking field surveys can provide a
ies or mitigation, often on financial or timescale grounds. good opportunity for ecologists and sustainability and
Project managers also ensure continuity when contracted corporate social responsibility teams from private sector
work is staggered or consultants are only engaged for developers to collaborate with environmental consultan-
limited periods. cies, academic institutions, NGOs and state organiza-
Planning for impact assessments. How much time is tions (such as national park authorities). Collectively, these
required to carry out an impact assessment is often stakeholders can more readily establish, at an early stage,
dependent on the capacity of the developer organization, the likely impacts of a project, as well as appropriate miti-
applicable legal requirements regarding the provision of gation measures. Private-sector environmental consultants
independent, impartial advice, and technical needs asso- usually have extensive experience drawing up ecological
ciated with each stage of a project, from the planning content for impact assessments and meeting financial
through to the implementation phase. It is important to lender requirements; academic institutions and NGOs
consider project-related impacts as early as possible to can provide science-led research expertise; and state
ensure favorable outcomes for biodiversity. Prompt action agencies generally contribute invaluable local knowledge
will reduce a developer’s risk of incurring costly delays and insight into what is achievable within regional and
and constraints at later stages, such as construction national legal frameworks. At the same time, the data
stoppage if legally protected habitats or species are iden- collected can contribute to the ongoing study of habitats,
tified once a project is under way. Assessing the situa- biodiversity and the socioecology of particular species.
tion early also allows biodiversity specialists to implement Mitigating effects. Once baseline studies are complete
the mitigation hierarchy to its full potential, by ensuring and the impacts of an infrastructure project have been
that the project design entails measures to avoid and considered, developers and other stakeholders can begin
minimize adverse impacts. These types of measures can to mitigate any subsequent effects—and to monitor the
prevent the need for expensive alternative mitigations, effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Ideally, such
including changes to ongoing construction, such as the measures meet two requirements: they are tailored to
rerouting of roads, and complex, often less effective off- address specific impacts, and their outcomes are meas-
set schemes. urable. If permanent habitat loss is a likely consequence

37
Photo: There is a pressing need to limit the expan-

sion of new infrastructure into remaining wilderness,
protected areas and biodiversity hotspots. Western
lowland gorillas, Dzanga, Central African Republic.
© David Greer, WWF
of an infrastructure project, habitat amelioration within the critically endangered species, meaning that a BAP is
remaining range of affected ape communities may be required if a project threatens any great ape habitat and
able to preserve populations at pre-construction levels. most gibbon habitats. Designed to help achieve the aims
In some cases, however, predicted or observed residual and objectives of a mitigation and monitoring program,
effects require offsite mitigation measures within the a BAP serves as a single working reference of a given
wider landscape. In these cases, measures can be applied project, pulling together all related studies and reports.
following established protocols, such as the Business The document sets out clear guidance on how each
and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP, 2009–2012). action is to be carried out, by whom and in what time
For information on the mitigation hierarchy, a set of guide- frame. Unlike other associated documents, such as the
lines established in the IFC’s Performance Standard 6, environmental statement, the BAP is a “living” report that
see Chapter 4, page 119. is updated as actions are completed, and modified as
Applying additional measures. In addition to direct miti- new data come to light or if mitigation measures are not
gation, supplementary measures may be employed, such as effective as anticipated.
as awareness raising and community engagement—to In practice, the environmental considerations and measures
reduce hunting pressure, for example. These strategies presented here are often overlooked or sidestepped, with
can be effective in contributing to the overall objective potentially detrimental repurcussions for developers’ finances
of achieving no net loss; however, it is not appropriate as well as affected fauna and flora. By making a conscious
to use to use them as primary forms of mitigation or as effort to integrate these considerations into their planning,
replacements for key mitigation measures, such as habi- however, infrastructure developers can play an active role in
tat reinstatement and creation. seeking to avoid both going over budget and a net loss of
Producing biodiversity action plans (BAPs). The pro- biodiversity. It is as important for developers to factor social
cess of implementing the above-mentioned steps and considerations into their activities to prevent harm to—and,
measures is commonly described in a BAP, a document ideally, to ensure benefits for—indigenous populations and
that many lenders require. Under the IFC’s PS6, for local communities that may be affected by an infrastructure
instance, a BAP is required if critical habitat may be project (see Chapter 2). In so doing, they can seek to har-
affected by infrastructure development (IFC, 2012c). The ness local support for a project and any related conservation
standard covers habitat that supports endangered and actions and initiatives.

38
indirectly—by displacing other land uses, mental sustainability, notably by requiring

such as rice production, which then leads to that Chinese firms and ventures operating
further forest loss. overseas increase compliance with China’s
Only when coupled with strategic land development guidelines.
use planning and backed by the rule of law
6. Taking advantage of the current window
will productive and profitable agriculture
of opportunity. For those striving to pro-
actually promote the “sparing” of land for
mote better infrastructure, the current global
nature. The most effective way to constrain
economic slowdown offers a limited window
the expansion of agriculture into environ-
of opportunity (Hobbs and Kumah, 2015).
mentally sensitive areas is arguably by halting
The stakes are high: today’s infrastructure
the spread of roads and other infrastructure
projects must not become tomorrow’s envi-
into those areas.
“
ronmental disasters. Advocates of sustain-
We have rapidly 5. Encouraging China to require compli- able infrastructure will find it effective to
shrinking opportunities ance with its established development address a broad constituency of environ-
to help steer infra- guidelines. Of all nations, China is currently mental, economic, civil society and political
structure expansion the most ambitious and aggressive in terms stakeholders—emphasizing, for instance,
in directions that of advancing large-scale infrastructure pro- the enormous value of biodiversity, eco
meet human needs jects, often in concert with schemes to exploit system services, natural capital and climate
while promoting and access natural resources in developing regulation, as well as the primacy of sus-
greater sustainability nations. Such projects are funded by Chinese tainability for human welfare (Meijaard et
for critical ape public–private partnerships, corporations al., 2013). They can also build on the infra-
”
habitats. and lenders. Compared to projects that are structure sector’s aim to avoid financial and
underwritten by industrialized nations in the reputational risks.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation Moreover, researchers and land use plan-
and Development, Chinese-funded initia- ners must respond to a growing demand
tives are significantly more likely to create from businesses and private investors for
“pollution havens” (areas where pollution or guidance in determining the best locations
environmental damage are concentrated) for new infrastructure (Green et al., 2015;
in developing nations (Dean, Lovely and Laurance et al., 2015b; Natural Capital
Wang, 2009). In this way, China exports its Coalition, 2016; see Box 4.5). There is a
environmental degradation and pollution pressing need, in particular, to limit the
to poorer countries. rapid expansion of new infrastructure into
Having acknowledged these problems, remaining wilderness, protected areas and
China has devised a series of “green” guide- biodiversity hotspots. As noted above,“avoid
lines and operating principles for Chinese the first cut” into wild places should become
ventures operating internationally (see Box a clarion call for biodiversity and sustain-
1.3). Nevertheless, the Chinese government ability advocates.
has failed to accept any responsibility for the It is difficult to overstate the urgency of
lack of enforcement of its stated principles. the task at hand. We have rapidly shrinking
Instead, the recurring problems are being opportunities to help steer infrastructure
blamed on intransigence by its corporations, expansion in directions that meet human
a lack of general transparency and weak- needs while promoting greater sustainabil-
nesses in the governing frameworks of the ity for critical ape habitats. It is time for
host countries (see Box 1.3). Beijing could decisive action—for the protection of great
take a firmer hand in promoting environ- apes and nature in general.

39
Acknowledgments
Principal author: William F. Laurance5
Contributors: Adam Smith International, Iain Bray,
Neil David Burgess, Fauna and Flora International
(FFI), Global Environmental Institute (GEI), Matthew
Hatchwell, Jon Hobbs, Pippa Howard, Nicky Jenner,
Lin Ji, Fiona Maisels, Emily McKenzie, Tom Mills, Mott
MacDonald, United Nations Environment Programme
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-
WCMC), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), WWF International
and Rong Zhu
Text Box 1.1: Jon Hobbs
Text Box 1.2: Matthew Hatchwell and Fiona Maisels
Text Box 1.3: Rong Zhu and Lin Ji
Text Box 1.4: Pippa Howard and Nicky Jenner
Text Box 1.5: Tom Mills
Text Box 1.6: Iain Bray
Author acknowledgments: Mason Campbell and
Mohammed Alamgir provided useful comments on
the manuscript.
Reviewers: Stanley D. Brunn, Miriam Goosem, Matthew
Hatchwell and Wijnand de Wit
Endnotes
1 As predicted, since this content was provided in
2017, commodity prices have generally recovered,
resulting in increasing demand for infrastructure
development (J. Hobbs, personal communica-
tion, 2018).
2 This generalized description is derived from a
review of multilateral lender safeguard docu-
ments and author interviews with lender environ-
mental staff, conducted in late 2016.
3 “Critical habitats are areas with high biodiversity
value, including (i) habitat of significant impor-
tance to Critically Endangered and/or Endangered
species; (ii) habitat of significant importance to
endemic and/or restricted-range species; (iii) hab-
itat supporting globally significant concentrations
of migratory species and/or congregatory species;
(iv) highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems;
and/or (v) areas associated with key evolutionary
processes” (IFC, 2012c, p. 4).
4 IFC Performance Standard 6 has been reviewed
and will be relaunched in 2018 (I. Bray, personal
communication, 2018).
5 James Cook University – https://www.jcu.edu.au/

Photo: Infrastructure development fuels deforestation, affecting these ecosystems and the diversity of species that dwell within them, including human communities. © Jabruson (www.jabruson.photoshelter.com) 40

41
CHAPTER 2
Impacts of Infrastructure on
Apes, Indigenous Peoples and
Other Local Communities
Introduction
Infrastructure is a common and expanding
feature of the anthropocene, with human-
altered landscapes across every part of the
world (Laurance, Goosem and Laurance,
2009). Roads, bridges and railways, as
well as hydroelectric dams, mining and
processing plants, and electrification pro-
jects cover much of the earth’s surface and
infringe on even the most remote land-
scapes. Collectively, roads cover a distance
of more than 83 round trips between the
earth and the moon (van der Ree, Smith and
Grilo, 2015, p. 3).
Fifteen years ago, an assessment of
infrastructure using the GLOBIO tool—
which models human impacts on biodiver-
sity—revealed that up to 70% of tropical
Chapter 2 Impacts of Infrastructure

42
forest habitat in Africa and in Asia had been the ecological impacts on apes and other
affected by infrastructure development and species of fauna and flora across a range of
the associated human exploitation of the infrastructure types; the second section
forests around it. Projections based on the explores the social impacts of infrastructure
GLOBIO tool and more recent assessments via examples from Cameroon. The chapter
indicate that less than 10% of the habitat in then offers some lessons learned and steps
African great ape ranges and probably that can be taken to minimize the deleterious
closer to 1% of the habitat in orangutan effects of infrastructure development.
ranges in Asia will be left untouched by With respect to the ecological impact
2030, as a result of infrastructure develop- of infrastructure, this chapter’s key find-
ment and the associated habitat distur- ings are:
bance (Junker et al., 2012; Nellemann and
Newton, 2002). For apes and the majority Infrastructure development is a major
of other animal and plant species, infra- conservation threat for apes and for
structure development represents a major the majority of other animal and plant
“
conservation threat. species.
Strategies to Infrastructure also affects human pop- The major negative direct impacts of
mitigate damage to ulations living in or near tropical forest infrastructure development are habitat
forest ecosystems are habitats, and not only in the intended pos- loss, road kills, and noise pollution and
most effective when itive manner. Infrastructure development disturbance; indirect impacts include
they consider both fuels deforestation, affecting the complex increased human access to previously
the potential social dynamic of these ever-changing ecosystems remote areas, poaching, and the intro-
impacts of proposed and the diversity of species that dwell within duction of disease and invasive species.
infrastructure projects them. Human communities are among Some of these impacts are immediate,
and forest peoples’ those that depend on the forests and their such as road kills, while others can have
capacity to help resources. Forest peoples are part of the pernicious long-term and far-reaching
mitigate such dynamic ecosystems of forests, living in consequences for wildlife populations.
”
damage. them, adapted to them and shaping them— The anticipation of project implemen-
in stark constrast to the forces that are tation alone can exacerbate habitat loss
destroying forests. Strategies to mitigate and disturbance to wildlife in a locality,
damage to these ecosystems are most effec- particularly through the development of
tive when they take into consideration both roads to prospect areas and small-scale
the potential social impacts of proposed encroachment by local people, even if the
infrastructure projects and forest peoples’ project is not taken to completion.
capacity to help mitigate such damage. This Industry-specific certification bodies
approach serves not only to ensure the well- already exist, such as the Forest Steward
being of forest-dwelling and other local com- ship Council (FSC) and the Roundtable
munities, but also to garner their support on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), which
for proposed conservation measures, which require standards to be met for certifica-
are likely to fail without local backing.1 tion to take place, including those relat-
This chapter explores the ecological ing to associated infrastructure. There
and behavioral impacts of infrastructure on is thus scope to develop and implement
apes in the forest, as well as social impacts standards for other large scale infra-
of infrastructure development on forest structure development in relation to both
peoples and communities dependent on the ecological and social impacts of such
forest resources. The first section considers developments; and to monitor, maintain

43
and promote the uptake of these stand- increase mortality rates, and hamper gene
ards through the development of addi- flow. Indirect impacts and threats, such as
tional certification requirements. hunting or the risk of disease transmission,
In designing appropriate responses to are often linked to the presence of people
“
infrastructure development, it is impor- (see Table 2.1).
tant to factor in direct and indirect This section outlines the impacts of dif- When designing
impacts at both the local and landscape ferent types of infrastructure on apes. It appropriate responses
levels for all projects, be they expansive, covers transportation-related projects, such to infrastructure
such as roads, railways and transmis- as roads, railways and ports; broader devel- development, it is
sion lines, or characterized by relatively opment infrastructure, such as dams, power important to factor
small footprints. lines, processing plants and human settle- in direct and indirect
ments (including temporary or permanent impacts at both the
With respect to the social impact of infra- housing developments for workers); and local and landscape
structure, the chapter’s key findings are: other types of infrastructure, such as tour- levels for all
”
ist lodges.2 projects.
Infrastructure development in the tradi- Compared to industrial-scale agricul-
tional lands of indigenous peoples has a ture and logging, which typically result in
negative impact on their livelihoods, cul- the conversion of thousands of hectares of
tural practices and norms. forest or more, infrastructure such as roads
Indigenous peoples traditionally man- or tourist lodges may be expected to have a
age and utilize natural resources from relatively small impact on apes. Indeed, such
forests sustainably, but they can also linear and localized projects may pose a
become part of the cycle of destruction less significant immediate threat of habitat
that is exacerbated by infrastructure loss. Nevertheless, as forests are opened
development. up for infrastructure development, people
Conservation efforts designed to miti- increasingly disturb previously intact ranges
gate and offset the impact of infrastruc- by hunting, capturing live animals, degrad-
ture development on biodiversity can ing and destroying the forest, producing
further exacerbate negative impacts on noise, transmitting disease and polluting.
indigenous peoples. In connection with infrastructure develop-
ment, such human disturbance can have
significant negative impacts on apes, affect-
ing the landscape’s structural connectivity
Ecological Impacts of
(habitat type and composition) as well as
Infrastructure on Apes its functional connectivity, which involves
Impacts of different types of infrastruc- both the structure of the landscape and the
ture can vary in intensity on several scales. ways in which animals interact with their
Impacts can be direct or indirect; they can environment (Kindlmann and Burel, 2008).
occur during the construction, utilization, Various mitigating measures can be
production or decommissioning phases; developed and implemented to prevent
they can be felt in the short or long term. and respond to the negative impacts of
The main direct impacts of infrastructure infrastructure-related human disturbance
include habitat loss and fragmentation, in and around wildlife habitat. Designed to
behavioral disturbance and the creation of integrate conservation into infrastructure
artificial barriers, which in turn disrupt development, such measures can usefully
movement patterns and affect habitat use, be adapted to the characteristics of each

44
Photo: A common impact individual plan, be it managed exclusively The noise of heavy machinery during con-
of all infrastructure devel-
opment is the destruction by private companies, by a government or struction is also likely to affect and possibly
or degradation of habitat
by a combination of stakeholders.3 displace animals (see Box 2.1). In Uganda,
wherever construction is
taking place. Highway
construction between
Port-Gentil and Omboué,
Gabon. © Julie Sherman Impacts of Infrastructure
Development
Each type of infrastructure project can be
expected to have a number of direct or
indirect impacts on the local landscape.
These impacts may differ in terms of their
duration and extent, as well as in relation
to the timescales required for the construc-
tion phase and the longevity of the infra-
structure (see Table 2.1).
Three phases can be distinguished for
infrastructure projects: their construction,
their use and, in some cases, their decommis-
sioning (as for dams, logging concessions
and mines). These phases require separate
consideration when it comes to assessing
their impact on wildlife in general, and apes
in particular.
Construction Phase
The overall impacts of infrastructure con-
struction on apes are similar across develop-
ment projects, but the scale of any impact
depends primarily on the type of infrastruc-
ture being built. For example, setting up
infrastructure that affects small areas of
land, such as a power line or a pipeline, and
that is mostly left alone after being estab-
lished in the middle of a rainforest is likely
to cause less disturbance than erecting a
major structure, such as a dam, power plant
or highway, in a similar area.
A common impact of the construction
of any type of infrastructure is the human
presence and the influx of workers to the
construction site. The arrival of people
increases indirect threats to wildlife, such
as hunting, physical and noise pollution,
risks of disease transmission and an influx
of invasive species (Burgess et al., 2007).

45
for instance, mountain gorillas in Bwindi office premises. In general, apes move away
National Park reportedly shifted their range and shift their range in response to human
when the park service was building new disturbance.4

46
Another common impact of all infra-

BOX 2.1 structure development is the destruction or
degradation of habitat wherever construc-
Impacts of Roads on Chimpanzees
tion is taking place. More often than not, these
Chimpanzees show flexible behavior that enables them to exploit impacts result in habitat and population
anthropogenic landscapes; they may use human-made paths and
cross large roads to access different areas of their home range (Cibot
fragmentation and isolation, with possible
et al., 2015; Hockings, Anderson and Matsuzawa, 2006; Hockings long-term consequences (see Table 2.1).
and Sousa, 2013). At the same time, roads and paths can provide
hunters with access to previously unreachable areas, where they
can set traps and hunt chimpanzees and other animals for local Utilization or Production Phase
consumption or for commercial trade (Blake et al., 2007; Poulsen
et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 1999). When hunters use indiscriminate Apes generally prefer areas with lower levels
devices, such as snares or traps, they are also likely to capture non- of human disturbance.6 The overall response
target species.
of apes—and other mammals—to estab-
Roads are generally risky areas for wildlife due to the increased human
lished infrastructure is avoidance of the
presence and the danger of collisions with vehicles (Jaeger et al.,
2005). Research has shed some light on the risks associated with road built area, which results in reduced densities
development and utilization and how chimpanzees in particular manage of the animals (Benitez-Lopez, Alkemade
road crossings.5
and Verwej, 2010). Several types of infra-
There is growing evidence that road crossing can cause injury or the
structure can kill apes directly, such as
death of individual chimpanzees (Krief et al., 2008; McLennan and
Asiimwe, 2016). The danger is high although chimpanzees appear through electrocution or collisions with
to assess the risks by looking left and right before and during road vehicles on roads (McLennan and Asiimwe,
crossings, and despite the fact that they check on and wait for group 2016; see Box 2.1). Asian apes and other
members, especially more vulnerable ones (Cibot et al., 2015). Adult
males are particularly at risk because they often take up the more arboreal mammals are regularly electro-
dangerous positions at the front or rear of a group progression when cuted in the Kinabatangan region of
crossing (Hockings, 2011). As shown in Figure 2.1, Bossou chimpan- Malaysian Borneo when they use power
zees in Guinea spend more time waiting before crossing a large road
than a small road. The large road had been widened prior to the period
lines to move across the landscape. Apes
under review; between early 2005 and the end of that year, the chim- and other animals sometimes recover from
panzees reduced their waiting time at the road, most likely because electric shock, but many die of electrocu-
they became habituated to its greater width.
tion; they may also drown near dams or in
Interestingly, Sebitoli chimpanzees in Uganda appear to maintain the
drains (see Annex I).
old pathways they used prior to road construction, regardless of risk
(Cibot et al., 2015). This finding highlights the need for road developers Causes of ape mortality that are indi-
to identify chimpanzee paths and trails and to integrate such knowl- rectly linked to infrastructure typically
edge into road design and development plans.
involve hunting, most of which takes place
fewer than 10 km from any roads (Laurance
FIGURE 2.1 et al., 2009). Mortality rates are also affected
Chimpanzee Waiting Time before Road Crossing, by the transmission of emerging diseases
Bossou, Guinea, 2005 due to close proximity to people or domestic
Key: Small road (3 m width) Large road (12 m width) animals, as well as reduced food availability
Median wait time (seconds)
due to habitat loss (see Table 2.1).
80 A primary concern associated with all
60 types of infrastructure is the increased mor-
40 tality rate among apes whose habitat has
20
been destroyed and who are thus pushed
0
away from their original home range or con-
January–April 2005 November–December 2005
centrated in small patches of forest. Mining
Source: Hockings (2011)
and dam development have particularly sig-
nificant effects on apes, especially if human

47
settlements, be they temporary or permanent, Habitat rehabilitation: replanting trees;

are established alongside the infrastructure. reforesting degraded areas; filling in a
Habitat fragmentation results primarily landfill or a mine. In areas that are
from linear infrastructure with a pronounced known to harbor important gorilla pop-
edge effect, such as roads, railways, power ulations, it should be noted that gorillas
lines, drains and canals. In the long term, consume large quantities of terrestrial
fragmented and isolated ape populations herbaceous vegetation (THV)—particu-
become more prone to extinction due to larly Marantaceae and Zingiberaceae—
genetic isolation, stochastic events (such as and are likely to be attracted to these
fire, flooding or the outbreak of disease) resources in areas with an open canopy.
and reduced resilience to the impact of cli- Rehabilitation in such habitats requires
mate change (Gillespie and Chapman, 2008). careful planning, as focusing on tree
The impact of roads also depends on their planting alone can be detrimental to
size and the frequency with which they are the establishment of THV (Morgan and
used. Dirt and gravel roads that receive rela- Sanz, 2007).
tively little use may not be much of a barrier Habitat protection: closing or monitor-
for apes, even for some arboreal species, such ing of paths, roads and bridges to
as orangutans. As their level of use increases, decrease the opportunities for access,
such roads can become a greater barrier and illegal hunting and other encroach-
may ultimately prevent passage by apes. ment. The costs of effective control of
The longevity of infrastructure is also of access can be prohibitive (Elkan et al.,
importance. For example, a dirt road that is 2006). If successfully applied, however,
not well maintained or is closed after the habitat protection can help to promote
cessation of activities (such as a logging the natural regeneration of vegetation,
road) may be recolonized by the forest over which can complement habitat rehabili-
time, unless it continues to be used. In con- tation efforts.
trast, the decommissioning of a dam is not
likely to result in the full reversion of the
dam site and associated flooded forest to General Impacts on Apes
their previous natural, functional state, even Apes vary in their socioecological traits, such
if the local river system recovers in part that infrastructure affects each species differ-
(see Annex VII). ently (see the Socioecology section, p. xvii).
Nevertheless, all apes share social and
Decommissioning Infrastructure behavioral characteristics that limit their
ability to adapt to infrastructure develop-
The decommissioning process involves the
ment. Most notably, these include:
rehabilitation of areas after infrastructure
is no longer in use. At that stage, mitigating No ape species can swim: a dam, canal or
the impacts of infrastructure can include the a wide drain without any natural bridge
following steps: (such as overarching tree branches)
A clean-up of the exploitation site: remov- represents an impassable barrier to any
ing machinery and equipment; destroy- individual or group.
ing buildings and other infrastructure All ape species have low reproductive
that is no longer used and cannot be rates; due to their long period of mat-
recycled; removing chemicals and other uration, individuals do not begin to
toxic waste. reproduce until they are at least ten years

48
Photo: No ape species can old. They typically have one offspring or have overlapping home ranges, so
swim: a dam, canal or a
wide drain without any every 4–9 years depending on the spe- that multiple groups occur in the same
natural bridge (such as
overarching tree branches)
cies. As a result, apes characteristically area. Therefore, as the construction of
represents an impassable experience very slow population growth infrastructure leads to a loss of habitat
barrier to any individual or
group. Grand Poubara
rates. Increased mortality rates can thus and apes are compressed into smaller
Dam, Gabon. © Steve have severely detrimental effects on
Jordan/AFP/GettyImages
population size. Populations may take a
very long time to recover to their origi-
nal size, if they ever do.
Apes are susceptible to many diseases
that affect humans. As apes come into
increasingly close contact with people, the
risk of disease transmission is height-
ened, along with the risk of infection
and subsequent death among apes
(Carne et al., 2014; Köndgen et al., 2008;
Muehlenbein and Ancrenaz, 2009).
All apes are highly adaptable: many of
them will use new food resources planted
by people. Crop owners may identify
such apes as “pests” (Humle, 2015; Seiler
and Robbins, 2016); in this scenario,
it is not only difficult to harness these
people’s support for conservation ini-
tiatives, but the likelihood of retalia-
tion and killing of apes also increases
(Ancrenaz, Dabek and O’Neil, 2007;
Humle, 2015).
All ape species depend on forests for all
or a significant part of their behavioral
ecology. Even chimpanzees and some
bonobo populations that occur in
savannah-dominated landscapes need
forest for nesting sites and food. Gibbons
are exclusively arboreal and cannot cross
large distances on the ground. While
chimpanzees and gorillas typically trav-
el on the ground, and orangutans may
also do so to a certain extent (Ancrenaz
et al., 2014), any barriers in their habi-
tat may restrict their ranging patterns,
depending on the size and the level of
disturbance.
Except for orangutans, most apes live in
social groups and are either territorial

49
areas, it becomes difficult or impossible between individuals (especially among

for them to establish new territories or chimpanzees), increased social stress,
shift their range. Greater density leads as well as a reduction in food resources
to increased intergroup aggression (Mitani, Watts and Amsler, 2010; Watts
and possible death owing to attacks et al., 2006).

50
Table 2.1 presents information about human settlement in areas that previously
impacts of different types of infrastructure were not easily reached. Of all the types of
on apes. The list is not exhaustive; several infrastructure, new roads are the ones that
impacts are not included due to a lack of result in the largest increase in access
data (for example, dust and airborne pollut- (Clements et al., 2014). Access roads are
ants, and invasive species). The table also almost always needed for other types of
identifies to what extent apes tend to be infrastructure, which in turn open up areas
able to adapt to such impacts. to human settlement.
Research shows that the distance to
roads, villages and cities is a strong predictor
The Consequences of of the presence of apes; indeed, ape densi-
Infrastructure Development ties decrease as human presence increases,
largely because of hunting pressure.7 One
Increased Access, Immigration
study that compares the abundance of
and Human Settlement large mammals at varying distances from
Infrastructure development nearly always roads inside an oil concession (a non-hunted
leads to increased access, human influx and area that received extensive protection) and
TABLE 2.1
Impacts of Infrastructure on Apes and the Likelihood of Ape Adaptability
Impact of infrastructure Impact Duration of Roads and Ports and Power Human
type impact railways dams cables settlements
Increased access, immigration and Indirect Short to long term

human settlement (villages; tour
lodges; and buildings of any sort) Indirect Long term *
Hunting (commercial and personal) Direct Short to long term
Habitat loss, degradation and Direct Short to long term

fragmentation
Creation of artificial barriers (which Direct Short to long term

disturb movement patterns and affect
habitat use, increasing mortality and/
or hampering gene flow)
Behavioral change Direct Short to long term
Disease (or pathogen) transmission Direct Short to long term
Mortality and injury associated with Direct Short term

vehicle and equipment collisions
Disturbance associated with noise and Direct Short to long term

vibration (including blasting), project
lighting, and presence of workers
Hydrological impacts, including Direct Long term

flooding and fragmentation
Note: * Chances of ape adaptability are good if local settlements do not have access to electricity, limited or moderate if they do.
Likelihood of ape adaptability
Limited Moderate Good Unknown

51
in the hunted territory beyond the conces- enterprises that can have significant nega-
sion demonstrates that hunting—rather than tive impacts on apes. Such activities include
the roads themselves—leads to a decline in artisanal mining, small-scale logging and
gorillas (Laurence et al., 2006). Similarly, a subsistence or commercial hunting, which
recent study reveals that the distance from can be facilitated by increased access to
roads is the best predictor of bonobo nest ape habitat.
occurrence; distance is an indicator of hunt-
ing of apes, rather than of the displacement
Habitat Loss, Degradation
of bonobos, as hunting intensity is greatest
and Fragmentation
closer to roads (Hickey et al., 2013; Laurance
et al., 2009). All types of infrastructure development
As people settle into an area, land use lead to some level of habitat loss, degradation
practices change and subsistence agricul- and fragmentation. While infrastructure
ture generally expands, as does the extent itself can be relatively “small” compared to
of land under cultivation. These shifts can large tracts of forest, some types, especially
cause apes to forage on cultivars with roads, can transect extensive areas, and all
greater frequency and can lead to an types will have impacts at both the local and
increase in encounters between apes and the landscape level. In some cases, roads
people, which may result in increased con- can limit apes’ access to food and nesting
flict and aggression (Bryson-Morrison et trees (Bortolamiol et al., 2016). Such infra-
al., 2017; Campbell-Smith et al., 2011b; structure may lead apes to shift their range or
McLennan and Hill, 2012; McLennan and territory, thereby increasing intra- or inter-
Hockings, 2016). Crop foraging may be specific competition for food and nesting,
driven either by necessity, due to the loss of which causes social disruption and stress,
natural foods, or by opportunities linked to as well as a heightened risk of intergroup
agricultural expansion of palatable crops.8 aggression. This kind of aggression can sig-
It leads to a loss of income for local commu- nificantly raise the mortality rate, especially
nity members, stoking negative reactions among chimpanzees (Mitani et al., 2010;
and behavior towards apes (Ancrenaz et al., Watts et al., 2006).
2007; Naughton-Treves, 1997). For the more arboreal Asian ape spe-
Close cohabitation may be particularly cies, disruption to canopy connectivity can
problematic if the people in question have compel apes to travel on the ground and
no previous experience of living near apes. thus heighten their exposure to pathogenic
They may be afraid of the apes—due to agents, including viruses, bacteria and para-
their lack of experience or based on urban sites, which may be transmitted from humans
myths about apes—and may therefore be and domestic animals, such as via attacks
more antagonistic towards apes. Even by dogs (Das et al., 2009). In addition to
among people who have traditionally lived limiting the spatial distribution of apes, the
near apes, increased encounters with them loss of canopy connectivity also increases
may erode traditional or religious taboos and the risk of predation and food shortage,
beliefs that favor local ape conservation or particularly among gibbons (Channa and
tolerance of apes (Humle and Hill, 2016). Gray, 2009; Cheyne et al., 2013, 2016;
In addition, employment insecurity Hamard, Cheyne and Nijman, 2010; Turvey
associated with a significant influx of people et al., 2015).
into an area can exacerbate people’s engage- While more terrestrial apes are less con-
ment in alternative revenue-generating strained by the presence of railways and

52
Photo: Chimpanzees show roads, the latter may nevertheless act as bar- Cross River gorilla showed that the decline
flexible behaviour that
enables them to exploit riers, depending on the intensity of traffic, in functional connectivity was double that in
anthropogenic landscapes,
which puts them at risk of
road or rail width, travel speed and visibility structural connectivity over a 23-year period
injury or death when cross- (see Box 2.1). In Uganda’s Bwindi Impene (Imong et al., 2014).
ing roads. © Matt McLennan
trable National Park, three groups of goril-
las tend to cross a 15-km-long gravel road a
Disease and Pathogen
few times per year. There are plans to pave
Transmission
the road, which is expected to increase vehic-
ular traffic and, in turn, heighten the risk of Apes are susceptible to many human dis-
vehicle collisions. If the gorillas stop cross- eases. Disease epidemics or parasitic infec-
ing the road once it is paved, their habitat will tions can negatively affect reproduction and
be fragmented, as about 10% of the 330 km2 kill apes, thereby changing demographic
(33,000-ha) park would effectively be elimi- patterns (Gilardi et al., 2015). An increased
nated as suitable habitat. Plans to pave a risk of disease and pathogen transmission is
road through the already fragmented habi- likely in areas where there is garbage, such
tat of Cross River gorillas in Nigeria would as tourist lodges, villages and roadsides.
have similar detrimental effects (see Case Artisanal mines, camps used by construction
Study 5.1). workers, and satellite communities typically
In estimating or assessing the impact of have unsanitary conditions that pose a large
infrastructure on great apes and other wild- health risk to apes (Plumptre et al., 2016b).
life, it is crucial to consider the anticipated or Habituated chimpanzees, gorillas and orang
sustained disruption of habitat connectivity utans may range very close to tourist lodges
and relationships among patches across the and may even come into very close contact
affected landscape. A study that compared with humans in unregulated settings, such
the amount of structural and functional as those not monitored by park staff, which
connectivity for the critically endangered can lead to an increased risk of transmission

53
of respiratory and other diseases (Gilardi This additional noise and disruption can
et al., 2015; Macfie and Williamson 2010; cause apes to avoid affected areas, leading
Matsuzawa, Humle and Sugiyama, 2011). to temporary displacement that can affect
Such contact puts both the apes and people, individual and group ranging, access to
including tourists and staff, at risk of injury food and shelter, and dispersal. The distur-
and pathogen infection in case of attack. bances can also cause heightened stress
levels, with possible impacts on health and
reproduction.
Injury and Death Due to Vehicle
Rabanal et al. (2010) measured the impact
and Equipment Collisions of dynamite blasts for oil exploration on
Terrestrial apes are at risk of injury or death gorillas and chimpanzees and found that
when crossing roads. There are reports of both avoided the area where the explosions
chimpanzees being injured or killed in had occurred for months after the explo-
vehicle collisions (McLennan and Asiimwe, ration work, even though there were strict
2016; see Box 2.1). Encounters with infra- regulations in place to minimize disturbance
structure can also be life-threatening for (for example, chainsaws and mechanized
arboreal apes, and poorly insulated and bare vehicles were not allowed, and transects
power lines pose a risk of electrocution for were very narrow). The dynamite blasts
all species (see Annex I). In Kinabatangan, and increased human presence presuma-
Malaysia, and in Assam, India, several cases bly caused the apes to keep their distance.
of gibbons and orangutans being electro- In Borneo, noise linked to timber extrac-
cuted have been recorded, some of them tion—such as from the use of machinery
fatal. In 2011 and 2014, two adult orang and chainsaws—drives orangutans away
utans were electrocuted when they used a from disturbance areas, although animals
power line to access a fruiting durian tree in may recolonize the same areas after the
the village of Sukau, Kinabatangan. In both disturbance is over (Ancrenaz et al., 2010;
cases, the orangutan fell to the ground and MacKinnon, 1974).
was unconscious for several minutes before
recovering from the electrical shock and Hydrological Impacts
fleeing to a nearby tree. The hands of the
In both intact and degraded landscapes,
animals showed marks of burning.Although
gallery, riparian and swamp forests often
neither orangutan died at the time, it is represent critical habitats for apes, be it
unknown whether they survived in the for food or nesting (McLennan, 2008;
longer term. Local villagers have reported Mulavwa et al., 2010). Riparian habitats are
that gibbons and monkeys have died after also vital to healthy freshwater ecosystems,
similar shocks (Das et al., 2009). fisheries, clean water and other essential
functions that support local people and
Disturbance Associated with agricultural productivity (Chase et al., 2016).
Noise and Vibration (including It is therefore crucial to preserve these hab-
itat types.
Blasting), Project Lighting and
Chimpanzee and bonobo populations
the Presence of Workers
that occur in more arid landscapes domi-
The construction phase of all types of nated by savannah can be severely con-
infrastructure is accompanied by noise and strained by water availability (McGrew,
human activity, both of which tend to be Baldwin and Tutin, 1981; Ogawa, Yoshikawa
reduced once the infrastructure is built. and Idani, 2014). In such water-stressed

54
Photo: Strategic road plan- landscapes, it is particularly critical that infra-

ning can reduce the number
of roads that apes must structure development not prevent access
cross in their home range,
decreasing stress and
to or otherwise affect water sources.
risks. Road construction Infrastructure such as roads and dams
in Guinea. © Morgan and
Sanz, Goualougo Triangle
typically affects hydrological systems, for
Ape Project, Nouabale instance by changing water levels and flow.
Ndoki National Park
Infrastructure development can also cause
erosion or indirect impacts on the local or
regional climate, which can modify vegeta-
tion composition. How such changes affect
apes largely depends on the impact of infra-
structure on three main factors:
land use patterns, such as agricultural

activities (whose expansion may cause
additional habitat loss for apes);
the degree to which water acts as a con-
straint on local apes; and
local vegetation species, some of which
may be critical to apes for shelter (nest-
ing) and food.
Steps Forward
Learning from Environmental
Impact Assessments
Environmental impact assessments (EIAs)
are designed to identify measures to prevent
or reduce the negative impacts of infrastruc-
ture development on biodiversity.Appraisals
that also consider impacts on people are
known as environmental and social impact
assessments (ESIAs). Chapter 1 discusses
best practice in impact assessments (see
Box 1.6, p. 36).
Unfortunately, not all infrastructure
development projects require EIAs or ESIAs.
Whether an assessment is obligatory depends
primarily on a country’s laws and policies;
which, if any, lending or investment agen-
cies are involved (such as the International
Finance Corporation, the World Bank and
development banks); and what type of
infrastructure is being considered. In many

55

56
countries, assessments are not required for most effective when such aspects are con-
road or bridge construction. When they are sidered early on in the planning stages.
requested, EIAs and ESIAs often consider Activities associated with infrastructure
only the impact that infrastructure is likely projects can otherwise have aggravating
to have on the immediate vicinity of the consequences, as was recently the case with
specific project, although the impact typi- the Bumbuna dam expansion project in
cally extends far beyond the area under Sierra Leone. Small-scale logging activities
review and may contribute to cumulative increased in the dam’s potential inundation
impacts, depending on surrounding land zone as local people sought to exploit tim-
use and the proximity of other projects. ber resources that they anticipated would be
Furthermore, EIAs and ESIAs are often car- lost (R. Garriga, personal communication,
ried out too late to influence the decision- 2016). Such activities, which are generally
making process; in such cases, they become based on the assumption that a project will
tools for mitigating—as opposed to pre- go ahead, thus have a negative impact on
venting—environmental degradation (see local wildlife even if a project is not taken
“
Box 1.6). forward. If such a project is indeed aban-
Integrated, well- In addition to being undertaken late in doned, the prospect of its implementation
informed land use the process, the vast majority of EIAs and alone will have exacerbated habitat loss
planning is the most ESIAs are conducted over extremely short and disturbance to wildlife in the locality. By
effective way to periods of time. A short time frame pre- providing an accurate assessment of antic-
minimize the negative cludes a surveyor’s ability to establish a ipated social impacts in the early phases of
impact of infrastruc- proper understanding of the distribution a project, an ESIA can highlight these risks
ture development and conservation status of impacted ape and inform the development of effective
while enabling populations, as well as the potential sea- mitigating measures, typically more compre-
social and economic sonal or long-term impacts of any infra- hensively than an EIA.
”
development. structure development on these animals.
Indeed, surveying apes properly is time-
consuming and requires significant effort Mitigation Measures That
and resources, both of which are often lack- Can Reduce Negative
ing (Kühl et al., 2008). Companies have to
secure resources in advance to be able to
Impacts on Apes
hire qualified experts in ape population The following approaches can serve to miti-
surveys to carry out thorough assessments. gate the impact of infrastructure develop-
To capture seasonal variations, such assessment on apes. While some are not applicable
ments require data collection periods of at in all circumstances, others are used by sev-
least one full year, as well as sufficient time eral certification bodies, including the FSC
to analyze and report on the findings (see and the RSPO.
Box 1.6). In practice, these vital conditions
are rarely met. Applying strategic land use planning.
To avoid adverse effects on local people Integrated, well-informed land use plan-
and to help to manage their expectations, ning is the most effective way to minimize
ESIAs for any infrastructure project need the negative impact of infrastructure
to consider the expected impact on their development while enabling social and
lives and estimate how many external people economic development. There is an
are likely to be attracted to the area prior to urgent need for conservationists to iden-
and during implementation. The process is tify key priority ape ranges on maps and

57
to use these maps in efforts to prevent road networks, as long as such “recy-
infrastructure development in those cling” does not lead to increased
areas. Just as development takes place damage to forest canopy (Morgan
at the international, national and local and Sanz, 2007);
levels, so too does effective land use constructing well-designed and
planning. Such planning considers the -located wildlife crossing sites, speed
different stakeholders involved in various bumps and other structures (whether
types of infrastructure development: arboreal or terrestrial) to allow safer
local private industry may support passage for animals (Cibot et al.,
planning for a tourist lodge, while gov- 2015; McLennan and Asiimwe, 2016;
“
ernments may drive efforts to develop see Box 2.2);
road networks, and multinational cor- keeping road width to a minimum Just as
porations may back bids for hydro- since apes perceive wider roads as development takes
power projects, mining concessions, posing higher crossing-related risks place at the interna-
processing mills and industrial agricul- (Hockings et al., 2006; see Box 2.1); tional, national and
tural activities. and local levels, so too
Minimizing the length of road net- installing signs to alert drivers to the does effective land
”
works. Efforts to restrict the growth of presence of apes. use planning.
road networks help to limit impacts on Avoiding fragmentation. In land-
habitat and wildlife populations over- scapes that are already fragmented and
all, even if restrictions are only applied deforested, infrastructure—such as roads
on a temporary basis (Wilkie et al., 2000). and power lines—may become addi-
Strategic road planning can also reduce tional filters or barriers to wildlife move-
the number of roads that apes must ments. The construction of wildlife
cross in their home range, decreasing passages as linear corridors can serve
stress and risks. To minimize the impact to minimize mortality rates and restore
of road development on apes, stakehold- connectivity.
ers can apply best-practice measures, Controlling domestic animals and
such as by: invasive species. In areas adjacent to
undertaking road construction at infrastructure and ape habitat, strict
least 5 km from protected areas, controls and policies can be effective in
and ideally 10–20 km (Morgan and preventing the introduction of domestic
Sanz, 2007); animals and invasive species, and associ-
avoiding the construction of roads ated risks of disease transmission to apes.
in areas that are important to apes, Dismantling temporary infrastruc-
such as the core of their habitat or ture. The dismantling and destruction
areas with high densities of fruiting of temporary infrastructure—such as
trees, bearing in mind that construc- access roads, provisional camps and
tion in open or monodominant for- bridges—prevents its further use by
est will cause less disturbance and people after a project has been completed.
minimize the loss of tree species The FSC and other certification bodies
that are important to apes for food already encourage such dismantling as
and nesting (Morgan and Sanz, 2007); best practice (FSC, 2015; Rainer, 2014).
reusing old logging and similar road Any relocation of people from tempo-
networks instead of opening up new rary camps requires careful assessment

58
BOX 2.2 2008). The HUTAN–Kinabatangan Orang-utan Conservation

Programme in Sabah decided to erect bridges that would
Apes and Wildlife Bridges: enable these species to cross small tributaries or drains. The
Examples from Asia first bridges were built with used fire hoses, but these ropes
degraded after a few years and needed regular monitoring
Infrastructure can act as an articifical barrier, preventing apes and maintenance to prevent any fatal falls. The second
from moving freely within their habitat. No apes can swim; bridge generation used weather-resistant ropes that do not
even small rivers or drains can become impassable barriers decay under tropical weather conditions. Several types of
to them. Gibbons rarely come to the ground, so the construc- bridges were erected: from single lines to a web-like design
tion of a road dissects their habitat and results in intense using up to five different intertwined lines. The widest gap
fragmentation. between the two riverbanks was about 30 m and the height
Wildlife bridges allow animals to cross artificial barriers. of the bridges was about 10 m above water level.
Bridges that have multiple access points at various heights A major challenge was identifying suitable trees on both sides
can provide different routes across a gap; by allowing sev- of the river that would be tall and strong enough to sustain
eral animals to cross at different points at the same time, the weight of these bridges. A total of eight bridges were
they help to avoid bottlenecks in which conflict can occur erected and are now constantly monitored via direct observa-
between family groups or individuals. In the absence of such tion and camera trapping. Monkeys and other small mammals
bridges, single-strand rope bridges can also be effective. started to use these bridges in a matter of hours or days,
Canopy bridges are an inexpensive, minimally disruptive way sometimes even before a bridge was fully established. It took
of manipulating the habitat to provide primates (and other several years for gibbons and orangutans to start using the
animals) with access to a larger area of habitat and food bridges, however. Once they did, the frequency of passage
sources while minimizing the need for the animals to behave by these two species increased steadily.
in stress-inducing or dangerous ways, such as descending to These bridges have proved to be effective ways to alleviate
the ground to cross gaps (Das et al., 2009). artificial travel bottlenecks for apes. They have also become
In Sabah, the removal of large riparian trees along major trib- a major attraction for tourists, who come to watch macaques
utaries of the Kinabatangan River resulted in the destruction (Macaca spp.) and proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus)
of all natural bridges that were used by orangutans (and prob- cross them. Regular monitoring is needed for maintenance
ably gibbons) to move across the landscape. As a result, these purposes and to make sure that poachers do not ambush
populations experienced further fragmentation (Jalil et al., wildlife on or near the bridges.

59
of relocation areas to minimize the are available, but they are rarely published or Photo: Gibbons rarely
come to the ground, so
potential impact on apes. Following easily accessible. Even when baseline data the construction of a road
dismantling and destruction, rehabilita- have been collected, they often become avail- dissects their habitat and
results in intense fragmen-
tion activities to promote natural regen- able only after the infrastructure has been put tation. Wildlife bridges allow
animals to cross artificial
eration help to support repopulation by in place. The lack of data is an impediment barriers. © Marc Ancrenaz/
apes and other wildlife. to informing infrastructure development. HUTAN–Kinabatangan
Orang-utan Conservation
Developing and implementing eco- There is a clear need to undertake more Project
logical and social standards for large- longitudinal research into the impacts of
scale infrastructure development and infrastructure development on apes. Studies
establishing certification criteria. will be possible and relevant only if there is
Certification can boost credibility, not collaboration among those who are involved
only by satisfying legal or contractual in the development, financing and use of
requirements, but also by enhancing infrastructure, namely private companies,
transparency and maintaining high governments and all other stakeholders. A
standards. The infrastructure sector first step in the promotion of studies that
could take the lead from other industry- assess clear, scientific data gathered before,
specific certification bodies, such as the during and after infrastructure development
FSC and the RSPO, which require adher- is dialog between those who plan, finance
ance to sustainable practices to mitigate and develop infrastructure and ape conser-
threats posed by industry and associ- vationists. Such collaboration can benefit
ated infrastructure. Other certification both sides (see Box 2.3).
bodies—including future ones that might Some information is available about the
be focused on the large-scale infrastruc- correlation between roads on the one hand,
ture sector—could adopt similar eco- and poaching and the decline of ape den-
logical and social standards as part of sity in the vicinity of large-scale infrastruc-
their certification processes. By requir- ture on the other. Overall, however, there is
ing such certification for large-scale a dearth of monitoring data on the short-
infrastructure projects, lenders and and long-term impact of infrastructure
donors would contribute to sustainable development on ape survival. In view of
development. such knowledge gaps and the issues high-
lighted in Table 2.1, urgent research ques-
Systematic monitoring of ape populations include the following:
tions and people is a valuable means of
assessing and demonstrating the useful- How are apes using roads in relation to
ness of applied mitigation measures; it is traffic intensity and road width?
also a reliable method for gathering evi- What are the best road and rail crossing
dence to inform management decisions. mitigation strategies?
For details on the mitigation hierarchy, see At what point does traffic density on
Chapter 4 (pp. 119–128). roads turn them into impermeable bar-
riers for African and Asian great apes
and gibbons?
Reducing Knowledge Gaps Are canopy and rope bridges effective
To date, there is a paucity of longitudinal tools for ape conservation? How many
data that could allow for a more comprehen- individuals or groups use them and for
sive evaluation of the impacts of infrastruc- how long? What would be the ideal
ture on ape survival. At best, snap-shot data design for these bridges (see Box 2.2)?

60
What patterns emerge from short- and jects, such as hydropower dams and
long-term monitoring data on road kills geothermal plants, given that rivers and
and injuries; health patterns (including large bodies of water can be significant
human sanitary conditions); dust and natural barriers?
airborne pollutants; and noise levels? To what extent do satellite communities
What is the impact of power-line electro- that develop in proximity to infrastruc-
cution on gibbons and other apes? What ture projects affect the local environment
devices could be effective in the preven- and biodiversity?
tion of electrocution (see Annex I)?
How are great apes and gibbons affected In the absence of data needed to evaluate
by water-dependent infrastructure pro- the possible impact of infrastructure on ape
survival, a cautious and preventive approach
is necessary. It is difficult to predict the
impact of some types of infrastructure due
BOX 2.3 to the limited occurrence of certain struc-
tures, such as cable cars, in ape habitat. In
Private Industry and Ape Conservation
the Virunga Volcanoes in East Africa, a pro-
In 2006 a private company, the China Petroleum & Chemical Corpo
posed cable car would run through an area
ration, or SINOPEC, began an oil exploration concession in Loango
National Park, Gabon. Initially, the company was conducting explora- that was only recently re-inhabited by goril-
tion work (using dynamite explosions along a grid of transects cut las, members of one of the few ape popula-
through the forest) without any environmental regulations, even though
tions that are currently increasing in size
work was being carried out in a national park. Following discussions
with the Gabonese Ministry of the Environment, non-governmental (Gray et al., 2013). With such a small popu-
organizations (NGOs) and researchers, an environmental impact assess- lation living in such a small habitat—about
ment was conducted to inform the second phase of exploration in 2007.
The assessment resulted in guidelines that:
500 gorillas in 450 km2 (45,000 ha)—it seems
too risky to assume that the impacts will
forbade the use of chainsaws and mechanized vehicles;
not be great, in the absence of firm data to
called for narrow transects and allowed only trees with a diameter
of less than 10 cm at breast height to be cut down; the contrary.
forbade hunting; and
stipulated that a bridge providing access to a large area of the
park had to be destroyed after the exploration work was finished
(Rabanal et al., 2010). Social Impacts of
With the help of routine monitoring of the area, SINOPEC followed Infrastructure
these guidelines. Nevertheless, the disturbance caused by the noise
of dynamite explosions resulted in displacement of chimpanzees and Introduction
gorillas from the area for several months after the work. The explo
ration did not result in further exploitation of the area for petroleum Wildlife conservation and human welfare
extraction and, ten years after the exploration, the main access road is
cannot be considered in isolation from each
greatly reduced in width as the forest is slowly regenerating.
In some cases, a company’s interest in maintaining infrastructure may be
other; both rely on the well-being of tropi-
compatible with conservation goals. One example involves the oil giant cal forests as dynamic, ever-changing eco-
Shell, which, until mid-2017, operated one of the highest-producing systems. Such systems include human
onshore oilfields in sub-Saharan Africa—Rabi, located between two
national parks in Gabon. The company strictly limited access to this
communities that depend on and are part of
area; it also forbade hunting and implemented other regulations that forests. To be fully effective, wildlife conser-
reduced incentives for staff to hunt. These rules were in place largely vation initiatives also rely on the support
to protect the infrastructure of the petroleum concession, but they
resulted in higher densities of large mammals in this area, as compared of local communities. The consideration of
to nearby landscapes that do not receive such high levels of protection potential social impacts of infrastructure
(Laurance et al., 2006). development and the formulation of asso-
ciated mitigation measures are key steps in

61
designing more effective strategies to prevent complex tropical forests. By drawing on Photo: Wildlife conserva-
tion and human welfare
and minimize damage to these communi- examples of oil pipelines, roads and railways cannot be considered in
isolation from each other;
ties. At the same time, these steps can help in southern Cameroon, it examines the way both rely on the well-being of
to secure local support for efforts to protect industrial infrastructure development fuels tropical forests as dynamic,
ever-changing ecosystems.
wildlife and the environment. deforestation. Analysing the impacts not only © Jabruson (www.jabruson.
Rather than attempting to cover the vast of infrastructure, but also of conservation- photoshelter.com)
range of human societies affected by infra- oriented attempts to offset the adverse effects
structure development within ape range such infrastructure has on indigenous
states, this section focuses on some forestpeoples is critical to developing strategies to
dwelling communities that retain an inti- protect the forests on which both apes and
mate knowledge of, and interaction with, such peoples depend.

62
Africa and Asia are home to relatively values of forests and, despite standards to
few indigenous hunter-gatherer populations the contrary, in practice are failing to respect
that depend completely on forest resources, our internationally recognised human rights.
yet these continents are the most affected Contradictorily, many of these same agencies
by activities that impact forests, including are promoting the take-over of our peoples’
infrastructure. The prospecting, developing land and territories through their support
and operating of infrastructure have more for imposed development schemes, thereby
extreme impacts on forest-dwelling peoples further undermining national and global
than on other communities that live near initiatives aimed at protecting forests (FPP
“
forest boundaries. et al., 2014, pp. 117–18).
Wildlife conser- Forest peoples themselves have analyzed
vation and human the dynamics involved in infrastructure Numerous examples from around the
welfare cannot be development. In the Palangka Raya Dec world, along with multiple studies that high-
considered in laration on Deforestation and the Rights of light the role of indigenous peoples and
isolation from each Forest Peoples of 2014, representatives of other local communities in forest conserva-
other; both rely on the forest peoples from Asia, Africa and Latin tion, indicate that conservation can succeed
well-being of tropical America describe the situation as follows: if it is based on securing forest peoples’ rights
forests as dynamic, to their lands and supporting them in con-
ever-changing Global efforts to curb deforestation are failing serving their lands. The opposite approach
”
ecosystems. as forests are cleared faster than ever for agri- to forest conservation—one that destroys
business, timber and other land development indigenous peoples’ forests for “develop-
schemes. We, forest peoples, are being pushed ment” or evicts them from their forest for
to the limits of our endurance just to survive. “conservation”—has been shown to fail
[. . .] Deforestation is unleashed when our (Seymour, La Vina and Hite, 2014). A survey
rights are not protected and our lands and undertaken by the Center for International
forests are taken over by industrial interests Forestry Research compared 40 protected
without our consent. The evidence is com- areas and 33 community-managed forests
pelling that when our peoples’ rights are in 16 countries and found that community-
secured then deforestation can be halted and managed forests were more than 6 times
even reversed (FPP, Pusaka and Pokker SHK, better at avoiding deforestation than pro-
2014, p. 117). tected areas (Porter-Bolland et al., 2012).9
The Declaration goes on to highlight how

the international bodies that are charged Drivers and Impacts of
with halting deforestation are very often the
Infrastructure in Cameroon
same ones that are driving it:
In relation to Cameroon, the Palangka Raya
Global efforts promoted by agencies like the Declaration highlights that:
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United logging, oil palm plantations and new infra-
Nations Collaborative Programme on Reduc structure schemes are causing galloping
ing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest deforestation, aided by colonial laws which
Degradation (UN-REDD) and the World deny our rights to our lands and forests and
Bank to address deforestation through market corrupt government officials who allocate
mechanisms are failing, not just because viable our lands to other interests without regard for
markets have not emerged, but because these our welfare. Evictions are common and impov-
efforts fail to take account of the multiple erishment results. Even protected areas set

63
aside to compensate for forest loss restrict through major growth in export agribusiness,
our livelihoods and deny our rights (FPP et mining, commercial logging and infrastruc-
al., 2014, p. 118). ture development. Much of this economic
activity is geared to export-led growth, which
The major direct causes of deforesta- entails the supply of international markets
tion and forest degradation in Cameroon with timber, rubber, palm oil, minerals and
are commercial logging, cultivation of cash commodities (Dkamela, 2011, pp. 32–6;
crops (mainly cacao and coffee), agro- Republic of Cameroon, 2009a). To date, the
industrial plantations (rubber and oil palm) resulting impacts on forests, wildlife and
and the exploitation of minerals (FPP et forest-dependent communities have often
al., 2014, p. 42). More recently, forests have been exacerbated by poor governance and
been opened up and destroyed by infra- corruption, as well as by smaller companies
structure projects such as roads, railways and local elites who use the infrastucture
and oil pipelines, and hydroelectric power, opened up by export-led economic activity
including the aluminum smelter at Edéa to encroach on forests and generate income
(Dkamela, 2011, pp. 32–5). This section iden- on domestic markets, often at the expense
“
tifies the overall drivers and consequences of customary communities.10
of such infrastructure development and pre- The government’s development plans Numerous
sents specific examples from the rainforest do not make provisions for legal reform of examples and studies
areas of southern Cameroon. outdated land laws, nor for addressing gov- indicate that conserva-
Southern Cameroon is dominated by ernance and corruption issues. As stipulated tion can succeed if it
equatorial rainforest and is relatively sparsely in ordinances issued in 1974, land that is not is based on securing
inhabited by indigenous Bagyeli and Baka registered as private property (including forest peoples’ rights
forest hunter-gatherer communities (the any non-registered forest land) is under the to their lands and
minority) and Bantu farming communities administration of the state, a continuation supporting them in
(the majority) (Kidd and Kenrick, 2009, of the colonial terra nullius principle, under conserving their
”
p. 17; Nguiffo, Kenfack and Mballa, 2009; which lands owned by local communities lands.
Owono, 2001, p. 249). Although many Bantu were appropriated by colonial administra-
are also long-term inhabitants of the forest, tions (Alden Wily, 2011b, pp. 50–51).11 In
they nevertheless acknowledge the Bagyeli practice, this means that communities are
and Baka hunter-gatherers as the first inhab- denied any collective property rights to for-
itants of the forest (Dkamela, 2011, p. 27; Kidd ests and lands that they have customarily
and Kenrick, 2009, p. 16; van den Berg and occupied and used for their livelihoods.
Biesbrouck, 2000). Cameroonian government officials gen-
Between 1990 and 2010, Cameroon lost erally grant forest concessions to private
close to 20% of its forest cover, largely as a interests without consulting or compen-
result of commercial logging, the expan- sating impacted communities (Alden Wily,
sion of medium- and large-scale commer- 2011b; Perram, 2015). Based on the 1994
cial agriculture, and a major infrastructure Forestry Law, which allows for community
project, the Chad–Cameroon pipeline (de forests of up to 50 km2 (5,000 ha), some
Wasseige et al., 2013; Freudenthal, Nnah groups have been granted community for-
and Kenrick, 2011; Ndobe and Mantzel, ests, or temporary access or use rights in
2014, p. 5). protected areas and logging concessions.
In 2009, the government of Cameroon Community forests can be granted to and
set out its ambitious “Vision 2035” for becom- managed by customary communities, but,
ing an emerging economy within 25 years counterintuitively, they can also be granted

64
to and controlled by elite interests. Either example, makes provision for mining com-
way, communities generally gain little from panies to pay compensation to customary
these processes, since they are granted land rights holders, but it does not iden-
management but not tenure or property tify how these rights should be deter-
rights, and because they typically encoun- mined (Nguiffo, 2016; Republic of Cameroon,
ter widespread corruption and administra- 2001, art. 89).
tive barriers (Alden Wily, 2011b, pp. 66–83; Meanwhile, permits for mineral explo-
Cuny, 2011). ration frequently overlap with protected
At the international level, the principle land and established logging or commer-
of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) cial agriculture concessions (principally oil
is enshrined in the UN Declaration on the palm and rubber), reflecting not only dis-
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and in regard for legally binding conservation com-
International Labour Organization (ILO) mitments and community rights to FPIC,13
Convention 169 (1989),12 among other trea- but also a lack of coordination between the
ties. FPIC is embedded in the universal right ministries responsible for issuing different
to self-determination, which is itself embod- permits. Mining permits now reportedly
ied in legally binding instruments to which cover almost 100,000 km2 (10 million ha),
Cameroon is a party, such as the Interna or about 20% of the country’s total land
tional Covenant on Economic, Social and area (Nguiffo, 2016); many overlap with for-
Cultural Rights; the International Cove ested areas and designated permanent for-
nant on Civil and Political Rights; and the est estates, and 20% coincide with protected
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ areas, including national parks (Dkamela,
Rights. Moreover, under Article 45 of its 2011; Mitchard, 2012; see Figure 2.2). Mining
constitution, Cameroon is required to let its companies that have begun extracting or
international law obligations take prece- that are currently prospecting include:
dence over its national legislation (FAO et
al., 2016, pp. 12–13; Franco, 2014, p. 5; Perram, Caminex, a former Cameroonian sub-
2016, pp. 6–7). sidiary of Afferro Mining, which was
Although the government is thus legally taken over by the UK-based International
required to consult communities about any Mining and Infrastructure Corporation;
project that may affect their customary lands, Cam Iron S.A., a Cameroonian subsidi-
indigenous peoples typically learn that their ary 90% owned by the Australian com-
forest has been allocated to a concession or pany Sundance Resources Ltd.;
infrastructure project via the sudden arrival Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd.
of survey teams. Such teams may proceed of Australia;
to install concrete waymarkers to delimit a Geovic Cameroon PLC (GeoCam), based
concession boundary, cut trails to make a in the United States; and
new roadline, or dig pits and remove cores
G-Stones Resources S.A. of Canada
for mineral exploration. (KPMG, 2014; Meehan, 2013; Profundo,
Regulatory and administrative ambi- 2016; Sundance, 2016).
guities and challenges currently prevent
local people from accessing adequate, reli- For some forest-dependent individuals,
able information about development pro- the impact of Cameroon’s development tra-
jects on customary land and from asserting jectory is not entirely negative in the short
their rights with developers or the govern- term, even if the longer-term consequences
ment (Perram, 2016). The Mining Code, for for families, communities and the forest

65
FIGURE 2.2
Bagyeli Customary Land, Forests, and the Chad–Cameroon Oil Pipeline and Proposed Railway in
Southwestern Cameroon, as of November 2016
Chimpanzee Gorilla 0 15 30 km
range range
CAMEROON CAMEROON
Douala–Edéa
N Wildlife
Reserve
Gulf
of
Guinea
Kribi
CAMEROON Ebolowa
Lolabé
k
Kribi l Par
Reserve na
io
at
N
n
a
a’
Campo
M
Ma’an
po
Cam
EQUATORIAL
GUINEA
Bagyeli customary
lands Protected area Proposed railway
Sales of standing forest Chad–Cameroon pipeline
Community forest
Port
Ape ranges Agro-industrial area
Town
Central chimpanzee Industrial logging concession Significant road
Western lowland gorilla Permitted mining area International boundary

66
itself often far outweigh immediate individ- Cameroon’s forest communities depend
ual benefits. Those benefits can involve paid on the forest to provide them with food,
(but often short-term) employment oppor- clean water, shelter and medicinal plants.
tunities, improved access to services and Forests are also the basis of the social and
markets (as forest roads are often main- cultural identity and spirituality of the
tained by logging companies) and the arrival Bagyeli and Baka. Their customary prac-
of mobile telephone masts in remote areas tices are based on low-intensity hunting,
of rainforest. In some instances, developers freshwater fishing, gathering of wild honey
promise to provide communities with health- and other forest products, and small-scale
care facilities or school buildings on the cultivation. For these communities, the neg-
basis of a “social contract” and, in princi- ative consequences of large-scale deforesta-
ple, logging companies pay forest taxes. As tion and infrastructure development are
observed by a Bagyeli man in 2014, however, varied and far-reaching (see Table 2.2).
such promises do not always materialize:
We were promised 3 million CFA francs The Chad–Cameroon

[US$5,000] as compensation for our land
Oil Pipeline
but so far we have received nothing. They
told us this is development, yet we have no The Chad–Cameroon oil pipeline was con-
schools, no hospital and no transportation. structed to transport crude oil from the
The government did not respect its promise oilfields of Doba in southern Chad, through
(FPP et al., 2014, p. 44). Cameroon, and on to the coast at Kribi. On
TABLE 2.2
Infrastructure Developments and Impacts in Cameroon as of June 2017
Development Impacts Examples
Roads In-migration, construction camps, poaching, Djoum–Mbalam international road

artisanal logging, displacement
Railway and port Construction camps, displacement Mbalam–Kribi proposed railway;

Kribi deepwater port
Pipeline In-migration, construction camps, commercial Chad–Cameroon pipeline

poaching, artisanal logging, displacement
Mining Pollution and siltation of watercourses, loss of G-Stones/BOCOM/MME Inc. mining Tsia
customary forests, destruction of sacred sites sacred hill; Cam Iron mining sacred hill for
and medicinal trees, displacement, in-migration, iron ore at Mbalam
commercial poaching, mining camps
Commercial agriculture Loss of customary forests, displacement, destruction Oil palm and rubber by companies such as
of sacred sites and medicinal trees, extreme poverty BioPalm Energy; Herakles Farms oil palm
plantations; SOCAPALM; Sud-Cameroun
Hévéa
Logging concession Road construction facilitating poaching, loss of Logging concessions and standing sales such
customary forests, destruction of sacred sites and as 625,253 ha attributed to French timber group
medicinal trees, siltation of watercourses, in-migration, Rougier and 388,949 ha to Pallisco from the
commercial poaching, mining camps Pasquet group
Sources: Corridor Partnership (n.d.); Environmental Justice Atlas (n.d.); FPP et al. (2014); MME (n.d.)

67
the coast, the pipeline enters the ocean to counteract any adverse impact on the
and, since 2003, the oil has been pumped to Bagyeli, a study conducted in 2001 found
a stationary floating storage unit, from where that the Bank itself had failed to provide
it is offloaded onto tankers bound for the adequate and culturally meaningful space
United States and Europe (IFC, n.d.). to enable Bagyeli participation in the design
Estimated at US$6.5 billion, the cost of of the indigenous peoples plan (Nelson,
construction was covered by the U.S. multi- Kenrick and Jackson, 2001, p. 3). Specifically,
nationals Exxon-Mobil and Chevron the plan did not address the Bagyeli’s main
Texaco, Petronas of Malaysia and the Inter priorities, but instead focused solely on
national Finance Corporation of the World supporting Bagyeli agricultural, health and
Bank. The southern portion of the pipe- education programmes. These programmes
line, between Lolodorf and Kribi, traverses rarely reached their intended beneficiaries
more than 100 km of rich biodiverse forest and ignored the fundamental need the
lands used by indigenous Bagyeli hunter- Bagyeli had expressed, namely the protec-
gatherer communities as well as local Bantu tion of customary rights to their forests,
farming communities (Nelson, 2007, p. 2). which would have helped to secure their
An 890-km stretch of the pipeline’s total access to the forest itself and to agricultural
length of 1,070 km is on Cameroonian terri- land (Nelson, 2007, p. 15).
tory, where the route is 30 m wide. Its final For the Bagyeli, the destruction of the
100 km have had a particularly destructive forest by the pipeline has had very direct and
impact, especially on the Bagyeli hunter- devastating consequences. As one Bagyeli
gatherers and on the forest itself, including healer explained:
apes (Planet Survey/CED, 2003). Research
has documented the adverse effects on the When the pipeline destroys the medicinal
Bagyeli: trees, it will destroy everything. I am a healer;
I don’t use the medicines of the hospital. I was
Hunting is the most important Bagyeli activ- born in the forest, I live in the forest, I will
ity, although they are also gatherers and die in the forest. I live from the forest—the
increasingly farmers [. . .]. Construction of the pipeline destroys the forest by which I live
pipeline brought large numbers of trucks, (Nelson et al., 2001, p. 12).
heavy equipment, workers, and work camp
followers, including poachers, into the region, Another Bagyeli described how the
negatively impacting this form of livelihood. process of constructing the pipeline inten-
The pipeline has resulted in making hunting sified the exploitation of the Bagyeli by their
increasingly difficult for the Bagyeli. They say dominant Bantu neighbors (referred to as
they now need to walk for at least three days the Myi):
in the forest before finding animals. Before
the pipeline, they say, the animals were right The Bagyeli work on the pipeline and the Myi
next door and easy to hunt. Poachers are one take the wages. The monkey travels on high,
of the problems, increasing competition for but the chimpanzee takes what the monkey
game, while not respecting the traditional finds. I don’t want to talk of the pipeline,
methods of hunting without irreparably dam- because the pipeline makes the Myi take from
aging the balance of the ecosystem (Horta, us (Nelson et al., 2001, p. 12).
2012, p. 221).
Meanwhile, the pipeline opened up the
While World Bank policy required the forest not only for poachers, but also for log-
development of an indigenous peoples plan gers. Together they combined to destroy the

68
rich biological diversity as well as the spe- from the global fund managed by the
cific paths and places that made up the eco- World Bank’s Global Environment Facility,
logical and cultural richness that the Bagyeli which described the park “as part of the
always depended on and that had been sus- environmental compensation for the Chad–
tained by their presence. A leading Bagyeli Cameroon pipeline project” (Owono, 2001,
spokesperson, Madame Nouah, observed: p. 248). As a result, hundreds of local Bagyeli
communities were banned from hunting
The forest is very rich for us Pygmies, for us and gathering in many forest areas on
to nourish ourselves. Now we are afraid that which they had always relied, and so their
things will be destroyed in the forest that livelihoods and ways of life became seriously
are necessary and useful for us (Horta, 2012, threatened. The impact of this “green land
p. 221). grab” on the Bagyeli was severe:
Logging also removes non-timber prod- Previously, life within the Wildlife Reserve
ucts, such as honey and seeds, as well as had been regulated, but with the creation of
other points of orientation. As a result of the park and the new funding which enabled
such losses, the Bagyeli are facing increas- the imposition of rules prohibiting access to
ing poverty and “are now more frequently the protected area and the use of any of the
losing their orientation in the forest they natural resources, the lives of the resident
used to know so well” (Horta, 2012, p. 221). populations, especially the hunter-gathering
In interviews, some Baka suggested that as Bagyeli Pygmies, have worsened. This is all
the forest habitat became unrecognizable the more paradoxical because the park was
and filled with noise, humans, apes and created as part of the environmental com-
other species most probably experienced pensation for the Chad–Cameroon pipeline
disorientation and related disturbances in which, according to the World Bank, would
comparable ways.14 help alleviate poverty. However, the estab-
When “development” leads to the destruc- lishment of the [park] will instead worsen the
tion of forests, the international community’s already precarious living conditions of the
standard response is to try to balance the local hunter-gathering population (Owono,
damage with forest protection in the name of 2001, pp. 246–7).
“conservation.” This is exactly what happened
in southern Cameroon: As a case study on the implementation
of the Chad–Cameroon pipeline notes, for
Since construction of the pipeline has led to the peoples such as the Bagyeli, the forest is
loss of important biodiversity in Cameroon’s not so much a resource to be exploited or a
coastal forest, the World Bank’s operational wilderness to be protected; it is a place that
policy on Natural Habitats (OD 4.04) required is home, the source of livelihood and well-
the establishment of protected areas or national being. The Bagyeli have experienced the
parks to compensate for these losses (Horta, construction of the pipeline and the setting
2012, p. 221). aside of land for conservation to compen-
sate for the destruction of forests as a two-
The pipeline project gave the final jus- fold existential threat. First, the Bagyeli—
tification and impetus for the establish- along with the rest of their complex forest
ment of Campo Ma’an National Park near ecosystem—were severely impacted by the
Cameroon’s coast (see Figure 2.2). The pipeline construction and concomitant
Campo Reserve had existed since 1932, but disruption; second, the “compensation” for
now funding for the national park came this disruption further marginalized the

69
community, impoverishing them and disrupt- dislocation that resulted from having their
ing their lives (Planet Survey/CED, 2003, p. 12). forests destroyed by the pipeline. A conser-
Like other forest peoples throughout the vation regime that excludes the Bagyeli from
Congo Basin, the Bagyeli have been resil- familiar places and from their hunting
ient despite centuries of discrimination by grounds effectively ignores their needs, their
their more powerful neighbors and outsid- rights and their ability to sustain and be sus-
ers. As long as they have been able to move tained by their forests (Kidd and Kenrick,
between the forests and the roadside Bantu 2011, pp. 16–21).
villages, the Bagyeli have traded with their
neighbors from a position of autonomy and
resilience (Kenrick, 2006; Kenrick and Lewis, Road and Rail: Impacts of
2004; Kidd and Kenrick, 2011). Once they
Extraction in South Cameroon
are no longer able to sustain their lives in
the forest, however, the structural discrim- It has long been pointed out that Africa and
ination will become as permanent a feature Latin America are not intrinsically poor, but
of their lives as the poverty and sociocultural that so many of their inhabitants are poor
FIGURE 2.3
Ape Ranges and Road and Rail Impacts in Southern Cameroon, as of November 2016
Chimpanzee Gorilla
range range
CAMEROON CAMEROON
CAMEROON
YAOUNDE
Akonolinga
N Douala– Mbalmayo
Edéa
Dja
Kribi Ebolowa Sangmelima
Lolabé
’an
Kribi Ma Nki
o Ngoyla
p
m
Ma’an Mengame Kom

Ca
CamIron
Ntam
Ape ranges Road Capital city
Central chimpanzee Completed
Proposed camp
Widened/
Western lowland paved Proposed railway REPUBLIC
gorilla
Not started Chad–Cameroon OF CONGO
pipeline
Protected area
Baka roadside Mine
village International
0 30 60 km
Town boundary GABON

70
because far more powerful outsiders, along 2013). This activity has had a severe impact
with national elites, have sought to extract on the local Bagyeli, who were relocated
the plentiful resources of both continents and have since experienced reduced access
(Cotula, 2016). to the forest, an increasing scarcity of for-
The map of road and rail infrastructure est products, and noise and pollution from
is a clear indicator of whether the wealth of nearby construction work (FPP et al., 2014;
a country is being used to benefit its inhab- Tucker, 2011).15
itants. Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano In the words of an older Bagyeli man
points out that his continent’s infrastructure named Bibera:
was developed in order to suck its wealth
into the ports, and thence into the colonial The forest where we usually hunt and collect
and neo-colonial economy; that infrastruc- medicinal plants and non-timber forest prod-
ture, he argues, was designed to leave as little ucts is disappearing, especially as the deep sea
wealth behind as possible (Galeano, 2009). port, gas plant and roads are being constructed.
Similarly, in southern Cameroon, the The government has shown us a resettlement
proposed and developing roads and rail- area, which has no forest, not even where you
ways—and the Chad–Cameroon oil pipeline could find a tree to scratch the bark for med-
discussed above—very clearly run to the icine or hunt even a rat. We shall now be in
coast at Kribi so as to facilitate the extraction the centre of the town; the railway line will be
of inland wealth, such as tropical timber passing by us; roads are there; there is a gas
and iron ore (see Figure 2.3). Meanwhile, plant. The calmness of the forest has been
key local transport roads within a radius of replaced by noise of vehicles and machines.
100 km of Kribi remain unpaved and are Please tell the government to reserve us a
unpassable without a four-wheel-drive vehi- place to go and collect medicines to heal our
cle for parts of the year. sick children. No one allows us to decide if
The issue of impoverishment caused by we want to be resettled or not, and where.
wealth extraction cannot be considered Everything is being imposed on us (FPP et
simply in economic terms; it also needs to al., 2014, p. 45).
be assessed socioecologically. Can biodi-
versity and forest communities’ traditional Two major infrastructure projects are
livelihood patterns survive such a process? designed to feed the ports at Kribi and
More specifically, it is an open question Douala. The first, a transnational road
whether large-scale mining can coexist from Yaoundé to the Republic of Congo, is
with forest conservation. Baka community intended to allow for the transport of fin-
members interviewed by the Forest Peoples ished goods to Yaoundé and Douala, and
Programme (FPP) said that preparations the outbound conveyance of primary com-
for iron ore mining in the south-eastern modities. International civil engineering
town of Mbalam had entailed the felling of firms are currently building the road (AfDB,
large areas of forest. Meanwhile, Chinese- 2015). The second is a proposed railway line
funded expansion of West Africa’s first that aims to link several mining projects
deepwater port at Kribi, the administrative throughout southern Cameroon and deliver
capital of the Océan Department and the their resources to Kribi on the coast. Although
marine terminal for the Chad–Cameroon this project is currently on hold due to the
pipeline, has involved forest clearance to low price of iron ore, Cameroonians and
make way for roads, mineral terminals, a Australians are seeking funding to be able
gas plant and other infrastructure (Smith, to resume work once the price has increased.

71
Sundance Resources continues to request the road and rerouted railway run along-
support from China and other interna- side each other.
tional financial markets (Mining Review The settlement of Ntam is on a road that
Africa, 2016). has yet to be upgraded, more than 100 km
Figures 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 highlight the away from the part of the road that is being
impact—and the potential impact—of these improved (see Figure 2.4). Nevertheless, in
two projects by overlaying the road and rail- anticipation of the road’s completion and
way line onto the community forests and arrival at Ntam, the settlement is gearing up
customary lands of the Bagyeli and Baka. Of to become a big trading post. A large cus-
particular concern is the area around Ntam toms building has already been constructed
in the far southeast, close to the Congolese in the town; moreover, local sources indicate
border and the Cam Iron mine at Mbalam. that significant tracts of nearby commu-
In this part of Cameroon, the concentra- nity forest land have already been “sold” to
tion of Baka roadside villages is high and incoming state functionaries, their families
FIGURE 2.4
Community Forests, Protected Areas, and Road and Rail Impacts in Southern Cameroon,
as of November 2016
Chimpanzee Gorilla
range range
CAMEROON
CAMEROON CAMEROON
Dja
N
Sangmelima
Ngoyla
Djoum
Nki
Ngoyla
Oveng
Mengame Kom
Cam Iron
GABON Ntam
Community forest Road Proposed camp

GABON Completed Proposed railway
Protected area Widened/
paved
Mine REPUBLIC
Production forest International
Sales of standing Not started boundary
OF CONGO
volume Baka roadside
Permitted village 0 15 30 km
mining area Town

72
and others—not always lawfully (J. Willis, ronmental and social impact assessment of
personal communication, 2016). Ntam’s the railway is the effect of the construction
transformation shows that impacts of infra- camps (Cam Iron and Rainbow Environ
structure projects also precede—rather ment Consult, 2010). The space cleared to
than simply follow on from—development. build such camps and the number of people
Indeed, the mere anticipation of infrastruc- expected to populate the sites are indicators
ture development opens up the forest for of the likely impacts on the area, not least
exploitation by major players. Small traders, in terms of unsustainable wild meat extrac-
poachers, small-scale loggers and others tion. While the proposed line of the railway
also make their way into the area to start was rerouted to avoid the forest ranges of
exploiting the forest in the expectation of an gorillas and elephants, it was consequently
exponential increase in opportunities and in positioned to run through a series of villages
the demand for various services and products. along the road corridor, which is certain to
The dynamics involved in the railway are exacerbate disruptions to communities’ live-
similar to those of the transnational road lihoods and increase conflict over resources
but even more destructive because the rail- (see Figure 2.5).
way opens up swathes of forest far from Both the local communities and the
the road. A key point to notice in the envi- forest are extremely vulnerable in the face
FIGURE 2.5
Baka Customary Lands, Production Forests and Mining Permits near Ntam on
the Road–Rail Corridor in Southern Cameroon, as of November 2016
Baka roadside village Baka customary lands Protected area

Road: unsurfaced Assoumindélé Production forest
Proposed camp
Ntam International boundary
Proposed railway 0 5 10 km
Mine Seh
N
CAMEROON
CAMEROON
Ngoyla Faunal
Reserve
Mekom
Akonetie
Limabé Cam Iron
Lipeke
Assoumindélé Il
Makamekouma
Seh
Ntegne
Abaminkel
Karagoa Yate
Ntam
REPUBLIC OF CONGO

73
of these developments. Affected communi- any economic benefits from the road, since
ties are rarely consulted with respect to such its construction and associated activities
projects; if they are informed, project pro- lead to the disappearance of the habitat on
ponents tend to focus exclusively on the which they depend.
positive aspects—substantially easier trans- Without the possibility of obtaining land
port options, opportunities to sell forest titles, the Baka and Bagyeli recognize that
products to those in transit, and reduced moneyed and authoritative outsiders can
costs for goods coming from outside the put pressure on them that is hard to resist,
community. Community members thus especially if the benefits they are promised
have a limited understanding of the nega- sound appealing.
tive impacts, including increases in crimi-
nal activity and significant pressures that
development-related activities will place on Conclusions and
the lands and forest in which they live. Strategic Approaches
During a recent meeting of Baka com-
Forest communities in southern Cameroon,
munity representatives in Assoumindélé,
particularly indigenous Bagyeli and Baka
12 km from Ntam, a Baka NGO staff member
communities, are unprepared for the radi-
raised the issue of Djoum, where the road
cal changes that large-scale road and rail
had already been paved, noting:
infrastructure projects impose on them.
The direct impacts include a reduction in
Djoum is already full—there is no land left,
livelihood opportunities; an increase in
and now it is starting to cause disputes within
commercial poaching; and restricted access
families.16
to land that has been allocated to different
concessions (including conservation offsets).
The social impacts of the destruction of
The social impacts outlined above, includ-
their socioecological context include grow-
ing disorientation, displacement, depression
ing rates of alcoholism and suicide among
and substance abuse, and intra-communal
the Baka, increased conflict within and
conflict, compound the situation.
between communities, displacement of
In Cameroon, the meaningful and
whole communities along development
effective inclusion of indigenous commu-
corridors and elite capture of community
nities in economic development planning
forest concessions by influential Bantu.17 is extremely rare. The country’s ten-year
The Baka communities along prime Growth and Employment Strategy, the cor-
transport routes targeted for “improvement” nerstone of Vision 2035, is focused solely
are in an extremely precarious position, as on building infrastructure for national and
are the Bantu. The Baka, and the Bagyeli in regional resource extraction. In the same
the west, still rely significantly on the forest vein, financial observers predict that “recent
for their livelihoods. They generally cannot developments in Cameroon’s road and rail
claim possession of their forests under networks are set to drive the region’s eco-
national law, and their customary use rights nomic growth” (Williams, 2015). Efforts to
are frequently violated in practice, particu- promote such infrastructure expansion—
larly if more powerful people stand to through economic policy and land use
profit financially. For the Baka and Bagyeli, planning—are being shaped at the national
the loss of forest areas translates into a loss level, among government and business
of livelihood. No suitable compensation can elites, international development banks and
restore that livelihood, nor can they expect international private capital.

74
These efforts aim to develop infrastruc- recognized in national law and practice
ture networks that will facilitate national and may also require an acknowledgment that
regional resource extraction. Put differently, such communities are the ones best placed
the infrastructure is not designed to enable to secure the forests. The Cameroon-
farmers and forest communities to bring based Centre pour l’Environnement et le
renewable resources to market, or to allow Développement (Centre for Environ
them to access social provisions. Such plan- ment and Development), FPP, the Rights
ning is arguably based on a model of eco- and Resources Initiative (RRI) and many
nomic growth that has failed to protect the other organizations support communities
environment, and that has been unable to in the use of mapping, the identifica-
create the conditions for secure and stable tion of legal strategies and the develop-
societies (Blaser, Feit and McRae, 2004; ment of the capacity needed to sustain
Edelman and Haugerud, 2005; Martinez- community lands to advance their goals.
“
Alier, 2002; Mosse, 2005). Central among these goals is the inclu-
The impacts The need to support indigenous com- sion of communities in infrastructure-
of infrastructure munities faced with such a bleak future is as related decision-making processes that
development include urgent and challenging as the need to sup- are likely to affect them, particularly in
a reduction in liveli- port non-human forest communities. Neither view of the fact that indigenous peoples
hood opportunities; is likely to be supported by an approach are rarely, if ever, consulted about infra-
an increase in that focuses on economic extraction along- structure development.
commercial poaching; side aggressive conservation tactics, rather Participatory mapping of customary
and restricted access than one focused on securing communities’ territories: In Cameroon and other
to land that has ability first to retain their lands and then, countries that do not recognize custom-
been allocated to on that basis, to pursue development that is ary land tenure as representing legal
different concessions compatible with their well-being. land title, presenting evidence of such
(including conserva- Below are some current and potential tenure can help to persuade developers
”
tion offsets). strategies that can enable government, to recognize land rights. Participatory
conservation organizations and industry mapping is a tool developed by interna-
to support communities to challenge and tional NGOs and communities to pro-
adapt to infrastructure development. More vide georeferenced maps of customary
fundamentally, these steps can help them land use boundaries and key resources
to reclaim their self-determination and an and sites within those boundaries (using
ability to sustain and be sustained by socio- GPS and GIS tools). Maps and sup-
ecologies on which all living beings ulti- porting information can be used by a
mately depend: community and its NGO allies to chal-
lenge a project (for example, to oppose
Securing community tenure: This step a development or reroute a roadline); to
is critical to enabling recognition in the protect key resources and sacred sites;
national legal system of indigenous and to make a case for compensation.
peoples’ and local communities’ rights In Cameroon, a project is under way to
to self-determination, self-governance, develop a common set of protocols for
FPIC and participation in decision- identifying and mapping community
making processes that affect them. As land use and tenure across the country’s
mentioned above, Cameroon is party diverse social and ecological landscapes.
to a number of conventions that recog- The project, part of the RRI Tenure
nize such rights; enabling them to be Facility, is starting to garner support for

75
the adoption of common mapping pro- and monitoring evidence); coalitions of

tocols by government agencies respon- national and international NGOs with
sible for the application of relevant land social and environmental agendas that
laws and ordinances, as well as the poten- place pressure on government agencies
tial support of the land holders them- and donors; and Internet-based cam-
selves, key private sector operators, civil paigns (such as Avaaz, Survival Interna
society actors and donor agencies. tional and various rainforest action
Capacity building: One way to support networks) that raise the profile of an
communities is to provide them with issue and apply pressure through peti-
“
information about infrastructure pro- tions and letter-writing campaigns.
jects and their human rights in relation Compensation: It is important to mon- The protection of
to infrastructure projects, as defined in itor social agreements and other forms community land rights
national and international laws. of compensation (such as logging taxes) is often a prerequisite
that developers and concessionaires for the protection of
”
Development of indigenous peoples’
representative structures: Combined have agreed to pay to communities, as the environment.
with capacity building, support for the they often fail to deliver on their part of
development of networks of forest com- the bargain.
munities (such as federations, local asso- Adaptation: Steps can be taken to sup-
ciations or advocacy platforms) enables port agriculture-based livelihoods in
indigenous community voices to reach order to compensate for the loss of for-
the elites, government officials and com- est resources; to develop microcredit and
pany shareholders. In Cameroon, the savings schemes; and to encourage added-
development of Bagyeli and Baka asso- value processing and market develop-
ciations and their convergence into the ment. These measures generally require
Gbabandi platform in 2016 is starting to partnerships between rights-based
open political space for their issues at the organizations that work on community
national and regional levels. self-determination and development
NGOs and international agencies that
Safeguard monitoring and complaints
are more focused on meeting the United
procedures: With training and appro-
Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
priate legal support, communities and
community-based organizations are
The protection of land rights is often a
monitoring safeguards that developers prerequisite for the protection of the envi-
and funders, such as the World Bank ronment, and community-based forest
and the African Development Bank, management works best when it is rooted in
are obliged to observe. They are also communities that are recognized as legiti-
lodging formal evidence-based com- mate owners of forest ecosystems.
plaints to their grievance procedures In contrast to Asia and Latin America,
whenever systemic or repeated failures Africa provides limited evidence on how
to implement safeguards are docu- forest communities’ customary tenure can
mented, including the right to FPIC. slow and reverse the loss of indigenous for-
Advocacy: Opposition to large-scale est. This poor performance reflects many
infrastructure development can take African governments’ reluctance to recog-
many forms, from direct mediation nize such customary rights, as well as the
between communities or community- fact that community forestry has largely
based organizations and developers been limited to co-management regimes
(using legal texts, participatory maps (Blomley, 2013). As the international land

76
Photo: Cameroon is tenure and resource governance specialist

focused solely on building
infrastructure for national Liz Alden Wily has pointed out, however,
and regional resource
“several states stand out as having purposely
extraction; not to enable
farmers and forest commu- pursued democratic devolution of forest
nities to bring renewable
tenure, as well as management, in a bid to
resources to market, or
to allow them to access radically improve conservation” (Alden Wily,
social provisions.
© Jabruson (www.jabruson.
2016, p. 11).
photoshelter.com) Alden Wily goes on to list Gambia,
Liberia, Namibia and South Africa as coun-
tries in Africa that have advanced this
process. She also notes: “Multiplication of
community owned forests is especially
advanced in Tanzania where, by 2012, 480
communities owned and managed their
own forest reserves totaling 2.36 million
hectares” (Alden Wily, 2016, p. 11).18
There is clear progress on community
tenure of lands and forests in Africa, even
though governments there remain far more
reluctant to recognize such customary
rights than those in Asia and Latin America
(Alden Wily, 2011a, 2016; Nguiffo and
Djeukam, 2008). In Asia, around a quarter
of all forests had been brought under com-
munity ownership by 2009, and that per-
centage has been rising since (Alden Wily,
2016, p. 2).19
This rise in the proportion of commu-
nity ownership of the world’s natural for-
ests reflects the growing recognition that
community tenure is a prerequisite for sus-
tainable forest management.20 This shift is
not only a result of acknowledgment that
granting such community title is key to
effective forest protection, but also a conse-
quence of the fact that forests not owned by
communities are more vulnerable to defor-
estation and are therefore vanishing.
The route to securing such rich and
important forests is clear. As demonstrated
in the discussed examples from Cameroon
and in the relevant literature, however, the
roadblocks are many. Concerted urgent
action is required to remove those blocks,
pursue that path and secure the forests that
so many human, and non-human, commu-
nities experience as home.

77

78
Overall Conclusion measures are put in place, governments and

private industry will continue to enter for-
Infrastructure development in ape range ests and exploit natural resources without
states can disturb forest landscapes in ways adequately consulting local communities,
that have significant, long-term effects on without understanding the risks and likely
both people and wildlife. Such effects may impacts, and without considering the sur-
involve the removal of important species, vival or well-being of affected people and
structural changes that affect the use of the wildlife. It follows that unless the environ-
forest, noise pollution, and increased traf- mental, social and economic impacts of
fic and movement. This chapter’s review of infrastructure development are considered
the ecological and social impacts of infra- in a more holistic way, indigenous commu-
structure development shows that there is nities and endangered species will continue
an urgent, widespread need to ensure that to suffer. This chapter has outlined the main
infrastructure planning processes include impacts of the business-as-usual model, as
effective measures to protect apes, their hab- well as some of the key measures that can
“
itat and local populations. help to prevent and mitigate the harm.
In the applica- Specific recommendations to mitigate
tion of mitigation the negative direct and indirect impacts of
measures, particular infrastructure development before, during
care must be taken and after project construction include con- Acknowledgments
to avoid exacerbating ducting thorough environmental and social Principal authors of the ecological section: Marc
any adverse impacts impact assessments, as well as ongoing mon- Ancrenaz,21 Susan M. Cheyne,22 Tatyana Humle23 and
on indigenous itoring and data collection (see Chapter 1, Martha M. Robbins24
”
peoples. pp. 31–38 and Box 1.6); enabling and prior- Principal authors of the social section: Justin Kenrick,
itizing participation through free, prior and Jake Willis, Anouska Perram and Chris Phillips25
informed consent of local forest-dependent Annex I: Pamela Cunneyworth26

populations; and developing appropriate Reviewers: Cheryl Knott, Susan Lappan, Freddie
mitigation and adaptation measures to Weyman and Elizabeth Williamson
counter any construction-related damage

(for more information on The Mitigation
Hierarchy see Chapter 4, p. 119). In the appli- Endnotes
cation of mitigation measures, particular
1 For the purposes of this chapter, the term indige-
care must be taken to avoid exacerbating any nous peoples is used interchangeably with forest
adverse impacts on indigenous peoples. As peoples, forest-dwelling peoples and forest-dependent
discussed in this chapter, deforestation is peoples. The term local communities is broader: it
more likely to be halted if stakeholders rec- also includes farming populations that are local by
ognize forest peoples’ land rights and sup- proximity but tend to see the forest as a resource
to be exploited or cleared for agriculture, rather
port their age-old approaches to sustaining
than something that sustains them.
and being sustained by their ecosystems,
2 For detailed information on the impact of tourism
than if they evict these communities from
on apes, see Macfie and Williamson (2010).
their lands in the name of “development”
3 For examples of long-term government plans
or “conservation.”
for infrastructure development, see ETP (n.d.),
Countless examples exist of how infra- Indonesia CMEA (2011), SEDIA (2008).
structure projects have severely affected ape
4 For details on the shifting of ranges among bono-
populations and pushed local communities bos, see Hickey et al. (2013); among chimpanzees,
further into poverty, yet counterexamples see Fawcett (2000), Plumptre and Johns (2001),
are hard to find. Unless more effective Plumptre, Reynolds and Bakuneeta (1997) and

79
Reynolds (2005); among chimpanzees and goril- and that “they have chosen the least restrictive
las, see Rabanal et al. (2010); among gibbons, see option from a human rights perspective to satisfy
Cheyne et al. (2016); and among orangutans, see the stated public interest” (MacKay, 2017).
Ancrenaz et al. (2010). 14 Author interviews with Baka community members,
5 For information on chimpanzee road crossings in Lomie, Cameroon, February 2010
Bossou, Guinea, see Hockings (2011) and Hockings 15 FPP interviews with Bagyeli community members,
et al. (2006); in Bulindi, Uganda, see McLennan Cameroon, 2014.
and Asiimwe (2016); and in Sebitoli, Uganda, see
16 FPP staff member observation during a Baka com-
Cibot et al. (2015).
munity meeting, Assoumindélé, Cameroon, 2016.
6 For details on the impact of human disturbance on
17 FPP staff member observations during field trips
African apes, see Junker et al. (2012); on bonobos,
to the region, Cameroon, 2016.
see Hickey et al. (2013); on chimpanzees, see Brncic
et al. (2015) and Plumptre et al. (2010); on Grauer’s 18 See also Kigula (2015) and MNRT (2012).
gorillas, see Plumptre et al. (2016b); on mountain 19 See also Oxfam, ILC and RRI (2016) and RRI
gorillas, see Van Gils and Kayijamahe (2010); on (2016, 2017).
western gorillas, see Laurance et al. (2006); and on 20 For examples of the growth of community tenure,
orangutans, see Wich et al. (2012b). see FPP, IIFB and CBD (2016).
7 See, for example, Blake et al. (2007), Brncic et al. 21 HUTAN–Kinabatangan Orang-utan Conservation
(2015), Geist and Lambin (2002), Hickey et al. (2013), Programme (www.hutan.org.my) and IUCN SSC
Junker et al. (2012), Marshall et al. (2006), Murai PSG Section on Great Apes.
et al. (2013), Plumptre et al. (2016b), Poulsen et al.
22 Borneo Nature Foundation (www.borneonature
(2009), Robinson et al. (1999), Wilkie et al. (2000).
foundation.org) and IUCN SSC PSG Section on
8 For details on crop foraging by chimpanzees, see Small Apes.
Hockings, Anderson and Matsuzawa (2009),
23 Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology
Krief et al. (2014), McLennan and Ganzhorn (2017);
(DICE), School of Anthropology and Conserva
by mountain gorillas, see Seiler and Robbins (2016);
tion, University of Kent (www.kent.ac.uk/sac) and
and by orangutans, see Ancrenaz et al. (2015b),
IUCN SSC PSG Section on Great Apes.
Campbell-Smith et al. (2011b).
24 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthro
9 See also Chhatre and Agrawal (2009); Nelson and
pology (www.eva.mpg.de) and IUCN SSC PSG
Chomitz (2011).
Section on Great Apes.
10 Unpublished FPP trip reports, 2006–17.
25 All at Forest Peoples Programme (www.forest
11 See, for example, Ordinance No. 74-1 of 6 July peoples.org) at time of writing.
1974 on establishing the rules governing land ten-
26 Colobus Conservation
ure (especially articles 1, 2, 14, 16) and Ordinance
(www.colobusconservation.org).
No. 74-2 of the same date on establishing the
rules governing state lands (Alden Wily, 2011b,
pp. 50–1).
12 Cameroon has not ratified ILO Convention 169;
doing so would help cement FPIC as a right. To
date, the Central African Republic is the only
African country to have ratified the convention,
and the island of Fiji the only Asian one (ILO, n.d.).
13 That FPIC is a legally enforceable right is appar-
ent in key regional rulings. Those who seek to
override community rights must prove that such
action is necessary, proportionate and in the pub-
lic interest. In a very practical sense, they have the
right to have their claim heard and judged in
relation to other rights claims. To justify non-
consensual conservation measures such as the
establishment of protected areas, states must dem-
onstrate that such actions are “strictly necessary”

Photo: In Africa, the projected annual cost of infrastructure is around $93 billion. Highway construction between Port-Gentil and Omboué, Gabon. © Julie Sherman 80

81
CHAPTER 3
Deforestation Along Roads:

Monitoring Threats to Ape Habitat
Introduction
The International Energy Agency predicts
that governments and development agen
cies will invest more than US$33 trillion to
build 25 million km of new paved roads
through 2050, a 60% increase over levels in
2010. Nearly 90% of new roadway infrastruc
ture is expected to be built in developing
nations (Dulac, 2013). The Asian Develop
ment Bank estimates that climate-adjusted
infrastructure “investment needs” from 2016
to 2030 will reach about US$16 trillion in
East Asia and US$3 trillion in Southeast Asia
(ADB, 2017, p. 43). Transportation, the second
largest sector, accounts for 32% of expected
climate-adjusted infrastructure investments
in Asia over the same period. In Africa, the
projected annual cost of infrastructure is
Chapter 3 Deforestation Along Roads

82
around US$93 billion, about a third of which see Chapter 2). Of particular importance to
is for maintenance, leading to US$1.4 tril apes, then, is determining whether “greener”
lion in expenditures over the next 15 years infrastructure development can help limit the
(AfDB, 2011a, p. 28). secondary clearing and resource extraction
The chronic failure of governments to associated with roads built through forest.
avoid degrading critical wildlife habitat In considering the role of roads in the
when planning and building infrastruc deforestation of ape habitat, this chapter
ture suggests that this massive investment in presents four original case studies and draws
transportation networks will have devastat on the authors’ extensive experience in mon
ing effects on remaining forests (Quintero itoring forest cover loss, placing particular
et al., 2010). emphasis on recent technological develop
More than other types of infrastructure, ments that have allowed for unprecedented
roads facilitate forest access that enables access to high-resolution satellite imagery.
logging, settlement, hunting and other The research conducted for this chapter
resource extraction, beyond direct damage reveals the following key findings:
to ecosystems (Trombulak and Frissell,
2000). In fact, many road networks in for The construction of new roads in intact
ested areas in the tropics are sited explicitly forest landscapes is frequently followed
to extract natural resources (Nellemann by major episodes of deforestation,
and Newton, 2002). By providing access to leading to negative consequences for
forested areas, roads also catalyze various forest-dependent species such as apes.
indirect disturbances to remaining habitat Deforestation occurs in forest along roads
—including charcoal production and over regardless of the protection status of the
hunting—that imperil apes and other arbo surrounding area.
real mammals (Coffin, 2007; Wilkie et al., Three case studies presented in this
2000). Greater contact between apes and chapter show that drivers of defor
humans also facilitates the spread of disease estation vary by location, but that road
between them (Köndgen et al., 2008; Leroy construction is consistently associated
et al., 2004). with a spike in forest loss, followed by
The World Bank proposed the concept elevated deforestation rates and a pro
of “smart green infrastructure” to minimize gression of forest loss outward from the
harm to tigers and their habitat, which are road over time.
facing a similar crisis (Quintero et al., 2010). In the case studies, illegal logging and
The tenets of the Bank’s mitigation hier smallholder agriculture occurred in
archy—avoidance, minimization, restoration small clearings close to roads. These
and offsetting of negative effects—could be activities are more strongly associated
applied to reduce the damage caused to ape with incremental expansion outward
habitat by infrastructure development (see from the road and the growth of settle
Table 3.3 and Chapter 4, p. 119). The special ment enclaves than the more organized,
izations of many forest-dependent species, and often legal, conversion of larger
including most apes, to the forest environ patches of forest to plantation.
ment’s stable, moist, shaded conditions and Planning to avoid critical areas, regular
complex architecture make them particularly monitoring of forest status and addi
vulnerable to the damage associated with tional conservation action are needed to
roads (Laurance, Goosem and Laurance, reduce the negative effects of roads on
2009; Pohlman, Turton and Goosem, 2009; wildlife habitat. Simple but powerful

83
approaches to detecting and measuring Proposed New Photo: More than other
types of infrastructure, roads
forest loss can help resource managers
monitor the construction and land use
Approaches to facilitate forest access that
enables logging, settlement,
change associated with legal roads and Road Monitoring hunting and other resource
extraction. © HUTAN–
Kinabatangan Orang-utan
halt the building of illegal road clearings Roads and other forms of transportation Conservation Project
in contiguous forest tracts. infrastructure can bring rural communities
Road design must address the access much-needed social and economic benefits,
provided to natural areas by roads that including access to markets and resources;
cannot be rerouted. Even if a road does however, this is not always the case (see
not hinder the movement of apes, the Chapter 2, p. 60). Ideally, these arteries con
associated conversion of formerly inac nect people to markets and resources while
cessible forest to other land uses can avoiding primary forest, sensitive habitats,
decimate resident ape populations, as animal dispersal and migratory routes, and
has been the case for western Tanzania’s unique natural communities. However, recent
chimpanzee populations. road planning often fails to consider these
In Peru’s primate-rich Amazon forests, factors. Without proper planning and post-
deforestation tracking combines weekly construction monitoring, roads can incur
alerts of tree cover loss with verification tremendous costs of time and money while
using high-resolution satellite imagery. devastating the surrounding environment
This useful model for combating illegal and creating public health issues (Clements,
road building and associated land clear 2013; Laurance et al., 2009; see Chapter 1).
ing activities could easily be adapted to This chapter provides three examples of
ape habitats. road construction projects that have affected

84
surrounding ape forest habitat. A fourth case survival (see Box 3.1). It can be applied to
study was conducted outside an ape range ape habitat in the same way.
but is relevant to monitoring primate habitat; Data and maps of expected tree cover
it shows how new data and tools available loss associated with proposed infrastructure
to the ape conservation community can routes can inform road siting and suggest
help detect, monitor, predict and minimize preventive actions to minimize deforesta
forest loss. Specifically, satellite imagery and tion, assuming that high-level decisions
associated spatial data analysis tools now incorporate environmental information.
permit resource managers to more effec These tools can also help to reduce damage
tively monitor changes in canopy cover of from roadways by:
ape habitat surrounding infrastructure and
other developments (see Annex II). This estimating potential impact within the
approach has already been used to assess area surrounding a proposed road;
remaining habitat for tigers and to influence detecting tree cover loss along a new
landscape-level planning to ensure their roadway before it expands;
BOX 3.1 The researchers estimate that forest clearing between 2000
and 2014—an area equivalent to nearly 80,000 km² (8 mil-
Applying Lessons from Tiger Habitat lion ha) or 7.7% of the tigers’ remaining habitat—resulted in
Analysis to Ape Habitat Monitoring the loss of habitat that could have supported an estimated
and Conservation 400 tigers, more than one-tenth of the global population
(Walston et al., 2010). Across the 76 TCLs, forest loss was
Like apes, tigers need large areas to survive. But loss of actually much lower than expected, given the region’s rapid
habitat, combined with overhunting of both tigers and their economic growth and high population densities.
prey, has diminished the global wild population to fewer than
Loss was also unevenly distributed: 98% of tiger forest habi-
3,500 individuals (Joshi et al., 2016). Nevertheless, sufficient
tat loss across the 29 most critical TCLs for increasing tiger
forested tiger habitat still remains across the species’ range
populations occurred within just ten of these landscapes,
to bring the tiger back from the brink of extinction.
primarily in Indonesia and Malaysia, where oil palm planta-
A recent assessment of critical tiger habitat utilized a new tions are driving deforestation. Many of these TCLs, especially
satellite-based monitoring system to analyze 14 years of in Sumatra, are also home to critically important ape popula-
forest loss data within the 76 landscapes that have been tions (IUCN, 2016c; see Chapter 7).
prioritized for the conservation of wild tigers (Joshi et al., The results of the habitat assessment allow scientists and
2016). Published in 2016, the study identifies enough forest tiger range authorities to improve their understanding of the
habitat within tigers’ geographic range to achieve the inter- spatial distribution of intact forest, tree cover loss and human
national commitment of doubling the wild tiger population development within the TCLs so that conservation resources
by 2022—an initiative known as Tx2 (World Bank, 2016b)— can be applied where they are most needed to avert further
with additional conservation investment. damage.
The researchers systematically examined forest cover change In Indonesia, more than 4,000 km² (400,000 ha) of unbroken
across globally recognized tiger conservation landscapes forest expanses in TCLs have been allocated for oil palm
(TCLs), which have a median area of 2,904 km² (290,400 concessions. Conversion of these forests would fragment
hectares (ha)) (Joshi et al., 2016; Wikramanayake et al., 2011). forest corridors and deplete habitat in protected areas. If this
They used high- and medium-resolution satellite data pro- faster rate of habitat loss is to be addressed, conservation
vided by Global Forest Watch and Google Earth Engine, along investment in these TCLs will need to be particularly intensive
with analysis from the University of Maryland (GFW, 2014; and targeted at commodity production practices.
Google Earth Engine Team, n.d.).
The tiger habitat assessment introduces tools that, had they
The open-access GFW platform provides tools that forest been part of the toolkit of forest and wildlife managers, could
managers and others can use to measure and monitor critical have helped detect and address forest change even at the
habitats, analyze risk and prioritize conservation efforts. The landscape level. Forest regrowth in Khata, one of Nepal’s
research team used annually updated GFW tree cover data at tiger corridors, coincided with a community-managed forestry
a resolution of 30 m × 30 m to detect and locate forest loss. program to restore forests for tiger dispersal in this region

85
identifying trends in tree cover loss over and interpretation of the raw information
time and effectiveness of various conser (Curran et al., 2004; Gaveau et al., 2009b;
vation actions (Clements et al., 2014); LaPorte et al., 2007; see Annex II).
helping decision-makers understand the Assessing deforestation at the landscape
patterns of loss and potential mitigation scale provided valuable evidence of the
options; and effects of human activity on forests, but the
highlighting best-practice examples of cost and effort needed to obtain the satel
road construction that are followed by lite data prevented widespread use of such
conservation action to contribute to approaches.
the growing trend towards smart green Global Forest Watch (GFW), a new for
infrastructure (Quintero et al., 2010). est change analysis platform, has trans
formed the process and increased access to
Until recently, the use of satellite data the power of satellite imagery. It provides
required substantial expertise and funding free access to spatially explicit tree cover
for the acquisition, processing, verification change data, derived from thousands of
(Joshi et al., 2016). Community-based anti-poaching teams extinction of wild tigers, has also endorsed the approach
now also patrol the forests to prevent wildlife poaching and (World Bank, 2016b).
habitat degradation. Timely knowledge of these positive results Doubling the tiger population by 2022 will require moving
would have allowed forest managers to assist the Khata com- beyond tracking annual changes in habitat. GFW’s new forest
munities and focus official protection work elsewhere. loss alert system (at a spatial resolution of 30 m) will soon gener-
In contrast, the clearing of forests by people in search of land ate weekly alerts for forests across the tropics (M. Hansen,
around Nepal’s Basanta corridor has impeded tiger dispersal personal communication, 2017). Once the system is in place,
to the north, resulting in the absence of previously seen tigers forest managers in range states will be able to receive alerts
from recent surveys. The human settlement process was of forest loss within a certain reserve, corridor or TCL in near-
identified by regional experts, whereas near-real-time forest real time and take appropriate action. Tiger range state officials
loss alerts would have notified managers far sooner and ena- have expressed interest in integrating the weekly forest loss
bled them to try to guide the settlement so as to reduce forest alerts into reserve managers’ regular monitoring and reporting
loss (Joshi et al., 2016). activities, as even rapid alerts still require immediate action
Updated forest cover information would also have helped on the ground to stop habitat degradation and loss.¹ For a
small, isolated reserves, such as India’s Panna National Park, relatively poor disperser such as tigers, community forestry
where tigers were wiped out by poachers and the lack of programs, government initiatives and other stakeholders
connectivity to other reserves precluded tiger recolonization should also monitor the extent to which forest connectivity is
(Wikramanayake et al., 2011). The park’s vegetation and prey regained. GFW’s weekly updating can help track and even
base were left intact, but the government had to transfer five promote these interventions.
tigers from nearby reserves to catalyze population recovery to Tracking and detecting forest change through tree loss is
more than 35 adult tigers. even more relevant to arboreal animals, such as apes. GFW
The tiger habitat assessment was presented at a meeting of alerts allow for a weekly assessment of the level of risk posed
environmental ministers from tiger range states in Delhi, India, by the fragmentation of thinly connected forest blocks, which
in April 2016. In the Delhi Pledge for Tiger Conservation, the is particularly important for the 20 species of gibbon (GFW,
conference delegates vow “to protect the tiger and its wild 2014). A continually updated, spatially explicit assessment of
habitat to ensure crucial ecological services for prosperity” forest change will help identify and refine key areas for apes
(PIB, 2016b). Delegates from five countries asked to use the and evaluate the type and degree of threat to enable author-
satellite-based monitoring tools presented in the assessment ities and resource managers to take appropriate action. By
to conduct and update their annual national tiger habitat making a population recovery commitment based on Tx2, but
analyses, and others described how this tool could help for great apes and gibbons, ape range states and conserva-
them to monitor habitat across the tiger range countries at tion groups could jointly create an opportunity to facilitate the
the same scale (PIB, 2016a). The Global Tiger Initiative, an flow of attention and resources to key areas within ape habitat.
alliance of governments, international agencies, the private The maps of tiger habitat and tree cover change can be found
sector and civil society groups whose aim is to prevent the online at globalforestwatch.org.

86
Landsat satellite images at a resolution of before and after a road’s construction or

30 m × 30 m, updated annually for the entire improvement (Hansen et al., 2013). The quan
world (GFW, 2014; see Chapter 7). As of tification of tree cover loss over time at a fine
mid-2017, GFW began offering weekly scale allows for estimates of the location and
updates of tree cover change for most ape scale of the effects of roads on forest habitat,
range states to enable near-real-time habi the detection of patterns and the identifica
tat monitoring (GFW, 2014; M. Hansen, tion of areas where future loss is likely.
personal communication, 2017). Ape range Further, the chapter examines aspects
stakeholders can use the online GFW tools of road development associated with nega
to view and analyze tree cover loss data for tive effects on ape habitat. It also assesses
a country or protected area, create custom the potential of open-access GFW tools, such
maps or download data for their target as forest loss alerts, and data for: a) fine-
region. GFW thus allows users with basic scale monitoring of forest surrounding
skills to monitor changes in habitat and gen roadways built or expanded between 2001
erate critical information on forest change and 2014; b) quantifying forest loss from
that can enhance their conservation efforts infrastructure and associated secondary
or monitor the effects of road building in development; and c) helping reserve man
near-real time. agers and others do the same. A description
of methods can be found in Annex III.
Case Study Approach

This chapter presents past and expected Recommendations for
change in ape forest habitat in three case Road Infrastructure in
study sites around roads that were substan Ape Habitat
tially upgraded between 2001 and 2014 (see
Annex III) and in one site outside the ape Zoning Roads to Maximize
range, in the primate-rich tropical forests of
Societal Benefit and Minimize
Peru. The first three sites—two in northern
Sumatra, Indonesia, and one in western Damage to Ape Habitat
Tanzania—are home to a total of four ape sub Planning new roads to minimize environ
species. The Sumatran sites lie in the Leuser mental damage while maximizing societal
Ecosystem and are home to the siamang benefits must include consideration of both
(Symphalangus syndactylus), Sumatran lar their location and design. Of primary impor
gibbon (Hylobates lar vestitus) and Sumatran tance is the avoidance of new road construc
orangutan (Pongo abelii); the site in western tion through pristine habitat, where soils
Tanzania supports eastern chimpanzees are commonly of marginal productivity and
(Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). Peru’s rain which are far away from markets (Laurance
forests harbor more than 50 primate taxa, et al., 2015b; Quintero et al., 2010; see Table
and the species numbers at several sites are 3.3). Laurance and Balmford (2013) and
among the world’s highest (IUCN SSC Pri Laurance et al. (2014a) propose global “road
mate Specialist Group, 2006). zoning” to identify and map the areas where
Specifically, the analysis applies the roads would best connect people to mar
Global Forest Change 2000–14 data set to kets and resources and where roads should
show the loss of ape forest habitat in areas up not be built, including areas of primary
to 10 km from individual roads in the years forest, sensitive habitats, animal dispersal, p. 102

87
CASE STUDY 3.1 routes that were passable only during the drier seasons. The
Ladia Galaska road network cuts across the Leuser Eco
Roads Facilitate Industrial-Scale Agriculture system’s northern section, fragmenting formerly intact forest
Threatening the Leuser Ecosystem in and threatening forest biodiversity and water supply services
Sumatra, Indonesia for lowland communities.
Background Ladia Galaska has generated heated debate since it was pro-
posed in the mid-1980s (Eddy, 2015). Aceh’s governors have
Over the past 50 years, human activity has reduced Sumatra’s
pushed to speed up construction, and many local communi-
vast expanse of tropical rainforest to isolated remnants and
ties support the project because it would improve their options
a few large patches. Oil palm, pulpwood and other large-
for transporting palm oil and other commodities (Clements
scale plantations have rapidly replaced the island’s natural
et al., 2014).
forest and now occupy 20% of the land area (Abood et al.,
2015; De Koninck, Bernard and Girard, 2012). Forest clearing Critics have argued that Ladia Galaska threatens essential
in the north of the island began in earnest in the 1980s and ecosystem services provided by the intact forest, including
led to the loss of more than half of the formerly intact forests water supply for several million local residents, erosion and
in Aceh province by 2000 (De Koninck et al., 2012). flood control, fire suppression and tourism (van Beukering,
Cesar and Janssen, 2003; Wich et al., 2011). They also note
The Leuser Ecosystem encompasses 25,000 km² (2.5 million
the reduction and fragmentation of forest that is habitat to
hectares (ha)), including the Gunung Leuser National Park
numerous iconic and threatened species, including critical
(GLNP), and is by far the largest and most significant forest
orangutan and gibbon populations (Clements et al., 2014;
remnant in Sumatra. It occupies the last remaining lowland
IUCN, 2016a). Further, many of the roads are constructed
forests and the largely mountainous, biodiverse rainforests of
in forested areas with steep slopes that are prone to earth-
Aceh and North Sumatra province (De Koninck et al., 2012;
quakes and landslides (Riesco, 2005). Finally, the partially
GFW, n.d.-c). The Leuser Ecosystem comprises 78% of
completed project has met with opposition because it will
remaining habitat for the Sumatran orangutan and supports
expand access to the area’s forests, including the GLNP. By
more than 90% of the remaining population—an estimated
facilitating illegal logging, it will continue to have a negative
14,600 individuals (Wich et al., 2008, 2016). It is most prob-
effect on critically important habitat of all three ape species
ably a critical refuge for the Sumatran lar gibbon and siamang
as well as other unique Sumatran wildlife, including tigers
(Campbell et al., 2008; Nijman and Geissmann, 2008). All three
and elephants (Gaveau et al., 2009b; Panaligan, 2005; Wich
taxa are endangered by hunting and habitat loss and require
et al., 2008).
intact forest canopy to survive (Brockelman and Geissmann,
2008; Nijman and Geissmann, 2008). For this analysis, improvements to roads at two nearby sites
served as case studies (see Figure 3.1):
Established in 1995, the Leuser Ecosystem is a legal entity
managed for conservation of the region’s biological diversity the Tamiang Hulu–Lokop (TH–L) road in the Leuser Eco
and designed to contain viable populations of native spe- system’s eastern portion; and
cies (Van Schaik, Monk and Robertson, 2001). Even in this the Blangkejeren–Kutacane (B–K) road that runs through
protected area, however, people continue to clear forest and the Ecosystem’s center, separating portions of Gunung
large-scale plantations have come to cover much of the his- Leuser National Park.
torical ape habitat.
Roughly 54 km apart, they are two of roughly 16 sections
Hunting and the conversion of previously logged forests into
that comprise the Ladia Galaska road improvement scheme
monoculture plantations are the two principal threats to the
(De Koninck et al., 2012).
three ape species in the Leuser Ecosystem (Geissmann, 2007;
Wich et al., 2011, 2016). Quantifying local hunting pressure
is beyond the scope of this analysis. Therefore, road buffer- Tamiang Hulu–Lokop Road Development
zone distances were set to reflect the previous finding that The east–west TH–L route near the village of Tampor Paloh
wild meat hunting typically extends between 5 km and 10 km was initially a logging road, visible in the 1980s. It was inten-
from roads, as reported by Laurance et al. (2009; see also sively developed during 2009–10 (see Figure 3.2).
Annex III).
Effects on the Surrounding Area, as Identified by GFW
Incursion of the Ladia Galaska Road Network Roughly 1,072 km² (107,200 ha) of forest remained within
Ladia Galaska is a 1,650-km all-weather road expansion effort 10 km of the road in 2000 (see Table 3.1). Of this area, 243 km²
that is meant to link Aceh’s west and east coasts through the were within agricultural concessions zoned for conversion
province’s mountainous interior (De Koninck et al., 2012). to plantations. Prior to 2000, some lower-elevation forest
Since the mid-1990s, the mega-development project has where the road connected to a large oil palm plantation on
upgraded and connected previously built roads, including its eastern edge had already been cleared. Between 2000

88
FIGURE 3.1
The Tamiang Hulu–Lokop and Blangkejeren–Kutacane Roads in the Leuser Ecosystem, Aceh,
Sumatra, Indonesia, 2001–14
Aceh
Tampor Paloh
Ta
m ian
gH
ulu
–Lo
k op
I N D O N E S I A
Blangkejeren
BBl
alann
ggkk
eejej
err
een
n––
KKu
utta
acc
North
aann
Marpunga
Sumatra
e
IN D IA N
O C EA N
0 15 30 km
Kutacane
Road Gunung Leuser
Leuser Ecosystem National Park
Forest loss
2001 2014
Notes: Forest loss is color-coded by year. Yellow–orange colors represent earlier years, and purple–blue colors represent later years.
Data sources: Google Earth Engine Team (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013)²

89
FIGURE 3.2 and 2014, additional natural forest was cleared within vari-
ous concessions.
Eastern Half of the Tamiang Hulu–Lokop
Most of the forest loss between 2000 and 2014 occurred
Road with Forest Loss, Aceh, Sumatra, within concessions that were still in natural forest in 2000 but
Indonesia, 2000–14 cleared by 2014. This included 129 km² (12,900 ha) primarily
in oil palm concessions within 0–5 km and another 114 km²
(11,400 ha) within 5–10 km (see Table 3.1).
Outside of the concessions, the area along the road experi-
enced scattered and limited deforestation before 2007.
Between 2000 and 2006, the areas 0–5 km and 5–10 km
from the road each lost less than 0.2% of the 2000 forest
cover per year (see Figure 3.3). Prior to the road’s improve-
ment, most clearing took place immediately along the road
or where it intersected rivers or prior clearings (roads, plan-
tations). Much of the initial 2007 spike in deforestation
occurred where the road intersected a river, due to an
improved crossing and expansion of a local main road along
the river’s edge.
Improvement of the road in 2009 corresponded to a sec-
ond surge in deforestation, as tree cover loss spiked again.
The area within 5 km of the road lost nearly 0.8% per year
for several years, after which the rate of loss declined
(although plantation reclearing expanded).
Between 5 km and 10 km from the road, tree cover loss
between 2009 and 2014 averaged 1.2% per year, a rate six
times higher than the pre-2009 average. Despite improved
access to interior forests all along the road, most loss took
place in the lowland forests within previously designated
concessions at the area’s eastern edge or at intersections of
the road with other roads or rivers. Deforestation within 10 km
along much of the length of the road was limited to scattered
small clearings that extended 100–200 m on either side of
the roadway.
Notes: Forest loss is color-coded by year. Yellow–orange colors represent earlier years, and purple–blue colors represent later years. The large clearing at the
eastern end of the road is an oil palm plantation established before the year 2000 and is excluded from the analysis.
Data sources: Google Earth Engine Team (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013)³
TABLE 3.1
Tree Cover and Loss in Tamiang Hulu–Lokop Road Buffer Areas, Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia,
as Identified by Global Forest Watch
Buffer Tree cover, Tree cover loss, Forest cover, 2000, excluding Loss excluding Total concession
2000 (km²) 2000–14 (km²) mature oil palm (km²) reclearing (km²) area (km²)
0–5 km 485 41 468 23 129
5–10 km 608 57 604 53 114
0–10 km 1,093 97 1,072 76 243
Notes: Values for tree cover in 2000 and tree cover loss in 2000–14 refer to the full extent of tree cover identified by GFW for those years. The values for forest
cover in 2000 exclude a 17-km² mature stand of oil palm within 5 km and another 4-km² stand within 5–10 km that GFW mistakenly counted as forest (see
Annex III). The reclearing of these areas between 2011 and 2014 was excluded from tree cover loss. Although nearly 25% (243 km² or 24,300 ha) of the total area
with tree cover was within large-scale concessions, some of it was still natural forest in 2000.
Data sources: GFW (2014); Hansen et al. (2013)

90
FIGURE 3.3
Forest Loss Within the Buffer Zones of the Tamiang Hulu–Lokop Road, Aceh, Sumatra,
Indonesia, 2000–14
Key: 0–5 km 5–10 km
Forest loss (km²)

12
ROAD IMPROVED
10
0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
Notes: Road improvements took place in 2009. Loss values exclude the reclearing of a major oil palm plantation in the western edge of the buffer zones between
2010 and 2014 (see Figure 3.2).
Addressing Effects of Road Development independent and comprehensive review across a given region
The findings suggest that, on its own, the upgrade of the (Meijaard and Wich, 2014).
TH–L road caused limited forest loss; however, it negatively However, the power of Indonesian logging interests and a
affected ape populations because of its role in reducing key lack of capacity to control them have minimized restrictions
lowland forest habitat. Orangutans and lar gibbons favor low- placed on logging and conversion to plantations (De Koninck
land forest below 1,500 m (Brockelman and Geissmann, et al., 2012; Robertson, 2002). Most proposed improvements
2008; Campbell et al., 2008; Van Schaik et al., 2001; Wich et have either disregarded findings of their required environ-
al., 2016). These species may persist at low densities within mental impact assessment or have ignored it altogether
Leuser’s remaining upland forest (Van Schaik et al., 2001; (Robertson, 2002; Singleton et al., 2004).
Wich et al., 2016). The improved TH–L road may have sped the There is an urgent need to develop a systematic and refined
conversion of lowland forest to oil palm within acknowledged land use monitoring system (De Koninck et al., 2012). The
plantation boundaries. Nevertheless, minimal settlement transparency afforded through regular monitoring by forest
occurred along this route, concentrated along intersections officials at various levels using tools such as GFW could
with an existing road and river (see Figure 3.2). The narrow greatly facilitate such efforts.
roadway clearing sits in a valley, and its hilly surroundings may
have limited the establishment of side roads, which presum-
ably would have led to additional forest clearing and hunt-
ing access.
Requiring agricultural concession holders to include in their
management plans a series of maps of the forest types,
endangered species, protected areas, roads and manage-
ment activities could help identify where critical habitat may
be in jeopardy. Accompanied by enforcement, such plans
would encourage thoughtful concession design and enable

91
CASE STUDY 3.2 Figure 3.4). The road was substantially improved in 2009,
and illegal logging and agriculture have since widened the
Roads Facilitate Small-Scale Agriculture deforested strip along the road, which divides two large sec-
and Encroachment into Gunung Leuser tions of the GLNP.
National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia The road has provided transport and market access to two
Blangkejeren–Kutacane Road Development settlement enclaves, Gumpang and Marpunga, which were
allowed to remain outside the boundaries of the GLNP (see
The Blangkejeren–Kutacane route, a section of the road that
bisects both the Leuser Ecosystem and the Gunung Leuser Figures 3.4 and 3.5). These settlements have since expanded
National Park, also runs through a valley, but it differs from the into National Park territory. The road has also provided forest
TH–L road in that it does not provide access to large-scale access to loggers, who have illegally cleared sections along-
plantations. Nevertheless, improved road access into the side the adjacent Alas River and into the surrounding pro-
middle of the Leuser forest has invited serious encroachment tected forest (McCarthy, 2002).
and deforestation problems over time. A lack of political will to enforce logging laws and collusion
Historically, the B–K road served as a pathway between between powerful government officials and timber companies
Blangkejeren and Kutacane. By providing access to the for- makes illegal logging in Leuser’s protected forests especially
est, it attracted settlers (Tsunokawa and Hoban, 1997; see hard to address (McCarthy, 2000; Wich et al., 2011).
FIGURE 3.4 FIGURE 3.5

The Blangkejeren–Kutacane Road, Aceh, Section of the Blangkejeren–Kutacane Road
Sumatra, Indonesia, Shown With Buffers of with Protected Forest on Both Sides and Forest
5 km and 10 km, 2016 Loss, Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia, 2000–14
Blangkejeren–
Kutacane road
5-km road buffer Blangkejeren–
10-km road buffer Kutacane road
Gunung Leuser 5-km road buffer
National Park 10-km road buffer
Notes: The road separates the forest blocks of Gunung Leuser National Park Notes: Forest loss progresses over time outward from the road, including
(in green). Two settlement enclaves along the road—Gumpang to the north and outward from the concentration of loss in the enclave of Marpunga. The clear-
Marpunga to the south—are visible outside of the park boundary on the map. ing deep inside Gunung Leuser National Park at center left is a landslide.
Data source: Google Earth (n.d.)4 Data sources: Google Earth (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013)5

92
TABLE 3.2
Tree Cover and Loss in Blangkejeren–Kutacane Road Buffer Areas, Aceh, Sumatra,
Indonesia, 2000–14, as Identified by Global Forest Watch
Buffer Forest, 2000 Forest loss, Forest loss, Pre-2009 average Post-2009 average
(km²) 2000–14 (km²) 2000–14 (%) annual loss (km²) annual loss (km²)
0–5 km 646 53 8.1 2.4 5.5
5–10 km 818 27 3.3 1.3 2.7
0–10 km 1,464 79 5.4 3.7 8.2
Note: No concessions occurred within the buffer areas of this road.

Effects on the Surrounding Area, as Identified by GFW annually between 2009 and 2014 was more than double that
Roughly 1,464 km² (146,400 ha) of forest remained within 10 km for the period between 2001 and 2008.
of the road in 2000 despite decades of regular use (see Table Between 2000 and 2008, roughly 3.7 km² (370 ha) of forest
3.2). Forest loss between 2000 and 2006 was consistently was lost each year within the entire 0–10-km buffer area.
greater along the B–K road than around the Tamiang Hulu– This rate more than doubled during the years after the road
Lokop road, averaging 1–3 km² per year within 5 km of the improvement (see Table 3.2 and Figure 3.6). Most of the loss
road and 1.0–1.5 km² per year within 5–10 km. occurred within 3 km of the road. Part of the improved road
The B–K road was upgraded in 2009. Forest loss tripled that section runs through Blangkejeren, which was already well
year and remained high; the average area of forest lost settled before 2000 and which lost relatively little additional
FIGURE 3.6
Forest Loss Within the Buffer Zones of the Blangkejeren–Kutacane Road, Aceh, Sumatra,
Indonesia, 2000–14
Key: 0–5 km 5–10 km
Forest loss (km²)

12
ROAD IMPROVED
10
0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
Note: The buffer zones did not contain plantations.

93
FIGURE 3.7
Progression of Forest Loss Along a Section of the Blangkejeren–Kutacane Road, Aceh,
Sumatra, Indonesia, 2003–14
2003 2004 2005

Aceh N Ac eh Ac eh
K e t a m b e K e t a m b e K e t a m b e
Bla Bla Bla
n gk n gk n gk
e je e je e je
r r r
en
en
en
–K
–K
–K
ut
ut
ut
ac
ac
ac
an
an
an
e
e
0 2.5 5 km
2007 2008 2009

Aceh Ac eh Ac eh
Bla Bla Bla
n gk n gk n gk
e je e je e je
r r r
en
en
en
–K
–K
–K
ut
ut
ut
ac
ac
ac
an
an
an
e
e
2010 2012 2014
Aceh Ac eh Ac eh
Bla Bla Bla

n gk n gk n gk
ej e je e je
er r r
en
en
en
–K
–K
–K
ut
ut
ut
ac
ac
ac
an
an
an
e
Note: Forest, shown in pale green, lies within Gunung Leuser National Park.
Data sources: GFW (2014); Hansen et al. (2013). All maps © OpenStreetMap and contributors (www.openstreetmap.org/copyright)

94
forest cover during the study period. Nonetheless, forest loss The Leuser Ecosystem is officially protected by presidential
overall was more extensive on the two ends of the road sec- decree and provides water for millions of Aceh residents
tion, near the established towns. (Eddy, 2015; Singleton et al., 2004; van Beukering et al., 2003).
As with the TH–L road, the 2009 upgrade of the B–K road Nevertheless, some Ladia Galaska roads traverse the region’s
corresponded to a surge in deforestation (see Figure 3.6). steep slopes, cutting through protection forests, which have
The average rate of loss rose over the following years at both an average slope of 40% or more, as well as conservation
distances from the road, but particularly close to it. Within 5 km forests, including the GLNP and water catchment areas.
of the road, the 0.9% average annual rate of forest loss after Scientists at the Center for International Forestry Research
the 2009 upgrade was more than double the 0.4% loss rate have recommended redirecting Aceh’s road investment
prior to the upgrade. At a distance of 5 km to 10 km from the away from remote Leuser forests to existing roads that need
road, forest loss between 2009 and 2014 averaged 0.3% per improvements along the coast, where more agriculture and
year, also double the pre-2009 average. settlement occur and forests have been degraded. This shift
would benefit more residents and incur lower environmental
One explanation for the negative influence of roads on forest
costs (CIFOR, 2015; Laurance and Balmford, 2013).
cover is the shifting of loggers’ efforts once the road itself is
no longer a barrier. As soon as a good road is available, log- Projections based on economic and environmental data sug-
gers or settlers may be more willing to spend a day clearing gest that Aceh forests that are near roads have a higher risk
forest from a point on the road than if they had already had of deforestation, leaving viable ape habitat only in the more
to travel over 20–50 km of bad road that day. The upgrading remote sections of the Leuser Ecosystem (Gaveau et al.,
of the road facilitated access to interior forests inside the 2009b; Van Schaik et al., 2001). The indiscriminate spread of
GLNP, despite the hilly terrain that may have limited clearing clearings along the B–K road and other roads within the Leuser
in steeper areas. Ecosystem will increasingly fragment the GLNP and two of
the three largest remaining orangutan populations.
Incursions into the GLNP thus accelerated over time (see
Figure 3.7). Progression of forest loss within the park spiked As the hills within the GLNP are quickly becoming a last
in 2004, building on smaller incursions of the previous two refuge for apes on Sumatra, additional conservation action
years. Loss spiked again in 2008 and 2009, also after several must address not only the access provided by this road and
years of smaller incursions. This pattern of smaller but consist- associated settlement enclaves, but also the lack of law
ent, incremental clearing along the B–K road stands in contrast enforcement capacity, as both factors enable illegal logging
to the clearing of larger blocks within the concessions of the to continue within park boundaries (Eddy, 2015; Robertson,
TH–L road, where little settlement occurred. The images in 2002; Wich et al., 2011). Along established roads, posts estab-
Figure 3.7 show the spatiotemporal progression of deforesta- lished by local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
tion inside the GLNP along the B–K road. resource managers at road and river checkpoints could help
to prevent loggers from entering the GLNP and to confiscate
Predictive models have shown that forest areas near roads in
wildlife and logs that are being removed from the park ille-
Aceh are increasingly vulnerable to deforestation. Researchers
gally (Singleton et al., 2004). Planning new roads so that they
expect the extent of orangutan habitat to decrease by another
avoid or minimize forest clearing will be crucial to apes’ per-
16% between 2006 and 2030, which would cause major
sistence in the Leuser Ecosystem (Jaeger, Fahrig and Ewald,
declines in the current global population (Clements et al.,
2006; Nijman, 2009).
2014; Gaveau et al., 2009b). Forest conversion and fires have
followed logging activity along many Indonesian logging
roads, heightening the vulnerability of resident ape popula-
tions (Clements et al., 2014; Laurance et al., 2009).
Addressing Effects of Road Development

The Ladia Galaska project is a case of poor land use planning,
as exemplified by the B–K road (Wich et al., 2008). Whereas
the TH–L road facilitated wide-scale conversion of lowland
forest to oil palm inside designated plantations, the B–K road
bisects the mountainous Gunung Leuser National Park.
Aerial photographs taken before and after an earlier (1982)
upgrade of the B–K route show that the improved access
facilitated uncontrolled illegal settlements inside the park
around the Gumpang and Marpunga enclaves (Singleton et
al., 2004). The improved road enabled the settlers to enter
the GLNP illegally, extract resources from the park and poach
wildlife. The 2009 improvement further encouraged forest
loss around these growing human enclaves, within an other-
wise remote national park.

95
CASE STUDY 3.3 Construction plans foresee an extension of the road south-
ward, as a way of connecting Rukoma village, north of the
Stepwise Road Construction through MMNP, with remote villages south of the park. Narrow dirt
Chimpanzee Habitat in Western Tanzania roads of cleared vegetation already run from Rukoma for
20 km, connecting scattered settlements east and south of
Background
the MMNP (Sections E and G). As of 2017, a 13-km segment
The Ilagala–Rukoma–Kashagulu (I–R–K) road in the west of of Section F of the road, along the eastern boundary of the
Tanzania has facilitated settlement of forests and woodlands MMNP, was still at the proposal stage (see Figure 3.8).
east of Lake Tanganyika (see Figure 3.8). The region contains
large tracts of intact woodland characterized by Brachystegia Effects on the Surrounding Area, as Identified by GFW
species (spp.) and Julbernardia spp. that provide high-quality
Before 2006, areas across the region experienced moderate
habitat for a diversity of species, including the eastern chim-
forest loss, even before road construction, as people were
panzee (Piel et al., 2015). Forested lands to the south of the
already living in the area and converting forests to farmland
Malagarasi River are under increasing threat from a human
(see Figure 3.9). The building and upgrading of the I–R–K
population growing at an annual rate of 2–5%, one of the high-
road, beginning in 2006–07, correlated with dramatic increases
est rates in Tanzania.
in forest loss, particularly within the 0–5-km buffer in the Lugufu–
The study area includes 20 villages, most of which lie along Ntakata area (5.5 km² or 554 ha), where the new road bisected
the lakeshore, and areas in six land tenure categories—village large patches of pristine forest and miombo woodland. In the
forest reserves, other demarcated village lands, Kungwe Bay Masito area, a smaller 2007 spike in tree cover loss (1.2 km²
Forest Reserve, local authority forest reserves, Mahale Moun or 121 ha) within the 0–5-km buffer reflected the area’s already
tains National Park (MMNP) and general land not reserved for diminished forest cover, as deforestation along the existing
a specific use or a particular village. Fishing and subsistence dirt road there had begun prior to 2000. In contrast, no spike
farming are the region’s main economic activities; hunting is in forest loss occurred in 2007 in the Mahale East area, as the
not a major economic venture in this region. corresponding road section was not yet built. The increase
The road runs along the shores of Lake Tanganyika, from the in forest loss in Mahale East after 2011 is probably due to a
Malagarasi River south to the southern border of the MMNP. gradual influx of settlers from shoreline villages north and
Fewer than one-third of Tanzania’s 2,500 chimpanzees live south of the MMNP via dirt tracks.
inside Gombe and Mahale Mountains National Parks, where Both high-resolution satellite images and community forest
they are well protected (Moyer et al., 2006; Piel et al., 2015; monitoring data indicate that the most important drivers of
Plumptre et al., 2010). Most chimpanzees in the region live deforestation within areas up to 10 km from the road are the
at lower population densities outside protected areas. The building of side roads and houses, farming, livestock grazing
most recent draft of the Tanzania National Chimpanzee Man and charcoal production. The improved road in Section A and
agement Plan considers infrastructure, settlements and new road in Sections B–D facilitated residents’ access to new
smallholder agriculture “very high” threats to chimpanzees agricultural and charcoal markets in Kigoma, north of the
and habitats at the national scale (TAWIRI, in preparation). study area, and made it easier for people from villages north
A previous analysis, carried out in 2011 using the same of the Malagarasi River to migrate south and settle in previ-
methodology, ranked settlements and infrastructure as “high” ously remote forest and woodland.
(Lasch et al., 2011); the reassessment suggests that the The road’s construction in 2006–07 corresponded to a wave
threat from infrastructure development increased from 2010 of forest loss reaching beyond the 10-km buffer in both the
to 2016. Masito and Lugufu–Ntakata areas (see Figure 3.10). In Lugufu–
Ntakata, the largest forest loss in all years occurred within the
Incursion of the Ilagala–Rukoma–Kashagulu Road 0–5-km buffer area, and forest loss decreased with distance
The I–R–K road is the primary infrastructure development in from the road. In Masito, greater forest loss occurred in
the region. It is being built in sections. Section A of the road— areas between 5 km and 10 km from the road. The road that
between the Malagarasi and Lugufu rivers—connected vil- existed in Masito before 2007 connected to an extensive
lages along the lakeshore long before 2000 (see Figure 3.8). network of footpaths. It is therefore likely that substantial
It was expanded during the main road construction phase in forest within 5 km of the main road had already been lost in
2006–07, when a bridge was built across the Lugufu. The Masito before 2007.
absence of a bridge prior to 2007 had limited travel between An alarming trend in both Masito and Lugufu–Ntakata is the
areas north and south of the river. Similarly, no road existed increase in forest loss 25 km to 30 km away from the I–R–K
south of the Lugufu River before 2007, when extension of road—at levels significantly higher than before 2007. Most of
the road began. Subsequent sections were built over the these areas lack roads, enabling chimpanzees to range and
next seven years, as funding became available. No road disperse across the landscape. The Ntakata Forest east of
planning or impact assessment of its design or implementa- Rukoma, the current terminus of the paved road, is critical
tion was conducted for Sections A–E (K. Doody, personal habitat for chimpanzees, as it allows dispersal of individuals
communication, 2017). from and to the MMNP chimpanzee population (see Annex V).

96
FIGURE 3.8
Distribution of Forest and Woodland Vegetation with 5-km and 10-km Buffers Along the
Ilagala–Rukoma–Kashagulu Road, Tanzania, 2000
Ilagala
asi
Road section
ar
g
M ala A Expanded in 2006
Karago
B Built 2007–09
TANZANIA A Songambele C Built 2009–11
Sunuka D Built 2013–14
Kirando Masito Area E Track/proposed road
F Footpath/proposed road
G Track/proposed road
B
Lyabusende N
Sigunga
Mishamo Villages Lands

La
C
ke
Lu
gu
fu
Ta
Herembe
Lugufu-Ntakata
nga
Area
Kaparamsenga D
nyika
Mgambazi
Rukoma
Igalula
Buhingu-Mgambo E Ntakata Forest
Katumbi
Nkonkwa
Mahale East
Kalilani
Area
Lubalisi % tree cover in 2014

F Mwese 30–100%
Mahale Mountains 0–30%
National Park Tree cover loss 2001–14

5-km road buffer
Mpembe
10-km road buffer
Village
National park
G Other footpath/dirt road
0 10 20 km Major river
Kalya Kashagulu
Sibwesa
Notes: Letters refer to road sections built during different time periods. A dirt road in Masito (Section A) was improved and expanded in 2006. Between 2007 and
2013, Sections B–D in Lugufu–Ntakata were built, and a narrow dirt road cleared in Sections E and G. Section F surrounds a proposed future stretch of the road. The
analysis excluded areas inside the MMNP because habitats within the park were relatively well protected during the study period. Forest and woodland vegetation
were defined as areas with a tree cover density of more than 30% (see Annex III). ArcGIS Desktop (Esri, 2016) was used to digitize road construction based on
DigitalGlobe satellite images from 2003–16, using the ImageConnect 5.1 plug-in; Google Earth was used to digitize road construction based on Landsat satellite
images from 2000–16.
Data sources: Hansen et al. (2013); OpenStreetMap (n.d.)

97
FIGURE 3.9
Forest Loss in the Ilagala–Rukoma–Kashagulu Road’s (a) 0–5-km and (b) 5–10-km Buffer
Zones, Tanzania, 2000–14
Key: Masito 0–5 km Lugufu–Ntakata 0–5 km Mahale East 0–5 km
Forest loss (km²)

7
a
ROAD IMPROVED
0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
Key: Masito 5–10 km Lugufu–Ntakata 5–10 km Mahale East 5–10 km
Forest loss (km²)

6
b
ROAD IMPROVED
0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
Notes: Lines correspond to the northern Masito, central Lugufu–Ntakata and southern Mahale East areas (Sections A, B–E and F, respectively, in Figure 3.8).
The road development expanded a road in Masito and involved the construction of a new road to the Lugufu–Ntakata area. Tree cover loss spiked in 2007 in
both Masito and Lugufu–Ntakata; deforestation continued at an elevated rate in Lugufu–Ntakata. The road has not yet reached the Mahale East area, to the
south of the existing road.

98
FIGURE 3.10
Forest Loss Before and After Road Construction Within 5–30 km of the I–R–K Road in the
(a) Masito and (b) Lugufu–Ntakata Areas, Tanzania, 2001–06 and 2007–14
Key: Pre-road (2001–06) Post-road (2007–14)
Forest loss (%)

7
a
0
5 km 10 km 15 km 20 km 25 km 30 km
Distance from the road
Key: Pre-road (2001–06) Post-road (2007–14)
Forest loss (%)

6
b
0
5 km 10 km 15 km 20 km 25 km 30 km
Distance from the road
Note: In Masito, the original road was expanded in 2006; road sections in the Lugufu–Ntakata region were built between 2007 and 2013.

99
Tanzania’s National Roads Agency (TANROADS) has per- remaining and well-protected chimpanzee population in the
mission and funding to clear an 18-km stretch of forest and MMNP—about 550–600 individuals. It also threatens the
woodland to build Section F, the next planned segment of the large numbers of chimpanzees living outside the park, partly
road (see Figure 3.8). The potential impact of building this sec- because they depend on the zone of connectivity between
tion and upgrading existing footpaths and dirt roads along MMNP and the Ntakata Forest.
Section E is a cause of concern for chimpanzee conserva- The road itself will not stop chimpanzee movements; however,
tionists. The increased access provided by these tracks has it will attract settlers who will clear adjacent forest to farm,
already hastened forest loss north and northeast of the MMNP. graze livestock or burn charcoal in this otherwise remote
Unless it is properly planned and managed to restrict illegal region. Most of the area alongside the new road is general or
settlements, the construction of the new road east of the park village land and lacks any form of protection. Loss of intact,
is expected to increase rural population density, intensify roadless areas for the most densely populated chimpanzee
deforestation, and contribute to isolation of Tanzania’s largest habitats in the region will have disastrous consequences for
the overall health and viability of chimpanzees in Tanzania.
Addressing Effects of Road Development

As part of a conservation action planning (CAP) process, some
communities along the road have developed village land use
plans and established village forest reserves based on recom-
mendations for mitigating habitat loss (Lasch et al., 2011). If
they were to be granted protected status, these reserves
could help maintain forest cover along the road and serve as
buffers between the road and the core chimpanzee habitats.
Plans resulting from subsequent CAP processes have called
for the identification of areas where roads are likely to expand
into critical chimpanzee habitats and the application of a
hierarchy of mitigation strategies for greening infrastructure
(Plumptre et al., 2010; Quintero et al., 2010; TAWIRI, in prep-
aration; see Table 3.3 and Annex V). The plan for the Mahale
region advises against building the remaining sections of the
road, suggesting that, at a minimum, the routes be moved
farther away from the MMNP. If Section F of the road must
be built, the plan urges development and implementation of
a detailed land use plan to protect the forest on either side of
the road, so that chimpanzees can cross the road safely and
use the surrounding habitat.
Conservation groups have met with TANROADS to design
the new section and to address the potential loss of chim-
panzee habitat as people use the new road to move into the
area (K. Doody, personal communication, 2017). In principle,
TANROADS agreed to conduct an environmental impact
assessment. Continued dialog between the TANROADS road
developers, Uvinza district government, communities and
conservation practitioners will be critical to the proper design
of future road improvements and to the implementation of
conservation strategies to avoid unplanned settlement and
conversion of forests to other land uses.
One such strategy is to establish a new, locally administered
protected area that serves as a buffer against future loss of
forest and woodland along the road. Tanzania’s ongoing con-
servation action planning processes, such as the chimpan-
zee management planning process, provide an opportunity to
integrate road development, land use and other chimpanzee
conservation efforts at the national level to maximize societal
benefits from future roads while minimizing the effects on chim-
Photo: © Jabruson 2018 (www.jabruson.photoshelter.com) panzees and biodiversity in general.

100
CASE STUDY 3.4 The MAAP team reviews the high-resolution imagery of a tar-
get spot from different time periods to confirm that the alert
Integrating Forest Loss Alerts with In-Depth represents deforestation. The team can then bring the alert
Analysis to Tackle Deforestation in Near- data into a geographic information system (GIS) to produce
Real Time a detailed map or to investigate drivers of the forest loss (see
Figure 3.12b–c).
An innovative forest mapping effort in primate-rich Amazo
At this writing, the MAAP team was improving its analysis of
nian forests may provide a useful model for monitoring ape the distribution and intensity of alerts to identify overarching
habitat at a fine scale. The Monitoring of the Andean Amazon patterns and drivers of deforestation (M. Finer, personal
Project (MAAP) integrates and applies a suite of remote sens- communication, 2016). MAAP analyzed the average size of
ing tools to detect and monitor the status of deforestation deforestation events in the Peruvian Amazon to help NGOs
events (MAAP, 2016, n.d.). The project team combines Landsat and national authorities understand deforestation patterns and
satellite images (which are of medium resolution) with high- prioritize response actions. The analysis found that large-
resolution images from DigitalGlobe and Planet, radar-based scale deforestation (more than 50 ha)—mainly from cacao and
imagery and Global Land Analysis & Discovery (GLAD) forest oil palm plantations—accounted for just 8% of deforestation
loss alerts to identify patterns and drivers of deforestation in events, while small-scale deforestation (fewer than 5 ha) from
near-real time (GLAD, n.d.; see Annex IV). clearings along roads made up more than 70% of deforestation
events (MAAP, 2016). Since larger-scale clearing can expand
The MAAP team’s first step in identifying deforestation hot-
rapidly, these monitoring activities need to remain a priority.
spots is receiving a GLAD alert in the area. On a weekly basis,
GLAD already operates in much of the Congo Basin, Indonesia
the GLAD system accesses and analyzes Landsat imagery
and Malaysia, and it should be available to help managers eas-
across the tropics. GLAD alerts are triggered when a threshold
ily and consistently monitor all tropical forests by late 2017
portion of a 30 m × 30 m pixel in a user’s area of interest
(GFW, 2014). By helping to detect habitat loss at the onset
changes from forest to non-forest cover (Hansen et al., 2016). of road building, alerts will facilitate more timely, and there-
The team allows the alerts of tree cover loss to guide their fore more effective and efficient, interventions (Hansen et al.,
investigations into deforestation events. Each of the thousands 2016). Since forest loss alerts provide rapid updates, they
of GLAD alerts is presented as a pink spot on a map (see can help guide associated development and enforcement, as
Figures 3.11 and 3.12). MAAP’s area of interest is all of Peru, they have in Peru, to ensure that no additional illegal devel-
but the selected area could instead comprise a specific pro- opment happens along roads where restrictions or planning
tected area, a road corridor or a multi-country region. regulations have been established.
FIGURE 3.11
Sample Set of GLAD Forest Loss Alerts Near Kisangani, Democratic Republic of Congo,
January–March 2017
Notes: The image shows deforestation along roads and rivers, emphasizing the relationship between the access provided by these transport corridors and
forest loss.

101
FIGURE 3.12
Sample Set of Images Showing the Process of Examining and Integrating GLAD Forest Loss
Alerts into Forest Trend Mapping Near Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru, January–July 2016
a
Notes: The images show illegal forest clearings in a protection forest. The initial (a) GFW alerts can be
downloaded and combined with other data in a (b) geographic information system (GIS) and examined in
greater detail with (c) high-resolution satellite imagery to help determine drivers of forest loss.
Data sources: (a) GFW (2014); Hansen et al. (2013); MAAP (2016); (b) and (c) DigitalGlobe (n.d.); MAAP
(2016); Planet (n.d.)

102
Photo: Siting a new road migratory routes and unique natural com If building new transportation infra
in areas with substantial
economic activity, such as munities. However, many decision-makers structure cannot be avoided, best practices
northern Aceh, rather than
through a large tract of
fail to consider these factors during road can help to minimize negative consequences
intact forest, could improve planning processes. The consequences can for the surrounding ecosystem (see Table 3.3).
farmers’ market access and
avoid a possible environ-
be devastating to natural environments while Monitoring logging roads and closing them
mental disaster. wasting time and money connecting areas in after extraction ends can restrict access to
© Joerg Hartmann/TNC
ways that help relatively few people (Laurance illegal loggers and animal poachers (Laurance
et al., 2015b; see Chapter 1, p. 28). et al., 2009). Following recommendations
Current road planning and mapping of environmental impact assessments that
efforts inadequately assess environmental consider both roads and associated clear
and socioeconomic impacts, and especially ing and hunting and conducting enhanced
the indirect effects, such as unplanned col patrolling and monitoring of forest on both
onization, hunting and secondary road sides of a road can further help to mini
building (Clements et al., 2014; Laurance mize the negative effects of infrastructure
et al., 2014a). Roads that stimulate uncon on forest ecosystems (Clements et al., 2014;
trolled immigration lead to greater satellite Quintero et al., 2010).
clearing and other forest damage by settlers Rerouting a proposed road may be the
(Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 1999; Liu, Iverson cheapest and most effective means of
and Brown, 1993). Chimpanzees and orang avoiding areas of critical wildlife habitat,
utans appear to tolerate some road pres but in poor countries covering this addi
ence. However, the subsequent conversion tional cost will probably require creative
of newly accessible forest to settlements, fundraising (Quintero et al., 2010). Fees
farming, charcoal and other uses encour from ecotourism income and visitors,
ages further forest clearing and hunting, a international payments for ecosystem
major threat to apes and other large-bodied services, public–private partnerships and
animals (Laurance et al., 2006, 2009). sales of sustainably harvested timber within
TABLE 3.3
The Mitigation Hierarchy
Mitigation step Description
Avoidance Measures taken to avoid negative effects from the outset. These include
careful spatial or temporal placement of elements of infrastructure in ways
that completely avoid harming certain components of biodiversity.
Minimization Measures taken to reduce the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts
that cannot be completely avoided, as far as is practically feasible.
Rehabilitation/ Measures taken to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems or restore cleared

restoration ecosystems following exposure to effects that could not be completely
avoided and/or reduced.
Offset Measures taken to achieve no net loss of biodiversity, by compensating for

any significant adverse effects on biodiversity that could not be avoided or
reduced, and/or by compensating for lost biodiversity that could not be
rehabilitated or restored. Offsets can involve restoring degraded habitat,
arresting degradation, averting risk or preventing at-risk areas from experi-
encing biodiversity loss.
Note: For more information, see Chapter 4, p. 119.

Source: Quintero et al. (2010)

103
production forests could help offset costs, Applying Road Planning to

pay for the rerouting of a road or allow for
the Local Context
the mitigation of its environmental impacts
(Dierkers and Mattingly, 2009; Laurance et Refining the global map of Laurance et al.
al., 2014a). Park entry fees or impact fees (2014a) using local-scale data on distri
for roads that transit protected areas can butions of natural resources and human
and should be used to minimize associ communities for specific proposed roads
ated clearing in adjacent forest. Engaging could guide decision-makers in determining
lenders early in the process can help to whether and where to site new roads. Siting
guide funding to less damaging projects a new road in areas with substantial economic
(Laurance et al., 2015a). Concentrating roads activity, such as northern Aceh, rather than
in already developed areas should make through a large tract of intact, unprotected
construction and maintenance costs, as well forest, such as Gunung Leuser National
as use fee collection systems, more cost- Park, could improve farmers’ market access
effective. Such efficient use of funds could and avoid a possible environmental disaster
encourage international banks to support (Rhodes et al., 2014; Wich et al., 2011). In
a project. the case in western Tanzania, this protocol

104
would call for avoiding a new road through The Potential of Remote
the single remaining habitat corridor for
chimpanzees and other woodland species
Sensing Tools to Detect
in and out of Mahale Mountains National and Monitor Changes in
Park. In that context, integrating road plan Ape Habitat
ning with village land use planning and data
Remote sensing imagery can serve as an
collection, as recommended by Tanzania’s
independent source of information. At some
CAP process, could help reduce local habitat
point over the course of new infrastructure
“
loss (Clements et al., 2014; see Annex V).
development, such imagery will capture the
Development Laurance and Balmford (2013) suggest
tree cover loss that results from construction
banks and other collaborative, multidisciplinary teams that
and subsequent human activity. Through
major funding bodies combine satellite data on forest cover with
the above-mentioned weekly forest loss
have a key role in information on transportation infrastruc
alerts, the detection of tree cover change
supporting efforts to ture, agricultural production, biodiversity
will be sped up dramatically (see Annex IV).
harness the capacity distribution and other relevant factors to
of roads to improve produce maps that can help government These data can be strengthened by under
local economies with- and other stakeholders plan roads in ways taking ape habitat mapping and analysis
out damaging natural that achieve environmental and societal goals. using landscape metrics to assess habitat
”
resources. Development banks and other major funding connectivity, fragmentation and patch size,
bodies have a key role in supporting efforts shape and richness in relation to ape distri
to harness the capacity of roads to improve bution and abundance (M. Coroi, personal
local economies without damaging natural communication, 2017).
resources. Open-access monitoring tools Resource managers in ape range coun
would allow such integrated, cross-agency tries can verify the effects of infrastructure
teams to analyze the effects of infrastructure- on forest cover by contrasting the status of
related development to improve monitoring surrounding forest before and after infra
and planning for future developments. structure projects in analyses similar to the
The dynamics of road infrastructure ones presented in this chapter’s case stud
and human activity are complex and often ies. Forest loss and land cover data can help
case-specific. Roads not only respond to, predict where ape habitat and populations
but also stimulate, increased human popu may already be degraded. Managers can
lation density. Some roads, such as those in complement data on a proposed road with
western Tanzania, are built specifically to lessons learned from previous case studies
support existing settlements. Elsewhere, to inform the process of determining the
speculators are known to purchase and new road’s location and design. Proposed
clear forested land to demonstrate ownership roads and other developments indicate
in anticipation of the progression of a new where remaining ape populations will be
road into hitherto intact forest (Angelsen most affected in the future (Laurance et al.,
and Kaimowitz, 1999). Moreover, deforesta 2006). Detecting and monitoring loss of
tion where roads are built to transport min forest habitat in ape range countries through
erals, logs or palm oil from vast cleared areas rapid analysis will also help managers to
that have few people may not depend directly reduce the effects of infrastructure presence
on population density (Curran et al., 2004; through targeted local action.
Kummer and Turner, 1994). Independent The drivers and patterns of deforesta
information sources are therefore essential to tion in these cases vary by location, yet the
understanding the deforestation that accom spike from road-associated development is
panies various categories of roads. seen consistently in all cases and at various

105
distances from the respective roads. GFW Endnotes

forest change analysis tools can help research
1 Author interviews with delegates at the Third Asian
ers, managers and policymakers to quan
Ministerial Conference on Tiger Conservation,
tify changes in forest cover over time, from New Delhi, April 2016.
both road construction and the subsequent 2 Map sources: Aerogrid, AEX, CNES/Airbus DS,
development associated with it. The accu DigitalGlobe, Earthstar Geographics, Esri, Geo
mulation of spatially explicit forest change Eye, Getmapping, IGN, IGP, NOAA, swisstopo,
data allows users to communicate these USDA, USGS and the GIS User Community
changes to policymakers and to maintain 3 See endnote 2.
decision-making transparency. 4 See endnote 2.
The increasing fragmentation and con 5 See endnote 2.
version of ape habitat documented elsewhere 6 Formerly RESOLVE, now wildlife researcher and
in this volume underscore the importance writer/editor (wildtech.mongabay.com)
of road construction as a proximate driver 7 RESOLVE (www.resolv.org)
of that loss. Dealing with the underlying 8 Jane Goodall Institute (JGI)
drivers of habitat loss is beyond the scope (www.janegoodall.org.uk)
of this analysis, although they must also be 9 University of Minnesota
addressed. In view of the ongoing expan (www.conssci.umn.edu)
sion of road networks, the simplest solu 10 RESOLVE (www.resolv.org)

tion is to focus on improving roads close to 11 Hutan, Alam dan Lingkungan Aceh (HAkA)
(www.haka.or.id)
population centers; while at the same time
avoiding the construction of new roads in 12 Liverpool John Moores University
(www.ljmu.ac.uk)
intact forests and stopping the upkeep of
13 McGill University (www.mcgill.ca)
roads that once were used for extraction
purposes, so that forest access may be cut
off (Clements et al., 2014; Laurance and
Balmford, 2013).
Numerous studies cited here and else
where suggest that roads and wildlife do not
coexist well in any country unless stakehold
ers adopt principles of smart green infra
structure. A shift to a model that embraces
these principles must become a prerequi
site for development in all wildlife habitats,
including in regions that harbor remnant
wild ape populations.
Acknowledgments
Principal authors: Suzanne Palminteri6, Eric Diner
stein7, Lilian Pintea8, Anup Joshi9, Sanjiv Fernando10,
Agung Dwinurcahya11, Serge Wich12 and Christopher
Stadler13
Annexes II, III, IV and V: The authors
Reviewers: Leo Bottrill, David Edwards and Wijnand
de Wit

Photo: The best way to limit the impact of human disturbance on wildlife and ecological processes is to ensure that core areas of parks remain road-free—Maiko National Park, DRC. © Jabruson 2018 106

107
CHAPTER 4
Apes, Protected Areas and

Infrastructure in Africa
Introduction
Equatorial Africa sustains the continent’s
highest levels of biodiversity, especially in the
wet and humid tropical forests that harbor
Africa’s apes. This equatorial region, like
much of sub-Saharan Africa, is facing dra-
matic changes in the extent, number and
environmental impact of large-scale infra-
structure projects. A key concern is how such
projects and the broader land use changes
they promote will affect protected areas—a
cornerstone of wildlife conservation efforts.
This chapter assesses the potential impact
of new and planned infrastructure projects
on protected areas in tropical Africa, particu-
larly those harboring critical ape habitats. It
focuses on Africa not because tropical Asia
is any less important, but because analyses
Chapter 4 Protected Areas and Infrastructure

108
of comparable detail are available only for Key Findings

certain parts of the Asian tropics (Clements
The main findings of this chapter are:
et al., 2014; Meijaard and Wich, 2014; Wich
et al., 2016). Such knowledge gaps under-
Africa is experiencing an unprecedented
score the importance of future work on
proliferation of infrastructure projects
infrastructure impacts in Asia.
and, consequently, dramatic changes in
Ape range states in tropical Africa are
land use, the effects of which are likely to
encountering an array of important changes.
have an impact on many protected areas
These include an unprecedented expansion
in critical ape habitats and beyond.
of industrial mining (Edwards et al., 2014);
more than 50,000 km of proposed “develop- Advances in remote sensing, computing
power and databases are rapidly improv-
ment corridors” that would crisscross much
ing the quality and accessibility of infor-
of the continent (Laurance et al., 2015b;
mation on the distribution of roads and
Weng et al., 2013); the world’s largest hydro
other infrastructure, as well as on the
power dam complex (International Rivers,
attributes and threats affecting global
n.d.-c); ambitious plans to expand industrial
protected areas.
and smallholder agriculture (AgDevCo,
n.d.; Laurance, Sayer and Cassman, 2014b); Foreign investment, in extractive indus-
extensive industrial logging (Kleinschroth tries in particular, is playing a key role
et al., 2016; LaPorte et al., 2007); and in promoting infrastructure expansion
myriad other energy, irrigation and urban in Africa.
infrastructure projects (Seto, Güneralp and Protected areas in Africa are particularly
Hutyra, 2012). vulnerable to reductions in size or down-
Many of the largest infrastructure proj- grading of their protection status if they
ects in Africa are being advocated because hinder exploitation of natural resources
of concerns about the continent’s booming or limit infrastructure expansion.
population, which is expected to nearly qua- Growing pressures from infrastructure
druple this century (UN Population Division, expansion and land use changes in the
2017). This projection is creating apprehen- regions immediately surrounding pro-
sion about food security and human devel- tected areas can have adverse effects
opment, and broader anxieties about the on ecological integrity, biodiversity and
potential for social and political instability functional connectivity. Larger parks are
(AgDevCo, n.d.; Weng et al., 2013). Africa generally less susceptible to such exter-
faces serious challenges revolving around: nal pressures.
While roads inside parks may foster eco-
1. effective design and assessments of new tourism, the best way to limit the impact
infrastructure projects to limit their envi- of human disturbance on sensitive wild-
ronmental and social impacts; life and ecological processes is to ensure
2. good governance for nations experienc- that core areas of parks remain road-free.
ing unprecedented foreign investments There is an urgent need to implement
for infrastructure and natural resource considered land use and infrastructure
extraction; and planning, and to apply the “mitigation
3. management of economic instabilities hierarchy” to avoid, minimize, restore
that can plague nations largely reliant on and offset threats to endangered apes and
just a few natural resources or commod- other iconic species and critical habitats
ities for export income (see Chapter 1). in equatorial Africa.

109
African Ape Ranges and Where reasonably robust data have been
gathered, at least some ape taxa have been
Protected Areas shown to suffer serious population declines.
In Africa, several factors complicate efforts In the eastern Democratic Republic of
to conserve viable species and subspecies of Congo (DRC), for example, field surveys
apes. One concerns the limited geographic suggest that the critically endangered
ranges of many apes (see the Apes Over Grauer’s gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri), a
view and Figures AO1 and AO2). Another locally endemic subspecies, has declined
is the imprecision of published range maps, by 77% to 93% in abundance over the past
which typically overestimate ape distribu- two decades (Plumptre et al., 2015).
tions, reflecting the fact that most species are Although more than 6,400 protected
patchily distributed as a result of natural hab- areas occur across sub-Saharan Africa, only
itat variability and spatially varying human a limited number are considered “large”—
pressures. When such patchiness is taken meaning that few cover more than 10,000 km2
into account, many wildlife species are in (1 million ha)—especially in the continent’s
fact more seriously imperiled than suggested equatorial regions that harbor ape popula-
by the International Union for Conservation tions (Laurance, 2005; Sloan, Bertzky and
of Nature (IUCN) Red List classifications Laurance, 2016). In West and Central Africa,
(Ocampo-Peñuela et al., 2016). Political protected areas broadly coincide with ape
conflicts, remoteness and limited scientific ranges (see Figure 4.1 and Figure AO1).
resources further hinder efforts to identify African apes are represented by five species
key threats and monitor ape populations. and a number of restricted subspecies. They
FIGURE 4.1
Protected Areas in West and Central Africa
Protected
area 0 300 600 km
Data source: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (n.d.)

110
are separated by geographic features such such as the Congo, which separates bono-
as the arid Dahomey Gap, which splits the bos from other African apes; and two tall
West African rainforests and the extensive massifs that sustain populations of mountain
rainforests of Central Africa; major rivers, gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei).
FIGURE 4.2
Conservation Values of Habitats within 25 km of 33 Development Corridors in Sub-Saharan Africa
Northern (U)
Northern (A)
Dakar–Port Djibouti (F)
Harcourt (F)
Conakry–
Buchanan (F)
Gulf of Guinea (F)

Sekondi–Ouagadougou (F)
Douala–N’Djamena & Douala–Bangui (F) LAPSSET (F)
Douala–N’Djamena & Douala–Bangui (U) Mombasa (F)
Tanga (U)
Douala–N’Djamena & Douala–Bangui (A)
Central (F)
Cameroon–Chad (A) Central (A)
Mablam Railway (F) Uhuru–TAZARA (U)
Mtwara (A)
Libreville–Lomie (F)
Luanda–Cabinda (F)
Nacala (U)
Bas Congo (A)
Conservation value Malanje (F)
0.0–0.2
Lobito (U)
0.2–0.4
0.4–0.6
Namibe (U)
0.6–0.8 Walvis Bay (A) Zambeze (U)
0.8–1.0 Beira (U)
A Already active Limpopo (A)
Planned for Maputo (A)
F the future
Upgrade planned Lubombo (F)
U or under way 0 1,000 2,000 km
North–South (A)
Notes: Conservation values are estimated based on biodiversity, threatened species, critical ecosystems, wilderness attributes, environmental services and human popula-
tion densities of habitats within a 25 km buffer zone around 33 proposed or existing development corridors. Values are shown on a relative scale, from 0 (low conservation
value) to 1 (high conservation value).
Data source: Laurance et al. (2015b)

111
Threats to Protected corridor, more than 1,800 reserves could

experience deterioration in their eco-
Areas from Infrastructure logical integrity and connectivity, as
Africa’s “Development well as additional human encroachment
(Laurance et al., 2015b).
Corridors”
A true game-changer for African nature In total, the 33 development corridors
conservation is the proposed and ongoing could bisect or degrade more than one-
construction of at least 35 development third of all existing protected areas in sub-
corridors. If completed in their entirety, the Saharan Africa (Laurance et al., 2015b). The
corridors will crisscross sub-Saharan Africa, 23 corridors that are still in the planning or
spanning a length of more than 53,000 km initial upgrading phases would be especially
in total (Laurance et al., 2015b). dangerous for nature. These corridors would
These corridors are likely to affect exist- bisect a larger proportion of high-priority
ing nature reserves in at least three ways: reserves—such as World Heritage sites,
Ramsar wetlands and UNESCO Man and
First, by bisecting reserves, fragmenting Biosphere Reserves—than would existing
them and opening them up to illegal development corridors. Collectively, the 23
encroachment and poaching (Sloan et planned corridors would slice through more
al., 2016). than 3,600 km of reserve habitat (Sloan et
Second, by promoting colonization, hab- al., 2016).
itat loss and intensified land use around Of the approximately 2,200 African pro-
reserves, they could decrease the ecologi- tected areas that could be affected by devel-
cal connectivity of the reserves to other opment corridors, a number include ape
nearby habitats. range habitats. For example, two epicenters
of bisected reserves—the iron-rich belt span-
Third, environmental changes in the
ning southern Cameroon and the northern
lands immediately surrounding a nature
Republic of Congo, and the Great Lakes
reserve tend to infiltrate inside the
region of East Africa (see Figure 4.2)—harbor
reserve itself (Laurance et al., 2012). To
vital ape habitats (Sloan et al., 2016). There
some degree, a reserve with extensive
would also be considerable losses of impor-
logging and hunting in its surround-
tant habitats outside of protected areas. A
ing lands will be exposed to those same
simulation model developed by the World
threats within its own borders.
Bank projects that in the Congo Basin, which
A detailed analysis of 33 of the proposed is critical habitat for apes, expanding roads
and ongoing development corridors1 indi- and transportation infrastructure will be the
cates that: biggest driver of deforestation through 2030
(Megevand, 2013).
many corridors would occur in areas that
have high conservation value and are
only sparsely populated by people (see The Grand Inga Hydroelectric
Figure 4.2); Project, DRC
the corridors would bisect more than While it is not possible here to describe the
400 existing nature reserves; and full range of infrastructure projects that
assuming that land use changes inten- could diminish African ape habitats, one
sify within 25 km on either side of each cannot fail to mention the massive hydro-

112
electric project under construction near Inga

Falls on the lower Congo River. Should it BOX 4.1
proceed as planned, the Grand Inga dams
The Challenge of
will generate more electricity—40,000
Mapping Roads
megawatts (MW)—than any other single
Key Uncertainties
project on Earth. To achieve this level of
A common misperception is that roads
output, however, the project will inundate
and other transportation infrastructure
more than 22,000 km2 (2.2 million ha) of have been adequately mapped at the
largely forested lands in the western DRC global scale, and that related data are
(Abernethy, Maisels and White, 2016). Dam readily available. In fact, they are not, and
this lack of information creates serious
projects in tropical regions often have challenges for nature conservation.
deforestation footprints that markedly Road maps suffer from two key sources
exceed the flooded reservoir itself, because of uncertainty. First, the quality of road
road networks needed for dam and power maps differs markedly across nations. In
Switzerland, for instance, nearly every
line construction also provoke major forest viable road is mapped, whereas in devel-
disruption (Barreto et al., 2014; Laurance, oping nations such as Indonesia or
Goosem and Laurance, 2009; see Chapter 6). Nigeria, road maps are far from complete.
Second, developing nations in particu-
lar have many illegal or unofficial roads
that do not appear on any map. In the
Road Proliferation Brazilian Amazon, for example, a recent
analysis found nearly three kilometers of
One of the most serious effects of large-scale illegal, unmapped roads for every kilo
infrastructure projects—be they hydroelec- meter of mapped, legal road; further, 95%
of all deforestation occurred within 5.5 km
tric dams, mines, development corridors or
of a legal or illegal road (Barber et al.,
nearly any other large development scheme— 2014). Since roads play such a dominant
is that they provide a strong economic role in determining the pattern and pace of
habitat disruption, it is vital to have a clear
impetus for road building. Since they can
sense of where roads and other transpor-
open a Pandora’s box of hunting, land colo- tation infrastructure are located (Barber
nization and other human activities, such et al., 2014; Laurance et al., 2001, 2009).
roads often pose a greater threat to eco For information on roads, the best freely
systems and biodiversity than the original available global data set is gROADS, the
Global Roads Open Access Data Set,
infrastructure project itself (Laurance et although it suffers from notable differences
al., 2015a). Moreover, many roads are con- in accuracy and temporal coverage across
structed illegally; consequently, they do not nations (CIESIN and ITOS, 2013; Ibisch
et al., 2016; Laurance et al., 2014a).
appear on official road maps. gROADS staff manually digitized coarse-
Hence, one of the most fundamental scale (1:1,000,000) hardcopy maps, often
challenges facing those who seek to man- from the 1980s and 1990s. This process
resulted in horizontal-accuracy limitations
age land use activities and limit their threat
(±2 km) that restrict the use of gROADS
to nature is simply determining the locations to general comparisons, especially within,
of existing roads. The number of illegal and rather than across, nations.
unmapped roads is generally much greater
Information Revolution
in developing nations, such as those that
The late 1990s saw rapid growth in road
sustain ape populations, than in wealthier mapping, driven by the rise of the in-car
industrial nations (Ibisch et al., 2016). For navigation industry. Often restricted to spe-
this reason, simply mapping existing roads cific navigation devices and applications,
the widespread use of global road data
is a major priority, one that is beset by some
important technical challenges (see Box 4.1).

113
was revolutionized in 2005 with the launch of Google Maps increased impressively from 376 million to 430 million, in addi-
(maps.google.com) and continued with subsequent data tion to many other features, such as buildings.
collection campaigns. These developments have generated Efforts are underway to focus OSM development on evolving
detailed coverage for urban roads worldwide, although data environmental crises and to improve data for areas that are
for rural areas are much more patchy. Google Maps data have inadequately mapped. Notable among these are two programs
commercial applications (linked to advertising and location- aimed at mapping roads in tropical forests. The first, Road
based search results); their use for nonprofit websites and less Forest (roadlessforest.eu), is a European Union initiative
independent data analysis is thus restricted. to assess the benefits of road-free forests, strongly linked to
Despite their proprietary nature, Google Maps data are being EU policies on reducing illegal logging and carbon emissions
used to help generate the Global Roadless Areas Map, a from forest disruption (FLEGT, 2016; REDD+, n.d.). The sec-
collaboration among Google, the Society for Conservation ond is Logging Roads (loggingroads.org), which focuses on
Biology and the European Parliament. This initiative began mapping logging roads in the Congo Basin. The good news
in 2012 under the aegis of RoadFree (www.roadfree.org), an is that all mapping improvements from these various initiatives
initiative designed to highlight the importance of roadless are being placed immediately on the publicly available OSM
wilderness areas for biodiversity conservation and the database. An OSM Analytics platform (osm-analytics.org),
reduction of atmospheric carbon emissions. RoadFree has released in 2016, enables tracking of this mapping activity for
helped to spur interest in improving maps of transportation roads and buildings at the global level.
infrastructure, using a variety of data sources and techniques.
In parallel with commercial road data, an initiative known as Technical Challenges and Advances
OpenStreetMap (OSM) (www.openstreetmap.org) has grown While the new road mapping initiatives are invaluable, many
dramatically. OSM aims to create a free and editable map of technical challenges remain (Laurance et al., 2016). For
the world. Since its launch in 2004, it has grown into a com- instance, the spatial resolution of available imagery can differ
munity of more than 4 million registered members, around greatly across particular areas of interest, compromising efforts
2,000 of whom are making daily edits. Between late 2016 and to create accurate and comparable infrastructure maps.
mid-2017, the number of road features in the OSM database Figure 4.3 illustrates that spatial resolution can vary across
FIGURE 4.3
Mapping Discrepancies in an Area of Rutshuru Reserve, Uganda, in OpenStreetMap
Source: © OpenStreetMap contributors – www.openstreetmap.org

114
FIGURE 4.4
Recent and Ongoing Logging-Road Activity in the Congo Basin, near Ntokou-Pikounda
National Park, as Identified by Time-Series Analyses of Landsat Imagery
Undisturbed forest over the 32 years (1984–2016)

Old vegetation regrowth (>10 years)
Young vegetation regrowth (3–10 years)
Deforestation started in 2007–2013
Deforestation started in 2014–2016
Disturbance(s) started in 2014–2016
Seasonal water
Other land cover
Protected areas
rk
P
a
a l
on
ti
Na
a
u nd
P iko
ou-
Ntok
Source: Vancutsem and Achard (2016)

115
images; it also shows inaccurate road positions derived from varying range of topographic, land use, sun-angle and road-
older coarse-scale maps. surface conditions that one encounters in the real world. For
A common assumption is that increasingly higher-resolution this reason, actual road mapping is usually done with human
satellite imagery is needed for better road mapping. However, eyes—by using the best available satellite imagery and man-
spatial data from the Landsat and EU Sentinel satellites, and ually tracing roads with a mouse onto a computer screen.
composite images produced by Google Earth, all have rea- Known as “armchair mapping,” this method is still the most
sonably high resolution, sufficient for many road-mapping effective for mapping roads and determining whether they are
applications. Furthermore, with each satellite pass, higher- paved or unpaved. Unfortunately, this is a very time-intensive
resolution sensors cover a narrower swath of land than do process. Even with hundreds of active mappers, several years
lower-resolution ones, and therefore they return to the same would be required to map all the roads on the planet. By the
area less frequently. This slow return time can be a major time the mappers had finished mapping Earth’s roads, it
constraint in the effort to find cloud-free images in the wet would be necessary to start anew to identify the many new
tropical regions that are key ape habitats. Fine-scale imagery roads that would have been created since the project began.
(<1 m resolution) exists but is expensive, requires massive For such reasons, a holy grail for those studying roads is an
data storage capacity and is rarely available for the remote automated system that can detect and map roads accurately
environments inhabited by apes. Finally, the long time period in near-real time (Laurance et al., 2016).
over which Landsat imagery has been available allows
changes in land use and roads to be observed for intervals Forest Monitoring
of up to several decades (given that Landsat commenced in As a result of vastly improved data accessibility and com-
1972 and Landsat Thematic Mapper, with 30-m resolution puting power, forest monitoring by satellites has advanced
sufficient for detecting roads in dense forests, began in 1982). impressively. In 2014, Global Forest Watch announced a
This long-term coverage is extremely valuable for assessing revamped website (www.globalforestwatch.org), powered
the spatial patterns and drivers of land use change over time. largely by Landsat satellite data (see Chapter 7). The next
Until recently, high data costs, inadequate computing power generation of Earth-observation satellites—the Sentinel-2
and limited access to imagery precluded the systematic pro- series from the European Space Agency—will have even
cessing of remotely sensed data over periods exceeding 30 higher spatial resolution (10 m), better spectral data (red,
years. Prior to 2008, all Landsat data were provided on a green, blue, near infrared), and faster return times (5 days)
commercial basis; as a result, the use of the data was meager. than does Landsat. The image characteristics of the Sentinel
Once the data were made freely available, their use skyrock- satellites will lend themselves to forest- and road-mapping
eted. This has fuelled numerous innovations, of which Google applications (Verhegghen et al., 2016). The fact that their data
Earth Engine is perhaps the most notable. Launched in are entirely free and open access should help to stimulate
2010, it has allowed global-scale analyses using the power further innovations.
of Google’s own cloud-computing infrastructure.
With pricing and technical barriers for data and computing Next Steps
falling dramatically, opportunities for global-scale environ- Finally, there is a need to go beyond simple maps of trans-
mental analysis have grown rapidly. For example, researchers portation infrastructure and look more broadly at accessi-
at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre have bility. The World Bank and European Commission produced
developed techniques to identify forest disturbances at a a Global Accessibility Map that estimates the travel time
resolution of 30 m × 30 m as far back as 1982, using Google from any point on Earth to the nearest city exceeding 50,000
Earth Engine as the processing platform (Vancutsem and people (Nelson, 2008). Although focused on access to urban
Achard, 2016; see Figure 4.4). Similarly, the rapid repeat time services, the map highlights the limited and shrinking extent
of Landsat has allowed researchers to find enough cloud-free of wilderness worldwide (Ibisch et al., 2016; Laurance et
images to effectively monitor the expansion of tropical logging al., 2014a; Watson et al., 2016). With more and better roads,
roads. This technique can be used to highlight areas sus- advances in vehicle technology and a rapid increase in the
ceptible to road expansion and forest change (see Chapter 7), number of motorized vehicles, the globe is shrinking fast.
which in turn can feed into community-mapping programs Already, just one-tenth of the world’s land surface is more
such as OSM. The next step is to attempt to predict the envi- than 48 hours’ travel time from a major city (Nelson, 2008).
ronmental impacts of different road development scenarios Clearly, this is leading to increased pressure on ecosystems
on forests (Laurance et al., 2001). and biodiversity.
There is both enormous potential and an urgent need to
Needed: Road-Detection Algorithm devise better road-mapping tools, and to use these to assess
For all the sophistication of modern remote-sensing technol- road-related pressures to ape habitats. A logical next step is
ogies, researchers still lack an automated computer algorithm to identify critical areas that should remain free of roads to
that can reliably detect and map roads under the hugely help ensure the long-term survival of apes and their habitats.

116
Photo: Bwindi’s global

importance was recog- Protected Area Down
nized in its designation as
a UNESCO World Heritage grading, Downsizing and BOX 4.2
site, particularly in view of
the diversity of its habitats
Degazettement (PADDD) Alternatives to Road
Development in an Iconic
and its exceptional bio
diversity. Bwindi hills.
in Africa African Park
© Martha M. Robbins/
MPI-EVAN Documented PADDD Events Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in the
southwest of Uganda supports a highly
As development pressures increase, desig- diverse range of plant and animal species,
nated protected areas are sometimes dimin- including the endangered eastern chim-
ished by legal means (Mascia and Pailler, panzee (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii)
and one of only two remaining popula-
2011). In Africa, for instance, states have been tions of the critically endangered mountain
known to reduce the size, contiguousness gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) (Plumptre
and protection status of reserves to allow et al., 2007, 2016a; Plumptre, Robbins
and Williamson, 2016c).
new roads, mining, energy projects and
other activities to expand. At least 23 African Although it is relatively small (321 km²/
32,100 ha), Bwindi contributes to local
protected areas have been downsized or and national economies through Uganda’s
downgraded (Edwards et al., 2014, table 1). nature-based tourism industry and other
Mining occurs more frequently in close prox- ecosystem services the park provides. Its
imity to protected areas in Africa than in global importance was recognized in its
designation as a UNESCO World Heri
either Asia or Latin America (Durán, Rauch tage site in 1994, particularly in view of
and Gaston, 2013). Even natural World Heri the diversity of its habitats and its excep-
tage Sites, the global pinnacle of conserva- tional biodiversity, including Albertine Rift
endemics (UNESCO WHC, n.d.).
tion, have been subjected to mining or fossil
fuel exploration or development, with 30 In 1995 the aid agency CARE commis-
sioned a study to assess the feasibility of
sites in 18 African countries affected to date diverting part of the Ikumba–Ruhija road,
(WWF, 2015a). In the Republic of Guinea, which cuts through Bwindi for 12.8 km, to
for example, the Mount Nimba Biosphere land outside the park’s boundaries. The
study concluded that a road diversion was
Reserve, a World Heritage site, was down-
feasible, identified suitable alternative
sized by 15.5 km2 (1,550 ha) to allow for iron routes and indicated that a new route
ore prospecting. An even greater concern is would promote long-term protection of
Zambia, where nearly 650 km2 (65,000 ha) the park while boosting economic activity
in the area (Gubelman, 1995).
of land within 19 protected areas has been
downgraded to permit mining activities However, in 2012, the Ugandan govern-
ment advertised a scheme to design and
(Edwards et al., 2014). construct 1,900 km of new roads in the
A number of protected areas with key country, including an upgrade of the road
African ape habitats are under growing devel- inside Bwindi, whose clay surface was to
be converted to a paved road as part of a
opment pressures. In Nigeria, for example,
much larger road circuit (Kampala, 2012).
a proposed “superhighway” would increase At the time of writing, an environmental
deforestation and other pressures on Cross impact assessment to identify the poten-
River National Park, critical habitat for the tial effects of the proposed road upgrade
on the park’s ecology and wildlife had yet
endemic Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla
to be conducted.²
diehli) (see Case Study 5.1). Meanwhile, one
Concerned that the proposed upgrade
of only two surviving populations of moun- could harm the park’s mountain gorillas
tain gorillas, in Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable and that it might provide few benefits for
National Park, could also be threatened by local villages outside Bwindi, the Interna
tional Gorilla Conservation Programme
a major road-upgrading project inside the
park (see Box 4.2).

117
(IGCP)³ partnered with the Conservation Strategy Fund and Based on the results, representatives from the Uganda chap-
the National Environment Management Authority of Uganda ter of the Poverty and Conservation Learning Group conducted
to assess the upgrade scheme and to contrast it with the consultations with affected communities and prepared a
earlier plan to divert the road outside the park, as part of position paper that supported diverting the road around the
the Biodiversity Understanding in Landscape Development park (U-PCLG, 2015). During a meeting in March 2015, local
project, funded by the United States Agency for International stakeholders supported the view that road development
Development. around Bwindi is extremely important, and the government
This analysis showed that an alternative route, while costing was urged to pursue the option of investing in diverting the
more initially, would provide greater benefits for twice as many road outside of Bwindi.
villages and would avoid the negative impacts on the park’s To date, however, the relevant government authorities have
gorillas. Furthermore, the study suggested that the govern- not changed their position. Government agencies claim they
ment’s plan would cost the economy upwards of US$214 lack the funds needed to divert the route and compensate
million in tourism revenue losses over the 20-year life cycle local land owners. Local and international stakeholders, includ-
of the road investment (Barr et al., 2015). These results were ing the IGCP, are continuing to urge the government to divert the
presented to the Uganda National Roads Authority and the road outside Bwindi and to take all steps necessary to protect
Uganda Wildlife Authority. Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and its iconic wildlife.

118
Prospects for PADDD and that parks with many surrounding roads
would also have many internal roads.
As infrastructure and resource-extraction
For purposes of this research, road pres-
projects proliferate across Africa, the poten-
sure inside the park was defined as the total
tial for further PADDD events could increase
number of kilometers of road length (km)
dramatically. One tool that has consider-
divided by park area (km2). To quantify
able utility for monitoring threats to parks
external road pressure, a 30-km buffer zone
is a global database known as the Digital
was defined around each park and an inverse
Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA).
distance–weight function was used to calcu-
DOPA provides a wide range of indicators
late pressure from all roads inside the buffer
of park features, habitats, species composi-
zone. This approach applies greater weight
tion, irreplaceability and threats (see Box
to roads near a park than to those farther
4.3). These metrics could be used to monitor
away. In all cases, gROADS was used to gen-
changes over time for a single park and to
erate data on roads (see Box 4.1).
assess national trends in park protection.
The analysis generated data for 656 pro-
Comparisons of environmental threats across
tected areas within ten countries in equato-
parks in different ecoregions or nations need
rial Africa:
to be conducted carefully because of poten-
tial differences in data quality and normal- Cameroon;
ization procedures.
the Central African Republic;
The research conducted for this chapter
involved an evaluation of the practical util- the DRC;
ity of DOPA for assessing threats to parks. Gabon;
To that end, the effects of two factors that Ghana;
could influence the proliferation of roads
Ivory Coast;
inside parks were compared: park area and
road pressure immediately outside the park. Liberia;
The study hypothesis held that larger parks Nigeria;
would have fewer roads than smaller ones, the Republic of Congo; and
Sierra Leone.
BOX 4.3 Not all protected areas in these nations

harbor apes or ape habitats, nor were all
Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA)
protected areas with African ape popula-
DOPA (dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu) is an online system developed by the
tions included in the analysis. Via a gener-
European Commission’s Joint Research Centre to provide key indica-
tors of the pressures facing more than 16,000 terrestrial and marine alized linear mixed-effects model, “nation”
protected areas, each of which exceeds 100 km² (10,000 ha) (Dubois served as a random variable, in order to
et al., 2015). DOPA uses freely available open data for its calculations.
reduce differences in road-map quality at
DOPA provides a variety of information, including on the size, location,
the national level.4
boundaries and protection status of each park; ecoregions, soils,
topography, climatic and land cover data; and the number of threat- Despite limitations in the available data
ened species of mammals, birds, amphibians and other selected sets, the results of the analysis appear clear:
taxa. It also features indices of species irreplaceability and measures
road pressure inside each park was strongly
of environmental pressures for five parameters, namely human popu-
lation density around the park, the annual rate of change in the human influenced by its external road pressure, but
population around the park, agriculture surrounding the park, roads park size had a weaker and less consistent
inside the park and roads surrounding the park (Dubois et al., 2015). influence (see Figure 4.5).5 These findings sug-
gest that as roads proliferate across equatorial

119
FIGURE 4.5
Effects of External Road Pressure and Park Area on Internal Road Pressure for
656 Protected Areas in Ten Nations in Equatorial Africa
Road pressure inside park Road pressure inside park
Road pressure outside park Park area
Notes: Curves show predicted values; shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals. Each curve shows the effect of the predictor variable
on internal road pressure once the effects of the other predictor and cross-national differences were statistically removed.
Africa, protected areas could experience FIGURE 4.6

marked increases in internal road pressure.
The Mitigation Hierarchy Applied to Infrastructure Projects
The effects of park size are variable, although
within Ape Habitats
the largest parks rarely suffered high inter-
nal road pressure.
Baseline data
Design and
planning
Avoidance of important
ape habitats
The Mitigation Hierarchy: Avoid Infrastructure location
optimization
Reconciling Infrastructure
and Ape Conservation
Stakeholder engagement
Mitigation measures
Monitoring and evaluation
(such as wildlife crossings)

Construction and operation
The Mitigation Hierarchy Minimize Focus on mitigating

indirect impacts
Given the likelihood that many large-scale
infrastructure projects will proceed, a major Rehabilitate/restore
priority is to limit their various direct and habitat at previously
impacted areas
Restore
indirect environmental impacts. The mitiga- Increase habitat
tion hierarchy can be applied throughout connectivity
the life cycle of a project to aid the process Determine offset

of constructive engagement (see Figure 4.6 requirement based on
residual impacts
and Table 3.3). It aims to minimize negative Offset
Not every project may
impacts and to offset any significant impacts be offsetable
that remain (TBC and CSBI, 2015). A new
report from Forest Trends identifies that “the Source: © TBC, 2017

120
energy, transportation, and mining/miner- servation, such as those produced by regional

als sectors were responsible for more than or national action planning processes, can be
97% of offsets and compensation measured extremely useful (Golder Associates, 2015;
by cumulative land area under management” Rio Tinto Simfer, 2012b). However, compa-
(Bennett, Gallant and ten Kate, 2017, p. 5). nies that design infrastructure projects may
The mitigation hierarchy is increas- not be aware of such data, and therefore
ingly required by project lenders, including ape conservationists may need to take the
the International Finance Corporation and initiative of sharing data in usable formats
World Bank (IFC, 2012c; World Bank, 2017). and of directing decision-makers to avail-
It is also becoming integrated into environ- able resources, such as the A.P.E.S. Database
mental legislation around the world, includ- (Max Planck Institute, n.d.-b).
ing in many ape range states (TBC, 2016). Once a broad project option has been
The hierarchy follows four sequential steps: adopted, finer-scale optimization of infra-
avoid, minimize, restore and offset. structure placement can further ensure that
construction is avoided in sensitive ape
habitat. This requires more detailed infor-
Step 1: Avoid
mation on ape distribution and habitat use
When operating in ape habitat, the first step, in relation to proposed infrastructure loca-
avoidance, is the most crucial and effective. tions, as can be gathered via surveys con-
It requires early data gathering and plan- ducted as part of environmental and social
ning, ideally at the start of the design and impact assessments (ESIAs). For example,
planning phase (see Figure 4.7). the ESIA for the Simandou Iron Ore Project
The consideration of alternative routes in Guinea revealed that chimpanzees prin-
or project siting is an important early task cipally used the western side of the mining
as it may allow important ape habitat to be concession. As a result, all mine-associated
avoided. At this stage, projects are rarely infrastructure was relocated to an economi-
able to finance extensive data collection cally suboptimal location in the east of the
and instead rely on readily available data. concession, to avoid important chimpanzee
Available maps of priority areas for ape con- habitat (Rio Tinto Simfer, 2012a).
FIGURE 4.7
Levels of Data Required to Inform Avoidance Measures in the Mitigation Hierarchy
Project Infrastructure Micro-

options placement avoidance
Detailed data:
Available data: Inference:
Habitat use
Ape range layers Habitat proxies
Home range size,
Priority areas Presence/absence
group size, etc.
Level of data
Source: © TBC, 2017

121
Step 2: Minimize impacts of infrastructure projects that are

poorly understood include tolerable noise
If it is not possible to avoid impacts on apes
levels and the potential barrier to ape dis-
and their habitat entirely, minimization
persal caused by large-scale linear infra-
measures can often reduce the extent and
structure projects.
intensity of remaining negative impacts. In
addition to being good practice, minimi-
zation measures, such as noise and dust Step 3: Restore
reduction and ape-specific measures, may Complete restoration of ape habitat may not
be appropriate. Sufficient ecological data be possible or achievable within a project
are required to guide informed planning of timeline, and thus it may be more suitable to
minimization actions for apes. If there is consider habitat rehabilitation. Examples of
uncertainty, monitoring and adaptive man- rehabilitation measures include planting
agement may be required. native tree species, preventing uncontrolled
For apes the indirect impacts of large burning and removing damaging species
infrastructure projects, particularly increased (mainly non-native or invasive species).
poaching and habitat loss due to induced Habitat rehabilitation is a long-term pro-
access and in-migration, are usually the most cess. Apes use complex habitat and often
serious (IUCN, 2014b; Vanthomme et al., rely on tree species that take many years to
2013). These impacts can occur on a large reach maturity. Native tree species used by
scale and thus effective minimization mea- apes may also require special conditions to
sures may also need to be implemented at grow that are challenging to re-create. It is
large scales. Such minimization efforts were thus nearly impossible to re-create original
made in the context of the public–private habitats and, as a result, it is not possible to
partnership between the government of rely on restoration actions to make a signifi-
Cameroon and the private railway devel- cant contribution to reducing the magnitude
oper CAMRAIL, with the aim of reducing of project impacts on apes (Maron et al.,
the illegal transport of wild meat, including 2012). Nonetheless, targeted habitat reha-
chimpanzee, that could be facilitated by bilitation can serve as a valuable means of
the railway (Chaléard, Chanson-Jabeur and increasing habitat connectivity in fragmented
Béranger, 2006). landscapes.
Minimization measures can be capital-
intensive while also requiring ongoing invest-
ment by infrastructure developers. It can Step 4: Offset
therefore be difficult to demonstrate the Any negative impact that remains after the
business case for minimization if data or first three steps of the mitigation hierarchy
experience is limited. Such is the challenge have been applied is termed a “residual
regarding wildlife crossings, including arti- impact.” Offsets of such impacts are mea-
ficial canopy bridges. While they have been sures of last resort; their use with respect to
shown to be effective at maintaining con- threatened and charismatic species such as
nectivity for the more arboreal gibbons apes is often seen as controversial (Kormos
and orangutans, these bridges have never et al., 2014). If they are poorly planned,
been trialed with African great ape species large-scale infrastructure projects can have
(Das et al., 2009; see Box 2.2). Hence, their significant indirect impacts that are difficult
effectiveness at facilitating movements, and or impossible to offset. This underscores the
their potential for making apes more vul- need to focus on avoidance and mitigation
nerable to poaching, are unknown. Other measures to minimize residual impacts.

122
FIGURE 4.8
Ape Range Countries with an Offset Policy (as of 2016) for (a) Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Gorillas;
(b) Orangutans; and (c) Gibbons
a
N
Eastern gorilla (Gorilla beringei)

Western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla)
Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)
Offset policy
No policy
Developing
Enabled or required
Sumatran orangutan
(Pongo abelii)
Bornean orangutan
(Pongo pygmaeus)
Offset policy
No policy
Developing
Enabled or required

123
c
N
Hoolock species
Hylobates species
Nomascus species
Siamang
(Symphalangus
syndactylus)
Offset policy
No policy
Developing
Enabled or required
Several ape species and subspecies have For projects associated with less serious
very restricted geographic ranges (see the residual impacts, the offset requirement is
Apes Overview). A project that would have guided by aspects of the biology and behav-
a negative impact over a significant extent ior of apes, although it is also important to
of a species or subspecies’ range would be consider uncertainty in estimates of both the
difficult or impossible to offset, and thus scale of impact and the scale of gains at the
would be unlikely to be supported by con- proposed offset site. Furthermore, the project
servation stakeholders. Similarly, impacts would need to demonstrate that planned
that compromise the viability of identified actions have an additional beneficial effect
regional priority areas for ape conservation (over and above the status quo) and that they
may not be considered eligible for offsetting. would contribute to an increase in the ape

124
population in the long term (Kormos et al., arising from other developments (such as
2014). These requirements mean that the loss infrastructure, extractive or agricultural
of even a few individual apes could translate activities) within the same geographic and
into very significant offset requirements to connected areas (IFC, 2012b). Cumulative
meet “no net loss” definitions (IUCN, 2014a). impacts often arise when a country is under-
Offset requirements to compensate for going rapid development, for example when
impacts of development projects are increas- multiple dams are planned for construc-
ingly becoming integrated in national legis- tion on the same river (Winemiller et al.,
lation (ten Kate and Crowe, 2014). In Asia, 2016). Environmental impact assessments
most orangutan and gibbon range states have for any single project often fail to adequately
legislation either requiring or enabling bio- consider the wider or additive effects of
diversity offsets, while many African ape other projects in the same vicinity (Laurance
range states are developing such national et al., 2015a; see Chapter 1, p. 32). This can
policies (TBC, 2016; see Figure 4.8). There be severely detrimental to species such as
is thus an opportunity for governments and apes, as numerous projects have large impacts
ape conservationists to work together to across populations and reduce population
ensure such policies provide appropriate connectivity.
protection for apes and their habitat. There has been increasing pressure
from stakeholders for individual projects
to take cumulative impacts into consider-
The Importance of
ation. Best-practice guidelines require
Stakeholder Engagement cumulative impact assessments (CIAs); in
Apes are iconic animals and any negative practice, this step often receives insufficient
impacts on them or their habitats attract high attention or is omitted completely. A major
interest and scrutiny from the general public, barrier is the lack of clarity about whose
stakeholders and lenders. Therefore, infra- responsibility it is to organize and pay for a
structure developers face potentially serious CIA, particularly in a landscape that com-
reputational risks when operating within ape prises multiple development projects with
habitat, which makes consultations with different timelines. However, if conducted
stakeholders and ape experts at an early stage rigorously and systematically, CIAs could
advisable. Stakeholders such as universities greatly strengthen regional and national
and conservation groups can provide special- planning processes (IFC, 2013).
ized knowledge that can be input into the When adhering to the mitigation hier-
project design and add credibility to a project, archy, projects should take cumulative
while reducing impacts on apes. Engagement impacts into account (see Case Study 4.1).
with stakeholders is most effective when it Ideally, neighboring projects would adopt
begins in the early stages of a project and coordinated mitigation measures and would
continues throughout its life span, through be designed to share common infrastruc-
every step of the mitigation hierarchy. ture (such as railways and access roads) to
reduce their footprint area. Governments
can facilitate the management of cumula-
Cumulative Impacts and the tive impacts by carrying out strategic land
use planning at the national or landscape
Mitigation Hierarchy scale, thereby preventing projects with com-
Cumulative impacts are defined as the incre- peting interests (such as ape conservation
mental impacts of one project, combined and industrial development) from operat-
with the past, present and foreseeable impacts ing in the same area. Additional case studies

125
CASE STUDY 4.1 They will share an existing railway so that they may reduce
their cumulative impact (see Figure 4.9).
The Mitigation Hierarchy and Cumulative
Following the mitigation hierarchy, both companies are con-
Impacts: A Case Study from Guinea sidering the option of setting aside a portion of their conces-
The Republic of Guinea in West Africa has large mineral sions to avoid sensitive chimpanzee habitat. Extensive surveys
deposits such as bauxite, gold and iron and its mining sec- for chimpanzees have been conducted to help inform mitiga-
tor is undergoing rapid development. Major deposits can be tion planning. Mitigation measures, which were developed to
found in different parts of the country, often inland, far from minimize both direct and indirect impacts, are outlined in each
the coastline. Large infrastructure projects, such as railways company’s biodiversity action plan.
and roads, are being planned to transport ore from mine sites GAC has also established a nursery with native tree species
to seaports for export to international markets (Republic of that are known to be used by chimpanzees for feeding and
Guinea, n.d.). nesting. These species will be used to rehabilitate areas
Bauxite reserves in Guinea are concentrated in the north- previously impacted by the project as well as other degraded
west of the country, where they overlap with the range of the areas that were cleared by the local population using slash-
critically endangered western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes and-burn cultivation.
verus) (Humle et al., 2016a). Several mining companies are Despite the various measures, preliminary assessments show
active in this region and hold adjacent concessions. Most that both companies will have residual impacts on chimpan-
projects are operating independently and have not yet effec- zees; offset requirements were thus estimated separately for
tively tackled the issues related to cumulative impacts. Two each company. As Guinea lacks national offset planning and
neighboring companies, however, are working towards imple- updated maps of priority areas for chimpanzees, GAC has
menting international best-practice standards and address- supported a nationwide chimpanzee survey to find the most
ing cumulative impacts. These companies—the Compagnie appropriate offset site. This site may be large enough to pro-
des Bauxites de Guinée (CBG) and Guinea Alumina Corpora vide an aggregated offset, where other companies could also
tion (GAC)—need to develop or upgrade roads to transport contribute towards protecting a large population of the west-
their bauxite ore to a port site located about 140 km away. ern chimpanzee.
FIGURE 4.9
Locations of the CBG and GAC Mining Projects and the Railway to Be Shared, Guinea
N
GUINEA-BISSAU
CBG
Sangaredi
GAC
Kamsar
Railway
Port
GUINEA Mining
concession
Selected
concession
International
0 20 40 km boundary
Sources: © TBC, 2017

126
and information on the mitigation hierar-

chy are available on the website of the Busi BOX 4.4
ness and Biodiversity Offsets Programme
Virunga National Park:
(http://bbop.forest-trends.org/).
Promoting Socioeconomic
With its rapidly growing populations, a
Development alongside
dire need for economic and social develop- Conservation
ment, and exceptional natural riches, Africa
The history of the Democratic Republic
represents serious challenges for environ- of Congo (DRC) is characterized by the
mental planners and managers. Unless these exploitation of its vast natural resources.
challenges can be addressed meaningfully, Yet despite the abundance of this natu-
ral wealth, extreme poverty has spread
social instability and serious environmental
throughout the country. This paradox is
damage will be unavoidable. The worst-case exemplified by the DRC’s water crisis:
notwithstanding its immense freshwater
resources, only 25% of the population has
FIGURE 4.10 access to safe drinking water (and only
Virunga National Park 17% in rural areas), one of the lowest rates
in sub-Saharan Africa (WSP, 2011). The
legacy of colonialism, state collapse during
N
M o enzori
Mutwanga
ins
the Mobutu years and recurring armed

u nta
conflicts—of which the most significant

w
Ru
followed the Rwandan genocide—have

left the DRC with weak institutions and a
liki k
Kasindi chronically defective public infrastructure,

Se a r
mu
particularly in the eastern provinces.

UGANDA The catastrophic loss of life among civil-
P
ians during the conflict years was princi-

Lubero
pally attributable to indirect public-health
Lake
a l
DEMOCRATIC Rutanzige
effects, such as the dysfunction of water
and sanitation infrastructure. Despite the
REPUBLIC (Lake
i o n
Edward) international community’s investments

OF CONGO in peacekeeping, development aid and
humanitarian relief (at an annual cost of up
to US$15 billion), little has been achieved
N a t
0 20 40 km to prevent a resurgence of armed conflict.

sh u r u
Nord- In the face of overwhelming challenges,

a community of institutions—the Institut
Kivu
Rut
Congolais pour la Conservation de la

V i r u n g a
Nature (ICCN)—is working in partnership

with the Congolese authority for conserva-
tion in Virunga National Park, in the east-
ern DRC (Figure 4.10). ICCN has invested
Rutshuru more than US$60 million6 to develop a
holistic approach to social justice and
conservation in this conflict-ridden region.
Virunga is Africa’s oldest national park
National park and a UN World Heritage Site, home to
Masisi International mountain gorillas and chimpanzees, as
boundary
well as other endangered and endemic
Provincial
wildlife. It is plagued by ungoverned
boundary
resource extraction as members of local
Provincial
Goma RWANDA capital communities hunt for food, clear forest
for agriculture and gather fuelwood and
Sud- Town
Lake charcoal for energy, lighting and heating.
Kivu Road/track
Kivu

127
TABLE 4.1
The Virunga Alliance’s Hydropower Plan
River/population center Power Users
Phase I Butahu/Mutwanga 0.4 MW 1,200
Phase II Volcano/Lubero 15.0 MW 160,000
Rutshuru I/Rutshuru II 12.6 MW 140,000
Phase III Various sites 80.0 MW 840,000
Source: Virunga National Park (n.d.)7
Along with the ICCN, a wider investment program known The hydropower feeds a grid, connecting consumers via a
as the Virunga Alliance draws on the resources of the park prepaid, smart metering system. Each megawatt of electric-
to deliver broad-based services to the community in a way ity is expected to produce as many as 1,000 jobs, based on
that is sensitive to the environment, focused on the needs of the results of the Mutwanga hydroelectric pilot project in the
the poorest and most vulnerable, and supportive of stability north of the park, which was completed in 2013. The Matebe
in the region. Established in 2009, the Virunga Alliance was plant and Rutshuru grid are expected to create 13,000 per-
developed as three programs that may be visualized as con- manent jobs, mostly in the small business sector.
centric circles. The innermost circle is focused on conserva- There is a sizeable waiting list of consumers and small busi-
tion and protection of the park, as well as tourism. The second nesses that want to be connected to the grid, as grid electric-
relates to socioeconomic development through the four main ity is substantially cheaper than the current power source—
sectors of development: sustainable energy, tourism, agro- diesel generators. Indeed, a typical small business would save
industry, sustainable fisheries, as well as measurable improve- US$17 per month on power costs by connecting to the grid.
ments in local infrastructure. These programs target the This is a saving of US$204, which is more than half the aver-
local population—principally the six million people in North
age annual income ($394.25; Tasch, 2015). At present, the
Kivu (MONUSCO, 2015). The third circle targets private-
Mutwanga hydroelectric facility, managed by the park author-
sector investment to stimulate the local economy and to
ity, provides electricity free of charge to schools and hospitals
help bring people out of the cycle of poverty. Using a busi-
in the region.
ness approach to service delivery, the Alliance generates
dividends from tourism and energy provision to industry, and The Virunga program assumes that increasing private-sector
reinvests these funds into the conservation and social infra- investment will accelerate economic development catalyzed
structure of the park. by the hydroelectric program. Until now, Virunga has lacked
a practical strategy to provide funding to small local busi-
Virunga’s program of socioeconomic development—the
nesses. Identifying a viable instrument for financing small
second circle—focuses on renewable energy, sustainable
Congolese-owned businesses is vital. The program is devel-
fisheries, agro-industry and tourism. The region has vast natu-
oping a Smart-Grid Small Business Loan Fund, capitalized
ral wealth, including fertile soil, regular rainfall and abundant
with equity funding (grants or unsecured loans); the fund
hydrological resources. The park’s rivers feed Lake Edward,
will approve, disburse, monitor and collect repayments on
which flows into the Semliki River to form the source of the
loans to small businesses that are also clients of the Virunga
Nile. Millions of people depend on the park’s healthy rivers
power grid.
and lake. There is very little infrastructure, however, to pro-
vide the local people with adequate water and energy sup- The overall goal of the Virunga Alliance is to contribute to
plies. The Virunga Alliance is working to supply hydroelectric peace and prosperity via responsible economic development
power to nine towns in North Kivu on a build–operate–transfer of natural resources for four million people who live within a
basis. Eight hydropower plants, with the effective capacity day’s walk of Virunga Park’s borders. Economic opportuni-
of 108 megawatts (MW), and two interconnected networks ties and access to social services are an important factor in
will be built over 9 years, with the first completed in 2012 maintaining a long-term solution to violence. For the Virunga
(see Figure 4.10 and Table 4.1). Two plants are already oper- Alliance, a minimum of 30% of the park’s revenues are
ational. Access to electricity is expected to provide a boost invested in community development projects, which have
to local agriculture, thus helping to create 80,000 to 100,000 been identified and defined by the local communities on the
new jobs. principle of free, prior and informed consent.

128
scenarios of natural-resource exploitation in Two broad developments are critical to

Africa—driven by foreign capital, distorted the promotion of strategic planning. The
by endemic corruption and resembling first is an expansion of the application of
“feeding frenzies” of predatory behavior the mitigation hierarchy. The second is the
(Edwards et al., 2014)—are far too common. implementation of viable financial strategies
At the same time, innovative initiatives designed to help developing nations meet
that are well planned and executed, attuned pressing economic and food-production
to social needs and sustainability outcomes, needs while limiting the environmental
and long-term in nature are rare. impacts of rapid infrastructure development.
Africa does have a few examples of For these nations, payments for ecosystem
enlightened infrastructure projects—ones services, ecotourism and sustainable har-
driven by visions of social and environmen- vesting of native production forests, as well
tal betterment (see Box 4.4). Such endeav- as strategic investments in natural capital
ors, woven integrally into the surrounding could potentially help to balance economic
cultural fabric, might be better described as and environmental priorities (Laurance and
“initiatives” rather than projects, in that their Edwards, 2014; see Box 4.5).
goals are less about generating profits than At a fundamental level, the challenges
yielding broad-based social betterment and affecting Africa arise from its escalating
environmental sustainability. population growth and serious needs for
economic and human development, espe-
cially increased food security (AgDevCo,
Future Threats n.d.; Laurance et al., 2014b). As noted above,
and Prospects Africa’s current population could almost
quadruple this century, although such pro-
Narrow Window of jections are not carved in stone (UN Popu
Opportunity lation Division, 2017). Importantly, they
can be altered by concerted efforts to pro-
The focus of this chapter is the potential
mote family planning and, particularly, the
effects of large-scale infrastructure expan-
education of young women. In demographic
sion on ape habitats in equatorial Africa. The
terms, educating young women has vital
conclusions, by any measure, are alarming.
benefits, including delaying the age of first
Without determined efforts to modify, recon-
reproduction, which reduces average family
sider and mitigate the impact of current
development schemes, apes and their bio- sizes while increasing the mean generation
logically rich environments in Africa are time, thereby slowing the overall rate of
likely to suffer irreparable harm. population growth. Educated women with
The threats to African apes and their smaller families also enjoy greater marital
habitats are imminent, in the sense that many stability, higher living standards and
crucial changes will play out over the next improved educational and employment
1–3 decades. However, the recent decline in opportunities for their children (Ehrlich,
global commodity prices, particularly for Ehrlich and Daily, 1997). Advocating for
minerals and fossil fuels, provides a poten- more sustainable infrastructure while ignor-
tial window of opportunity of a few years ing rampant population growth in Africa is
to employ direly needed land use planning akin to plugging holes in a leaking dam
and infrastructure-prioritization schemes while failing to notice rising floodwaters
(Hobbs and Kumah, 2015). that threaten to spill over its top.8

129
BOX 4.5 The Opportunity
Using Natural Capital to Promote Impacts on natural capital and those who depend on it can
best be mitigated if they are centrally integrated into infra-
Sustainable Infrastructure
structure planning, assessment and development processes
The Idea from the outset. This early incorporation can build a pipeline
Healthy, intact ecosystems are essential for apes, gibbons and of projects that genuinely take into account interlinked envi-
other wildlife. People also rely on these ecosystems for myriad ronmental, social and economic considerations. There is con-
benefits, including: siderable demand for such projects: “patient” financial capital
is invested to produce high-yielding, stable, long-term, income-
medicinal plants; oriented returns (Roberts, Patel and Minella, 2015).
water supplies; Around the world, people are now developing, accessing and
areas of cultural and spiritual importance; sharing information about natural capital to inform develop-
carbon storage and sequestration; and ment planning (Brown et al., 2016; Guerry et al., 2015). These
approaches identify the manifold benefits that nature currently
pollination of crops (MEA, 2005).
provides and attempt to anticipate what might happen to
Reflecting human dependence on nature, natural resources those benefits in response to global climate change, and as
are increasingly viewed as “natural capital” that supplies resource management and human interactions with nature
“ecosystem services” (Kumar, 2011). These economic meta- change (Ruckelshaus et al., 2015). Tools are being devised
phors emphasize the importance of maintaining our stock of to help incorporate environmental priorities into real-world
assets over time to ensure a long-term supply of benefits. decision-making.9 Governments and businesses can use this
The concepts can resonate with groups that have previously type of information to identify areas that are important sources
had limited interest in conservation, including ministries of of natural capital and that should be avoided or protected to
finance and planning, private investors and business leaders minimize the negative impacts of built infrastructure (Laurance
(Guerry et al., 2015; Natural Capital Coalition, n.d.; NCFA, n.d.; et al., 2015b). Such knowledge can also be used to iden-
Ruckelshaus et al., 2015). tify positive impacts of ecological restoration—for example,
investing in reforestation around rivers to enhance fisheries.
The Challenge There is also demand from businesses and investors for
It has been estimated that achieving the United Nations help in determining the best locations for new infrastructure
Sustainable Development Goals and realizing the climate (Laurance et al., 2015a; Natural Capital Coalition, 2016).
commitments made in the Paris climate accord of 2016 will Environmental and social impact and risk assessments have
require approximately US$90 trillion in infrastructure invest- often ignored companies’ dependence on ecosystem ser-
ments, particularly in urban development, transportation and vices such as clean air, fertile soil and reliable water supplies.
clean energy (Global Commission on the Economy and This puts companies at risk—for example, from flooding,
Climate, 2016). A majority of these investments will be in the drought and shortages that could affect their supply chains.
developing world, including ape and gibbon range states. To lessen these risks, companies can incorporate natural
This new infrastructure is essential for economic develop- capital information in decision-making. The Natural Capital
ment, poverty reduction and human well-being. If the infra- Protocol is a decision-making framework that provides guid-
structure is poorly planned, however, it not only imperils ance for businesses looking to manage risks and seize oppor-
apes and gibbons, but also the benefits that are provided tunities by integrating the value of nature into their internal
by nature to humans, undermining the very human develop- decision-making (Natural Capital Coalition, 2016).
ment that the infrastructure was intended to support (Mandle
et al., 2016a). Some Examples
Environmental issues are typically considered late in the China provides an impressive example of strategic environ-
development planning process, and often when only marginal mental planning at the national scale, one from which lessons
changes to project design can realistically be considered can be drawn for ape conservation. In 1998, after decades of
(Laurance et al., 2015a; see Box 1.6). Even though such gaps deforestation and overgrazing, China instituted major reforms
can be addressed through strategic environmental assess- in response to devastating floods that left more than 4,000
ments, impacts on ecosystem services continue to be con- people dead and 13 million homeless in the Yangtze River
sidered late or not at all, even when an infrastructure project’s Basin (Spignesi, 2004). Information on how nature benefits
success depends directly on ecosystems, for example to people is being used to design restoration and protection
reduce the risks of flooding or erosion (Alshuwaikhat, 2005; measures for ecosystems across almost half of the country.
Mandle et al., 2016a). The transformation of this deeply flawed To date, about US$100 billion has been invested in eco
model of infrastructure planning and investment is a matter systems and to compensate 120 million people, with many
of critical urgency. millions of trees planted (Daily et al., 2013). China’s first

130
Photo: Commitments made in the Paris climate

accord of 2016 will require approximately US$90
trillion in infrastructure investments, particularly
in urban development, transportation and clean
energy, such as hydropower projects.
© Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian
Science Monitor via Getty Images
national ecosystem assessment—carried

out from 2000 to 2010—quantified and
mapped changes in food production, car-
bon sequestration, soil retention, sand-
storm prevention, water retention, flood
mitigation and the provision of habitat for
biodiversity. It showed significant improve-
ments in most services, with the worrying
exception of habitat for biodiversity con-
servation (Ouyang et al., 2016).
Incorporating natural values into project
planning also has much potential to con-
tribute to conservation in the ape range
states of Africa and Asia, even where data
and capacity are limited (Bhagabati et
al., 2014; Mandle et al., 2016b; Univer
sity of Cambridge, 2012; Watkins et al.,
2016). In the Greater Virungas land-
scape, a key region for the conservation
of gorillas and chimpanzees in Africa’s
Albertine Rift, a natural-capital assess-
ment helped decision-makers in Rwanda
and the DRC to identify the location and
importance of areas for water yield, sed-
iment retention, carbon storage and
non-timber forest products (University of
Cambridge, 2012). In Myanmar, a national
assessment showed where and how
natural capital contributes to clean and
reliable drinking water, reduces risks
from inland flooding and coastal storms,
and maintains reservoir and dam function-
ing by greatly reducing erosion (Mandle et
al., 2016b). In Indonesia, natural-capital
tools were used to inform spatial plan-
ning in Sumatra and Borneo, and at the
national level. The informed land use
planning will be incorporated into efforts
to build governance and financing that
improve outcomes for people and biodi-
versity (Bhagabati et al., 2014; GEF, 2013;
Sulistyawan et al., 2017).

131

132
BOX 4.6 tracts of lowland forests, which make up more than 90% of
its surface today (ICCN, 2009).
The Bukavu–Kisangani Highway:
The park is one of the most important sites for biodiversity
A Threat to the Critically Endangered in the Albertine Rift and harbors 136 species of mammals,
Grauer’s Gorilla? including 14 species of primate, 2 of which are great apes:
the eastern chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii)
Extending over 6,000 km² (600,000 ha), the Kahuzi-Biega
National Park (KBNP) in the eastern part of the Democratic and Grauer’s gorilla (ICCN, 2009). In view of this exceptional
Republic of Congo (DRC) comprises dense lowland as well biodiversity, the park was designated a UNESCO World
as Afromontane rainforests. The protected area was originally Heritage Site in 1980. KBNP suffered major impacts during
created as a wildlife sanctuary to protect the small population the wars and civil conflicts in the DRC and has thus been on
of Grauer’s gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) living in the moun- the list of World Heritage in Danger since 1997 (Debonnet
tain and bamboo forests between Mounts Kahuzi (3,308 m) and Vié, 2010).
and Biega (2,790 m). Having been upgraded to a national KBNP harbors the largest surviving population of Grauer’s
park in 1970, KBNP was extended in 1975 to comprise vast gorilla that is endemic to the DRC. However, these apes are
FIGURE 4.11
The Bukavu–Kisangani Highway (RN3) and the Kahuzi-Biega National Park
RN3
Other road to
National Park Kisangani
station Walikale
International
boundary
L u ka
Provincial capital
Other town/village
Mutandala II
N Mutanda DEMOCRATIC
Itebero
B
REPUBLIC OF CONGO
iassi
Igi l Hombo
ah
Ka im
hu bi
zi
-B Lake
ie Kivu
g
a
Bunyakiri Kalehe
N
at
Luka
io
na
Tshivanga
l P
Lulingu
ark
lu
Lugu
Kabare
Lugul u
Ihembe
Bukavu RWANDA
Nzovu Lu Kanyola
bim
be
Shabunda Walungu
0 20 40 km
Sources: René Beyers; vector data from CARPE (n.d.); digital elevation model from USGS (n.d.)

133
increasingly threatened as a result of poaching for wild meat, highly stressful for the animals. Ranger staff have docu-
an illegal activity that is linked to unlawful artisanal mining and mented that gorillas sometimes hide close to the roadside
the civil conflict. The population has declined by more than for long periods of time, waiting for humans to disappear
77% since 1994 and is now critically endangered (Plumptre before starting to cross. During the crossing, the silverback
et al., 2016c). typically takes up a position in the middle of the road and waits
Even before the outbreak of the civil conflict, the upgrade of for the family to cross safely10. It is therefore highly likely that
the RN3, a major road connecting the cities of Bukavu and a significant increase in traffic on the road would affect the
Kisangani, had raised concerns about possible adverse impacts current crossing patterns (Bynens et al., 2007).
on the park. The road bisects the highland sector of the The rehabilitation of the RN3 has been planned for a long
park for 18.3 km, cutting through the habitat of several gorilla time. At the end of the 1980s, rehabilitation started from
families (Bynens et al., 2007). After leaving the park, the road Kisangani, with funding from the government of Germany.
veers away from its boundaries before approaching it again Following concerns raised by environmental experts and by
in the vicinity of the village of Itebero, in the lowland sector the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, IUCN prepared an
(see Figure 4.11). environmental impact assessment, which advised against
The road predates the creation of the national park. Traffic rehabilitating the stretch through the park and recommended
densities remained low until it fell into complete disrepair in that it be rerouted around the northern boundary of the park
the 1990s, when it became virtually impassable. Today, traffic (Doumenge and Heymer, 1992). Based on the results of the
is mostly local, transporting goods and people between study, the German government informed UNESCO that it would
Bukavu and the villages to the west of the highland sector. not support the construction of the stretch through the park.
As a result of the freezing of German aid to the DRC in 1990,
The road’s poor condition beyond the village of Hombo has
the road was not built beyond the village of Walikale and thus
rendered through traffic to Kisangani virtually impossible
never reached the village of Itebero (Bynens et al., 2007).
since the early 1990s. To further mitigate the impacts, the
protected area authority—the Institut Congolais pour la In 2007, the European Union undertook a new feasibility study
Conservation de la Nature (ICCN)—has erected checkpoints for the rehabilitation of the road. Once again, the UNESCO
at the entry and exit of the park, where vehicles are registered World Heritage Committee expressed concerns that the meas-
and can be searched. The road is closed to all traffic between ures proposed to lessen the adverse effects of the road in
6 pm and 6 am. Nevertheless, vehicles frequently stay in the the park were insufficient and requested that the final report
park at night as a result of mechanical breakdowns or because include clear proposals for mitigation measures to reduce the
they get stuck due to poor road conditions. direct and indirect impacts (UNESCO, n.d.-a). The final study
concluded that while the road would bring important socio-
In spite of the inferior quality of the road, traffic on the stretch
economic benefits to the local communities, the likely steep
through the park has continued to increase. Data collected
increase in traffic on the stretch through the park could have
by the park show an upsurge from 1,485 motorized vehicles
adverse impacts on the resident gorilla populations and the
in 1999 to 47,489 vehicles in 2014—a 30-fold increase (Bynens
integrity of the World Heritage site. It thus recommended
et al., 2007; ICCN, 2015). Vehicle numbers vary widely
that the road be rehabilitated for through traffic to Kisangani
between years, reflecting prevailing security conditions, but
only if the stretch through the highland sector of the park could
the past few years show a clear upward trend, paralleling
be rerouted to avoid the park (Bynens et al., 2007). Kinshasa
gradual security improvements (ICCN, 2016). An upgrade of
accepted this recommendation at the time.
the road would allow vehicles to pass to Kisangani once
again and would invite non-local traffic, which could result in To date, the RN3 remains impassable and no traffic is pos-
a steep increase in traffic through the park. sible beyond the village of Hombo. A reopening of the road
would bring important economic benefits to communities,
The impacts of the road on the gorillas in the highland sector
which have lived in total isolation since the start of the civil
are not well understood. The road cuts through the territory
conflict, at the mercy of the different armed groups and ban-
of several gorilla families, which cross the road regularly,
dits who control the region. With the gradual return of peace
several times a week. The number of families living around
and stability, the discussion regarding the road’s rehabilitation
the road and therefore needing to cross it has more than will certainly be revived. A rehabilitated road would undoubt-
doubled over the years—from three in 2007 to eight in 2015 edly attract new threats to the lowland sector of KBNP, and
(ICCN, 2016). This increase may be partly linked to greater it might increase illegal logging and stimulate the wild meat
insecurity and human activities in the northern and southern trade. At the same time, it would reintegrate this region into
parts of the highland sector, where illegal artisanal mining the modern world, allowing park authorities to exert better
and farming are known to occur; these developments have control over illegal activities. It would also persuade people
led to a concentration of gorillas in the central region of the who had settled inside the park after fleeing the violence to
highland sector, which is safer. leave the park and resettle in the villages along the road; in this
Systematic follow-up of gorilla crossings in the early 1990s, way, a revitalized road could garner conservation benefits.
when traffic flows were low, suggested that the number of However, the rerouting of the stretch crossing the highland
crossings remained stable over time. However, the authors’ sector of the park remains an important condition that needs
field observations clearly indicate that road crossings are to be guaranteed before any rehabilitation is envisaged.

134
Priorities for Infrastructure Limiting roads in and near protected

areas. While protected areas need some
and Protected Areas
road access for ecotourism, roads should
Near-term priorities for limiting the envi- avoid the core areas of parks whenever
ronmental impacts of infrastructure expan- possible so as to limit human impacts.
sion on African ape habitats and, more A variety of sensitive wildlife species shun
generally, vital protected areas include: areas with even modest levels of human
activity (Blake et al., 2007; Griffiths and
Carefully scrutinizing plans for expand- Van Shaik, 1993; Ngoprasert, Lynam
ing “development corridors” in Africa and Gale, 2017; Reed and Merenlender,
in terms of their environmental costs 2008; Rogala et al., 2011).
and economic and social benefits (see Stemming the loss of buffering habitats
Chapter 1). Taking this approach calls and limiting infrastructure expansion
for the substantial modification or total in the habitats immediately surrounding
abandonment of corridors that are likely protected areas. Unless they are curbed,
to produce marginal benefits relative to these processes (1) reduce the ecological
their heavy costs, regardless of whether and demographic connectivity of reserves
they are being planned or already being to nearby habitats, and (2) often “leak”
upgraded (Laurance et al., 2015a; Sloan into the interiors of protected areas
et al., 2016). themselves (see Figure 4.5). Both types of

135
changes can have serious impacts on bio- Box 4.5: Emily McKenzie and Neil David Burgess Photo: KBNP harbors the
largest surviving population
diversity (Laurance et al., 2012). Box 4.6: Guy Debonnet and Sivha Mbake of Grauer’s gorilla. The pop-
ulation has declined by more
Favoring large protected areas, which Author acknowledgments: Mason Campbell provided
than 77% since 1994 and is
helpful comments and assistance with statistical analysis,
are superior to smaller protected areas now critically endangered.
and Sean Sloan assisted with preparation of imagery. © Jabruson 2018 (www.
because they typically (1) are less suscep- jabruson.photoshelter.com)
Reviewers: Mark Cochrane and David Edwards
tible to human encroachment and exter-
nal land use disturbances (Maiorano,
Falcucci and Boitani, 2008; see Figure
4.5), (2) support larger wildlife popula- Endnotes
tions that are less vulnerable to local 1 Two additional proposed corridors came to light
extinction, and (3) provide a wider range during the study, making the total 35.
of habitats, elevational and topographic 2 Author correspondence with Tom Okurut, exec-
diversity, as well as climatic regimes utive director of the National Environment Man
that can help buffer species against heat agement Authority, Uganda, 2016.
waves, droughts and other severe climatic 3 IGCP is a coalition program of Fauna and Flora
events (Laurance, 2016b). International and the World Wide Fund for
Nature, alongside the protected area authorities
Defending protected areas for African in the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda and local partners.
apes and designating new reserves in crit- http://igcp.org/
ical habitats. Two immediate priorities 4 All variables were log10 transformed and then
are Cross River National Park in Nigeria standardized prior to analysis.
(see Case Study 5.1) and Kahuzi-Biega 5 Significance testing was carried out for external
National Park (see Box 4.6) and its road pressure (t=13.72, df=651, P<0.000001) and
nearby critical habitats in the eastern park size (t=−2.65, df=651, P=0.008).
DRC (Plumptre et al., 2015). Both parks 6 Internal calculation based on confidential ICCN
documents reviewed by the author.
harbor critically endangered subspecies
of gorillas. 7 Some figures have been adjusted based on internal
ICCN project update and assessment documents
reviewed by the author.
8 The average woman in Africa had 4.72 children in
Acknowledgments 2010–15, exceeding the global fertility rate of 2.52
by about 87% (UN Population Division, n.d.).
Principal author: William F. Laurance11
9 See the Natural Capital Protocol Toolkit for infor-
Contributors: Stephen Asuma, Ephrem Balole, The
mation on a variety of available tools (WBCSD, n.d.).
Biodiversity Consultancy (TBC), Neil David Burgess,
Geneviève Campbell, Guy Debonnet, European Com 10 In 1997, a soldier killed one of the park’s most
mission Joint Research Centre (JRC), Fauna and Flora famous silverbacks, named Nindja, while he was
International (FFI), International Gorilla Conserva standing in the middle of the road waiting for his
tion Programme (IGCP), Annette Lanjouw, Anna Behm family to cross.
Masozera, Sivha Mbake, Emily McKenzie, Emmanuel 11 James Cook University (www.jcu.edu.au)
de Merode, Stephen Peedell, UNESCO World Heritage
Centre, United Nations Environment Programme
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-
WCMC), Virunga National Park and World Wildlife
Fund (WWF)
Mitigation Hierarchy and Case Study 4.1:
Geneviève Campbell
Boxes 4.1 and 4.3: Stephen Peedell
Box 4.2: Anna Behm Masozera and Stephen Asuma
Box 4.4: Ephrem Balole and Emmanuel de Merode

Photo: Increased vehicular movement produces air pollution, noise pollution, vibrations, light pollution and wildlife–vehicle collisions. © Jacqueline Rohen 136

137
CHAPTER 5
Roads, Apes and Biodiversity

Conservation: Case Studies from
the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Myanmar and Nigeria
Introduction
As demonstrated throughout this volume,
road construction is a leading cause of hab
itat fragmentation and loss. It reduces wild
life connectivity, threatening the survival
of species by impeding their ability to move
across a landscape in search of food and
shelter and to mate. It also increases human
access to, and the destruction and degrada
tion of, previously remote and undisturbed
areas, including essential forests (Laurance,
Goosem and Laurance, 2009).
In addition to land use changes and loss
of connectivity, road development alters the
characteristics of habitats both close to and
distant from the road, thereby changing the
way wild animals use these habitats. Roads
affect the movement of water and the patterns
Chapter 5 Roads
138
and severity of erosion, while increased the High-Priority Roads Reopening and
vehicular movement produces air pollution, Maintenance (Pro-Routes) project of the
noise pollution, vibrations, light pollution Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
and wildlife–vehicle collisions. By facilitat
ing wildlife poaching, improved access has The first case study presents the context
a particularly significant impact on species of the proposed Cross River superhigh
survival (Laurence et al., 2009). way, which is to connect a new deep seaport
Increased human encroachment into at Calabar in southeastern Nigeria to land
ape habitat exposes apes to greater hunting locked Chad and Niger. While the rationale
pressure and an increased risk of disease behind the project appears to have some
transmission, while also confronting them merit, the proposed highway will stop about
with a loss of habitat and connectivity. In 1,000 km short of Nigeria’s northern border.
2002 the United Nations Environment Pro Furthermore, Nigeria already has eight
gramme (UNEP) projected that by 2030 only major seaports and experts doubt there is
10% of the original gorilla range would be sufficient economic justification for con
free of human impact, primarily as a result structing another one in Calabar (Shipping
of infrastructure development, agricultur
al expansion and logging (Nellerman and
Newton, 2002). This habitat destruction and
fragmentation is one of the major threats
to ape survival.
At the same time, roads can result in
substantial economic and social benefits,
which tend to form the cornerstone of
national economic development plans,
although these are not always realized (Berg
et al., 2015; see Chapter 2, pp. 60–77). There
are therefore trade-offs between improv
ing human well-being and protecting the
environment.
This chapter explores how advance plan
ning that is evidence-based, inclusive and
effectively implemented, monitored and
evaluated can help to minimize the negative
impacts of road development on biodiver
sity. To that end, it examines the interface
between road development and the environ
ment, focusing on the impact on apes in
particular. The chapter presents three case
studies on proposed and continuing road
development in ape ranges in Africa and Asia:
the Cross River superhighway of Cross

River State, Nigeria;
the Dawei road link between Thailand
and Myanmar; and

139
Position Online, 2016). Moreover, the tion of biodiversity conservation into all types Photo: Road construction
is a leading cause of habi-
Calabar River is relatively shallow and of infrastructure planning (see Box 1.6). tat fragmentation and loss;
one of the major threats
prone to siltation, which is exacerbated by The second case study focuses on the
to ape survival.
surrounding logging and deforestation, and proposed 138 km road from the Thai border © WWF Myanmar/
Adam Oswell
consequently the “deep seaport” will require to the planned Dawei Special Economic
periodic and expensive dredging (Vanguard, Zone (DSEZ), an area that is to cover 250 km2
2015). In addition to considering the pro (25,000 ha) in Myanmar’s southernmost
ject’s environmental and social impacts, the region, on the border with Thailand. The
case study examines the role that local and road’s planned route bisects crucial eco
international non-governmental organiza logical connectivity. Maintaining that con
tions (NGOs) can play, especially in relation nectivity in an area of weak governance,
to drawing attention to the lack of adequate competing transnational interests and civil
impact assessments, consultation and plan struggle urgently requires sustained, inno
ning. It also highlights that thoroughly con vative approaches to infrastructure plan
ducted environmental impact assessments ning and design, as well as to conservation
(EIAs) are key tools for ensuring the integra and environmental policy. In 2015 and 2016,
Chapter 5 Roads
140
a multidisciplinary team from the World critical role of external conservation spe
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the cialists and the importance of timely and
University of Hong Kong (HKU) launched effective monitoring and evaluation.
a campaign to promote ecological connec Key findings of this chapter include:
tivity and sustainability in the region by
increasing awareness and building capacity In the case of conflicting priorities,
with stakeholders and decision-makers. In conservation organizations can play an
addition to several outreach strategies, the important role in building relationships
team released three reports: the first high between various stakeholders by work
lights the ecological systems at risk from the ing with government agencies, local
proposed road and argues for robust envi communities, industry, political actors
ronmental policies; the second, a manual and others who are sympathetic to con
of sustainable road design, focuses on mit servation objectives.
igating impacts on wildlife; and the last The fact that EIAs are required in rela
provides an explicit yet flexible method of tion to road development in all environ
locating wildlife mitigation measures and mentally sensitive areas is useful, but
crossings, despite extremely limited biologi not sufficient for ape conservation, as
cal and physical data for the area (Helsingen poorly conceived and conducted assess
et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2016; Tang and Kelly, ments can enable ill-advised or poorly
2016). In light of Myanmar’s recent politi designed infrastructure development in
cal shift, this case study explains these and essential African and Asian ape habitats.
other regional conservation initiatives in the Modeling is a valuable method for eval
context of decades of conflict and recent uating potential impacts of infrastruc
economic development. ture, as it allows conservation actors to
The third case study traces the evolution illustrate various scenarios and options
of the Pro-Routes project, a major road to a wide range of stakeholders and
rehabilitation project in the DRC, funded decision-makers.
by the International Development Asso
By engaging with experts from relevant
ciation and the United Kingdom’s Depart
disciplines, project leaders can ensure
ment for International Development
that environmental factors are ade
(DFID). It focuses specifically on the 523 km
quately addressed in project planning to
Kisangani–Bondo segment of this rehabili
allow for the development of effective
tation project and its anticipated impact on
mitigation measures.
the Bili–Uélé Hunting Domain and the Bomu
Faunal Reserve, referred to hereafter as the In the context of infrastructure devel
Bili–Uélé Protected Area Complex (BUPAC). opment, integrated land use planning
At the outset, the project stakeholders aimed can serve to mitigate environmental and
to consider the potential environmental social impacts while also contributing
and social impacts of the road’s rehabilita to greater coordination, such as across
tion and planned to implement recom ministries and within national agencies.
mendations to mitigate projected negative Wherever landscapes do not have explic
impacts. As the case study reveals, however, itly delineated areas for more traditional
there is almost no evidence that recommen conservation planning, it is critical that
dations were implemented as planned. The conservation and environmental actors
study discusses the need for expertise in join forces, avoid overlaps in engagement
responsible infrastructure development, the and speak with one voice. p. 164

141
CASE STUDY 5.1 FIGURE 5.1

On a Road to Nowhere? The Proposed The Proposed Cross River Superhighway
Calabar–Ikom–Katsina Ala Superhighway
Project in Cross River State, Nigeria1 N
Introduction
With a population of more than 180 million people and massive Ogoja
Obudu
oil reserves, Nigeria is Africa’s giant, and, despite a reces- Cross River State
sion, Africa’s largest economy (The Economist, 2014). But
the country has failed to live up to expectations for growth 1
and development since independence in 1960 and now lags 3 Okwangwo
2 4 Division
far behind comparable countries, such as Malaysia and
Indonesia (Sanusi, 2012). The reasons behind this underdevel-
opment are complex, but endemic corruption and chronic Ikom
CAMEROON
L
mismanagement by a series of military and civilian govern-
ments are most likely to blame (Ojeme, 2011). Promising to 5 6
Proposed
tackle corruption, Nigeria elected a new leader, Muhammadu superhighway
4 20-km buffer
Buhari, in May 2015. New governors, who traditionally enjoy Oban Existing highway
Division Major town
unrivalled autonomy in Nigeria, were elected at the same time International
in all 36 states of the federation. boundary
Akamkpa Cross River State
C
The self-proclaimed environmentalist Benedict Ayade was Tropical high
forest
ro
appointed as the new governor of Cross River State. He
ss
National park (NP)
Cala
or forest
soon announced a number of signature projects, including reserve (FR)
r
ba
Afi Mountain
the construction of a six-lane, 20-km-wide, 260-km-long 1 Wildlife Sanctuary
Calabar
superhighway to connect a new deep seaport with northern 2 Afi River FR
Nigeria. The governor further boasted that this “digital NIGERIA 3 Mbe Mountains
4 Cross River NP
superhighway” would be designed for the 21st century, with 5 Ukpon River FR
Cross River
Internet connectivity along its entire length. Although Nigeria 0 20 40 km 6 South FR
is in the grips of its biggest recession to date and Cross
River is one of the most indebted states in the country—due © WCS
to massive borrowing by previous governors to fund their
own signature projects—an estimated US$2.5 billion has Amid much pomp and ceremony, President Buhari arrived in
been budgeted for this ambitious project (Olawoyin, 2017; Calabar on October 30, 2015, and performed the ground-
PGM Nigeria, 2016a, 2016b). Funding sources have not breaking event. Through this act, Buhari tacitly gave the
been disclosed, however, and although some potential federal government’s consent for the superhighway project,
investors reportedly pulled out, perhaps due to delays and but Environment Minister Amina Mohammed would play a
controversy, it appears that a number of Chinese investors key role in ensuring that the state government had to produce
are still interested in the project (This Day, 2016). Designed an acceptable EIA (Akpan, 2016b).
to create jobs and sustainable revenue for Cross River State,
the superhighway and deep seaport are to be developed Background
and managed through a public–private partnership. At the UNESCO has proposed that Cross River National Park—
time of writing, the superhighway was to pass through some Nigeria’s richest site for biodiversity—be listed as a Man and
of the state’s most pristine remaining forests, including Cross the Biosphere Reserve and potentially a World Heritage Site.
River National Park, with catastrophic consequences for wild- WWF and the International Union for Conservation of Nature
life (Akpan, 2016a). (IUCN) recognize the park as a Centre of Plant Diversity, and
In September 2015, the initial groundbreaking ceremony for Birdlife International classifies it as an Important Bird and
the superhighway was canceled at the last minute when the Biodiversity Area (Fishpool and Evans, 2001).
federal government realized that no EIA had been undertaken. Within Cross River National Park lie the Oban Hills, whose
In Nigeria, the law requires EIAs for all major development biological importance was recognized as early as 1912, when
projects (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1992). This was a huge a large part of the area was gazetted as a forest reserve
political embarrassment for Governor Ayade. A compromise (Oates, 1999). In 1991, the reserve was upgraded to create the
deal was soon reached, however, and the Federal Ministry of Oban Division of Cross River National Park, through which
Environment issued an “interim EIA” to allow the groundbreak- the superhighway is now expected to pass (Oates, Bergl and
ing ceremony to go ahead, on the understanding that no Linder, 2004). Covering around 3,000 km² (300,000 ha) of
work would start until an EIA was submitted and approved. lowland rainforest, the Oban Division is the largest remaining
Chapter 5 Roads
142
area of rainforest in Nigeria and is contiguous with the Korup International Pressure Mounts
National Park in Cameroon. With peaks reaching between On October 20, 2015, ten days before the groundbreaking
500 m and 1,000 m, the Oban Hills are also an extremely ceremony, a coalition of 13 international and national NGOs,
important watershed, giving rise to numerous rivers that guar- including Birdlife International, the Wildlife Conservation
antee a perennial supply of freshwater to hundreds of down- Society (WCS) and the Zoological Society of London, sub-
stream communities in Cross River State (Caldecott, Bennett mitted a letter to President Buhari expressing concern about
and Ruitenbeek, 1989). the superhighway. In the letter, they conveyed support for
In addition to apes, Oban contains a number of rare and the ongoing EIA but declared their outrage concerning plans
endangered species, such as the Nigeria–Cameroon chimpan- for the superhighway to traverse Cross River National Park.2
zee (Pan troglodytes ellioti), drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus), The route of the superhighway was subsequently adjusted,
Preuss’s red colobus monkey (Procolobus preussi), leopard yet some argued that it was still too close to the edge of the
(Panthera pardus), forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis), the national park and objected on the grounds that it would
slender-snouted crocodile (Mecistops cataphractus) and the pass through some important community forests and forest
reserves (Cannon, 2017b).
gray-necked rockfowl (Picathartes oreas), as well as 75 plant
species that are endemic to Nigeria (Oates et al., 2004). The On January 22, 2016, the Cross River government published
area is a center of species richness and endemism, particu- a notice of revocation of rights of occupancy within a 20-km-
larly for primates, birds, amphibians, butterflies, fish and small wide land corridor along the entire highway route (MLUD,
mammals (Bergl, Oates and Fotso, 2007; Oates et al., 2004). 2016; see Figure 5.1). This single act dispossessed more
But the same area is also subject to intense hunting pressure than 185 communities within the corridor of their land, sub-
to supply the wild meat trade, and rates of deforestation are jecting them to displacement at any time. With the notice,
among the highest in the world (Bassey, Nkonyu and Dunn, the state seized a land area of 5,200 km² (520,000 ha), or
2010; Fa et al., 2006; FAO, 2015; Okeke, 2013). Given that it about 25% of the state’s total area. Communities that had
combines high levels of species richness and endemism with initially supported the superhighway rose up in revolt when
they realized that they had been robbed of their ancestral
a high degree of threat, the area represents a biodiversity
lands overnight. Many people within the state began to call
hotspot of global significance (Myers et al., 2000).
the superhighway project an elaborate land grab in disguise
(Abutu and Charles, 2016).
Impact on Apes
Once freed of its occupants, this vast area of forest would
Two different apes are found in Cross River State: the criti- represent an opportunity to generate significant revenue,
cally endangered Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli), the first through the sale of the timber and then through conver-
most endangered taxon of ape in Africa, and the endangered sion of the land to oil palm plantations. Even though the EIA
Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti), the had not yet been finalized, in February 2016 a number of
most threatened of four subspecies of chimpanzee (Morgan bulldozers started the clearing and felling of trees along the
et al., 2011). Due to hunting and habitat loss, these apes are proposed route. Some of the affected communities, such as
restricted to two protected areas within the state—Cross Old and New Ekuri, blocked the bulldozers from entering their
River National Park and the Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary— forest, but many more were powerless to prevent the destruc-
as well as a small area of community-managed land within tion of their forests.
the Mbe Mountains.
Direct intervention finally came in the form of a stop work
The Oban Division of Cross River National Park is expected order, issued by Environment Minister Mohammed in March
to bear the brunt of the impact of the superhighway, while its 2016. The order forced the governor to suspend activities on
Okwangwo Division will be relatively unaffected (see Figure the superhighway and await the outcome of the EIA (Ihua-
5.1). Although Oban supports an estimated 150–350 Nigeria– Maduenyi, 2016). That same month five ambassadors of the
Cameroon chimpanzees, it does not contain any Cross River UNEP–UNESCO Great Apes Survival Partnership sent a letter
gorillas, a species found only in the Okwangwo Division, the to the environment minister expressing concern regarding
Mbe Mountains and the Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary increasing threats to the integrity of the rainforests of Cross
(Dunn et al., 2014; ellioti.org, n.d.). The superhighway only River National Park and requesting that the Nigerian govern-
skirts the western edge of the sanctuary, however it directly ment respect commitments made as part of the 2005 Kinshasa
threatens the Afi River Forest Reserve, a critically important Declaration on Great Apes and UN-REDD (Reducing Emis
corridor that links the sanctuary to the Mbe Mountains (Dunn sions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).3
et al., 2014). The loss of such corridors in the landscape
would be catastrophic for the Cross River gorilla and the Environmental Impact Assessment and Review Process
Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee, as both survive in small iso- The EIA law in Nigeria exists to safeguard the population
lated groups. The superhighway is expected to lead to massive and environment with regard to any form of environmental
deforestation along the entire route as farmers from neighbor- degradation resulting from development projects. This leg-
ing states move into the area, and as improved access facili- islation prohibits activities from being carried out in sensitive
tates hunting (Laurance et al., 2017a). areas in the absence of mandatory studies.

143
Photo: The Cross River gorilla survives in small isolated groups in the Cross River National Park, Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary and a small area of community-
managed land in the Mbe Mountains. © WCS Nigeria
The environmental management consultancy PGM Nigeria the superhighway or reasons for building a new road as
Limited prepared an EIA of more than 400 pages on behalf opposed to upgrading the existing highway;
of the government of Cross River State; in March 2016, it the EIA failed to consider the impacts of the superhigh-
was submitted to the federal government for approval (PGM way on nearby protected areas, namely Cross River
Nigeria, 2016a). Environment minister Mohammed appointed National Park, Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary, Afi River
an independent review panel to assess the EIA and the doc- Forest Reserve, Ukpon River Forest Reserve and Cross
ument was circulated for public comments in April 2016. A
River South Forest Reserve;
professional review of the EIA, completed by the consultancy
Environmental Resources Management on behalf of the stakeholder engagement was extremely limited and failed
international NGOs, identified 11 main flaws in the EIA. The to meet accepted standards as outlined by Nigerian
review found that due to these flaws, the assessment could legislation;
not be used as intended, namely to identify potential impacts the EIA failed to identify measures required to monitor
of the project or to recommend adequate mitigation measures effective mitigation of the impact of the superhighway;
(ERM, 2016). The 11 main flaws were that: mitigation measures were described at a conceptual
the scoping process was inadequate and provided no level only, with insufficient detail for implementation;
information on the rationale or analytical process that the EIA failed to mention the presence of many rare and
was adopted; endangered species within the area, such as the criti-
baseline data were unclear, inconsistent, frequently con- cally endangered Preuss’s red colobus and the slender-
tradictory and often incorrect; snouted crocodile;
the project description was fundamentally flawed, most although more than 185 communities are likely to be
critically in that it failed to consider any impacts due to affected by the proposed project, the socioeconomic
the 20-km-wide corridor of land acquired by the govern- study focused on only 21 communities and failed to
ment of Cross River State along the entire route of the assess the full impact on all affected communities, their
proposed superhighway; livelihoods and vulnerability; and
the EIA did not provide cost–benefit analyses for any of there was no consideration of any cultural heritage data
the proposed routes, a clear economic justification for (ERM, 2016).
Chapter 5 Roads
144
NGOs Increase the Pressure the EIA stated that there are no protected areas within
In May 2016 a second letter—this one from 13 international the project area or within 50 km of the proposed area
NGOs, including the Arcus Foundation, Fauna and Flora and that there are no protected areas within the sphere
International (FFI), WCS and WWF—expressed further con- of influence of the proposed project, yet there are no
cern about the quality of the recently concluded EIA, requested fewer than five protected areas within the project area
that it be redone and called for compensation to be paid to and the proposed route of the superhighway would
affected communities.4 In addition to these international pass directly through three different protected areas—
NGOs, a number of national NGOs have also played a key Cross River National Park, Ukpon River Forest Reserve
role in the campaign against the superhighway (Uwaegbulam, and Cross River South Forest Reserve—and the 20-km-
2016). Many local NGOs issued press releases or sent letters wide corridor would also impact the Afi Mountain Wildlife
of protest, some on behalf of local communities, and a num- Sanctuary and Afi River Forest Reserve (Dunn, 2016;
ber of local NGOs brought lawsuits against the state govern- Dunn and Imong, 2017; PGM Nigeria, 2016b).5
ment, although none was successful. Among the most In the absence of an approved EIA, tensions mounted and
active NGOs were the Ekuri Initiative, which has received the state government threatened to resume work on the
international accolades for forest stewardship, the Nigeria superhighway, even without approval from the federal govern-
office of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, the NGO Coalition for ment (Vanguard, 2017). During preparation of a third version
the Environment, and the Rainforest Resource and Develop of the EIA, the Cross River State government finally became
ment Centre (Akpan, 2017). attentive to the environmental concerns and approached
Rainforest Rescue in Germany organized an online petition WCS for help. After a number of meetings with WCS, the
against the superhighway, which drew more than 254,000 state government announced in February 2017 that it was
signatures—34,000 from Cross River State and 220,000 dropping all plans for the 10-km corridor on either side of the
from concerned individuals worldwide. In September 2016, highway (Ihua-Maduenyi, 2017). However, since the route
the petition was delivered to President Buhari through the was still due to pass through some important Ekuri, Iko Esai
Ministry of Environment in Abuja (Akpan, 2016c). Both the and other community forests on the edge of Cross River
traditional press and social media have carried numerous National Park, as well as Ukpon River Forest Reserve and
stories and updates on the issue (Ingle, 2016). By April 2017, Cross River South Forest Reserve, conservation groups
another 135,000 people had signed a separate WCS online called on the government to do more (Cannon, 2017c).
campaign against the superhighway (WCS, n.d.). Options for the superhighway were discussed, including
A public meeting was held in Calabar in June 2016 to allow rerouting it around the forests, even though such modifica-
all stakeholders to present their views and opinions to the tions would make the highway slightly longer and would
official review panel (Akpan, 2016b). The Federal Ministry of increase the overall cost. In March 2017 in Calabar, at a
Environment, which eventually gave the EIA a “D” rating for stakeholder forum convened by the Federal Ministry of
gaping oversights and errors, ordered the assessment to be Environment to review the third version of the EIA, Governor
redone (Dunn, 2016). It subsequently rejected the revised EIA, Ayade announced the willingness of the Cross River State
a document of more than 600 pages submitted in September government to reroute the highway around the Ekuri com-
2016, on the grounds that it still failed to meet basic interna- munity forest (Cannon, 2017a). While this was welcome
tional standards and that: news, stakeholders continued to demand that the highway
be rerouted away from the Ukpon River Forest Reserve and
there still had been no public consultation or dialog with Cross River South Forest Reserve. Finally, in April 2017, the
important stakeholders, such as Cross River National state government agreed to reroute the highway away from
Park; most of the remaining forest (Cannon, 2017b; see Figure 5.1).
baseline data were still absent or weak; The fourth version of the EIA and a new biodiversity action
there was no consideration of the impacts of the 20-km- plan were submitted to the Federal Ministry of Environment
wide corridor; in May 2017 (PGM Nigeria, 2017). Significant improvements
included the revocation of the 20-km-wide corridor and the
the economic justification for building a new superhigh-
rerouting of the superhighway to avoid important commu-
way, rather than simply upgrading the existing Calabar–
nity forests and forest reserves on the edge of the national
Ogoja federal highway, had not been clearly demonstrated;
park. However, this version of the EIA also relied on inade-
there was insufficient consideration of the negative impact quate data, and therefore its proposed mitigation measures
on local people; could not be considered valid. Moreover, the EIA failed to
the EIA used the proposed national park boundary, assess indirect long-term impacts of hunting and habitat
which was never gazetted, rather than the current legal loss on Cross River National Park despite its proximity to the
park boundary; superhighway and improved access to the forest.6
the EIA failed to acknowledge the fact that the superhigh- Although WCS and others recommended that both the EIA
way, as proposed, would pass through the national park; and the biodiversity action plan be rejected, the Federal

145
Photo: The superhighway is expected to lead to massive deforestation along the entire route as farmers from neighboring states move into the area, and as
improved access facilitates hunting. © WCS Nigeria
Ministry of Environment issued provisional approval of the climate change. The construction of the superhighway as
EIA in July 2017. In so doing, the ministry specified no fewer proposed would certainly conflict with the proposed REDD+
than 23 conditions to be addressed and requested that the program under pilot in Cross River State, threatening the
EIA be revised and resubmitted within two weeks. These continuation of future funding from the UN.
conditions included the development of a biodiversity offset;
a revised map on which the new route was to be clearly Conclusion
indicated; a resettlement action plan, including a list of
Nigeria’s Ministry of Environment has played an exemplary
affected communities; and compensation payments to
role in upholding the law, notably by insisting that the Cross
affected communities.7 At the time of writing, these condi-
River State government produce an EIA and by subjecting
tions had not been met and, despite some misleading
that EIA to critical review. In this respect, the leadership of
reports in the press, the ministry had not yet approved the
Amina Mohammed, federal minister of environment at the
EIA, nor had it issued an environmental impact statement or
an EIA certificate. time and currently Deputy Secretary-General of the United
Nations, was instrumental. Without the strong leadership of
the ministry, NGO concerns over the superhighway may
REDD, Climate Change and Conflicting Policies
have been brushed aside. The role of NGOs, both national and
In September 2008, the UN Development Programme, UNEP international, in opposing the superhighway has also been
and the Food and Agriculture Organization jointly estab- critical; NGOs were able to exploit social media and online
lished the REDD+ program in Nigeria, where it is being piloted
petitions to generate publicity for their campaign.
in Cross River State. Three years later, Nigeria received a
US$4 million REDD+ grant to realize the program’s Readiness Although the most recent EIA integrates an environmental and
Project, which includes the preparation and implementation social management plan as well as a biodiversity action plan,
of REDD+ strategies with the active involvement of indige- it still fails to evaluate the long-term costs of the project. Given
nous peoples, forest-dependent communities and other that every version of the EIA was paid for by the proponents
local stakeholders. In September 2016, the REDD+ program of the very project it was meant to assess, it is not surprising
in Nigeria approved a new US$12 million strategy, one that the analysis and results were unduly influenced. Despite
designed to deepen the initiative nationwide to combat climate significant environmental, social and financial concerns, the
change through improved forest governance (Uwaegbulam, federal government is likely to succumb to political pressure
2016). That same month, President Buhari signed the Paris and may eventually allow the superhighway to proceed with-
climate agreement and promised commitment from Nigeria out a comprehensive EIA and even though the construction
as part of the global effort to reverse the negative effects of of the deep seaport remains uncertain.
Chapter 5 Roads
146
CASE STUDY 5.2 Isolated politically and economically due to more than half a
century of civil war between ethnic groups and the Myanmar
Engineering Conservation: Stories and military regime, this region is now witness to intense pres-
Models of Infrastructure, Impact and sure from domestic and transnational development propos-
Uncertainty in Southern Myanmar als, weak land rights and large-scale exploitation of natural
resources (Hunsberger et al., 2015; Simpson, 2014). Since
Introduction 2012, a ceasefire has been in effect between the Myanmar
Tanintharyi, Myanmar’s southernmost region, shares an government and the Karen National Union (KNU), an oppo-
extensive border with Thailand along the Dawna and sition group that represents the Karen ethnic groups and still
Tenasserim mountain ranges and harbors some of the last controls large areas of Tanintharyi Region (KNU, 2012).
remaining large forest areas in the Greater Mekong sub
region. This landscape is home to several endangered spe- New Conservation Efforts along the Road Corridor
cies, including the lar gibbon (Hylobates lar), Asian elephant Starting in 2008, the governments of Myanmar and Thailand
(Elephas maximus), northern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca agreed to collaborate on a series of projects, including the
leonina), stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides), langur Dawei Special Economic Zone. Critical to the planned
(Semnopithecus) and tiger (Panthera tigris) (WCS, 2015a; 250-km² (25,000-ha) DSEZ is a 138 km road link that will con-
WWF, 2016). nect the economic zone to the Thai border (see Figure 5.2).
FIGURE 5.2
The Dawei road link and deforestation East of Myitta
yitta
st of M
: Ea
area
m ple
Dawei
DaweiSpecial
Special Exa
Economic
EconomicZone
Zone THAILAND
Myitta
A n d aman
Sea
MYANMAR
Dawei road link

(proposed)
International
0 10 20 30 km boundary
Source: Helsingen et al. (2015, p. 13)

147
This relatively short segment is the western end of the The reserve was drawn predominantly on lands governed by
Greater Mekong Subregion’s Southern Economic Corridor, the KNU ethnic armed group.
a largely completed major trade route connecting Bangkok Between 1996 and 2004, the local villagers’ landmark lawsuit
and Ho Chi Minh City (ITD, 2012). While the DSEZ and and settlement against Total’s partner Unocal in U.S. courts
Dawei road link are key projects for renewed investment in over the Yadana pipeline drew international attention (ERI,
Myanmar, political uncertainty related to the country’s 2011 2009). Given the Myinmoletkat Nature Reserve’s link to the
democratic transition, coupled with Thailand’s 2014 military Myanmar military government, suspected endorsement by
coup, KNU control of the border area and increasing civil multinational oil companies, unjustifiably large expanse, and
society presence, limited investment. As a result, the project’s a record of forced relocations and disregard for human rights
scope has varied greatly over time, alternating between in the protected area, the Myinmoletkat Reserve was heavily
eight-, four-, and two-lane alignments, with and without rail, criticized by the conservation community abroad (Brunner,
power lines and gas pipelines (ITD, 2011). Talbott and Elkin, 1998; Mason, 1999).
In view of these proposed development projects and the Within months of Myinmoletkat’s establishment in 1997, the
threats they pose to some of the most poorly documented yet Myanmar military made a violent sweep of the planned
biodiversity-rich forests in the Greater Mekong subregion, transport corridor in KNU-controlled Tanintharyi. A Western
several international and domestic NGOs began to increase aid worker noted that “bulldozers were flattening a broad
their presence throughout Tanintharyi in 2014. Their efforts swathe on the heels of the advancing army” (Moorthy, 1997).
have included: They destroyed at least eight Karen villages along the route
and, in collusion with Thai logging companies, forced repatria-
village and customary mapping by FFI and WCS;
tion of refugees from Thailand to Myanmar, into an area of
land cover change mapping by the Smithsonian Insti heavy fighting (Moorthy, 1997). In 1998, gas started flowing
tution and a Myanmar-based NGO, Advancing Life and in the Yadana pipeline, which has since accounted for a sig-
Regenerating Motherland, or ALARM; nificant portion of the national government’s export income
supporting forest management plans of the regional (Simpson, 2014).
government; and In 2005, Myinmoletkat was turned into the substantially smaller
biodiversity surveys completed by FFI and WCS, as well Tanintharyi Nature Reserve Project, about 30 km north of the
as by WWF in partnership with the Karen Environmental planned Dawei road link corridor; the reserve served as part
and Social Action Network and Karen Wildlife Con of Total’s contested corporate social responsibility program,
servation Initiative (Connette et al., 2016; WCS, 2015a; itself funded by the lawsuit settlement and characterized by
WWF, 2016). forced labor and other human rights abuses (ERI, 2009).
While land use planning among local government offices,

Current Status of the Road Corridor
the KNU and NGOs is ongoing and has been somewhat
effective in controlling the expansion of agroindustry and The Dawei road link remains unpaved, despite an upgrade
mining exploration, road development remains relatively that was carried out between 2009 and 2012 (ITD, 2011,
unchecked, despite recent national environmental impact 2012).8 At the time of writing, construction of the road had
legislation (DDA, TYG and TripNet, 2015; METI, 2015). stalled due to a lack of investment; the developers were
awaiting a final decision from the new civilian Myanmar gov-
ernment.9 Meanwhile, the situation on the ground remained
Two Decades of Conservation and Ethnic Conflicts
complicated by demands from villagers for appropriate
Intense distrust between local civil society and both domestic compensation, competing land ownership claims among
and international institutions has long plagued conservation internally displaced persons and migrants, imminent refugee
efforts in Tanintharyi. This distrust can be traced back to the return from across the Thai–Myanmar border and military-
mid-1990s, when multinational investment financed the pre- sanctioned agroindustry land grabs (DDA, 2014). The democ-
cursors of today’s DSEZ projects. In 1996, Thailand and the ratization of land policies, notably in the 2012 Farmland Law
military-ruled Myanmar governments announced an industrial and accompanying Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands Manage
estate and road link, whose scopes and scales were similar ment Law, has opened up previously protected village lands
to those of today’s projects; the Industrial Estate Authority to market interests and widespread land degradation
of Thailand completed a feasibility study and the Italian–Thai (Oberndorf, 2012; Simpson, 2015).
Development Company, which remains today’s principal In view of the complex situation of conservation and devel-
developer, carried out an initial survey (Arunmart, 1996). opment in Tanintharyi, policy experts and conservation
Overlaid on these development proposals was the Myanmar biologists from WWF teamed up with landscape planners,
government’s controversial Myinmoletkat Nature Reserve, designers and civil engineers from the University of Hong
which was gazetted with the help of WCS and the Smith Kong to construct a series of scenarios to predict possible
sonian Institution to include KNU-held protected areas, the outcomes, build capacity and provide tools for sustainable
proposed industrial estate and the road link, as well as the site infrastructure development in southern Myanmar (Helsingen
of Total’s Yadana gas pipelines (Mason, 1999; Noam, 2007). et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2016; Tang and Kelly, 2016).
Chapter 5 Roads
148
Photo: The forests along the Dawei road, east of Myitta, February 2016. © WWF-Myanmar/Adam Oswell

149
Predicting Impact on the Landscape

The best way to limit forest fragmentation as a result of road
development is to avoid critical wildlife areas; if that step
cannot be taken, it is possible to mitigate fragmentation by
maintaining corridors through the construction of wildlife cross-
ings and the management of vehicular traffic. Experience
from infrastructure development in Europe and elsewhere
has shown it is both more cost-effective and safer when
wildlife and ecosystem services are taken into account early
on in the planning process (Damarad and Bekker, 2003).
Environmental and social considerations, supported by infor-
mation on ecosystem services and wildlife, are effective when
integrated further upstream in planning processes, well before
road alignments are proposed.
Due to longstanding deforestation along the Thai border, the
terrain running north–south in Tanintharyi is the last remaining
link between two of the most significant forest conservation
landscapes in tropical Asia: the Western Forest Complex
and the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex in Thailand. These
landscapes are home to the lar gibbon and probably sup-
port the largest tiger population outside of India and Nepal
(WCS, 2015a). Landscape connectivity is critical for both
gibbons and tigers, especially as they require large home
ranges and intact forest cover. The lar gibbon is a high-
canopy species and is rarely found in the understory; loss of
canopy connectivity and habitat isolates gibbons and leads
to multiple negative effects on the population (Gron, 2010).
Establishing and maintaining this ecological corridor would
support the movement of gibbons, tigers and other wildlife
along the trans-boundary landscape (Kelly et al., 2016).
Without appropriate measures, the planned road link will
lead to increased land cover change and threaten this corri-
dor (Helsingen et al., 2015).
Land Change and Impacts on Wildlife

While the current access road for the Dawei road link has
existed in some form since around 2000, deforestation has
increased significantly in tandem with recent access road
construction and upgrades over the past several years
(BurmaNet News, 2000; Helsingen et al., 2015; see Figures 5.2
and 5.3). Construction of the road link has not yet formally
begun, but the access road has been fortified and extended
into new areas since 2010. These disturbances and the
creation of isolated forest patches change the distribution of
species. Unless urgent steps are taken to address deforesta-
tion, either through land use controls, infrastructure and
investment regulations, or participatory forest management
programs, significant habitat loss will continue to threaten
Tanintharyi’s remaining species.
Cases from Thailand bear witness to the increase in wildlife–
vehicle collisions across the region. In one such incident, in
2014, a car crashed into three wild elephants on a road near
Thailand’s Khao Chamao–Khao Wong National Park, leaving
six people and one of the elephants dead (Barbash, 2014).
Without appropriate measures, the frequency of wildlife–
vehicle accidents on the Dawei road link is likely to rise in
Chapter 5 Roads
150
FIGURE 5.3
Deforestation within 5 km of the Planned
Dawei Road Link, 2001–13
Area of deforestation (ha)
1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
line with the increase in traffic volume, speed and number of

large vehicles. Gibbons are at high risk of car accidents, as
they are uneasy travelling on the ground, while macaques
and langur species tend to travel by and inhabit the ground
more, which also exposes them to the risk of collisions
(Baskaran and Boominathan, 2010). A further complication
is that the proposed Dawei road link is meant for nighttime
traffic,10 which means that headlights from passing vehicles
will pose particular risks to light-sensitive species such as
leopards and other nocturnal wildlife.
Roads also enable poaching and promote the illegal wild-
life trade by providing access to previously remote, undis-
turbed areas (Espinosa, Branch and Cueva, 2014; Clements
et al., 2014; Laurance et al., 2009; Quintero et al., 2010).
Myanmar is recognized as a major source of illegal animal
parts to consumer and re-export markets in China and
Thailand (TRAFFIC, 2014). As the road network in Myanmar’s
rural areas has essentially been unchanged for the past 50
years, options for trafficking wildlife are limited to the main
transport corridors (Clements et al., 2014). Wildlife markets
already exist in the area where the Dawei road link is planned.
One wildlife market is held at Three Pagodas Pass, a border
crossing between Myanmar and Thailand, just a few hours’
drive north of Dawei (Shepherd and Nijman, 2008).
Once constructed, the Dawei road link will significantly shorten
travel time to the Thai border. In turn, it is likely to contribute
to the illegal wildlife trade—unless preventive measures, such
as monitoring and enforcement, are put in place. During field
visits in 2015 and 2016, the authors of this study observed
numerous hunters and noted that wild meat, including gibbon
and langur stew, was served in restaurants along the road.
One restaurant owner reported that he bought primate meat
from hunters from the surrounding forests for about US$1.50
per pound (US$3.30 per kg). As road traffic increases, wild

151
Photo: Deforestation along the access road for the Dawei road link, east of Myitta, February 2016.
© WWF-Myanmar/Adam Oswell
Chapter 5 Roads
152
Photo: The Dawei road link currently remains unpaved, and already the majority of adjacent slopes have been deforested. The project’s scope has varied
greatly over time, alternating between eight-, four-, and two-lane alignments, with and without rail, power lines and gas pipelines.
© Atid Kiattisaksiri/LightRocket via Getty Images.
game is reportedly becoming scarcer and the price paid for Scenario modeling is a process often used in regulatory
primate meat is rising (WWF, 2014). There is a need for further instruments such as EIAs to evaluate the potential impact of
studies in this area. infrastructure on the environment. An EIA typically describes
the proposed scenario and simulates the environmental,
Applying Algorithms and Strategic Road Designs in social and economic outcomes of a given project. It lays out
Scenario Modeling the threats and possible mitigation measures required to
This section outlines how scenario modeling can be used to encourage sustainable development. It also models alterna-
decide how and where on the planned Dawei road link to tive options such as a “no-build” scenario or “best-case”
implement road mitigation measures specific to primate scenario, along with associated outcomes, in order to aid plan-
habitat and movement patterns. ners and governments in making informed decisions.

153
However, while a typical scenario modeling process pro- (see Figure 5.4). Three land use scenarios were produced
vides options, it does not offer enough flexibility to support using selected inputs, including the likelihood of change, the
decision-making in rapidly changing contexts with poor legis- different kind of physical and environmental factors that influ-
lation enforcement, such as in Myanmar. The evolving eco- ence change and the quantity of change under different sce-
nomic, social and political context of the Dawei road link narios (McKenzie et al., 2012). In the “limited” and “more” land
requires an alternative approach to typical scenario modeling use conversion scenarios, expanding frontiers of deforesta-
(Alcamo, 2008). As described below, WWF and HKU under- tion are primarily concentrated around existing and planned
took several alternative approaches, both technical and roads and settlements. In contrast, the “high” land use con-
story-based, to support the sustainable development of the version scenario predicts a future with extensive forest con-
transport corridor and raise community and government version, at a rate similar to those of neighboring countries
awareness of sound environmental and engineering choices. (Helsingen et al., 2015). Future steps for this work would
include using additional participatory approaches to better
In three reports on the planned Dawei road link, WWF and
understand the different inputs, including likelihood and
HKU utilized different yet complementary methods of mod- quantity of change. However, for now they serve as a basis
eling scenarios. The first predicts land use conversion due for decision-making and understanding of different possible
to development and the resulting environmental threats; it futures and implications.
calls for a considered and transparent planning process that
These land use conversion scenarios are complemented with
involves multiple stakeholders. The second offers a toolkit for
a second approach, an illustrated design manual on sustain-
sustainable infrastructure design, construction and mainte-
able road construction techniques and mitigation measures
nance possibilities; it constructs scenarios and their impacts
that provides tools for decision-making across a wide range
for typical sites along the road link. While not scenario-
of stakeholders. The manual outlines sustainable principles
based, the third model was pioneered and used to predict
for the road’s alignment, alternative engineering technologies
multispecies movement patterns and to identify locations for
and road design guidelines specifically for wildlife endemic to
mitigating the road link’s impact on wildlife. the landscape surrounding the road corridor. As part of this
For the first approach, land use conversion was modeled design manual, three typical sites were chosen along the road
using Natural Capital Project’s InVEST (Integrated Valuation link. For each site, the following graphically illustrated sce-
of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) Scenario Generator narios were displayed:
FIGURE 5.4
Baseline Plus Three Conversion Scenarios for the Proposed Dawei Road Link
Limited conversion
More conversion
THAILAND High conversion
Dawei road link
(proposed)
International
Dawei Special boundary
Economic Zone
N
A n d aman
Sea
MYANMAR
0 10 20 30 km
Chapter 5 Roads
154
a business-as-usual engineering approach with no con- proxy for wildlife) might flow—in this case, across a land-
sideration for wildlife or ecological connectivity; scape (McRae et al., 2008). To that end, a multidisciplinary
an upgrade of the current access road using minimal group of landscape planners, computation experts, conser-
construction standards; and vation geographers and wildlife specialists from WWF and
HKU’s network compiled information about individual spe-
an approach demonstrating the combination of “soft”
cies’ habitat preferences with regard to factors such as forest
engineering with vegetation (for slope retention), sustain-
cover, human settlement, rivers and roads, so as to model
able maintenance and mitigation measures for wildlife
individual species’ rates of movement across a landscape.
(Tang and Kelly, 2016).
However, while this technique for mapping critical areas for
These three scenarios were turned into 3D-printed models, wildlife connectivity is well established for single species, it
which are much more effective for communicating the various has frequently proved to be challenging to combine the move-
options for alignment and mitigation measures to lay audi- ment preferences of multiple species and limited in its poten-
ences in stakeholder meetings (see Figure 5.5). tial application to identifying sites for small-scale interventions,
such as wildlife crossings (Brodie et al., 2015; McRae et al.,
Locating Wildlife Crossings for Many Species 2008). To enable modeling multiple species and apply these
Up to this point, WWF and HKU had built an argument for methods to the specific landscapes along the road, the team’s
better planning processes and specified design guidelines landscape designers and computation experts developed a
to encourage and sustain wildlife habitat connectivity, but framework for optimizing identification of wildlife crossing loca-
there were insufficient data on wildlife populations to identify tions along the expected route of the road (Kelly et al., 2016).
crucial sites for mitigation measures that could link the land- Importantly, the final recommendations are flexible enough
scapes north and south of the road link corridor (Kelly et al., to accommodate pragmatic concerns such as alignment
2016). Consequently, the team opted for a modeling method adjustments, engineering options and construction costs,
using techniques that simulate how electric current (as a while still providing enough crossings and maximizing the
FIGURE 5.5
Infrastructure Design Scenarios as 3D-Printed Models
Notes: For a single site along the planned Dawei road link, these three models represent potential alignments, construction technologies, mitigation measures
and impacts on surrounding land cover. The models show (a) the developer’s likely alignment; (b) an upgrade of the existing access road; and (c) bioengineering
and wildlife mitigation (Tang and Kelly, 2016).
Photo: © Ashley Scott Kelly, University of Hong Kong

155
FIGURE 5.6
Multispecies Movement Prediction Modeling
N
Western Forest
Tanintharyi Nature Complex
Reserve Project
Dawei Special THAILAND

Economic Zone
Myitta●
Dawei
Dawei
Andaman
Se a
Phunamron
Htee
Khee
MYANMAR
Western limit of corridor Eastern limit of

modeling (Dawei River) modeled area
Species corridors impacted Crossings at 12 locations Ensure that crossings:

by Dawei road Dawei road link (proposed) ● accommodate top percentiles of each
Optimal corridor for Buffer species' movement rates
all nine modeled species ● maximize north–south connectivity
Protected area
● maximize the total number of species
International boundary
● are dispersed at least 1 km apart
Optimal corridor for at 0 10 20 30 km ● number at least six per species
least one modeled species
Source: Kelly et al. (2016, pp. 24–5)
number of included species. As shown in Figure 5.6, the cross- and-simulation approach, a hybrid of quantitative simula-
ing locations are not merely points, but rather segments tions and qualitative narratives (Alcamo, 2008). For instance,
measuring approximately 1 km in length that can take into the creation of the design manual began with a series of
account local cost engineering and a variety of mitigation specific example sites along the planned Dawei road; each
measures. These measures are outlined for specific wildlife of these sites was then used to develop potential sustaina-
species in the accompanying design manual and are intended ble engineering principles that could be useful along the
for the identified critical corridors, as well as mitigation strat- entire route. In the end, these options were catalogued to
egies and sustainable construction technologies along the provide a useful set of tools and recommendations. For the
length of the Dawei road link. land use conversion scenarios, as an example of a story-
Analytical modeling is most effective when decision-makers— and-simulation approach, technical modeling was coupled
who are often non-specialists—are able to understand the with narratives of environmental destruction and economic
principles and factors involved. The Dawei road link com- loss, each of which fed back into the other and demonstrated
bines “design thinking,” which encourages scenario building the decision-making processes—not necessarily the factors—
with iterative approaches to problem solving, and the story- that were critical to the desired outcome.
Chapter 5 Roads
156
Wildlife and Ecosystem Services in the Infrastructure planning—especially with regard to infrastructure—and for
Development Process greater coordination both horizontally among ministries and
In 2015, the government of Myanmar formally adopted EIA vertically within national bodies.
procedures (Thant, 2016). This was an important step
towards better environmental management in the country. Last Resort: Offsetting Impact
However, these procedures do not incorporate specific guide- Finally, as a last resort, options for offsetting or compensating
lines for different sectors, which would ensure that design, for impact are under development. In April 2016, WWF showed
construction and mitigation measures are accounted for in the road developer an initial scoping study for one option
both the EIA and the environmental management plan (ECD, concerning a financial mechanism that could support sus-
2016; MCRB, 2016). The Ministry of Construction recently tainable management of forests north and south of the pro-
formed an environmental safeguards division, a sign of more posed Dawei road link. The road developer subsequently
sector-level attention that may be able to mainstream eco- requested a suite of options for a financial mechanism.
system services and wildlife considerations at the national According to WWF’s initial assessments, the forests north
level. Moreover, public participation guidelines for consulta- and south of the road provide important sediment retention
tions are under development, as is a system for the formal services that would protect planned bridges from damage
sharing of EIAs with the public.11 Ideally, these efforts will and scouring.12
improve consultations and access to EIAs, which currently
Considering the large amount of rainfall this region receives
lack transparency.
over short periods of time, the forests play a crucial role in
Nevertheless, in the EIA undertaken by the Dawei road link regulating water and reducing the risk of floods and land-
developer—ITALTHAI, Thailand’s largest engineering and slides. Erosion modeling undertaken by WWF in 2015 shows
construction company (ITALTHAI, n.d.)—the sections on a number of sections at high risk from landslides (see Figure
biodiversity and ecosystems are far from adequate. Perhaps 5.7). Investing in the management of forest ecosystems
most flagrantly, the EIA does not include biodiversity sur- adjacent to the road will help sustain the provision of ser-
veys for the area and only sets aside a very small amount of vices and reduce maintenance costs, while simultaneously
the budget for addressing negative environmental impacts.
reducing impacts from soil erosion and floods on surround-
In response, WWF provided constructive criticism directly to
ing communities and ensuring the long-term integrity of the
the road developer and the EIA consultant. The three reports
landscape. At the time of writing, further studies to identify
by WWF and HKU were also presented to the Myanmar
a set of design options for a financial mechanism were to be
EIA review committee and to the relevant ministries of the
presented to the road developer. Until then, consultations with
Myanmar government on several occasions, in efforts to
communities and civil society are necessary to understand
encourage sector-specific guidelines for infrastructure nation-
the immediate needs of local people.
ally. At meetings and during capacity building initiatives,
WWF presented Helsingen et al.’s A Better Road to Dawei
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
and ongoing work on the design of mitigation measures to
Dawei University and several government agencies, including Having emerged in response to the Yadana pipeline case
the Ministries of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development; and gained experience in frequent cross-border exchanges
Environmental Conservation and Forestry; Construction; with Thai counterparts, civil society in Tanintharyi has
Agriculture; and Planning. remained protest-oriented (ERI, 2009). Local groups seldom
seek or accept collaborations with international NGOs. Their
Building Capacity and Increasing Awareness overall position regarding the DSEZ and Dawei road link fre-
quently incorporates both rejection and acceptance, exempli-
To support capacity building on how to plan, design and con-
fying Harvey and Knox’s definition of an “impossible public”
struct more sustainable roads, WWF facilitated attendance
(Harvey and Knox, 2015).
at conferences and organized a workshop for reviewers of
EIAs from Myanmar’s Ministry of Natural Resources and In practice, Tanintharyi’s civil society has claimed that much
Environmental Conservation, as well as the Ministries of of WWF and HKU’s work has aided the developer and
Transport and Construction. In addition, in September 2015, argued “for the road”; however, this team did not see the com-
WWF, HKU and Stanford University’s Natural Capital Project parative advantage of arguing from a singular or “protest”-
took 19 regional government officials from nine departments oriented stance. A more suitable approach is to suggest
on a field visit to the project area to support their under- alternative options and innovative solutions that would help
standing of the connections between the environment, people mitigate and negotiate impacts. Opaque development plans,
and infrastructure. Government officials discussed what including a non-public EIA, also required more innovative
changes could be observed in the landscape, what factors approaches. Given this position, the team’s efforts were
were driving those changes, and how impacts might be developed to simultaneously offer toolkits in the form of
addressed and mitigated to better protect forests and veg- future land change scenarios, design and construction sce-
etation and prevent soil erosion and landslides along the narios, and wildlife prediction modeling to influence and build
road. This visit highlighted the need for integrated land use capacity with the national government, the local government,

157
FIGURE 5.7
Modeled Areas or “Servicesheds” that Impact the Proposed Dawei Road Link through
Erosion and Landslides
N Low
Dawei road link Serviceshed extent
(proposed)* Bridge locations* Sediment export
Protected areas (sized relative to bridge change‡ within
Population centers serviceshed sediment servicesheds
International boundary export change‡) High
* Road link alignment and ‡Change represents the difference in sediment export
bridge locations derived between baseline and “all-agriculture” land cover,
based on developer technical multiplied by the number of bridges impacted.
drawings and reports. Visualized using standard deviation.
Tanintharyi Nature
Reserve Project
Western Forest
Complex
Dawei
Special
Economic
Zone
THAILAND
Andaman
Sea
MYANMAR
0 10 20 30 km
© WWF and HKU
civil society and the road developer. These tools are foremost practices. However opportunistic, the scope of these efforts
intended to influence upstream planning, yet with enough is also chosen to move beyond the uncoordinated and often
geographic, physical and technical description and flexibil- competitive nature of NGO work in the region. Importantly,
ity to negotiate infrastructural implementation in the absence given many competing and overlapping interests, they have
of strong governance and environmental legislation. not explicitly delineated areas for more traditional conserva-
Construction on the Dawei road link is anticipated to continue tion planning. Nor have they incorporated social and cultural
in 2018, as it has “continued” with or without necessary knowledge into the process; the work remains largely within
approvals, ambiguous land rights and tentative investment the technical and environmental silos. Nevertheless, these
since agreements were signed between Myanmar and studies and toolkits help support a multitude of stakeholders
Thailand in 2008. While it is too early to tell whether WWF in their different objectives. Critical to success for biodiversity
and HKU‘s spatially explicit strategies, designs and recom- conservation is flexibility, not only for land use and infrastruc-
mendations will be effective or implemented by the Thai ture planning, but also so that diverse stakeholders may
road developer, in all likelihood they will suffice to inform civil appropriate these tools for their own use in securing ecologi-
society and the government of alternative and sustainable cal connectivity across the region.
Chapter 5 Roads
158
CASE STUDY 5.3 in wild meat and young orphaned chimpanzees is thriving
locally, regionally and across the DRC’s borders, in the
Conservation in the DRC: Road Rehabilitation Central African Republic and South Sudan. The situation is
and the Bili–Uélé Protected Area Complex compounded by an increase in human encroachment,
growing social conflict and small groups of presumed Lord’s
Introduction
Resistance Army members terrorizing communities in the
Aspiration 1 of the African Union’s Agenda 2063 envisions a region (Gauvey Herbert, 2017; Hicks et al., 2010; LRA Crisis
“prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and sustain- Tracker, 2016; Spittaels and Hilgert, 2010). The artisanal
able development” (AU, 2015, p. 2). As part of that aspiration, gold and diamond mining industries are also extensive,
the agenda pictures a continent on which “[c]ities and other especially in the western area of the BUPAC (Hicks and van
settlements are hubs of cultural and economic activities, Boxel, 2010). While biodiversity in the complex previously
with modernized infrastructure, and people have access to seemed secured by the area’s inaccessibility, this growing
[. . .] the basic necessities of life” (pp. 2–3). It goes on to visu- human encroachment—together with poor governance and
alize “Africa’s unique natural endowments, its environment law enforcement—has contributed to its depletion.
and ecosystems, including its wildlife and wild lands [as]
In 2014, the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and the Con
healthy, valued and protected, with climate resilient econo-
golese Institute for Nature Conservation (ICCN) conducted
mies and communities” (p. 3).
a scoping mission in the region to support conservation
The continent is indeed experiencing a dramatic growth in action. The study resulted in a conservation and securitization
infrastructure development, a process that is often accom- program initiated by AWF, Maisha Consulting and ICCN in a
panied by serious, irreversible environmental changes core area of the BUPAC—the Bili–Mbomu Forest Savanna
(Laurance et al., 2015b). Donors and policymakers are Mosaic—which covers about 11,000 km² (1.1 million ha) (AWF,
increasingly aware of the need to factor in environmental 2015, 2016). Over the first year, 25 newly selected and trained
considerations at the onset of an infrastructure development rangers conducted reconnaissance walks covering more
project. In contrast, some current policies and guidelines than 2,000 km. Having georeferenced and destroyed about
appear to be lagging behind the growing intention to avoid 100 hunting camps, they were able to confirm that poachers
causing a net loss to biodiversity, and perhaps to advance had a substantial presence throughout the protected area.14
conservation goals in the process. In 2016, AWF and ICCN signed a co-management agree-
This case study examines the Pro-Routes project, a major ment to strengthen management of the protected area
road rehabilitation undertaking in the DRC that triggered the (AWF, 2016; Ondoua Ondoua et al., 2017). Without adequate
World Bank’s strictest environmental safeguards (see Box protection and conservation action, further losses to biodiver-
5.1 and Annex VI). In particular, this study considers the sity are inevitable.
523 km Kisangani–Bondo segment, the RN4, which is certain
to have an impact on the Bili–Uélé Protected Area Complex The Need for Infrastructure and the Birth of the
(BUPAC) (see Figure 5.8). Pro-Routes Project
In early 2000, the transport sector of the DRC was in a very
A Brief Description of the BUPAC poor state. Following a decade of conflicts and a quasi-
For the purposes of this study, the BUPAC comprises the absence of management, the formerly operational, multi-
Bili–Uélé Hunting Domain (32,748 km²/3.3 million ha), a par- modal transport network—which integrated roads, railways
tial faunal reserve with low protection status, and the Bomu and waterways nationwide—had collapsed. The majority of
Faunal Reserve (10,667 km²/1.1 million ha).13 With an area of roads were impassable, including more than 90% of the
more than 43,000 km² (4.3 million ha), this complex is the estimated 58,000 km national and provincial network (World
largest contiguous protected area in the DRC. Yet, very little Bank, 2008).
is known about it and, until recently, no conservation organi- This situation has exacerbated rural poverty, particularly by
zations were working in the landscape and no protected area impairing communities’ access to social services and mar-
management was being undertaken. kets. More generally, it has hindered post-conflict economic
The IUCN has identified the BUPAC as one of the most critical recovery. In response, the government has strongly empha-
chimpanzee conservation units, as it harbors an estimated sized the critical importance of investing in transport infra-
20,000 endangered eastern chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes structure. It has presented a solid, well-maintained network
schweinfurthii). These individuals account for about half the as key to supporting the growth of the two pillars of the
DRC’s population and one of Africa’s largest contiguous country’s economy—the agriculture and extractive industry
populations (Hicks et al., 2010; Plumptre et al., 2010). sectors—and to fostering trade at the national and regional
The BUPAC is remote and the few existing roads are barely levels (World Bank, 2008).
accessible by car, if at all. Despite the near absence of infra- In 2004, the European Commission and the World Bank
structure and low human densities, the threats to biodiversity jointly created an infrastructure unit—the Cellule Infra
are high; hunting and poaching have spread and illegal trade structures (CI)—as a financially autonomous body under the

159
FIGURE 5.8
The Pro-Routes Project and the Bili–Uélé Protected Area Complex (BUPAC)
N
Deforestation, Major road CENTRAL
2001–15 Minor road
Provincial AFRICAN
BUPAC
boundary REPUBLIC
Bili–Mbomu Provincial
Forest Savanna capital
Mosaic Town
Zemio rve
Rese
omu B o mu Faunal
Mb
in
Doma
g
Huntin
Bili–Uélé
Haut-
B il
i Bili Ango Uélé
Yakpa
Bondo Uélé
RN4
Bas-Uélé Titule
Dulia
RN6 Buta
Aketi
Rubi-Télé
Bunduki
ing Domain
M oonnggaal a
la Hu t
n
DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC
Co
OF CONGO Banalia
ng
o
Ts h o p o
RN4
Bafwasende
Yangambi
0 25 50 km Kisangani
FOUNDATION
Data source: UNEP–WCM C and IUCN (2017)
authority responsible for infrastructure development, the the ministry, including capacity building. It also oversees the
DRC’s Ministry of Infrastructure, Public Works and Recon Pro-Routes project, which DFID initiated in 2005 (World
struction. CI provides institutional and technical support to Bank, 2008).
Chapter 5 Roads
160
The main objective of the Pro-Routes project is to “re-estab- 20% increase in deforestation, primarily within a 2-km radius
lish lasting access between the provincial capital and districts, of the targeted road segments, and largely close to urban
and districts and territories [. . .] in a way that is sustainable centers such as Buta and Kisangani (Damania et al., 2016).
for people and the natural environment” (World Bank, 2008, The national roads that were identified for rehabilitation in
p. 7). To support the project’s implementation, DFID, together 2007—the RN4, the RN6 extension and the RN5—account
with the International Development Association, created a for about 1,800 km within a 9,135-km-long target network
multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank. In (World Bank, 2008; see Figure 5.9). Importantly, the RN4
2008, agencies contributed US$123 million to this funding crosses the Rubi-Télé Hunting Domain; at its northern end,
mechanism and to finance the rehabilitation of selected road it stops at Bondo town, just before reaching the Bili–Uélé
segments (World Bank, 2008). Hunting Domain of the BUPAC. The most severe negative
In the phase of upstream planning, the stakeholders concluded impact on the environment is thus expected in the Rubi-Télé
that the rehabilitation of existing roads would be the most protected area, which is already severely degraded, with
economical and timesaving approach. The existing network only 5–25 surviving elephants and virtually no ICCN presence
had already reflected patterns of human activities, as cor- (Hart, 2014; Thouless et al., 2016). As the BUPAC is consid-
roborated by deforestation trends in 2001–15 (see Figure 5.8). ered the most biodiverse protected area in the region, it is the
Upgrading the network is expected to lead to a typical 10%– focus of this case study.
The Environmental Component of the Pro-Routes Project

FIGURE 5.9
Since the World Bank administers the Pro-Routes donor
The Pro-Routes Project: Roads Selected fund, its safeguard policies apply to the project (see Box 5.1
for Rehabilitation and Annex VI). Accordingly, under the auspices of CI, an
environmental consultancy drew up an environmental and
CENTRAL AFRICAN SOUTH N social management framework that identified the key poten-
REPUBLIC SUDAN tial impacts and recommended measures for managing them
BUPAC (AGRECO, 2007). Another consultancy then produced an
environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) to further
Bondo Bas-Uélé
Dulia Haut-Uélé explore potential negative impacts and recommend specific
RN 6 Buta measures to address them (EDG, 2007).
Bunduki Isiro
Mongala Banalia Bunia Based on these studies, the project appraisal document (PAD),
Co
go Ituri the design document of the Pro-Routes project, paved the

n
RN 4
Kisangani way for the consideration of environmental and social impacts

(World Bank, 2008). In assessing the critical risks to the environ-
Tshopo Nord- UGANDA ment as high, the PAD stresses the need for capacity building of
Kivu
DEMOCRATIC ICCN and support to ICCN and the Ministry of Environment,
Goma
Conservation of Nature and Tourism “in managing and pro-
REPUBLIC RWANDA
Kindu Bukavu tecting natural habitats, biodiversity, and forests and enforc-
OF CONGO Sud- BURUNDI ing the pertaining laws” (World Bank, 2008, p. 36). Significant
Kivu
0 100 200 km Maniema Uvira
resources—US$18.7 million—were earmarked within the Pro-
Routes project budget to support an environmental and
TANZANIA social program, including US$8.18 million for environmental
activities (pp. 62–66, 68).
Kalemie
Tanganyika In 2009, CI contracted a consultancy firm, SOFRECO, to lead
project implementation as a delegated management con-
tractor and to play the role of Bureau d’Études Spécialisés
en Gestion Environnementale et Sociale (consultancy for envi-
N5
Major road R
ronmental and social management, or BEGES) (DFID, 2010).
Faunal reserve
The task of BEGES was to provide ICCN and the ministry
Hunting reserve ZAMBIA
Other protected with technical, operational and financial assistance to man-
area Haut- Kasomeno
Katanga age natural ecosystems and enforce related regulations and
International
boundary Lubumbashi laws with regard to wildlife and protected areas, as outlined
Provincial in the PAD (World Bank, 2008). In accordance with the pro-
boundary ject’s classification under the World Bank’s safeguard policy,
Provincial
capital CI recruited experts for an environmental and social advisory
Town FOUNDATION panel (ESAP), which was to provide guidance with respect
to the management of environmental and social aspects (see
Data sources: UNEP–WCMC and IUCN, 2017; WRI and MECNT, 2010 Annex VI).

161
BOX 5.1 fragmentation, altered drainage patterns and wildlife road kills.
Induced impacts result from human activities that are made
The World Bank Infrastructure possible by new or improved roads, through improved access
Development Imperative to remote areas; these impacts include new settlements,
deforestation, logging and hunting of vulnerable species.
A Low Infrastructure Baseline
The most important planning decision available to address
When it comes to infrastructure, Africa lags behind the rest
both direct and induced impacts of road development is
of the world on almost every development metric. The region
careful site selection. In most cases, the World Bank requires
has the lowest road density and levels of electrification, and
that new roads—and major upgrades of existing ones—be
few of its urban dwellers have access to piped drinking water
located so as to avoid areas of high biodiversity value,
or adequate sanitation (Foster and Briceño-Garmendia,
including ape habitats. The one “special case” exception to
2010). At the same time, the infrastructure deficit is set to
this rule occurs when a road to a protected area might be
worsen with a burgeoning population that is expected to double
supported by conservation authorities because it would
by about 2050 (UN Population Division, 2017). Infrastructure
allow for improved management or sustainable tourism. By
development, including the provision of electricity, safe drink-
avoiding remote forested areas where apes reside, new and
ing water and transportation, is widely recognized as essential
improved roads are likely to benefit larger numbers of people
to reducing extreme poverty. It is also fundamental to achiev-
by traversing more densely settled rural areas.
ing sustainable development and boosting shared prosperity.
Approaches that consider potential road impacts at the very
outset of the planning process enable decision-makers to
The Challenge
steer development away from biodiversity hotspots towards
In Africa, as elsewhere, infrastructure investments undertaken areas where benefits can be maximized and adverse impacts
carelessly or without consideration of potential externalities can largely avoided (see Box 1.6). The tools now exist to conduct
be counterproductive and undermine many of the sources detailed assessments of likely road impacts; some were pio-
of growth and livelihood in an economy. Evidence suggests neered in a recent analysis in the DRC (Barra et al., 2016).
that in Africa, where poverty is predominantly a rural phenom- These tools offer a standardized and scientific way of
enon, the very poorest are the most dependent on forests for assessing the environmental risks of an infrastructure invest-
their livelihoods. In most cases, the poorest quintile derive more ment, while also offering alternatives that may be equally
income from forests and the commons than from agricul- beneficial, but less risky. A number of biodiversity-related
ture. An immediate implication is that forest income deserves databases—including the A.P.E.S. Portal, the Digital Observa
at least as much attention from policymakers and at the pro- tory for Protected Areas (DOPA) and Integrated Biodiversity
ject level as other sources of income. Neglect of such a sig- Assessment Tool (IBAT)16—provide easily accessible infor-
nificant component of economic value to the poor inevitably mation on the locations of ape habitats and other important
compromises the effectiveness of poverty reduction policies biodiversity areas. In planning roads and other infrastruc-
(Anderson et al., 2006b; Angelsen et al., 2014; Byron and ture, a landscape approach is the most effective way to con-
Arnold, 1999; IUCN, 2016d). sider ape habitats within and outside of protected areas, as
Environmental and natural resources contribute to economic well as the potential connectivity between them.
well-being and the ability to fight poverty sustainably. In that Dams. In many African countries, hydroelectric and other
sense, they play a pivotal role in development, one that can- dams are considered a key source of low-carbon electricity,
not be done justice if they are treated as mere afterthoughts potable water for cities and towns, and irrigation water to sus-
in the development dialog (PROFOR, 2012; Sunderlin, Dewi tain agriculture (see Chapter 6). As with roads, site selection
and Puntodewo, 2007). Renewable natural resources in Africa of dams is extremely important for avoiding and minimizing
merit particular scrutiny since the continent’s poor are espe- harm to apes and other biodiversity. A single proposed
cially dependent on them.
hydroelectric dam in Guinea, for instance, could adversely
affect a major stronghold of the critically endangered western
Biodiversity Implications chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus), unlike other dams in the
With respect to biodiversity in general and ape conservation same river system.
in particular, investments in two types of infrastructure—roads In some cases, dam projects can further conservation goals
and dams—are especially relevant.15 through biodiversity offsets. For example, the World Bank-
Roads. In the process of connecting people—including the supported Lom Pangar Hydropower Project in Cameroon
rural poor—with markets and services, roads are of funda- involved the establishment and on-the-ground strengthening
mental importance. Ideally, they help to reduce poverty and of Deng Deng National Park, which protects an important
stimulate economic development; in practice, however, population of the western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla
these goals are not always achieved (see Chapter 2, p. 60). gorilla) (Ledec and Johnson, 2016; see Case Study 6.1).
In sensitive locations, roads that are built or upgraded without Many dams depend on the conservation of upper catchment
adequate precautions can threaten apes and other biodiversity areas for their long-term functioning; that dependence pro-
through their direct and induced (indirect) impacts. Direct vides an important incentive for conserving upland forests and
impacts involve the footprint of the road itself, including forest other natural habitats. Well-managed hydroelectric and water
Chapter 5 Roads
162
supply dams also generate annual revenues, a fraction Assessments and Recommendations
of which can be devoted to recurrent costs of managing By establishing four posts on the Buta–Kisangani road to
associated conservation areas. control the illegal wild meat trade, BEGES immediately
Besides proper site selection and design, building infra- initiated implementation of the recommendations for-
structure that is biodiversity-friendly means paying close mulated by the environmental and social management
attention to the construction practices used (see Box 6.1). framework and the PAD. Another ESIA for the 125 km
The loss and degradation of natural habitats can be min- section connecting Dulia to Bondo was carried out
imized through the establishment and enforcement of between 2012 and 2013. In addition, WWF and the con-
strong environmental rules for contractors (see Box 1.6), sultancy TEREA released a study of Pro-Routes’ impact
especially if these are reflected in the bidding documents on protected areas (WWF and TEREA, 2014). These stud-
and contracts for large infrastructure projects. Particularly ies resulted in the development of a two-fold approach.
important for apes and other wildlife are strict prohibi- The first element of the approach—the “emergency
tions on hunting, wildlife capture and the purchase of intervention package”—focused on poaching, which was
wild meat by all contractors and construction workers. expected to increase in the western part of the BUPAC
due to the rehabilitation of the nearby RN4. The proposed
Getting It Right wildlife conservation activities required technical and
Since much of Africa has yet to develop a basic infra- financial support to ICCN for improved anti-poaching
structure stock, there is potential for the process to be measures in priority areas within the BUPAC, and sup-
undertaken with due concern for the conservation of port to communities to reduce dependence on the pro-
apes and other biodiversity, while avoiding many of the tected area. The latter component included the creation
of a local development fund, awareness building and
environmental mistakes that have often been made in
improved coordination between ICCN and communities
other parts of the world. Getting it right will require more
living adjacent to the BUPAC’s priority areas (WWF and
focused attention to biodiversity than has been the case
TEREA, 2014).
to date in many countries.
The second element—the “priority action plan”—pro-
The World Bank’s commitment to biodiversity conser-
vided guidance on how to implement an ICCN-led par-
vation as an integral part of infrastructure development
ticipatory process to assess the BUPAC’s status and
is underpinned by its safeguard policies, particularly the
revise the land use planning and management of the
Natural Habitats Operational Policy (OP) 4.04 and Forests
complex. The adjusted management objectives, govern-
OP 4.36 (World Bank, 2013b, 2013c). In July 2016, the
ance mechanisms and spatial delimitation of the protected
Bank’s board of executive directors approved a new
area complex would then be outlined in a management
Environmental and Social Framework, which will go into
plan for the BUPAC. This design phase was established
full effect in 2018; this framework includes Environ
as a key step towards the effective management of the
mental and Social Standard 6 on biodiversity conser-
complex over time (WWF and TEREA, 2014).
vation and sustainable management of living natural
resources (World Bank, 2017; World Bank, n.d.-d). The Although WWF and TEREA strongly recommended the
International Finance Corporation—the Bank’s private implementation of the full two-fold approach for the
sector affiliate—already operates under the very similar BUPAC, CI only prioritized the emergency intervention
Performance Standard 6 on biodiversity conservation package. In author interviews, stakeholders suggested
and sustainable management of living natural resources that BEGES had insufficient funding available for the
(IFC, 2012c). Beyond these mandatory environmental implementation of the priority action plan, but this study
standards, the World Bank Group’s Forest Action Plan was not able to corroborate this assessment.17
for 2016–20 seeks to ensure that forests—including
ape habitats—are effectively integrated within national Implementation and Evaluation
development planning efforts and that new infrastructure From an economic perspective, the road rehabilitation
investments follow a “forest-smart” approach to avoid project provided the expected benefits for users. Travel
or minimize any adverse impacts (World Bank, 2016a). time between Kisangani and Buta was reduced from
Balancing economic growth with environmental protec- 3–4 weeks by bicycle to six hours by car, and correspond-
tion is a challenge faced by every nation on earth. There ing travel costs plummeted. In towns along the road, the
is growing recognition that degrading natural resources knock-on effects were immediate: the price of fuel fell
for short-term economic gain is ultimately a counter- by 50%, that of salt by 30% (World Bank, 2016d).18
productive strategy that can undermine development Data are more elusive when it comes to evaluating the
and growth. Recent technological advances have made implementation of the mitigation measures designed to
available the information and analytical tools needed to minimize environmental and social impacts of the Pro-
avoid damage while harnessing and maximizing the net Routes project on the BUPAC. The safeguard policies,
economic benefits of infrastructure development. The recommendations and management approaches seem
challenge lies in ensuring that governments, donors and like a promising blueprint for the implementation of such
policymakers use these tools to make better-informed measures. In the event, however, CI did not formally
and more effective decisions. approve the approaches until after construction was

163
well under way. In fact, the rehabilitation of the Kisangani– project recommendations and AWF requested that BEGES
Buta and Buta–Dulia road sections was completed in 2013, finance the implementation of local development plans and
six months before WWF and TEREA’s recommendations were community-based management of natural resources, funding
approved (Radio Okapi, 2013).19 was not provided by the Pro-Routes project.21
Moreover, this study uncovered limited evidence that the
mitigation measures were actually being applied. Road check- Conclusion
points are the only visible sign of such activity, but the staff Nowadays, the availability of economic data and georefer-
does not appear to keep organized records. Beyond that, no enced information on forest cover renders upstream planning
reports or evidence is seemingly available on the implementa- both feasible and cost-effective (Damania et al., 2016). At its
tion of the emergency intervention package. In author interviews, inception, the Pro-Routes project involved sound upstream
various stakeholders indicated that ongoing activities included planning that took account of potential environmental and
anti-poaching patrols, meetings with local communities and social impacts of infrastructure development and identified
collaboration with community-based organizations, yet none options for the rehabilitation of habitat. Reinforcing this process,
of these assertions is supported by verifiable reports, nor were the World Bank’s safeguard policies called for thorough envi-
such activities evident on the ground during this review. ronmental and social impact assessments and recommenda-
In the absence of empirical evidence, it is difficult to confirm tions for the mitigation of adverse effects on the landscape.
whether mitigation strategies are being implemented as In practice, however, these efforts have not yielded verifiable
intended and, if they are, whether they are effective. The environmental mitigation measures within the reviewed aspects
project-wide lack of transparency may be partially attribut- of the Pro-Routes project. On the whole, efforts to mitigate
able to the insular nature of the organizations in charge of over- the impacts of the project lagged behind the roadwork, if
seeing the mitigation strategies. As discussed, CI delegated they were undertaken at all. This study found no evidence
assessment and implementation responsibilities to a consul- that BEGES and ICCN actually implemented the emergency
tancy firm, which took on the role of BEGES. In turn, BEGES intervention package, which had initially been prioritized for
delegated the responsibility for implementation to govern- action; nor did this study identify verifiable reasons that
ment institutions, such as ICCN. BEGES was also tasked might explain why the priority action plan was not selected
with contracting “an experienced and independent NGO of for implementation. In the end, neither component of the two-
international renown” to work alongside the ESAP, in line with pronged approach was pursued even though the goals of each
the PAD recommendation. This step was not taken for reasons dovetailed with those of the Pro-Routes project. The road
that remain unclear but that may be linked to capacity con- checkpoints remain the most visible concrete action, yet
straints or conflicting priorities (World Bank, 2008, p. 12). As evidence as to their impact and effectiveness is limited. The
a result, BEGES was relegated to playing an intermediary role results of this case study thus reveal that upstream planning
between government institutions, and was limited to facili- alone is not sufficient to ensure effective, timely and coordi-
tating the transfer of statements between the implementing nated implementation of mitigation measures.
and directing agencies, CI, ICCN and the World Bank. The study also demonstrates that the input of external environ-
A major weakness in the execution of this project, identified mental experts can be invaluable. In this case, AWF and Maisha
during the research for this case study, concerns the inertia Consulting joined forces with ICCN, launching a conservation
exhibited by BEGES. The unit was charged with the implemen- and securitization program that is contributing to the objectives
tation of the full array of policies and recommendations, both of the Pro-Routes project—albeit without its financial support.
environmental and social. The wide diversity of expertise If Pro-Routes had been developed as outlined in the PAD,
required to carry out this work would be difficult to gather in BEGES—or a specialized conservation NGO contracted by
any single organization. Had BEGES solicited the input of a BEGES—would have provided ICCN with technical, opera-
range of specialized organizations to implement specific aspects tional and financial assistance to manage natural ecosystems
of the project, as initially envisioned, it could potentially have and to enforce related regulations and laws with regard to
served as the linchpin of effective implementation (see Box 1.6). wildlife and protected areas. In reality, AWF played a role that
Meanwhile, AWF, ICCN and Maisha Consulting successfully BEGES should have played or facilitated, and financed.
followed the two-fold approach recommended by WWF and This examination of the Pro-Routes project shows that the
TEREA in implementing their conservation and securitization modernization of infrastructure and the protection of biodiver-
program in the BUPAC’s Bili–Mbomu Forest Savanna Mosaic. sity in Africa—focal points of Aspiration 1 of Agenda 2063—
The project prioritized technical, operational and financial require more than the establishment of goals and institutions,
support to ICCN for improved anti-poaching measures in and more than upstream planning and donor funding. The
identified priority areas. Largely in line with the priority action implementation of recommendations to reduce the negative
plan, AWF and ICCN also conducted a participatory land use impacts of such development projects calls for relevant exper-
planning process for the affected region, including the BUPAC, tise and capacity, a clear allocation of tasks, continuous
in 2016. AWF provided the technical and financial support monitoring and recordkeeping, and the prioritization of envi-
for staff selection, capacity strengthening, ecological monitor- ronmental and social considerations by all stakeholders. In
ing and anti-poaching efforts, the creation and operation of a this context, the potential contributions of external conserva-
steering committee, and baseline data collection (AWF, 2016).20 tion organizations cannot be overstated, regardless of whether
Although these activities overlapped with the Pro-Routes they work in parallel or jointly with state structures.
Chapter 5 Roads
164
Overall Conclusion planning threatens to fragment or drasti

cally alter remaining ape habitat and other
The construction of roads poses unique areas of significant biodiversity. Only if
problems for environmental conservation. decision-makers understand the various
As the case studies illustrate, complex gov economic, social and environmental ben
ernance, technical and economic constraints efits and costs of a project can they take
can undermine the attainment of conser informed planning decisions. A first step in
“
vation goals, which may also compete with building that knowledge is conducting and
Only if decision- the need to ensure the welfare of affected
disseminating state- and country-wide
makers understand communities. The studies demonstrate that
assessments of natural capital, biodiversity
the various economic, the sustainable development of roads can
and ecosystem services needed by local
social and environ- not be addressed by state or subnational
people. Such analysis allows stakeholders
mental benefits and governments alone. Active and sustained
to consider potential cumulative impacts of
costs of a project participation by various stakeholders is
various projects, along with their viability.
can they take necessary to safeguard the environment and
A range of tools can be deployed to
informed planning ensure equitable planning and implemen
”
enhance our understanding of the risks and
decisions. tation of large infrastructure projects.
costs to the environment and society, includ
Specifically, this chapter highlights the
ing well-targeted scenario modeling. Also
importance of advocacy by local and inter
relevant is ongoing monitoring and evalu
national NGOs in Nigeria, civil society
ation of impacts and mitigation measures,
engagement with industry and government
as these activities permit stakeholders to
actors in Myanmar, and the inclusion of
respond to infrastructure development plans
specialized agencies in the planning and
with suitable, evidence-based actions or
implementation of mitigation measures in
the DRC. All case studies underscore the adjustments. By presenting varied and cost-
relevance of advocating for the integration effective solutions, an evidence-based
of ecosystem and wildlife considerations approach can help developers and policy
into the planning and design of roads. In makers plan and build more sustainable
the case of Myanmar, the inclusion of civil roads. Conservation actors therefore have a
society early in the planning process allowed role to play in ensuring adequate scientific
for engagement with engineers and the data are available to inform action. However,
production of multiple designs. This type unless political actors and decision-makers
of exploration may not have been fostered prioritize environmental considerations,
had conservationists not introduced environ conservation organizations will be left to rely
mental constraints prior to construction. The on financial institution safeguards, and reg
chapter also emphasizes that the building ulations around impact assessments, to pre
of relationships with local civil society groups vent biodiversity from being marginalized
requires respect and time, especially if there in large-scale infrastructure developments.
is a history of mistrust, as in Thanintharyi.
This chapter also demonstrates the var
ious options for such advocacy, which ulti Acknowledgments
mately relies on effective communication
Principal authors: Andrew Dunn,22 Jef Dupain,23
through a variety of channels. These include Hanna Helsingen,24 Ashley Scott Kelly,25 Cyril Pélissier,26
the media, direct engagement with govern Helga Rainer27 and Dorothy Tang28
ment officials and developers, and the pres Contributors: Hans Bekker, Nirmal Bhagabati, Ashley
entation of land use conversion scenarios Brooks, Isaac Ho Wan Chiu, Grant Connette, Nicholas
to raise awareness of how infrastructure Cox, Richard Damania, IENE (Infra Eco Network

165
Europe), Lazaros Georgiadis, Thomas Gray, Elke Hahn, and other species. These topics are examined in
HKU, George Ledec, Lisa Mandle, Natural Capital State of the Apes volumes 1 and 2.
Project, Kity Tsz Yung Pang, Smithsonian Institution, 16 For details on these databases, see European
Paing Soe, Robert Steinmetz, Amanda Ton, Joseph Commission (n.d.), IBAT (n.d.) and Max Planck
Vattakaven, A. Christy Williams, Stacie Wolny, World Institute (n.d.-a).
Bank and WWF
17 Author interviews with CI, ICCN and World Bank
Case Study 5.1: Andrew Dunn representatives, DRC, 2016.
Case Study 5.2: Ashley Scott Kelly, Hanna Helsingen 18 Author interviews with AWF field staff, CI and
and Dorothy Tang ICCN representatives, and community represent
Case Study 5.3: Jef Dupain and Cyril Pélissier atives, DRC, 2016–17.
Text Box 5.1: Richard Damania and George Ledec 19 Author interviews with ICCN and World Bank
Annex VI: Jef Dupain and Cyril Pélissier representatives, DRC, 2016.
Reviewers: Miriam Goosem, Ben Phalan and 20 Internal project reports and 2015 AWF project
Kate Newman report to Global Forest Watch, reviewed by the
authors.
21 Project correspondence and internal project reports
reviewed by the authors.
Endnotes 22 WCS (www.wcs.org).
1 This case study is adapted and updated from Dunn 23 AWF (www.awf.org).
(2016) and Dunn and Imong (2017). 24 WWF Myanmar (www.wwf.org.mm/en/).
2 Copy of the letter reviewed by the author. 25 HKU (www.arch.hku.hk).
3 Copy of the letter reviewed by the author. 26 Independent consultant.
4 Copy of the letter reviewed by the author. 27 Arcus Foundation (www.arcusfoundation.org).
5 EIA reviewed by the author. 28 HKU (www.arch.hku.hk).
6 EIA reviewed by the author.
7 The letter from WCS to the Federal Ministry of
Environment was written by the author and he
reviewed the government’s response.
8 Based on author observations of multispectral
imagery and orthophotos acquired in 2013 and
2015.
9 Based on author meetings with authorities and the
road developer, Bangkok, Thailand, 2015; Dawei,
Myanmar, 2015; and Naypyidaw, Myanmar, 2015.
10 Author interviews with the road developer, Bang
kok, Thailand, 2015; author review of unpublished
technical documents.
11 Author interviews with authorities, Naypyidaw,
Myanmar, September 2016.
12 The WWF assessments were not published but
were presented to local stakeholders in Septem
ber 2016.
13 Experts disagree as to the precise area encom
passed by the BUPAC. This study relies most heav
ily on WRI and MECNT (2010).
14 Internal project reports and 2015 AWF project
report to Global Forest Watch, all reviewed by the
authors.
15 The extractive industries and industrial agricul
ture are also key drivers of habitat loss for apes
Chapter 5 Roads
Photo: Dam construction tends to have substantial environmental and social ramifications. Grand Poubara dam, Gabon. © Marie-Claire Paiz/TNC 166

167
CHAPTER 6
Renewable Energy and the

Conservation of Apes and
Ape Habitat
Introduction
For thousands of years, humans around the
world have been constructing dam-like
structures to impound water for drinking
and irrigation, to retain and control flood
waters, to provide hydroelectric power, to
allow for recreational amenities, and for
various other purposes (Willems and Van
Schaik, 2015). Yet, all too often, developers
and regulators fail to consider the collec-
tive environmental, social and economic
impacts of building dams, including the
displacement of communities and the loss of
ecosystem function and services (Babbitt,
2002; Poff et al., 1997; Stanley and Doyle,
2003; WCD, 2000).
In 2000, the World Commission on Dams
estimated that 40 to 80 million humans had
Chapter 6 Renewable Energy

168
Photo: Direct impacts of been displaced from their homes through

dams include habitat frag-
mentation and loss due to the construction of dams (WCD, 2000).
the construction of dams,
reservoirs and associated
Dams can have major long-term conse-
infrastructure, including new quences for river health, to the detriment
settlements for displaced
communities. Construction
of fish, wildlife and local communities that
of the new village of Ban are reliant on the river system for drinking
Sam Sang, Lao PDR, for the
relocation of four communi-
water, food, habitat and other uses (Brown
ties due to the construction et al., 2009; Tilt, Braun and He, 2009; WCD,
of the Nam Ou Cascade
Hydropower Project Dam 6. 2000). Even small dams can have a major
© In Pictures Ltd/Corbis via impact on fish migration and downstream
Getty Images
fisheries, water quality, downstream water
supply and overall stream flow, including
the natural transportation of sediment and
nutrients needed to replenish downstream
forests and floodplains (Poff et al., 1997).
Hydropower, also known as hydroelec-
tric power, generally provides low-carbon
electricity and is often a primary source of
energy for developing countries. Driven by
the rising demand for electricity in devel-
oping economies, as well as a call for low-
carbon energy as countries strive to meet
emission goals, global hydropower capacity
is projected to increase by 53%–77% between
2014 and 2040, and global electricity gen-
eration is expected to reach 6,000–6,900
terawatt hours (IEA, 2016, p. 249). This
expansion is likely to entail the construction
of thousands of large dams and tens of thou-
sands of small dams.
Much of the hydropower potential is to
be developed in the river valleys and moun-
tainous areas of tropical regions in Africa
and Asia. Since dam construction tends to
have substantial environmental and social
ramifications, the anticipated expansion of
hydropower is certain to affect numerous
communities and ecosystems, including
great ape and gibbon habitats (Zarfl et al.,
2015). Regardless of the projected deleteri-
ous effects—and despite the availability of
alternatives that are more sustainable, more
cost-effective and less likely to marginalize
certain social groups economically—the
green-lighting of large hydropower projects
appears to be unavoidable (DSU, 2016).

169

170
This chapter provides a review of the associated with them; in turn, the roads
projected expansion of hydropower and facilitate access to habitats, thus ena-
the potential effects associated with the pro- bling more widespread poaching and
liferation of dams, including the impact on other indirect impacts.
apes and their habitat. It presents an initial Hydropower development is likely to
estimate of the scope of this impact, assessed impact apes in Asia more significantly
by overlaying projected dam build-out with than in Africa, with gibbons identified
the geographic range of great apes and gib- as particularly vulnerable.
bons. The chapter also features three case
Engagement, sharing knowledge and
studies and a box that highlight best prac-
raising awareness of the potential
tices and strategies for avoiding and miti-
adverse effects of large hydropower and
gating impacts.
other renewable energy projects can
With reference to the Lom Pangar Dam
in Cameroon, the first case study considers help at-risk communities avoid expo-
the challenges of implementing best prac- sure to severe environmental and social
tices designed to protect apes once a project impacts.
shifts from the planning to the construction Cost–benefit analysis is a key step in the
phase. The second case study, which docu- planning phase of every large renewa-
ments recent events in Sarawak, in Malaysian ble energy project, particularly as it can
Borneo, explores how community activism reveal excessive environmental and social
and collaboration between communities costs, issues related to carbon emissions
and scientists can prevent the construction and potential problems regarding deliv-
of destructive dams. These case studies are ery on economic objectives.
complemented by a box that focuses on a The negative environmental and social
system-scale hydropower planning and impacts of dams and other large infra-
design framework—“Hydropower by Design” structure projects are more likely to be
—as a method to fuse planning for energy minimized when their development
and water infrastructure with planning to
planning incorporates a system-scale
maintain or restore environmental and
approach and draws on existing tools
social values. In recognition of the fact that
and processes, including the mitigation
hydropower is not the only form of renew-
hierarchy.
able energy production associated with
adverse impacts, this chapter features a final Once dam construction is in progress and
case study on the implications of a proposed mitigation measures have been imple-
geothermal plant in Sumatra’s Leuser mented, ongoing monitoring and man-
Ecosystem, alongside planned hydropower agement of those measures are needed
projects. to verify that they remain effective. Given
The chapter’s key findings include: that both the life of a project and the
attention of financiers tend to be finite,
The negative impacts of dam construc- however, sustaining such activities rep-
tion on apes and their habitats across resents a foreseeable and critical chal-
Africa and Asia are likely to increase over lenge to indefinite conservation.
the coming years. Direct impacts include
habitat fragmentation and loss due to Annex VII presents the reasons for, and
the construction of dams and reservoirs, the ramifications, of the decommissioning
and of the roads and transmission lines of dams.

171
Global Hydropower: solar have eclipsed hydro in recent years

(Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre/BNEF,
Drivers and Trends
2017). In 2014, the International Energy
Hydropower accounts for approximately Agency forecast that by 2040, global hydro-
16% of global electricity generation; it is the power output would grow by about 3,000
primary source of electricity in some coun- TWh, particularly if the world were to
tries, such as the Democratic Republic of transition away from fossil fuel sources of
Congo, Lao People’s Democratic Republic energy to achieve the reduction in emis-
(Lao PDR) and Uganda. As of 2014, hydro- sions necessary to keep global temperature
power represented more than 70% of all
increases below 2° C above pre-industrial
renewable electricity (IEA, 2016). Hydro
values (IEA, 2016, p. 250). Much of this
power dams with storage capacity are
development is expected to occur in Asia,
essentially storing energy and are thus able
although Africa will see the greatest growth
to respond rapidly to changes in demand.
rate in installed hydropower capacity (see
Within an electrical grid, this storage func-
Figure 6.1). The majority of hydropower
tion can facilitate a higher proportion of
renewable sources with variable generation, expansion (70%) will occur in river basins
such as wind and solar. Hydropower dams— that have the greatest freshwater biodiver-
both conventional and pumped storage— sity and where the well-being of people—
currently account for by far the greatest including their food sources, livelihoods
proportion of the world’s electricity storage and cultural values—is most directly tied to
(Kumar et al., 2011). healthy rivers and intact valleys (Opperman,
Due to the rising demand for electricity Grill and Hartmann, 2015; see Figure 6.2).
in general—and for low-carbon and storable Figure 6.2 indicates that the hotspots
energy in particular—hydropower is draw- for hydropower expansion include the river
ing about US$50 billion in investments basins of the Amazon, the southern Andes,
per year, although investment in wind and the Balkan region of southeast Europe, and
FIGURE 6.1
Global Installed and Projected Hydropower Capacity
Projected completion levels in 2050
Gigawatts (GWs) Under
Total: 1,850 GWs Installed construction Projected
2,000
88
AFRICA
215
1,500 NORTH AMERICA

Total: 1,246 GWs 240
34
183 310 LATIN AMERICA
1,000 182
EUROPE
249
500 997
ASIA
598
GLOBAL
0
Installed capacity in 2016 Projected capacity in 2050 0% 50% 100%
Source: Opperman, Hartmann and Raepple (2017, p. 21), courtesy of TNC

172
FIGURE 6.2
Hydropower Development in 2015: Dams Installed, under Construction and Planned
Europe
Total GW = 310
North
America
Asia
Total GW = 215
Total GW = 997
Africa
Total GW = 88
GLOBAL
Total GW = 1,850
Fish species Hydropower River basin

Latin richness dams development
America Very high Installed Completed
Total GW = 240
High Under Under
Medium construction construction
Low Planned Planned
Adapted from: Opperman et al. (2015, pp. 16–17), courtesy of TNC

Data sources: Abell et al. (2008); IEA (2012); Lehner et al. (2011); Zarfl et al. (2015)
several regions that support ape popula- Hydrological connectivity. Hydro

tions: South and Southeast Asia (Cambodia, power dams and reservoirs affect the down-
India, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Nepal) and stream transport of wood, sediment and
vast areas of Africa. nutrients and disrupt the up- and down-
stream movement of organisms, including
fish and invertebrates (March et al., 2003).
Declines in fish populations negatively affect
Impacts of Hydropower human communities that rely on migra-
Extensive research has been undertaken on tory fish for food, both up- and downstream
the environmental and social impacts of (Richter et al., 2010).
hydropower projects.1 In addition to affect- Impacts on upstream resources, includ-
ing the connectivity of organisms, nutrient ing terrestrial habitats. The impacts on
flows, upstream and downstream resources, upstream resources typically receive the
such projects typically involve the construc- most attention in debates about dam devel-
tion of associated infrastructure and signifi- opment. For one, reservoirs behind large
cant greenhouse gas emissions, as follows: dams typically inundate agricultural land

173
and natural ecosystems, such as wetlands hunting. During construction, major pro-
and forests (WCD, 2000). Perhaps more con- jects require thousands, or even tens of thou-
troversially, large dam development can sands of workers; in tropical forest regions
displace human communities, raising seri- of Southeast Asia and Africa, temporary
ous social justice questions, as those who settlements near dam sites have been asso-
are displaced are often poor and lack polit- ciated with an increase in wild meat hunting
ical influence (Scudder, 2005). Terrestrial (Laurance, Gooseman and Laurance, 2009).
species, such as apes, are directly affected Greenhouse gas emissions. Although
by impoundment; as reservoirs fill up and hydroelectric dams are widely considered a
forests are replaced by open water, animals low-carbon energy option, some reservoirs
who are not killed in the process suffer a produce high emissions of greenhouse gases.
permanent loss of habitat. Further, hydro- Reservoirs produce significant amounts of
power reservoirs can convert previously methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
passable river channels into impassable bar- when the land is flooded and organic matter
riers for terrestrial apes and other species rots and decays. Large dams2 are the great-
(WCD, 2000). Thus, hydropower dams and est single anthropogenic source of methane,
their reservoirs fragment ape habitat and responsible for roughly 30% of all anthro-
affect dispersal. pogenic methane emissions (Lima et al.,
Impacts on downstream resources. The 2007, p. 201). The thermal, chemical and
impacts of dams on downstream environ- biological conditions in reservoirs in the
mental resources tend to be far greater than tropics lead to higher methane emissions
the upstream impacts, even if they attract than those associated with reservoirs else-
less attention. As human livelihoods and where (Fearnside, 2016a; Lima et al., 2007).
communities are often directly tied to func- Other dam-related greenhouse gas emissions
tioning river ecosystems, downstream envi- are linked to the use of fossil fuels during
ronmental impacts can have considerable site excavation and building materials such
social costs (Richter et al., 2010). Large reser- as concrete in dam construction, land
voirs trap nearly all sediment, except for clearing for reservoirs, resettlement sites,
the smallest grain sizes, thereby disrupting transmission lines and access roads, and the
the delivery of sediment and nutrients to expansion of irrigated agriculture (Houghton
downstream ecosystems, such as floodplains et al., 2012; Pacca and Horvath, 2002).
and deltas (Kondolf, Rubin and Minear, Studies of the impact of hydropower
2014). By altering river flows, dams also projects around the world can be instructive
impair biological processes on which fish, with reference to mitigating effects on great
floodplain forests, and other downstream apes and gibbons. As suggested above, the
species and ecosystems depend. process of impounding a reservoir behind
Impacts due to dam construction. In a hydropower dam involves the conversion
addition to a dam and a reservoir, hydro- of wildlife habitat, such as forest, into open
power development generally requires the water, and thus the direct loss of habitat. In
construction of access roads and transmis- addition, reservoirs fragment blocks of
sion lines, both of which can fragment for- habitat and potentially obstruct dispersal
ests and other habitats, affecting wildlife routes, as has been the case for giant pandas
habitat and movement (Andrews, 1990). (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) in China (Zhang
Roads, in particular, facilitate access to pre- et al., 2007). A recent study of connectivity
viously inaccessible areas, leading to an corridors in Brazil shows that roads and
increase in settlement, forest clearing and hydropower reservoirs are among the most

174
Photo: In addition to a dam

and a reservoir, hydropower
significant variables associated with the Hydropower and Apes
development generally impairment of dispersal among jaguars
requires the construction of
(Panthera onca) (Silveira et al., 2014). Similarly, The academic literature provides limited
access roads and transmis-
sion lines, both of which in Costa Rica, the Reventazón hydropower information on how hydropower dams and
fragment forests and other
project fragmented a jaguar dispersal cor- reservoirs affect apes and their habitats
habitats. An electric relay
supplied by hydroelectric ridor; to “offset” the negative impact of the (see Chapter 2, pp. 43–60). Since hundreds
power from the Bang Dang
reservoir, the developer funded reforestation of dams are proposed within the habitats
dam, Thailand. © Thierry
Falise/LightRocket via of land adjacent to the inundated area to of great apes and gibbons, assessments of
Getty Images the impact of hydropower expansion are
maintain a forested dispersal corridor (IDB,
key to the conservation of these species and
n.d.). Developers also used a biodiversity
their habitats.
offset in Cameroon, where a forest reserve
This section presents a simple spatial
was elevated to a national park to compen-
analysis that was conducted to assess the
sate for the adverse environmental impacts
extent to which hydropower expansion
of the Lom Pangar Dam (see Case Study 6.1).
could affect great apes and gibbons and
As noted above, the construction of roads
their habitat. The analysis rests on two cal-
and transmission lines linked to hydropower
culations: (1) the number of installed and
projects can also fragment wildlife habitat
planned hydropower dams in ape habitat;
(Andrews, 1990; White and Fa, 2014). In
and (2) the potential length of new roads
discussing the various impacts of hydro-
associated with planned hydropower dams.
power, the chapter highlights potential effects
Given the lack of information on reservoirs
on apes and their habitat.
and operations associated with potential
future dams, this assessment does not eval-
uate the impacts of reservoirs, flow altera-
tion, sediment delivery or greenhouse gas
emissions, nor does it consider the impacts
of resettlement areas, work camps, quar-
ries or other associated infrastructure, or
disturbances from transmission lines (see
Annex I).
To identify installed and planned hydro-
power dams, this assessment draws on two
sources: (1) the Global Reservoir and Dam
(GRanD) Database for installed dams, and
(2) a data set of future hydropower dams,
which comprises dams that are either under
construction or identified in planning doc-
uments (Lehner et al., 2011; Zarfl et al., 2015).
The GRanD Database covers all types of dams,
yet the majority of structures in ape ranges
are hydropower dams, or multipurpose dams
that include hydropower (Opperman et al.,
2015). The species ranges for great apes and
gibbons were mapped based on information
in the International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened
Species (IUCN, 2016b).

175
FIGURE 6.3 planned or under construction. It involved

Number of Installed and Future calculating the potential road distance
Hydropower Dams in the Ranges between future dams and the roads closest
of Great Apes and Gibbons to them based on a “least-cost path” or “path
Key: Installed dams
of least resistance,” while also taking the
Dams planned or under construction local topography into consideration.
Number of dams
Importantly, both of the global data sets
200 from which dam locations were derived—
180 the GRanD Database and the data set of
160 future dams—contain errors of omission
140
and commission. Greater precision on dam
120
locations may be available from finer-scale
100
analyses that use data collected solely within
the geographic range of ape species. Dam
80
data collected at a finer scale may also
60
include additional information that could be
40
used to further improve the quantification
20
of impacts on ape habitat. If, for example,
0
In great ape ranges In gibbon ranges dam data included the size of work camps at
Data sources: IUCN (2016b); Lehner et al. (2011); Zarfl et al. (2015) each dam, that information could be used to
generate a more refined estimate of impacts.
The number of hydropower dams in Further, the species range data may also
each ape range was quantified by identifying contain errors. For instance, some proposed
the intersection of dam locations with great dams that are known to overlap with orang
ape and gibbon species ranges. The next utan habitat are not included in the data-
step was to estimate the length of new roads sets used in this analysis (see Case Study 6.3).
associated with hydropower dams that are Nor does this study capture certain installed
FIGURE 6.4
Installed and Future Dams in the Ranges of Great Apes in Africa
Dams planned or
under construction
Installed dams
IUCN great ape
ranges 0 500 1,000 km
Sources: IUCN (2016b); Lehner et al. (2011); Zarfl et al. (2015)

176
FIGURE 6.5 FIGURE 6.6

Installed and Future Dams in the Ranges of Gibbon Estimated Length of New Roads
Species in Asia Associated with Construction of
Future Hydropower Dams in
N Dams planned or Ape Ranges
under construction
Kilometers of new road
Installed dams
1,200
IUCN gibbon ranges
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
In great ape ranges In gibbon ranges
Data sources: IUCN (2016b); Lehner et al. (2011); Zarfl et al. (2015)
Results indicate that the impact of hydro-

power dams within great ape ranges will
probably increase considerably in the com-
ing decades (see Figures 6.4 and 6.5). Only
six installed dams in the GRanD Database
fall within the range of great apes, all in
Africa. The number of dams affecting great
apes could increase ten-fold, however, as 64
0 500 1,000 km
future dams are anticipated within the range
of great apes—again, all in Africa. Similarly,
Sources: IUCN (2016b); Lehner et al. (2011); Zarfl et al. (2015) the impact of hydropower within gibbon
ranges is likely to increase considerably, from
and planned dams that are sited near species 55 dams to 165 (see Figures 6.3 and 6.5).
ranges and that can thus have a deleterious Preliminary estimates indicate that hydro-
impact on apes. power expansion could lead to the construc-
Nevertheless, the available data allow for tion of more than 200 km of new roads in
a preliminary assessment of the potential great ape ranges and more than 1,100 km of
impact of hydropower dams on great apes. new roads in gibbon ranges (see Figure 6.6).
The analysis can be used to call attention to As noted above, these data sets are known
the potential challenges of conservation to include errors of commission and omis-
management and to allow governments, sion. The data set of future hydropower
scientists, conservation practitioners and dams, for example, excludes a project that
the hydropower sector to begin developing has been proposed in the Batang Toru eco-
strategies for avoiding, minimizing and mit- system of North Sumatra, within the range
igating impacts. of orangutans (Zarfl et al., 2015). p. 195

177
CASE STUDY 6.1 and increased access to their once-remote habitat (Dinsi and
Eyebe, 2016). Although Cameroon has made some effort to
The Lom Pangar Hydropower Dam: protect gorillas and chimpanzees—including by creating
Infrastructure and Ape Conservation protected areas such as sanctuaries, reserves and national
in Cameroon parks (Lambi et al., 2012)—the ongoing expansion of indus-
trial agriculture, logging, mining and infrastructure develop-
Introduction ment projects will result in massive losses of habitat unless
Cameroon forms part of the Congo Basin rainforest and is rapid, targeted action is taken.
home to some of the highest biodiversity on the continent. Its In order to achieve its goal of becoming an emerging economy
rich biodiversity, which represents 92% of Africa’s ecosystems, by 2035, Cameroon, a developing and still largely agrarian
includes significant populations of great apes, such as the country, has prioritized infrastructure development. Part of
western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and the central the plan is to add 3,250 km of tarred roads between 2010
chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes), two endangered and 2020, alongside the construction of new railway lines.
species whose habitats are in the rainforest (Republic of Meanwhile, the country aims to reduce the gap between the
Cameroon, 2012). By dispersing seeds and maintaining forest supply and demand for energy through the construction of
health, these “forest gardeners” help to sustain the rich bio- several hydroelectric plants and dams, a heavy fuel thermal
diversity in Cameroon. power plant and a natural gas power station (Republic of
Regardless of their role as keystone species, great ape pop- Cameroon, 2009b, pp. 59, 61–3). Expanding energy genera-
ulations are undergoing a dramatic decline, largely due to tion is central to the government’s ambitions.
poaching, disease and habitat loss, which are driven by Cameroon’s energy deficit is considered a serious impedi-
demands for wild meat, a lack of law enforcement, corruption ment to its economic growth and development. In 2010, the
FIGURE 6.7
The Lom Pangar Hydropower Dam and Surrounding Area
N
Protected area
Dam
Chad–Cameroon
pipeline
Road or track
Mbam and Djerem

National Park
Pa
ng
S an
ar Lom
ag
a
Lom Pangar Dam

CAMEROON Deng Garga Sarali
Deng
National
Park Deng Deng
a ga
an
S
0 10 20 30 km
Belabo
Sources: © OpenStreetMap contributors (www.openstreetmap.org); UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (n.d.)

178
country’s total installed electricity capacity—comprising the Wildlife Conservation Society estimated that 300–500
on-grid, self-generation and off-grid—stood below 2,000 MW. gorillas lived inside the DDNP and in an adjacent logging
Hydropower plants accounted for about 73% of the total elec- concession (Live Science, 2011). The DDNP is also home to
tricity produced in Cameroon in 2011, and thermal energy other threatened mammal species, including the central chim-
and solar sources made up some of the remainder. In order to panzee, black colobus (Colobe satanas), elephant (Loxodonta
increase installed hydropower capacity from about 719 MW africana), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) and giant
in 2010 to 3,000 MW by 2020, the government intends to pangolin (Smutsia gigantea) (Boutot et al., 2005; EDC, 2011b).
invest heavily in the energy sector (Africa–EU Energy Partner When the World Bank agreed to finance the Chad–Cameroon
ship, 2013). The Lom Pangar Hydropower Project (LPHP) oil pipeline in 1998, it insisted that the pipeline be rerouted to
was a critical first step in expanding Cameroon’s energy avoid any impacts on the Deng Deng Forest and its biodiver-
production. This section explores the project’s environmental sity (Dames and Moore, 1997; World Bank, n.d.-c). In fact,
impacts as well as efforts to mitigate them. the potential impacts on the forest are among the reasons
the Bank was reluctant to support the LPHP when Cameroon
The Lom Pangar Dam first sought financing in the early 2000s. At that time, the
Cameroon relies on the LPHP as part of its efforts to provide World Bank requested an environmental and social impact
a long-term solution to its energy supply gap. The primary assessment (ESIA) to ensure that the LPHP would not have
purpose of the LPHP, which is designed to produce a modest adverse effects on the Deng Deng Forest. In its review of the
30 MW of electricity at the dam site, is to regulate the flow ESIA, the Bank cited concerns over potential impacts on great
of the Sanaga River so as to increase and secure year-round apes, especially during the construction phase, because of
power output for two existing downstream dams and an the large number of people expected to move to the area
additional planned dam. While some estimates show that (EDC, 2011a, 2011b).
fewer than 20% of rural Cameroonians have access to elec- In 2012, in a sudden reversal of its earlier position, the World
tricity, the main purpose of the Lom Pangar scheme and the Bank decided to help finance the LPHP even though a portion
dams that it facilitates downstream will not significantly of the Deng Deng Forest would be flooded by the dam’s
enhance rural electrification. Instead, the LPHP is geared reservoir. To offset 3 impacts, the Bank required that the forest’s
towards expansion of the aluminum smelters owned by Rio status be upgraded from a forest reserve to a national park
Tinto, the world’s largest mining company, which receives (World Bank, 2012a, 2012b). The Deng Deng National Park
electricity at preferential rates (Ndobe and Klemm, 2014). was thus created by decree on March 18, 2010; its surface
The management of the Lom Pangar Dam was handed over area, which initially covered 523 km² (52,374 ha), was extended
to the national Electricity Development Corporation in June to 682 km² (68,200 ha) in 2013. The Wildlife Conservation
2017. A second phase that includes the construction of a Society provides technical assistance in the management
30-MW hydropower plant and electrification of 13 localities of the DDNP, based on an ad hoc service contract with
in the East Region is ongoing (BRM, 2017; ESI Africa, 2017; Cameroon’s Ministry of Forests and Wildlife and its Electricity
World Bank, 2012a). The dam is located in a remote part of Development Corporation, with financial support from the
eastern Cameroon, near the confluence of the Lom and French Development Agency (WCS, 2015b).
Pangar rivers. Financing for the LPHP is drawn from a pool An enlarged Deng Deng functional ecosystem, referred to as
of donors, comprised of the African Development Bank, the the Deng Deng Technical Operations Unit, was created in
Development Bank of Central African States, the European 2010. Although it is yet to be gazetted, it includes the DDNP,
Investment Bank, the French Development Agency and the two forest logging concessions, close to 20 community for-
World Bank (ADF, 2011). The total cost of the construction of ests and two research forests. The Unit is spread out over
the dam and associated infrastructure is just under US$500 a surface area of about 5,000 km² (500,000 ha); it harbors
million (Ndobe and Klemm, 2014). an estimated 990 gorillas who are roughly equally divided
As the lead financier on the project, the World Bank assigned between the DDNP and the periphery of the park (IUCN,
the project its highest environmental and social risk rating, 2014c; Kormos et al., 2014). One proposal involves the creation
Category A (see Box 5.1 and Annex VI). This categorization is of an additional national park, the Lom Pangar National Park,
reserved for projects that are likely to have significant adverse to counteract hunting in the Mbam and Djerem National
environmental impacts. The project received this rating in part Park following development of the dam and the Chad–
since “the dam site is located next to portions of the Deng Cameroon pipeline. The proposed park would cover 1,775 km²
Deng Forest that are critical habitats, particularly because of (177,480 ha) within the dam project area and the pipeline
the presence of a viable population of gorillas, and a signifi- corridor (Haskoning (Nederland B.V. Environment), 2011).
cant population of chimpanzees” (World Bank, 2009, p. 5).
Threats to the Deng Deng Great Apes
The Deng Deng National Park While the creation and expansion of the DDNP were wel-
The Deng Deng National Park (DDNP), which overlaps with come conservation steps, significant threats to the great
the LPHP area, harbors a significant population of the north- apes, as well as their habitat, remain. These include flood-
ernmost population of the western lowland gorilla. In 2010, ing, poaching, electrocution, and habitat degradation and

179
Photo: The Chad–Cameroon pipeline cuts through the Cameroonian rainforest. It was rerouted to avoid the Deng Deng forest, a portion of which will be flooded
by the Lom Pangar Hydropower Project. © Gail Fisher/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
loss, coupled with hunting pressures associated with artisa- project contractor, China Water and Electricity Corporation,
nal mining. the Cameroon National Employment Fund agreed to facilitate
the recruitment of an estimated 2,000 Cameroonians to work
Flooding
on the dam site (Agence Ecofin, 2012). Many others are likely
In September 2015, the contractors of the LPHP began a to move to the project area without guaranteed employ-
partial impoundment, or filling, of the dam’s reservoir (EDC, ment, giving rise to a peripheral economy that would prob-
n.d.-b). This step was highlighted in the project’s ESIA (EDC, ably depend in part on poaching for wild meat and ivory
2011b). Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) expressed trafficking, and that would also lead to further degradation of
significant concern that the full impoundment of the reser- natural habitats.
voir, which would cover approximately 590 km² (59,000 ha),
In addition to permitting an influx of people during the con-
about 320 km² (32,000 ha) of which is forest, would flood
struction phase of the dam, the Electricity Development
critical habitat of the gorillas, trapping them on islands or push- Corporation intends to allow commercial fishing in the waters
ing them into populated areas (GVC, BIC and IRN, 2006). As a of the reservoir, anticipating an annual production of 1,500 tons
result, gorillas would be more exposed to poachers, the risk of fish and an income of CFA 40 billion (US$65 million) (EDC,
of disease transmission would grow due to more frequent con- n.d.-a). Fishing opportunities are likely to draw even more
tact with people, and human–wildlife conflict would increase people into the region, which is certain to increase pressure
in line with crop raiding (Kalpers et al., 2011). Many other, on biodiversity, including threats to the great apes (Goufan and
slower-moving species would likely drown during this phase. Adeline, 2005; Mbodiam, 2016).
Poaching Transmission Lines
Large infrastructure projects tend to attract a huge influx of Although most tree species of high commercial value have
migrants in search of employment opportunities (WCS, 2011). already been exploited through illegal artisanal logging near
In fact, the LPHP’s own ESIA indicates that an estimated 7,000 the villages in the area, a further 5.28 km² (528 ha) of the
to 10,000 people were expected to move to the area seek- Deng Deng Forest are to be cleared for the construction of
ing jobs and secondary employment (Goufan and Adeline, transmission lines. Once the project goes live, it will present
2005, p. 6). In a 2011 memorandum of understanding with the a risk of electrocution to wildlife (see Chapter 2 and Annex I).

180
Construction activities and noise pollution during the build- There is clear evidence that poaching continues despite the
ing of the transmission lines will also disrupt and temporarily presence of ecoguards at the DDNP. In 2015, 1,270 kg of wild
displace local wildlife. A transmission corridor with a width meat was seized, including 20 kg of chimpanzee, and 290 kg
of up to 50 m will cut into ape habitat along the eastern edge of monkey and gorilla (MINFOF, 2015).
of the DDNP. Since this area represents a marginal strip of
their habitat, the impact will probably be limited, depending in The Viability of Deng Deng National Park
part on dispersal routes from the flooded land (AfDB, 2011b). In part to ensure the viability of the great ape populations,
the World Bank established the DDNP as a biodiversity off-
Artisanal Mining
set to be preserved in perpetuity. Yet, while the LPHP will
Although the project area holds important gold reserves, the facilitate access to the DDNP well beyond the period of con-
government abandoned its plan to ensure gold extraction struction, project financiers are expected to exit the project
from the reservoir area prior to impoundment as it would have and thus cease monitoring by the end of 2018 (World Bank,
delayed the project (Mbodiam, 2010). In view of the huge 2012c). Therefore, a key question revolves around long-term
mining potential of Cameroon’s East Region, however, the area viability and financial sustainability, including staffing and
is likely to attract artisanal and small-scale miners. Indeed, equipment for park surveillance.
anecdotal evidence suggests that unauthorized mining oper-
ations are already under way in the DDNP itself (Charles- The DDNP was expected to progress towards financial sus-
Innocent Memvi Abessolo, personal communication, 2016). tainability by drawing a growing number of ecotourists, but
Apart from disrupting behavior, altering habitat, reducing food recent figures cast doubt on that assumption. In 2015, the park
resources and dispersing wildlife populations, such mining received only 23 visitors—17 nationals and 6 foreigners—
activities are associated with increased hunting pressures yielding a total fee of CFA 88,500 (US$150). In addition to park
and disease transmission (ASM-PACE and Phillipson, 2014). visits that year, auction sales of seized illegal forest products
Similar links between artisanal and small-scale mining and from poaching and illegal logging raised only CFA 1.1 million
impacts on apes have been documented in the eastern (US$1,891) (MINFOF, 2015). The lack of investment in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (Spira et al., 2017). DDNP is evidenced by the ongoing absence of a dedicated
DDNP office building. The park’s temporary office is housed
Mitigation Measures and Outcomes in one of the control posts.
In light of the adverse impacts identified through the ESIA Acknowledging that revenue from ecotourism is likely to be
process, the project developer and financiers set in place a insufficient, the U.S. government insisted, as a condition of
number of mitigation measures. Nevertheless, environmen- approving the project at the World Bank, that a portion of
tal concerns persist with respect to the DDNP’s staffing and the water tariffs generated by hydropower installations be
viability. devoted to helping sustain the park financially. The installa-
tions are located downstream of Lom Pangar and pay-
Staffing of Deng Deng National Park
ments are expected once the LPHP becomes operational.
The LPHP relies on the deployment of rangers in and around These details are included in the project appraisal docu-
the DDNP to control access to the park and to discourage ment, which provides details on the World Bank’s proposed
and monitor poaching activities. The project put an empha- credit to the government of Cameroon for the LPHP (World
sis on higher numbers of staff during the construction period Bank, 2012c).
of the dam, when the area would be most heavily populated.
Once construction activities are complete, the number of Arrangements to allocate a portion of the water tariffs to the
rangers in the area is to be reduced to a base-case level. DDNP have yet to be made, however. The matter is of relative
urgency as construction activities are due to draw to a close
The proposed number of guards to monitor the DDNP is one
over the course of 2018. These arrangements were to be
ranger per 10 km² (1,000 ha) within the park itself, and one
finalized prior to full impoundment of the reservoir, which is
per 25 km² (2,500 ha) in areas that are less vulnerable to
also expected in 2018. Even once those arrangements are
poaching (EDC, 2011c; Charles-Innocent Memvi Abessolo,
made, it is unclear what role the project’s financiers will have
personal communication, 2016). Of the 58 managers and
in ensuring that the funds are utilized as intended, and what
other staff members involved in securing and monitoring the
means they have to ensure compliance, should the agree-
DDNP and its periphery, only 17 are permanently assigned to
the park; the rest are on temporary transfer from other services ment not be respected. The French Development Agency
(MINFOF, 2015). ceased payments to sustain the park in August 2016, the
anticipated deadline.
The number of permanent staff is modest for a protected
area of more than 680 km² (68,000 ha), not including the
Conclusions
periphery, especially given that the environmental and social
management plan calls for 70 community guards and eco The World Bank and other development financiers entered
guards (EDC, 2011c; MINFOF, 2015). Compounding the into the Lom Pangar Hydropower Project with full knowledge
problem of insufficient personnel is the inadequate training of that such massive infrastructure in a remote and ecologi-
most of the staff. cally sensitive part of Cameroon was likely to have adverse

181
Photo: The number of permanent staff involved in securing and monitoring the DDNP is insufficient to ensure the protection of the western lowland gorillas and
other species. © Chris Chaput
effects on important populations of great apes. Acknowledging the African Development Bank, the European Investment
the risks that the LPHP posed to these populations, the World Bank, the French Development Agency and other financiers.
Bank and other financiers stressed that instituting require- Meanwhile, the lack of progress in developing the arrange-
ments to guarantee the preservation of the Deng Deng ments to ensure that a portion of the water tariffs derived from
Forest, through the creation of an offset, was the only hope of hydropower production will be devoted to Deng Deng National
ensuring the survival of the region’s great apes (EDC, 2011a, Park suggests that the park’s viability is in danger.
2011b, 2011c; World Bank, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c). However, In conclusion, the DDNP and its great ape population remain
evidence of the viability of these measures is clearly lacking, at risk of further degradation once the project concludes,
and the few reports from site visits point to deficiencies in unless urgent action is taken to ensure oversight beyond the
efforts to guard the area against poaching. The lack of effec- project completion date and a secure revenue stream for the
tive and regular monitoring means that the current status of park. Given that the attention of financiers is typically finite,
great ape populations in the park is unclear. large infrastructure projects such as the LPHP can present
Furthermore, the financial sustainability of Deng Deng National critical, yet foreseeable, challenges to indefinite conserva-
Park remains uncertain. The completion of dam construction tion. This case study demonstrates that even when the adverse
means the World Bank will reduce its oversight of the project, impacts of an infrastructure project are acknowledged and
and the project completion date at the end of 2018 will signal assessed early on, they can nevertheless threaten the survival
the termination of the World Bank’s involvement, and that of of endangered species such as gorillas and chimpanzees.

182
CASE STUDY 6.2 prevented the realization of a large infrastructure project that
had been backed by the government.
Community Resistance Against
Infrastructure in Malaysian Borneo: Background
The Case of the Baram Dam The Bornean Rainforest
Introduction The third largest island in the world, Borneo is part of the
In 2006 the federal government of Malaysia embarked on a Sunda Shelf, which extends from Vietnam to Borneo and
series of proposed economic corridors in an attempt to Java. The rainforests of Borneo are a biodiversity hotspot
stimulate global and domestic investment in rural areas acknowledged to be among the world’s most species-rich
across the country. One of these corridors was the Sarawak ecosystems. At least 15,000 plants, of which 6,000 are found
Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE). It was to be estab- nowhere else in the world, grow in the swamps, mangroves
lished in Sarawak, one of two Malaysian states on the island and lowland and montane forests of the island. Borneo is
of Borneo, and the largest of Malaysia’s 13 states. home to an estimated 222 mammals (44 endemic), 420 birds
(37 endemic), 100 amphibians and 394 fish species (19
As part of SCORE, at least 12 dams were to be completed
endemic). Orangutans and gibbons share Borneo’s forests
in Sarawak by 2030 (Shirley and Kammen, 2015). Two of
with a number of other primate species, including langurs
these have already been completed: the Bakun and Murum
dams (see Figure 6.8). Plans for the Baram Dam, which was (Semnopithecus), macaques (Macaca), proboscis monkeys
next in line, were met with extensive community resistance (Nasalis larvatus), slow lorises (Nycticebus) and tarsiers (Tarsius)
from the indigenous communities in the Baram River Basin. (WWF, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).
Construction on the Baram Dam had been scheduled to start The Baram River Basin lies in northeastern Sarawak (see
in 2014 but, by March 2016, after several years of community Figure 6.8). The waters originate in the Kelabit Highlands
resistance, the state government legally withdrew its claim over along the border with Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo), flow
the indigenous land earmarked for the dam site. This case through the mountain highlands and hills for more than 400 km,
study documents how a grassroots movement successfully and lead into the South China Sea (Encyclopaedia Britannica,
FIGURE 6.8
Baram River Basin and the Bakun and Murum Dams
N
Kuala Belait
Lutong
BRUNEI
Miri
SOUTH
CHINA Bar
SEA
am
Hig
K e la nd
Long Lama
la b s
h
it
Baram River
Basin
jar
T Long Miri INDONESIA

in
Proposed
Baram Dam Long Selatong
Bintulu
B aram
M A L AY S I A Long Palai
Sarawak ng Bakun Dam

Raja
Belaga Murum Dam
0 20 40 60 km
Sources: © OpenStreetMap contributors (www.openstreetmap.org); UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (n.d.)

183
1998). The forests of the Baram River Basin are home to a wide hydropower dams were primarily designed to power the expan-
variety of fauna and flora, including gray gibbons. sion of oil palm plantations and energy-intensive industries
(Shirley and Kammen, 2015).
Logging and Deforestation
After five decades of delays, the Bakun Dam was opened in
In the past several decades logging has had a great impact
2011, but since then it has only operated at half-capacity
on the forests of Sarawak; lush tropical rainforests are dis-
(Sarawak Report, 2014). This was the first of the SCORE dams
appearing at an astonishing rate. Between 2005 and 2010,
to be built; looming at a height of 205 m, it is the largest dam
forest loss in Sarawak exceeded 2% per year, a rate higher
in Asia outside of China (International Rivers, n.d.-a). The
than in any other major tropical forest territory. Between
Murum Dam, the second in the SCORE series, officially opened
2006 and 2010, about 9,000 km² (900,000 ha) of Sarawak’s in September 2016 (Then, 2016). The government began
forest was lost—43% was converted to oil palm and 21% to preliminary work on the Baram Dam in 2011 but officially
timber plantations (Lawson, 2014). canceled all works in March 2016, due to grassroots resist-
From 1981 to 2014 Sarawak was governed by Abdul Taib ance. The Baleh Dam is next in line to be built, and while the
Mahmud, who has been accused many times of gross envi- government approved its environmental and social impact
ronmental and human rights abuses for personal gain assessment in 2016, the details of the proposal and the ESIA
(Global Witness, 2012; Straumann, 2014). During his tenure, have not been publicly released.5
the state became one of the largest exporters of tropical The acronym SCORE stands for Sarawak Corridor of Renew
timber in the world. In 2010, Sarawak accounted for 25% of able Energy, but the adjective “renewable” is inaccurate in this
the world’s source-country exports of tropical logs, 15% of context, as the SCORE development plan entails the exploi-
global tropical lumber and almost half of all tropical plywood tation of coal reserves, the construction of new coal power
—quite a feat for a forest estate that represents just 0.5% of plants and deforestation to accommodate the expansion of
the global total. Fewer than 5% of Sarawak’s intact forests oil palm plantations (Shirley and Kammen, 2015). The power
remain in a pristine state, unaffected by logging or plantations, generated by the SCORE dams is intended to feed energy-
with dire consequences for its wildlife and indigenous com- intensive industries, such as aluminum and steel produc-
munities, which depend on the forests (Global Witness, 2012). tion. SEB, a state-owned electricity supplier under Sarawak’s
The Indigenous Population Finance Ministry, is responsible for the planning of all hydro-
power projects and coal plants in Sarawak. It is chaired by
The people of the Baram River are mainly indigenous Kayan, Abdul Hamed Sepawi, a cousin and one of the closest business
Kenyah and Penan, with a few Iban, Kelabit and Saban com- allies of Sarawak’s former chief minister, Taib Mahmud (Bruno
munities. They depend on healthy rivers and forests for their Manser Fonds, 2012a, 2012b).
livelihoods. The native customary rights (NCR) of indigenous
The Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL),
groups over their ancestral land are enshrined in the Sarawak
an independent energy research facility at the University of
Land Code and protected under the Malaysian Constitution
California, Berkeley, recently conducted an in-depth analysis
(Colchester et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the government has
to explore the implications of building the SCORE dams, and
proceeded to license nearly the entirety of Sarawak, includ-
the potential for clean energy solutions for Sarawak. The RAEL
ing land claimed for NCR, for logging and plantations, while
research agenda covered three main project areas: (a) mod-
simultaneously blocking attempts by communities to have
eling long-term, utility-scale electricity-generation alternatives
their NCR land mapped, recognized and gazetted (Global
for Sarawak to determine trade-offs across different technol-
Witness, 2012).
ogies; (b) exploring to what extent rural communities in dam-
The people of Baram have a history of resisting deforestation affected areas would be able to satisfy energy access needs
in the area. Since the late 1980s, when logging and agricul- using local resources; and (c) demonstrating a rapid assess-
tural expansion began to change the landscape of Sarawak, ment method for estimating the impact of mega-projects on
indigenous communities resisted through protests and block- biodiversity. RAEL’s research results call into question the
ades against logging companies. Resistance has often led to necessity of building additional dams in view of potential
arrests and political persecution, with the result that several lower-cost, lower-impact clean energy alternatives in the state
prominent activists fled Malaysia in the 1990s. In the past (Shirley and Kammen, 2015).
several years the government has relaxed its approach to
The RAEL results show that the energy that would be pro-
environmental and human rights activists; however, deadly
duced by the SCORE dams is unreasonably excessive, even
conflicts are still occurring between indigenous activists and
if the aims were to sustain aggressive growth in Sarawak. The
land developers.4
SCORE initiative assumes an energy demand growth rate of
more than 16% per year through 2030 (Shirley and Kammen,
SCORE Hydroelectric Dams 2015). To put this in perspective, China’s energy demand
The government of Sarawak and the dam builder, Sarawak growth rate barely exceeded 10% for three years during the
Energy Berhad (SEB), have claimed that the energy pro- height of its industrial boom (Dai, 2013). The RAEL models
duced by the SCORE dams would transform Sarawak into a show that there are a number of alternative choices to SCORE
developed state by the year 2020. Yet the project’s 12 large that meet future demand at an aggressive 7% energy demand

184
growth rate and a very aggressive 10% energy demand

growth rate at a lower cost than the SCORE plan. The
Bakun Dam alone satisfies one-third of the demand by
2030 under a 10% growth assumption, and half of the
demand under a 7% growth assumption. Two existing dams
(Bakun in central and Batang Ai in southwestern Sarawak)
and recently installed combined gas and coal-fired genera-
tors are sufficient to meet demand at a 10% growth rate if
properly managed (Shirley and Kammen, 2015).
Social and Economic Impacts:

Baram, Bakun and Murum
Although most of the dams are sited on native land, indig-
enous communities have not been properly consulted and
are being forcefully relocated. The Baram Dam would have
created a reservoir covering around 400 km² (40,000 ha)
of forest and would have displaced up to 20,000 indigenous
people (Lee, Jalong and Wong, 2014). Communities that
were displaced because of construction of the Bakun and
Murum dams have been severely impacted by relocation.
In 1998 the government of Sarawak relocated about 10,000
people to make way for the Bakun Dam. Two decades after
resettlement, the displaced people are still struggling to
eke out a living. The government required resettled com-
munities to pay for their own housing, which forced many
families into debt. Communities that had been able to
catch fish in the river, hunt and gather forest products no
longer have access to forests, and pollution from the dam
has decimated fish stocks. Each family was promised
0.04 km² (4 ha/10 acres) of farmland but was only provided
0.01 km² (1.2 ha/3 acres), much of it a half-day’s journey away
from the resettlement sites; moreover, a large portion of the
“farmland” is infertile, rocky and sandy land. This has not
been enough to sustain a living (International Rivers, n.d.-a).
Similarly, communities displaced in 2013 by the Murum Dam
are struggling in their resettlement sites. Construction of the
dam began in 2008, even though neither the initial ESIA
nor the resettlement action plan had been made public.
The project developers did not begin an ESIA until after
construction was already under way, and the resettlement
plans were leaked in 2012 (International Rivers, n.d.-d).
The Sarawak government began resettling around 1,500
indigenous people from the Murum Dam area in July 2013.
The resettlement sites are surrounded by vast expanses
of oil palm and land earmarked for logging concessions to
politically connected timber companies (International
Rivers, n.d.-d). As of January 2018, the communities still
had not been allocated land to cultivate. During a visit led
by the Sarawak-based NGO Save Rivers to the Kenyah
resettlement site at Tegulang in October 2016, the resi-
dents remarked that they felt as though they were “in jail.” 6
Without land, they cannot grow food for their families or to
sell at the market, and they are stranded without transpor-
tation to larger towns. The government has reduced their
monthly rations twice, but the community still has no way
of earning income or growing or gathering food to make up
for the lost rations.

185
Photo: After five decades of delays, the Bakun Dam was opened in 2011, but since then it has only operated at half-capacity. Bakun
Hydroelectric Dam, Sarawak, Malaysia. © MOHD RASFAN/AFP/Getty Images

186
The dams also inflict considerable economic costs on the would perish because of loss of habitat from clear-cutting
state. The Bakun Dam was built over the course of two and inundation. The three dams alone would cause the loss
decades at a total cost that was astronomically higher than of an estimated 3.4 million individual birds and 110 million
projected. The dam was originally expected to cost MYR 2.5 individual mammals. To put this into perspective, that is more
billion (US$564 million), excluding transmission and all non- individual birds than were counted in the North American
dam-related infrastructure. While the official expenditure Breeding Bird Survey in 2012 and more individual mammals
figures have risen to MYR 7.4 billion (US$1.7 billion), research- than the entire inventory of cattle in the United States in 2012.
ers from the National University of Singapore put the cost of A minimum of 900 million individual trees and 34 billion indi-
the Bakun Dam at MYR 15 billion (US$3.5 billion), six times the vidual arthropods would also be lost (Kitzes and Shirley, 2015).
original estimate (Sovacool and Bulan, 2011). Construction
began in 1994 and the dam was meant to be operational in Community Resistance in Baram
2003. It was not completed until 2011, but even today, it is not
The Formation of Save Rivers
running at full capacity. The Murum Dam has also incurred
significant cost overruns. It cost Sarawak MYR 530 million In 2011 the state government began to hold briefing ses-
(US$120 million) more than the original price, according to the sions about the proposed Baram Dam and started construc-
2016 Auditor-General’s report (Kallang, 2016). tion of the road to the dam site. In October of that year, eight
Sarawak-based civil society organizations that were con-
Environmental Impacts cerned about the implications for the people and the forests
of Baram joined forces to form the Save Sarawak Rivers Net
If the SCORE vision were to be realized as initially planned, work (Save Rivers), whose mission is to build broad-based
2,425 km² (242,500 ha) of rainforest would be destroyed to
support to educate and mobilize the public against the plans
allow for the impoundment of reservoirs and the construction
to build dams.
of dams, and additional land would be cleared for resettle-
ment sites. The Bakun Dam reservoir alone covers 695 km² The first actions by Save Rivers were designed to raise
(69,500 ha)—about the size of Singapore (Kitzes and Shirley, awareness among the urban and rural populations about the
2015). Given that the rainforests of Borneo are among the dam and its implications. On February 16–18, 2012, the group
most biodiverse terrestrial ecosystems in the world, it comes organized an initial statewide conference in the city of Miri for
as no surprise that the three dams—Bakun, Baram and representatives from the Bakun, Baram and Murum river
Murum—would have a tremendous impact on the rich biodi- basins. Following the conference, delegations from Save
versity of the area. Rivers conducted roadshows, traveling by vehicle and boat
to remote villages throughout the Baram river basin to inform
The RAEL team conducted biodiversity impact studies for
communities about the proposed Baram Dam and its implica-
these three SCORE dams and uncovered alarming facts.
tions for them. At that point, the preliminary ESIA had been
Using global species range data, geographic information
completed by Fichtner, a German consulting company
system (GIS) tools and species area scaling relationships,
employed by SEB; however, the full ESIA had not yet been
the team predicted three distinct measures of biodiversity
initiated and the majority of impacted villages had not been
impact: the total number of species affected by the dams, the
informed about the plan to build the dam. The roadshows were
number of individuals affected and the number of potential
conducted in all of the villages that were at risk of inundation;
species extinctions that could result (Kitzes and Shirley, 2015).
most villagers heard about the dam construction plans for the
The study found that the dams would have a negative first time during these events.
impact on at least 57% of Bornean bird species and 68% of
Bornean mammal species. The affected species include Community Organizing, Nonviolent Direct Actions,
endangered and critically endangered birds and mammals, Awareness Building
such as Abbott’s gray gibbon (Hylobates abbotti), the Since its formation, Save Rivers has continuously organized
Bornean bay cat (Catopuma badia), the Bornean peacock- events and trips to build awareness and strengthen commu-
pheasant (Polyplectron schleiermacheri), the flat-headed nities. Roadshows are conducted regularly to provide villagers
cat (Prionailurus planiceps), the smoky flying squirrel with information and update them on the latest developments.
(Pteromyscus pulverulentus), Storm’s stork (Ciconia stormi), One of the largest trips occurred in January 2013, through
the Sunda otter civet (Cynogale bennettii) and the Sunda what is called the “Baram Wave.” A delegation from Save
pangolin (Manis javanica). In addition, the study found that two- Rivers travelled upriver in motorized canoes to distribute
thirds of all tree and arthropod species would be impacted, information and build solidarity. The group slowly made its
resulting in four tree and 35 arthropod species extinctions. The way downstream, distributing information and encouraging
number of species extinctions does not take into account the canoes from each village to join. A flotilla of around 50 canoes
potential extinction of subspecies or local populations, both arrived at Long Lama, the closest town to the access road
of which may be critical to species’ long-term viability (Kitzes for the dam site and, together with residents from around
and Shirley, 2015). Baram, they held a rally to demonstrate their opposition to
The study also provided numbers on individual organisms that the dam. The Baram Wave fulfilled several vital functions,
would be lost—arthropods, birds, mammals and trees that including raising awareness and solidarity among Baram

187
Photo: Long Lama blockade, the structure that blocks the access road to the Baram Dam site. © Jettie Word, The Borneo Project
communities and voicing the communities’ concerns to gov- maintained and managed since October 2013. They are the
ernment officials. longest-running blockades in the history of Sarawak, and their
The next large event occurred in May 2013, alongside the maintenance has required significant efforts. When the block-
International Hydropower Association (IHA) conference that ades were formed, Save Rivers also helped the communities
was hosted by SEB in Kuching, in western Sarawak. Save file a suit against the government, in which they collectively
Rivers brought together residents from Baram, local and demanded that their customary lands be returned.
international politicians, and local and international NGOs for In conjunction with blockades, rallies and roadshows, Save
an alternative conference on indigenous rights that included Rivers organized cross visits between Baram villages and
several protests and marches held outside of the IHA venue. communities that were forcefully relocated because of the
The alternative conference drew supporters from around the Bakun Dam. During these visits the people of Baram were
state and around the country, greatly increasing local and able to speak directly with individuals who had been evicted
national awareness about the issues and building solidarity. and witness for themselves what happens during resettlement.
In August 2013 the Sarawak government took the first steps Save Rivers also organized several large conferences in Baram
to extinguish the land rights of indigenous communities near to distribute information and strategize among communities,
the Baram Dam site—without their consent (Lee et al., 2014). as well as various acts of nonviolent direct action throughout
In response, Save Rivers traveled up and down the Baram the country. One of the larger events occurred in June 2015
River, helping the communities establish two blockades to during a visit by then chief minister Adenan Satem to the town
prevent dam workers from accessing the proposed site of the of Long Lama for a bridge inauguration. Save Rivers rallied
Baram dam. One blockade was built centrally among Baram hundreds of Baram residents to line the streets of Long Lama
villages as a rally point. The second blockade was con- and express their opposition to the dam. Their voices were
structed at the beginning of the access road to the dam site heard loud and clear, and the chief minister acknowledged
near Long Lama. The blockades prevented construction, sur- Save Rivers in his speech (Radio Free Sarawak, 2015).
veying work and logging at the proposed dam site, halting all
progress. The blockades not only physically disrupted work Research and Publications
on the dam, but also acted as community centers and obser- In addition to raising awareness and promoting community
vatories for monitoring illegal logging. In spite of numerous organization, the campaign against the Baram dam coordi-
government attempts to dismantle the structures and disperse nated with local and international experts to produce several
community members, the blockades have been continuously publications and studies about the situation.

188
A fact-finding mission to determine how SEB and the govern- Victory: Land Returned to Communities
ment had engaged with the communities of Baram was con- On March 15, 2016, the Sarawak government revoked its claim
ducted by local experts and supported by several local and to the land that would have been used for the Baram Dam,
international groups. Based on detailed interviews in 13 vil- thereby legally restoring indigenous land rights and officially
lages along the Baram River, the mission report reveals how stopping all progress on the dam (Mongabay, 2016a). Stopping
indigenous communities were denied information, prevented the Baram Dam was an unprecedented success for indige-
from participating in studies and decision-making, coerced into nous rights in Sarawak. This victory was won at a time when
accepting the dam through threats and intimidation, and thus dams around the world were under increasing scrutiny. For
denied their rights, as ascribed under international agreements Malaysia, where the space for civil society is constantly shrink-
and treaties, to their lands and territories, self-determination, ing, the success of Baram gives hope to other struggles for
and to free, prior and informed consent (see Chapter 2). The rights and the environment (HRW, 2016).
report, entitled No Consent to Proceed, received significant
media attention (Lee et al., 2014).
Challenges and the Path Forward
Save Rivers also worked with experts from the University of
The campaign experienced many challenges along the path
California to increase transparency on energy development
to defeating the dam. One of the principal divisive tactics of
in Sarawak. As mentioned above, the RAEL team produced
the government was to divide the communities and label the
three studies that greatly informed the campaign. The stud-
people who opposed the dam “anti-development.” The gov-
ies show in detail that the energy that would be produced by
ernment also removed anti-dam village leaders, or headmen,
SCORE is superfluous, and that the impacts on biodiversity
and replaced them with pro-dam headmen.
would be severe. They also lay out a plan to increase rural
energy through small renewable systems, such as solar and In Sarawak activists often face exclusion from society. Many
micro-hydro structures (Kitzes and Shirley, 2015; Shirley and people choose to remain silent for fear that the government
Kammen, 2015; Shirley, Kammen and Wynn, 2014). will withdraw support in the form of development projects and
education grants. Leaders of the opposition to the Baram Dam
The RAEL studies were used to strengthen community resil-
have been socially ostracized by friends and family members
ience, as well as to increase awareness in the government.
who do not agree with the campaign.
In March 2015 Save Rivers organized a trip to distribute the
RAEL studies throughout Baram. The results reaffirmed and Activists have also faced legal battles. SEB tried to sue 23
gave credence to the demands of the people. Three months activists for tampering with samples and equipment at the
later Save Rivers organized a meeting that brought together dam site. As the land for the dam site has now been legally
local activists, politicians, Dan Kammen, the founding direc- returned to the community, SEB has withdrawn the suit.
tor of RAEL, and Chief Minister Satem to discuss the energy In spite of the victory against the dam, the blockades remain
options and the demands of the Baram people. Following intact and running. The blockades now serve as a venue for
the meeting, Satem, who has since died, asked for an alter- community events instead of obstructing access to the dam
native proposal to the SCORE dams, which was submitted site. Communities are wary that a new government may try
in July 2015. In January 2018, the authorities had yet to to reinstate the project. To gear up for this possibility, Save
respond to the submission. The campaign was working to Rivers is now focusing on campaigns to build long-term land
resubmit the proposal and arrange a meeting with the new rights protection measures in Baram through the Baram
chief minister. Conservation Initiative. The Initiative actively seeks to facili-
tate development systems that are chosen and managed by
International Solidarity
rural communities, in harmony with their environment. At the
In addition to networking among stakeholders, researchers
time of writing, the two main program aims were to establish
and politicians, the campaign against the Baram Dam gen-
a community-managed conservation zone and to build sus-
erated considerable international solidarity. International
tainable village-scale electrification systems, such as micro-
organizations have provided funding, strategy, media and
hydro and solar systems.
networking support. In October 2015, Save Rivers, the Borneo
Project and the Bruno Manser Fund organized the World A key lesson from the campaign against the dam is the
Indigenous Summit on Environment and Rivers (WISER) to importance of raising awareness in communities. Without
mark the second anniversary of the blockades. WISER brought proper knowledge of the situation, communities cannot act.
together indigenous leaders who are fighting dams around Increasing awareness allows people to choose how to respond
the world, including the late Goldman Prize winner Berta to projects.
Cáceres. Together, the WISER participants wrote the Baram Fostering community-based development models is key to
2015 Declaration on Dams and the Rights of Indigenous avoiding the environmental and social destruction of large
People. The Summit rallied more than 1,000 people from Baram infrastructure projects. The promotion of community-based
at various events, building solidarity and drawing significant systems requires a paradigm shift away from top-down infra-
media attention. structure projects that harm rural communities and forests.

189
BOX 6.1 minimize impacts, such as through best practices during

construction;
Hydropower by Design
restore key processes and resources by adapting the
Introduction design and operation of individual dams (such as build-
The hydropower sector, governments, scientists and civil ing fish passage structures and managing the release of
society groups have worked, often collaboratively, on finding environmental flows to maintain or restore downstream
ways to improve the sustainability of hydropower development floodplain fisheries); and
and to achieve more balanced outcomes between energy offset adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, minimized
development and other values. More balanced outcomes can or restored by investing in compensation to achieve no net
occur at two scales: loss of biodiversity.
the planning and siting of new dams at the system scale Some progress has been made in the development of
(that is, at the scale of a river basin or a region); and approaches that serve to improve the environmental and
the design and operation of individual dams. social performance of individual hydropower dams. Among
these is a tool to measure the relative sustainability of pro-
Recognizing that the sustainability of hydropower is a func- jects—the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol
tion of the system and individual scales, The Nature Conser (‘the Protocol’) (IHA, 2010). However, a number of major
vancy (TNC) developed an approach that integrates both impacts from hydropower cannot be mitigated effectively at
scales: “Hydropower by Design.” The approach encompasses the scale of a single dam and project-level sustainability cannot
a range of methods and tools to improve the planning, siting, address the complex issues posed by multiple hydropower
design and operation of hydropower, as well as the mitiga- developments across a river basin or region.
tion of its adverse impacts (Opperman et al., 2015, 2017; TNC, With respect to apes, certain impacts from hydropower can
WWF and UoM, 2016). Hydropower by Design is a short- be addressed through best practices at the project scale, but
hand term for integrated, system-scale planning and man- some of the most important conservation objectives—such
agement using a number of existing tools and processes, as the maintenance of large blocks of intact forest or con-
including the mitigation hierarchy (see Chapter 4, p. 119). By nectivity between forests—can only be addressed through
applying this approach, hydropower developers can: system-scale approaches that influence the spatial configu-
avoid building dams at the most damaging sites by ration of hydropower development, encompassing dams,
directing development towards sites that result in less reservoirs, roads and transmission lines.
impact, specifically by identifying the spatial arrange- When applied to ape conservation, the principles of Hydro
ment of dams that can produce optimal outcomes across power by Design can be organized to follow the mitigation
social, environmental and economic values; hierarchy:
Photo: The negative environmental and social impacts of dams and other large infrastructure projects are more likely to be minimized when their development
planning incorporates a system-scale approach and draws on existing tools and processes, including the mitigation hierarchy. Proposed site of a hydropower
project, ‘Chutes de l’Impératrice Eugénie’ waterfalls, Ngounié River, Gabon. © Matthew McGrath

190
Avoid. National parks and other formally protected areas a stakeholder group includes representatives from communi-
should be maintained as no-go areas for dam develop- ties that may be directly or indirectly affected by the develop-
ment. System-scale planning can also be used to avoid ment of hydropower dams, as well as representatives with
siting or licensing projects that would impact high-value relevant expertise from academia and civil society. The stake-
ape habitat outside of protected areas, such as dispersal holder group is relied upon to identify social and environmental
corridors and large swaths of intact habitat. Multi-objective resources that may be impacted by the proposed hydropower
planning and analysis can identify investment options— development, determine whether the metrics used to assess
combinations of project site, design and operation—that those impacts are adequate through an iterative process, and
perform well across a range of metrics; such “win–win” participate in the decision-making process to select a hydro-
or “close to win–close to win” outcomes can contribute power build-out that best balances the trade-offs between
towards energy targets while protecting the most impor- development, conservation and social issues.
tant ape habitats. Ideally, areas that are “avoided” through If the stakeholder group is not collaborative and transparent,
a system-scale planning process would also receive the ultimate build-out of hydropower projects may not rep-
formal protection from future development, potentially resent the best trade-off, with possible repercussions for
funded via mitigation or compensation measures, as environmental and social resources, including great ape and
described below. The most effective spatial planning for gibbon habitat. However, the process of identifying environ-
siting focuses not just on dams and reservoirs, but also mental and social resources and quantitatively measuring
on the siting of associated roads and transmission lines. the impacts of a given hydropower build-out scenario on
Minimize impacts during development and operation. those resources inherently makes the planning process more
To protect apes, hydropower developers can implement transparent, even if the final decision is made in a political
management plans that minimize impacts during con- context that does not fully embrace the collaborative process
struction and operation. Construction management plans that is at the heart of Hydropower by Design.
can include best practices to prevent workers from hunt-
ing for wild meat or engaging in other activities that harm Implementing Hydropower by Design
wildlife. The environmental management plan for the Trung In practice, Hydropower by Design is most effective when it
Son Hydropower Project in Vietnam, for example, includes is incorporated into the policies and practices of the key
a ban on hunting and possession of wild meat in the actors within the hydropower sector. Key actors are govern-
construction camps (Integrated Environments, 2010). ments, financial institutions and hydropower companies,
During operation, a portion of revenue from a hydro- including developers and contractors.
power project could be dedicated to conserving intact
forest in the watershed upstream of a project. This type Governments
of management fund can benefit projects by ensuring Governments are generally in the best position to implement
that upstream land cover promotes reliable flows of water the concepts behind Hydropower by Design, particularly
and avoids excess sedimentation from land clearing because they direct the planning of energy systems and
and road construction. Wherever upstream watersheds license individual projects. A strong planning and site selec-
also provide habitat for wildlife, including apes, this man- tion role by the government can identify both the river reaches
agement fund can also be used to protect that habitat. or projects that should be developed, as well as the areas that
Compensate or offset. Even if efforts are made to avoid should be protected, thereby reducing conflicts and increas-
ing certainty for stakeholders, including hydropower devel-
and minimize impacts, the expansion of hydropower
opers, conservation organizations and local communities
systems will almost certainly result in net negative
(Opperman et al., 2017). For example, in the 1980s Norway
impacts to natural resources such as ape habitat. For
conducted comprehensive studies of undeveloped rivers and
these “residual impacts,” mitigation policies can promote
river basins and identified a subset that would be eligible for
compensation—investments in restoration or protection
hydropower development and another subset to be pro-
intended to “offset” residual impacts. For example, com-
tected from future development, thereby reducing conflict and
pensation funding could be used to support the durable
increasing certainty for energy development and other values
protection of high-quality habitats that may be threatened
(Wenstop and Carlsen, 1988).
by new development impacts by formally designating
them protected areas and providing funding for their man- In addition to planning, government licensing processes can
agement. Compensation funding could also be dedi- be influential in determining which projects are built and which
cated to reforestation of migration corridors for apes; priority habitats are granted protection. Licensing agencies
this type of funding was made available to reforest a can identify areas for which licenses will not be granted (a
corridor for jaguars with the Reventazón project in Costa categorization that is functionally equivalent to an “avoid”
Rica, for example (IDB, n.d.). designation); they can also determine mitigation requirements
for licenses, such as by setting compensation ratios based
The outcomes of Hydropower by Design analysis and imple- on impacts. However, such decisions are vulnerable to being
mentation are dependent on the participation and buy-in of overturned unless they are made durable through formal pro-
all relevant stakeholders over the duration of the development tected status. Particularly rare or important habitat types can
process. In addition to governments, developers and financiers, have high compensation ratios (such as 5 ha of protection

191
Photo: Low water levels at the Mae Guang Udom Tara dam. In 2015, Thailand’s key reservoirs fell to the lowest since 1987, and farmers were warned to delay
planting their main rice crop. A number of major impacts from hydropower cannot be mitigated effectively at the scale of a single dam and project-level sustain-
ability cannot address the complex issues posed by multiple hydropower developments across a river basin or region. © Dario Pignatelli/Bloomberg via Getty Images
or restoration per impacted hectare). Compensation funding that can be applied before its own safeguards (Liden and
generated for development that impacts habitats can then Lyon, 2014). The IIED review reported that only 10%–15% of
be used for acquisition or management of other high-value new hydropower projects around the world were covered by
habitats. Colombia is integrating this approach into its licens- international standards or safeguard processes. It concluded
ing process for large infrastructure projects, including hydro- that the Protocol “represents the best currently available
power (Opperman et al., 2017). ‘measuring stick’ for respect for the [World Commission on
Hydropower by Design does not necessarily require govern- Dams] provisions in individual projects” as it offers a set of
ments to adopt new policies or regulatory structures. Rather, principles that many civil society organizations see as the
existing policy or regulatory tools—such as energy master “gold standard” in terms of sustainability for dam develop-
plans, strategic environmental assessments, environmental ment and operation (Skinner and Haas, 2014, pp. xi, 44, 75).
and social impact assessments, and licensing—can be An “early planning facility” is an additional mechanism through
updated or refined to move hydropower development away which multilateral funders could help move hydropower devel-
from a single-project focus and towards a system approach. opment towards system-scale approaches (Opperman et al.,
2017). Such a facility would combine funding and technical
Financial Institutions and Developers
assistance to support governments in conducting system
A variety of financial institutions fund hydropower projects, planning with the goal of developing a pipeline of projects.
including private commercial banks and multilateral institu-
Projects that emerge through this process would represent
tions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development
low-risk opportunities for developers and investors that are
Bank. Financial institutions can apply environmental and
consistent with objectives for the sustainable management
social policies to determine which projects they will fund and
of river basins or regions.
to attach conditions to their financing, such as mitigation
requirements. Multilateral financial institutions have com- Developers generally do not have the ability to plan or man-
prehensive environmental and social safeguards. However, age at the scale of a system, with some exceptions (such as
these safeguards are generally applied at the project scale, when a single company has multiple concessions or projects
and a review of hydropower standards by the International in a basin or when a company secures a contract to conduct
Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) concluded a basin plan). However, companies can follow policies or
that few standards or safeguards address system planning or practices that support sustainable hydropower, for example
options assessments that can screen out detrimental projects by adopting corporate sustainability standards or by using
(Skinner and Haas, 2014). risk-screening tools such as the Protocol. Companies that
Specific hydropower-related risk screening tools can be used recognize the value of reducing risk and uncertainty for hydro-
as a complement to general safeguards. The World Bank has power development could signal their support for Hydropower
acknowledged that, for its projects, the Hydropower Sustain by Design to governments and funders and find ways to con-
ability Assessment Protocol is a useful risk-screening tool tribute to its adoption.

192
CASE STUDY 6.3 in the Kappi Plateau region of the park, in the northernmost
province of the island of Sumatra, Indonesia (Hanafiah, 2016;
Not All Renewable Energy is Sustainable: see Figure 6.9).
A Geothermal Project in the Leuser
Together, the Gunung Leuser, Bukit Barisan Selatan and
Ecosystem, Sumatra, Indonesia Kerinci Seblat national parks comprise the Tropical Rain
On August 16, 2016, the governor of Aceh province wrote forest Heritage of Sumatra World Heritage site (UNESCO
to the central government’s Ministry of Environment and WHC, 2017). Covering 8,630 km² (862,975 ha), the GLNP itself
Forestry, requesting that a “core area” of the Gunung Leuser is a UNESCO biosphere reserve and a Heritage Park of the
National Park (GLNP) be rezoned to allow development of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It is con-
a major new geothermal project. The location in question lies tained within the confines of the 26,000-km² (2.6 million-ha)
FIGURE 6.9
Proposed Large-Scale Energy Infrastructure Projects in the Leuser Ecosystem and Beyond
Seulawah N
Aceh Jambo Aye

Takengon
S
tr
t
ai
S
Tampur o
f
M
u
al
ac
m
ca
t
a
Kappi r
a
INDIAN Kluet
OCEAN
North
Sumatra
I N D O N E S I A
Proposed
geothermal site
Proposed hydro-
power dam site
Gunung Leuser Batang Toru
National Park
Leuser Ecosystem
Batang Toru
Ecosystem
Provincial boundary 0 25 50 75 km
Map and Data Sources: © Rupabumi Digital Indonesia Map, Scale 1:50,000, BAKOSURTANAL, 1978; Ministry of Forestry Decree 190/Kpts-II/2001; About
Demarcation of Leuser Ecosystem in Aceh Province; Leuser Ecosystem spatial plan draft; Aceh Spatial Plan; and Secondary Data. Courtesy of SOCP.

193
Leuser Ecosystem, which experts, including the IUCN, con- though a 25 MW site is only likely to require 10–40 ha for the
sider one of the world’s “most irreplaceable protected areas”; power plant itself (Modus Aceh, 2016; T. Faisal, personal
it is ranked 33rd out of more than 173,000 protected areas communication, 2017).
worldwide (Le Saout et al., 2013). Protected under Indonesian Interestingly, the company has not made details of its plans
law as a national strategic area for its environmental protection public, so it is difficult to ascertain the true potential environ-
function, the Leuser Ecosystem is one of the largest contigu- mental impact of the geothermal plant throughout the phases
ous intact rainforests in the whole of Southeast Asia, and the of exploration and drilling, construction, operation and main-
last place on Earth where orangutans, rhinos, elephants and tenance, all of which will incur environmental impacts. During
tigers coexist in the wild (Rainforest Action Network, 2014). construction and drilling, transportation of heavy equipment
The proposed project site lies at the very heart of the Leuser is required, so an access road to the site will need to be built.
Ecosystem, in the Kappi Plateau. This area not only harbors Temporary workers will need access and housing. As an
some of the last remaining wild populations of all four of example, another geothermal plant of comparable size (20 MW)
these iconic and critically endangered species, but is also the at Lahendong in North Sulawesi recruited more than 900 work-
core of the only remaining major corridor between the east- ers for the construction phase (Rambu Energy, 2016).
ern and western blocks of the ecosystem. Degrading this
The target area in Kappi is forested and mountainous and has
region would dramatically reduce the long-term survival pros-
never had any form of prior road access. The nearest road is
pects for these and a multitude of other species. Indeed, any
more than 10 km away at its nearest point and, due to the
major development within the Kappi Plateau will only serve
mountainous terrain, access to it would require a new road
to denigrate the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra,
more than 10 km long. While such a new road could theoreti-
which has been inscribed on the list of World Heritage in
cally be removed after the construction phase, removal would
Danger since 2011. Given the extensive road and settlement
not prevent severe damage from occurring to the forests, as
infrastructure that would inevitably accompany construc-
roads open access for illegal logging, mining, encroachment
tion, the ecosystem’s Outstanding Universal Value would
and poaching of wildlife. Currently, the closest substation for
undoubtedly be severely depleted (UNESCO WHC, 2016).
transmitting electricity is more than 150 km away, in Takengon,
Destruction of the Leuser Ecosystem would also have far-
and overhead transmission towers (150 kV) would therefore
reaching consequences for valuable ecological services,
need to be built every 300 m from the plant to the substation,
such as water supplies, carbon storage and disaster mitiga-
necessitating substantial clearing along the entire length of
tion. A newly published study funded by the European Union
the route (T. Faisal, personal communication, 2017).
determined that the forests of Aceh, more than 50% of which
are in the Leuser Ecosystem, are worth approximately US$1 Land clearing, road construction, vehicle traffic and power
billion per year to Aceh’s economy—if fully conserved (Baabud plant construction can affect ecosystem services through
et al., 2016). increased erosion and runoff, increased risk of fire, toxic spills
and disturbance of water, and interference with seed dispersal.
The Geothermal Project and Its Environmental Impact These activities also pose a high risk to wildlife and species
diversity. In addition, noise pollution threatens to disrupt breed-
Despite its critical importance in Southeast Asia, the Kappi
ing, migration and foraging behavior in this previously undis-
Plateau is threatened by construction of a major new geo-
turbed area (Tribal Energy and Environmental Information, n.d.).
thermal power plant by PT Hitay Panas Energy, an Indonesian
subsidiary of the Turkish company Hitay Holdings (Hanafiah, On September 15, 2016, the managing director of PT Hitay
2016). This plan came to light after Indonesia’s president Panas Energy submitted a report requesting that the “core
publicly called for the country to become energy self-sufficient area” of the GLNP be rezoned as a “utilization area.” Kappi
and to increase the use of geothermal energy to 23% by 2025 is within a core area of the park by virtue of the fact that it
(Antara News, 2015; Tempo, 2017). Subsequently, the coun- meets stringent government criteria and regulations on bio-
try’s minister of energy and mineral resources announced, “I diversity and habitat composition. As part of the core area,
invite every stakeholder to study and make every effort to it cannot legally be exploited for geothermal development.
achieve these targets” (Antara News, 2015). In response to In contrast, permits may be approved for geothermal energy
these policies and statements, numerous “renewable energy” developments in utilization areas, so long as the land does
projects are being planned and developed throughout not harbor a concentration of priority biota communities
Indonesia. The Kappi geothermal project is among the most (HAkA et al., 2016).
pressing for those concerned about the continued conserva- Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry, through its
tion of the Leuser Ecosystem (Laurance, 2016c). Directorate General for Conservation of Natural Resources
As of 2015, Indonesia had an installed production capacity of and Ecosystems, publicly stated that the request to rezone
1,345 MW, derived from ten geothermal plants (Mansoer and the area, and thereby enable the geothermal plant to go
Idral, 2015). The PT Hitay Panas Energy project—one among ahead, would be rejected (Satriastanti, 2016). At the end of
several new sites under consideration in Aceh—is being September 2016, the ministry informed the head of the GLNP
proposed inside the Leuser Ecosystem. The governor of Aceh that no rezoning of any part of the park’s core area would
requested rezoning of an area covering 50 km² (5,000 ha) in be possible, regardless of recent Indonesian legislation, Law
Kappi for the purposes of geothermal development, even No. 21 of 2014 on Geothermal Energy, which allows for

194
Photo: Indonesia is pushing to become more energy independent and move away from traditional fossil fuels for electricity generation. New regulations opening
up the possibility of geothermal energy projects in conservation areas highlight the pressure for new energy projects in areas that render them unsustainable
and extremely damaging to the environment and conservation. Geothermal plant, Indonesia. © BAY ISMOYO/AFP/Getty Images
geothermal operations within the utilization area of conserva- Yet, even though data from the GLNP and local NGO affiliates
tion zones (Republik Indonesia, 2014; Satriastanti, 2016). strongly support the rejection of the rezoning request, the mat-
It later came to light that Hitay had previously commissioned ter is not yet fully settled (Satriastanti, 2016). Ongoing meetings
an Indonesian university—Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM)— and correspondence indicate that neither Hitay nor the GLNP
to assess the feasibility of geothermal development on the site. considers the proposed project to be off the table, meaning
Contrary to expectations, given the above-mentioned back- that conservation NGOs and other civil society groups remain
ground, the assessment team made a “strong recommen- vigilant to ensure the development does not go ahead.7
dation for changing the zoning in the Kappi area” in a report
that was submitted to the Ministry of Environment and A Chance for Change?
Forestry on December 1, 2016. One week later, at a meeting The Indonesian government’s effort to move away from non-
held at the GLNP headquarters in Medan, North Sumatra, renewable energy sources, as part of its sustainable devel-
the findings of the UGM study were shared with a group of opment strategy, is to be lauded. Such a pathway, however,
NGOs and community members (PT Hitay and UGM, 2016). should not include the destruction of one of Southeast Asia’s
Subsequently, in a detailed review of the UGM surveys, a most valuable conservation areas. The geothermal potential
consortium of environmental NGOs identified poor survey of the Seulawah and Takengon regions of Aceh have been
design and other reasons why the UGM report was wholly thoroughly assessed and are already known. Both locations
inadequate, both for determining whether the requested rezon- are also far closer to existing transmission networks and
ing was permissible within the Kappi Plateau and for arriving major population concentrations. As such, they could provide
at the stated conclusions and recommendations. The review sustainable energy alternatives, meeting all of the president’s
emphasized that the core area status should be maintained goals, but without the destructive impact of development in
in view of comprehensive GLNP and other NGO data, which the irreplaceable forests of the Leuser Ecosystem.
had been ignored or misrepresented by the UGM team, and In addition to the proposed geothermal plant in the Kappi
based on current criteria and laws governing the zoning of Plateau area, the Aceh government is also seeking approval
conservation areas (Laurance, 2016a). and funding for several other large-scale infrastructure projects,

195
Conclusion
including plans for mega-hydropower
developments in the Jambo Aye, Kluet Hydropower represents a significant source
and Tampur water catchments (Gartland, of electricity for many countries and fea-
2017; see Figure 6.9). tures in many economic development plans
Beyond the borders of Aceh province are and projections. As this chapter shows,
additional sites of serious concern, in par-
ticular a major new hydropower project in
however, its negative impacts are concen-
the very fragile habitat of the recently iden- trated in areas—river valleys and forested
tified Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapan mountains—that have considerable environ-
uliensis)—the Batang Toru forests in North
mental and social value, such as helping to
Sumatra province. The proposed project
is especially worrying as this population buffer the effects of climate change, hosting
of orangutans is genetically unique and river fisheries, encompassing habitat for
among very few in Sumatra living outside apes and providing vital resources for local
of the Leuser Ecosystem. In fact, the new
species immediately became the most
communities. Furthermore, as research has
endangered great ape species in the demonstrated, the oft-touted economic
world, with fewer than 800 individuals benefits of dams rarely materialize for the
remaining. The planned project would
vulnerable sectors of society (see Annex VII).
devastate a river catchment in which the
highest densities of the Tapunuli orang Hydropower is expanding rapidly in
utan are found. It would also sever an remaining ape habitat, including in South
essential corridor linking two of the three east Asia and Central and West Africa. The
main forest blocks that still harbor the
new species, which could easily place the preliminary assessment presented in this
species on an irreversible path to extinc- chapter suggests that the impacts of hydro-
tion (Nater et al., 2017; Stokstad, 2017; power on apes and ape habitat will increase
Wich et al., 2016; see the Apes Overview).
considerably in the coming decades. In this
With the push for Indonesia to become
more energy independent and move away
context, stakeholder engagement can serve
from traditional fossil fuels for electricity to raise awareness, especially among indig-
generation, and with the passing of new enous and other local communities that are
regulations that open up the possibility of
likely to be adversely affected by the con-
geothermal energy projects in conserva-
tion areas, it is clear that there is strong struction of dams or geothermal plants.
pressure for new energy projects in areas Such engagement can also help to identify
that render them unsustainable and opportunities for avoiding or mitigating
extremely damaging to the environment
and conservation.
negative impacts.
Instead of relying on unsustainable,
Some progress has been made in the
large-scale energy generation schemes development of tools that can serve to
in unspoiled locations, Indonesia could improve the environmental and social per-
significantly increase its electricity pro-
formance of individual hydropower dams.
duction by investing in smaller-scale ‘run-
of-river’ hydropower schemes and other Nevertheless, many hydropower impacts are
renewable resources. These would have not effectively addressed at the scale of the
a negligible environmental impact and system. This is particularly true for hydro-
provide a more stable and resilient power
supply than would a few large, destruc- power’s impacts on apes, whose conserva-
tive schemes. tion requires large blocks of connected
habitat. A system-scale approach to hydro-
power planning and management—includ-
ing siting, licensing, mitigation and best
practice during construction and opera-
tion—provides the best opportunity for
hydropower expansion to be consistent with

196
the conservation of environmental and with his activism. In October of the same year, a
social values, including the protection of clash between NCR landowners and people
allegedly hired to intimidate them resulted in one
apes and their habitat. To be successful, the
death (Sarawak Report, 2016).
application of such an approach requires
5 The ESIA was open for comments, as stipulated in
collaboration among a range of actors in the Sarawak’s procedures; however, it was not openly
hydropower development process, includ- published or available to the public. Rather, a lim-
ing governments, funders, developers and ited number of copies were available in a few gov-
civil society. ernment offices, where the public could read them.
Comments had to be made within 30 days of pub-
lication. The ESIA was approved on March 13, 2015
(P. Kallang, personal communication, 2016).
Acknowledgments 6 Author interviews with residents, Tegulang, Sarawak,
Principal author: Helga Rainer8 Malaysia, October 2016.
Contributors: American Rivers, The Borneo Project, 7 Confidential information and correspondence pro-
Emily Chapin, Emma Collier-Baker, Jessie Thomas- vided to the authors.
Blate, David Dellatore, Earth Island Institute, Joerg 8 Arcus Foundation (www.arcusfoundation.org/
Hartmann, Erik Martin, The Nature Conservancy what-we-support/great-apes).
(TNC), Samuel Nnah Ndobe, Jeff Opperman, Ian
Singleton, the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation
Programme (SOCP) and Jettie Word
Hydropower and Apes: Emily Chapin, Erik Martin
and Jeff Opperman
Case Study 6.1: Samuel Nnah Ndobe
Case Study 6.2: Jettie Word
Case Study 6.3: David Dellatore, Ian Singleton and
Emma Collier-Baker
Box 6.1: Jeff Opperman, Joerg Hartmann, Emily Chapin
and Erik Martin
Annex VII: Jessie Thomas-Blate
Reviewers: Josh Klemm and Kate Newman
Endnotes
1 See, for example, Richter et al. (2010) and WCD
(2000).
2 The International Commission on Large Dams
defines a “large dam” as one that has “a height of
15 metres or greater from lowest foundation to crest
or [. . .] between 5 metres and 15 metres impound-
ing more than 3 million cubic metres” (ICOLD, n.d.).
3 Both the Campo Ma’an National Park and the
Mbam and Djerem National Park were created to
“offset” the adverse effects of the Chad–Cameroon
oil pipeline. There is currently no evidence that
these offsets were created with the aim of achiev-
ing “no net loss” as defined by the Business and
Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP, 2012).
4 In July, 2016 an indigenous land rights activist was
killed in the city of Miri, purportedly in connection

197
SECTION 2

198
INTRODUCTION thus quantifying likely threats to the long-

term survival of apes. Chapter 8 reviews
Section 2: The Status the status and welfare of apes in captivity
around the world. It also considers the his-
and Welfare of Great tory and context of sanctuaries in ape range
Apes and Gibbons states, as well as the opportunities and chal-
lenges facing them and their role in broader
conservation efforts.
The online Abundance Annex—avail-
able at www.stateoftheapes.com—presents
updated population estimates for apes across
their ranges. In combination with figures
provided in the previous volumes in this
series, the annex allows for the tracking of
population trends and patterns over time
T
wo chapters comprise this section of
State of the Apes. Chapter 7 focuses Chapter Highlights
on in situ ape conservation in Africa Chapter 7: Mapping Change
and Asia. It presents the findings of a
study of changes in ape habitats between
in Ape Habitats
2000 and 2014, based on in-depth analysis This chapter examines the status of forested
of thousands of satellite images. By extrap- habitats used by apes by quantifying the
Photo: © Jon Stryker and
olating current rates of deforestation, the rates of tropical forest destruction utilizing
Ronda Stryker chapter also projects future habitat loss, the Global Forest Watch platform. This is

199
Chapter 8: Sanctuaries and Photo: © Jurek Wajdowicz /

Arcus Foundation
the Status of Captive Apes

Captive apes are held in a variety of con-
texts within ape range states. These include
private homes, public displays for tourists,
zoos and safari parks, and specialized non-
commercial care facilities that are often
referred to as rescue centers, rehabilitation
centers or sanctuaries. This chapter presents
the findings of a study of 56 sanctuaries in
ape range states. It discusses their history
and context, as well as opportunities and
challenges linked to ongoing and emerging
threats. Conditions varied across the facili-
ties under review; only a small minority
the first in-depth analysis of forest loss to achieved independent accreditation based
use spatially explicit, high-resolution forest on their welfare and care standards.
change data across the entire ape range. A variety of drivers push apes into cap-
Based on thousands of satellite images, tivity. These include forest loss and degrada-
the assessment quantifies annual loss of ape tion due to agricultural expansion, mining,
range forest in 2000–14 and projects future logging and infrastructure development as
habitat loss rates for each ape subspecies. well as the hunting and capture of apes for
The results can serve as a measure of their private collections and entertainment. The
long-term survival. number of apes in need of captive care is
Protected areas are vital to the conserva- growing and already far exceeds current
tion of biodiversity, including apes, as they capacity. At the same time, ape habitats are
comprise 26% of African ape ranges and shrinking, meaning that options for reintro-
21% of Asian ape ranges. Their “protected” ducing or translocating rescued apes are
status has not spared these areas from expe- dwindling and that even rehabilitated apes
riencing forest loss, however, even if the rate are likely to spend their lives in captivity.
of loss was lower than it was beyond their Compounding the situation is the absence of
borders. In total, a staggering 453,000 km2 legal consequences for many perpetrators of
(45.3 million ha) of ape range was lost wildlife crimes, which places a double onus
between 2000 and 2014. The findings also on sanctuaries if they are to contribute to
reveal that gibbon habitats were impacted to conservation objectives. The first is to tie the
a far greater degree than those of great apes. intake of apes to appropriate legal conse-
Indonesia has been particularly affected, quences; the second is to raise the public’s
accounting for 63% of total habitat loss in awareness of apes’ protected status and the
Asia and 50% of the total loss of ape habitat legal consequences of hunting or buying
globally. The extent of forest loss across all apes. In this context, increased collabora-
ape ranges indicates that ape conservation tion between sanctuaries and governments,
faces grave challenges regionally and glob- conservation NGOs, industry and other
ally. If forest loss continues at the same rate stakeholders needs to be strengthened.
into the future, the consequences for both
African and Asian apes will be significant,
and particularly devastating for Asian apes.
Photo: Until recently, quantifying rates of tropical forest destruction was challenging and laborious. © Jabruson 2017 (www.jabruson.photoshelter.com) 200

201
CHAPTER 7
Mapping Change in Ape Habitats:

Forest Status, Loss, Protection
and Future Risk
Introduction
This chapter examines the status of forested
habitats used by apes, charismatic species
that are almost exclusively forest-dependent.
With one exception, the eastern hoolock, all
ape species and their subspecies are classi-
fied as endangered or critically endangered
by the International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN) (IUCN, 2016c). Since apes
require access to forested or wooded land-
scapes, habitat loss represents a major cause
of population decline, as does hunting in
these settings (Geissmann, 2007; Hickey et
al., 2013; Plumptre et al., 2016b; Stokes et
al., 2010; Wich et al., 2008).
Until recently, quantifying rates of trop-
ical forest destruction was challenging and
laborious, requiring advanced technical
Chapter 7 Status of Apes

202
skills and the analysis of hundreds of satel- for all ape subspecies (Geissmann, 2007;
lite images at a time (Gaveau, Wandono Tranquilli et al., 2012; Wich et al., 2008).
and Setiabudi, 2007; LaPorte et al., 2007). In addition, the chapter projects future
A new platform, Global Forest Watch habitat loss rates for each subspecies and
(GFW), has revolutionized the use of satel- uses these results as one measure of threat
lite imagery, enabling the first in-depth to their long-term survival. GFW’s new
analysis of changes in forest availability in online forest monitoring and alert system,
the ranges of 22 great ape and gibbon spe- entitled Global Land Analysis and Dis
cies, totaling 38 subspecies (GFW, 2014; covery (GLAD) alerts, combines cutting-
Hansen et al., 2013; IUCN, 2016c; Max Planck edge algorithms, satellite technology and
Institute, n.d.-b). Launched in 2014, GFW cloud computing to identify tree cover
provides free access to spatially explicit, change in near-real time, thereby allowing
high-resolution forest change data derived those involved in ape conservation at the
from thousands of satellite images that are local level to monitor changes and gener-
updated annually. The global forest change ate critical information to enhance their
data set on GFW allows users to quantify conservation efforts.
annual change in forest cover within the The key findings show that gibbons are
geographic ranges of each ape subspecies in crisis:
and within protected and unprotected areas
in those ranges (Hansen et al., 2013; see Gibbons receive less attention in the
Figure 7.1). public eye than African apes and orang
This chapter presents the first assess- utans, yet gibbon habitats have been
ment of the distribution of forest habitat degraded to a far greater degree. By 2000,
in IUCN-defined ape ranges across Africa ten taxa of gibbons had already lost
and Southeast Asia. It also quantifies yearly more than 50% of their forest habitat, and
loss of ape-range forest from 2000 to 2014 in five gibbon taxa native to the Asian main-
land had each had their habitats reduced
a spatially explicit manner. Abundance data
to less than 5,000 km2 (500,000 ha).
are not available for all ape subspecies for
this period. In future assessments, combin- In Indonesia, three others—the agile
ing population and habitat data streams gibbon, Malaysian lar gibbon and sia-
will be essential because hunting threatens mang—lost more than 30% of their forest
ape population viability across taxa. Even cover between 2000 and 2014.
so, the integrity of ape habitat can serve During the period under review, the
as a useful threshold for estimating ape ranges of Asian apes lost up to 25% of
occupancy until demographic information their protected forests (median 5%), at a
becomes available. rate that must slow if apes are to persist
The chapter presents these data in com- over the next few decades. Eight gibbon
bination with current protected area (PA) subspecies lost more than 8% of their
coverage to assess the adequacy of protection protected habitat. Two of them—the
for each subspecies. Various lar gibbons Malaysian lar gibbon and Abbott’s gray
(Hylobates lar) and western black-crested gibbon—lost more than 13%.
gibbons (Nomascus concolor), as well as Plantations account for more than 75%
Grauer’s gorillas (Gorilla beringei graueri), of the loss of forest habitat of three gib-
are already confined mainly to PAs (IUCN, bon subspecies—the agile gibbon (76%),
2016c; Maldonado et al., 2012). Protected Malaysian lar gibbon (87%) and the
areas are increasingly important refuges moloch gibbon (77%)—as well as more

203
than 50% of habitat loss of nine other agricultural plantations account for the
Asian gibbon and orangutan subspecies. majority of forest loss within ape ranges
Based on the trends of the period 2000– in Malaysia (84%) and Indonesia (82%),
14, nine ape subspecies, all gibbons, are as well as nearly 30% of loss in Cambodia.
expected to lose all their habitat by 2050 Altogether, ape habitat around the world
unless decisive action is taken to stop shrank by more than 10%—from nearly
or at least slow forest loss. Most of these 4.4 million km2 to under 4 million km2
species have enough area in legally defined (440 million ha to under 400 million ha).
conservation units to persist if reserves Ape forest habitat in Asia shrank by
are managed effectively. 21% (357,500 km2 or 35.8 million ha)
Better protection of existing reserves between 2000 and 2014. African habi-
within the ranges of 18 of the 25 gibbon tat fared relatively well, losing less than
subspecies should be able to support 4% (95,400 km2 or 9.5 million ha) of
more than 1,000 family groups. forest cover in that period, despite
increasing human population density,
Ape conservation faces grave challenges:
insurgencies and activities such as ille-
Between 2000 and 2014, Indonesia lost gal logging.
226,000 km2 (22.6 million ha) of forest Africa was home to two-thirds of the
cover, which constituted 63% of total remaining global ape habitat in 2014,
habitat loss in Asia and 50% of the total but major transportation infrastructure
loss of ape habitat globally. Large-scale has already begun to speed deforestation
FIGURE 7.1
Forest Cover and Loss in Ape Ranges and Protected Areas in Asia and Africa,
2000 and 2014¹
a. West Africa
N
SENEGAL Forest loss 2000–14
Protected areas
GUINEA- Chimpanzee
BISSAU (Pan troglodytes)
MALI
International boundary
GUINEA
BURKINA
FASO
AT L A N T I C SIERRA
GHANA
OCEAN LEONE
IVORY
COAST
% forest cover LIBERIA
in 2000
0–15
15–30
30–50
50–75
75–100 0 100 200 300 km

204
b. Central Africa
N
NIGERIA CAMEROON
CAR
0 100 200 300 km
E Q UG U I
% forest cover in 2000
O
AT
0–30 N R
E A IA L
30–50
50–75
75–100
Forest loss GABON
2000–14
Protected areas
Bonobo
(Pan paniscus)
Chimpanzee
(Pan troglodytes) REPUBLIC
Cross River and
western lowland OF
gorilla (Gorilla g. diehli CONGO DEMOCRATIC
and Gorilla g. gorilla) REPUBLIC
International
boundary OF CONGO
c. East Africa
0 300 km SOUTH N
SUDAN
CENTRAL AFRICAN
REPUBLIC
REPUBLIC
OF UGANDA
CONGO DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC
OF CONGO RWANDA
BURUNDI
% forest cover Chimpanzee TANZANIA

in 2000 (Pan troglodytes)
0–30 Forest loss, Grauer’s and
2000–14 mountain gorilla
30–50 Protected areas (Gorilla beringei
50–75 Bonobo graueri and Gorilla
75–100 (Pan paniscus) b. beringei)

205
d. Northern Asia
N
BHUTAN
CHINA
INDIA
BANGLADESH
MYANMAR
LAOS
VIET NAM
THAILAND
CAMBODIA
0 100 200 300 km MALAYSIA

% forest cover Cao Vit gibbon Pileated gibbon
in 2000 (Nomascus nasutus) (Hylobates pileatus)
Eastern hoolock Southern white-cheeked
0–50
(Hoolock leuconedys) crested gibbon
50–70 (Nomascus siki)
Hainan gibbon
75–100 (Nomascus hainanus) Southern yellow-cheeked
Lar gibbon (Hylobates lar) crested gibbon
Forest loss (Nomascus gabriellae)
Northern white-cheeked
2000–14 Western black-crested
crested gibbon
Protected (Nomascus leucogenys) gibbon (Nomascus
areas Northern yellow-cheeked concolor)
International crested gibbon Western hoolock
boundary (Nomascus annamensis) (Hoolock hoolock)

206
e. Southern Asia
N
% forest cover in 2000
0–50
50–70
75–100
Forest loss
2000–14
Protected areas BRUNEI
M
A L
A Y S I A
SINGAPORE
Borneo
Sumatra
I A
N I
D O N E S
Java
0 150 300 km
Abbott’s gray gibbon (Hylobates abbotti) Kloss’s gibbon (Hylobates klossii)

Agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis) Lar gibbon (Hylobates lar)
Bornean gray gibbon (Hylobates funereus) Moloch gibbon (Hylobates moloch)
Bornean white-bearded gibbon Müller’s gibbon (Hylobates muelleri)
(Hylobates albibarbis)
f. Southern Asia
BRUNEI
N M
A
L A
Y S I A
SINGAPORE
Borneo
Sumatra
I N A
D O N E S I
% forest cover
in 2000 Northeast, northwest and
southwest Bornean orangutan
0–50 (Pongo pygmaeus morio,
50–70 Pongo p. pygmaeus and
Pongo p. wurmbii)
75–100
Sumatran orangutan
Forest loss Java (Pongo abelii)
Data sources for Figure 7.1
2000–14
a–f: GLAD (n.d.); Hansen et Siamang (Symphalangus
Protected areas 0 150 300 km syndactylus)
al. (2013); IUCN and UNEP-
WCMC (2016)

207
and associated development (see Sec

tion 1). BOX 7.1
By 2014, individual African ape subspe- Synopsis of Methods
cies retained an average of 388,000 km2
The Global Forest Change 2000–14 data set, which is freely available
of forest habitat; Asian apes retained an on the Global Forest Watch (GFW) site, served as the basis for the
average of just 41,000 km2. habitat analysis (GLAD, n.d.; Hansen et al., 2013; see Annex VIII). Tree
canopy cover in the year 2000 served as a baseline forest cover;
annual change in forest cover was calculated using tree cover data from
Hansen et al. (2013), which is updated annually.
A Summary of the State Potential habitat (hereafter, habitat) for apes can be categorized by each
of the Apes through the subspecies’ capacity to persist over time under varying degrees of can-
opy openness (see Table 7.1 and Annex IX). For example, eastern and
Lenses of Forest Cover western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii and Pan t. verus)
have evolved in forests that are drier than those of their central African
and Protection, 2000–14 conspecifics and are believed to tolerate a more open canopy (L. Pintea
and K. Abernethy, personal communication, 2016). To estimate forest
More so than other ape species, gibbons are change for each subspecies, this analysis applied values of “canopy
in peril. Prior to 2000—the year used as a density” that reflect the subspecies’ tolerance of canopy openness and
baseline for forest extent in this assessment the overall vegetation cover in their respective ranges (IUCN, 2016c;
see Annex IX). The GFW platform allows users to select canopy den-
—three gibbon taxa had each lost more sity values and thus recalculate the habitat assessment presented
than 60% of their historic habitat. The Cao here with different estimates of canopy density. For more details on
Vit gibbon (Nomascus nasutus) retained just methods, see annexes VIII, IX and X.
26% of its forest habitat in China and Viet
Nam; the Yunnan lar gibbon (Hylobates lar
yunnanensis) had 27% in China; and the 200,000 km2 (20 million ha) of potential
pileated gibbon (Hylobates pileatus) had ape habitat (see Figure 7.4). The Democratic
40% in Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Indonesia,
Republic and Thailand (Hansen et al., 2013; in particular, retained large expanses of
IUCN, 2016c; see Table 7.1). Equally worrying tropical rainforest that supported multiple
are the situations of subspecies with highly ape taxa. Most ape ranges in Sumatra and
restricted geographic ranges and limited Borneo still contained high proportions of
forest cover, including the Hainan gibbon forest through 2000, despite high defor-
(Nomascus hainanus), with just 91 km2 estation rates in the two previous decades
(9,100 ha) in 2000, and the Central Yunnan (Gaveau et al., 2016).
black-crested gibbon (Nomascus concolor
jingdongensis), with just 672 km2 (67,200 ha;
see Figure 7.2).
Worldwide, ape ranges in 2000 con- Forest Dynamics and
tained 4.4 million km2 (440 million ha) of Loss from 2000 to 2014
forest habitat, about two-thirds of which
was in Africa and the remaining one-third Forest Dynamics in the
of which was in Southeast Asia (see Figure Geographic Ranges of
7.1 and Box 7.1). In 2000, the median area
of forest habitat within IUCN ranges of
Subspecies
Asian apes (48,608 km2 or 4.9 million ha) In 2000, ranges of the 38 ape taxa contained
was one-tenth the area of forest habitat a median of 78% forest habitat, based on a
found in ranges of African apes (400,983 km2 range of 26%–99% (see Table 7.1). Between
or 40 million ha; see Table 7.1). In 2000, 2000 and 2014, these ranges lost 1% to 44%
eight countries each contained more than of their forest habitat, with a median of 4.8%.

208
FIGURE 7.2 Ranges of Asian apes lost more of their for-

Forest and Protected Areas in the Ranges of (a) Asian and est—from 2% to 44% (with a median of 8.3%)
(b) African Apes, by Subspecies, 2000 and 2014 —than those of African apes, which lost any-
where from 2% to 6% (with a median of 2.1%).
Key: Forest cover in 2000 Forest cover in 2014 Forest cover in PAs in 2000
The greatest recent loss of forest occurred
a.
Agile gibbon
in Southeast Asia within the ranges of
Siamang
orangutans and at least 11 gibbon subspecies
Bornean gray gibbon
(see Figure 7.1). The data reveal noteworthy
Bornean white-bearded gibbon
variations. For example, the once-wide range
Western hoolock
of the agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis)—an
Eastern hoolock
area of 387,445 km2 (38.7 million ha)—had
Abbott's gray gibbon
Malaysian lar gibbon

already lost about 30% of its forest by 2000;
Carpenter’s lar gibbon
it lost another 44% of its remaining forest
Müller’s gibbon cover in the following 14 years. In contrast,
Southwest Bornean orangutan the extremely limited range of the Cross
Central lar gibbon River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli)—a mere
Southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon 3,648 km2 (364,800 ha) in Cameroon and
Sumatran lar gibbon Nigeria—was reduced by less than 1% over
Pileated gibbon the same period.
Northeast Bornean orangutan The ranges of 15 Asian taxa overlap
Northern white-cheeked crested gibbon with mapped tree plantations, which have
Southern white-cheeked crested gibbon
accounted for more than 50% of forest hab-
Moloch gibbon
itat loss in 12 of the ranges (see Box AX1 in
Northwest Bornean orangutan
Annex XI). Plantations correspond to more
Laotian black-crested gibbon
than 75% of the loss of forest habitat of
Sumatran orangutan
three gibbon subspecies: the agile gibbon
Tonkin black-crested gibbon
Kloss’s gibbon
(76%), the Malaysian lar gibbon (Hylobates lar
Yunnan lar gibbon
lar, 87%), and the moloch gibbon (Hylobates
Cao Vit gibbon
moloch, 77%). Plantations also overlap with
West Yunnan black-crested gibbon distributions of all four orangutan sub-
Central Yunnan black-crested gibbon species (Pongo species (spp.)), representing
Hainan gibbon 42%–59% of forest loss within their ranges.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Eastern chimpanzee b. Taxa of Conservation Concern

Central chimpanzee
Western lowland gorilla
This analysis reveals that the forest cover
Western chimpanzee
in the ranges of 23 of 38 ape subspecies was
Bonobo reduced by almost 30% prior to 2000 (see
Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee Table 7.1). Forest loss before 2000 exceeded
Grauer’s gorilla 50% in the ranges of ten gibbon subspecies,
Cross River gorilla particularly those in mainland Southeast
Mountain gorilla
Asia (Bleisch and Geissman, 2008; Bleisch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
et al., 2008; Gaveau et al., 2016; Geissmann
Forest area (hundreds of thousands of km²) and Bleisch, 2008).
Notes: Subspecies are sorted by the amount of forest cover in the year 2000. PA-related data reflect A closer examination of the data reveals
area covered by PAs in 2016. several important findings for gibbons,
Data sources: GLAD (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013); IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2016) Grauer’s and Cross River gorillas, and both

209
TABLE 7.1
Ape Subspecies and Forest Cover Status and Loss, 2000 vs. 2014
Name Range area Forest cover, % forest, Forest cover, % forest lost, % PA forest, % PA forest
(km²) 2000* (km²) 2000 2014 (km²) 2000–14 2000 lost, 2000–14
Bonobo (Pan paniscus)** 418,809 400,983 95.7 387,931 3.3 20.2 1.9
Central chimpanzee 710,681 676,693 95.2 666,152 1.6 26.2 0.8

(Pan troglodytes troglodytes)**
Eastern chimpanzee 961,246 902,867 93.9 869,160 3.7 14.9 1.2

(Pan t. schweinfurthii)**
Nigeria–Cameroon 168,393 133,806 79.5 130,257 2.7 21.4 2.6

chimpanzee (Pan t. ellioti)**
Western chimpanzee 660,332 564,032 85.4 528,817 6.2 23.1 5.9

(Pan t. verus)**
Cross River gorilla 3,648 3,388 92.9 3,363 0.7 53.5 0.5
(Gorilla gorilla diehli)**
Grauer’s gorilla 64,684 61,861 95.6 60,562 2.1 30.4 0.6

(Gorilla beringei graueri)**
Mountain gorilla 783 768 98.0 761 0.8 97.7 0.8

(Gorilla b. beringei)**
Western lowland gorilla 695,076 610,453 87.8 602,982 1.2 27.1 0.6
(Gorilla g. gorilla)**
Northeast Bornean orangutan 32,931 32,149 97.6 29,163 9.3 19.9 7.1
(Pongo pygmaeus morio)
Northwest Bornean orangutan 14,119 13,965 98.9 13,492 3.4 56.3 0.4
(Pongo p. pygmaeus)
Southwest Bornean orangutan 81,148 77,542 95.6 66,065 14.8 12.8 6.7
(Pongo p. wurmbii)
Sumatran orangutan 7,848 7,783 99.2 7,452 4.3 46.8 2.0

(Pongo abelii)
Eastern hoolock 281,864 138,283 49.1 132,326 4.3 12.9 1.9

(Hoolock leuconedys)
Western hoolock 320,251 140,061 43.7 133,308 4.8 15.1 1.7

(Hoolock hoolock)
Abbott’s gray gibbon 147,330 124,499 84.5 92,208 25.9 21.2 13.3
(Hylobates abbotti)
Agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis) 387,445 267,607 69.1 150,787 43.7 14.4 8.5
Bornean gray gibbon 276,487 245,352 88.7 202,593 17.4 14.0 8.5
(Hylobates funereus)
Bornean white-bearded 200,590 165,009 82.3 132,744 19.6 8.0 6.5

gibbon (Hylobates albibarbis)
Carpenter’s lar gibbon 265,446 80,531 30.3 76,918 4.5 29.9 1.1
(Hylobates lar carpenteri)

210
Name Range area Forest cover, % forest, Forest cover, % forest lost, % PA forest, % PA forest
(km²) 2000* (km²) 2000 2014 (km²) 2000–14 2000 lost, 2000–14
Central lar gibbon 154,385 71,498 46.3 65,564 8.3 32.0 1.9
(Hylobates l. entelloides)
Kloss’s gibbon 6,031 5,479 90.8 5,315 3.0 32.2 0.7

(Hylobates klossii)
Malaysian lar gibbon 137,898 98,344 71.3 57,445 41.6 22.7 25.0
(Hylobates l. lar)
Moloch gibbon 39,400 18,056 45.8 16,071 11.0 11.6 7.0

(Hylobates moloch)
Müller’s gibbon 103,652 78,653 75.9 62,853 20.1 5.2 8.4

(Hylobates muelleri)
Pileated gibbon 122,073 48,608 39.8 40,797 16.1 51.4 9.9

(Hylobates pileatus)
Sumatran lar gibbon 73,254 53,886 73.6 42,519 21.1 19.9 2.6
(Hylobates l. vestitus)
Yunnan lar gibbon 9,512 2,619 27.5 2,490 4.9 9.0 3.1
(Hylobates l. yunnanensis)
Cao Vit gibbon 8,332 2,161 25.9 2,107 2.5 16.2 5.8
(Nomascus nasutus)
Central Yunnan black-crested 1,270 672 52.9 659 1.9 23.1 0.1
gibbon (Nomascus concolor
jingdongensis)
Hainan gibbon 165 91 55.1 87 4.8 18.2 8.0

(Nomascus hainanus)
Laotian black-crested gibbon 8,912 7,848 88.1 7,069 9.9 38.8 5.7
(Nomascus c. lu)
Northern white-cheeked 51,481 30,249 58.8 28,402 6.1 36.8 3.2

crested gibbon
(Nomascus leucogenys)
Southern white-cheeked 26,634 22,674 85.1 21,817 3.8 39.4 1.6

crested gibbon
(Nomascus siki)
Southern yellow-cheeked 95,205 64,243 67.5 57,912 9.9 37.3 5.0

crested gibbon
(Nomascus gabriellae)
Tonkin black-crested gibbon 13,097 6,149 47.0 6,012 2.2 25.0 0.8
(Nomascus c. concolor)
West Yunnan black-crested 3,114 1,498 48.1 1,473 1.7 30.6 0.7
gibbon (Nomascus c.
furvogaster)
Siamang 341,872 261,502 76.5 181,091 30.7 19.3 8.7

(Symphalangus syndactylus)
Notes: * Forest cover in 2000 is defined using the canopy density associated with each subspecies. ** African apes.
Data sources: GLAD (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013); IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2016)

211
FIGURE 7.3
Forest Cover, Protection and Loss between 2000 and 2014 in (a) Asian, (b) African and (c) All Ape
Ranges, by Subspecies
Asian apes key: Hoolock Hylobates Nomascus All apes key: Gorilla Pan Hoolock Hylobates
Pongo Symphalangus Nomascus Pongo Symphalangus
500 km² 5,000 km² 25,000 km² 5,000 km² 50,000 km² 150,000 km²
Forest loss 2000–14 (%) Forest loss 2000–14 (%)
50 I II 50
a c
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
III IV
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Forest cover in 2000 (thousands of km²) Forest cover in 2000 (thousands of km²)
African apes key: Gorilla Pan Notes:
The graphs show forest cover in 2000 and forest loss evident in 2014 in the ranges
20,000 km² 80,000 km² 160,000 km²
of (a) Asian, (b) African and (c) all ape subspecies.
Forest loss 2000–14 (%)
The horizontal dotted lines in Figures 7.3(a)–(b) reflect the median percentage of
8 I II
b forest loss for Asian (8.3%) and African (2.1%) apes.
The vertical dotted lines in Figures 7.3(a)–(b) show the median forest cover in Asian
6
(48,600 km²) and African (401,000 km²) ape ranges in 2000.
The four resulting regions group subspecies according to the relative forest cover
4
security of their ranges, from: (I) insecure (limited forest cover in 2000, high forest
cover loss from 2000 to 2014) to (IV) secure (extensive forest cover, low forest
2 cover loss).
III IV Circle sizes in all graphs indicate the area of protected forest in each subspe-
0 cies’ range.
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Forest cover in 2000 (thousands of km²) Data sources: GLAD (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013); IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2016)
orangutan species. Figure 7.3 combines greatest forest loss in ranges with the most
effects of forest loss prior to the year 2000 limited forest cover.
and ongoing deforestation by dividing the Habitat for several gibbons—the agile
data for each taxon into regions according gibbon, the Bornean white-bearded gibbon
to habitat remaining in 2000 and the per- (Hylobates albibarbis), the Bornean gray
centage of habitat lost since then. The size gibbon (Hylobates funereus) and the siamang
of the circles in Figure 7.3 indicates the area of (Symphalangus syndactylus)—was relatively
forest in PAs per range. In 2000, PAs covered extensive up to 2000 but decreased by 17%–
17 km2–50,470 km2 (5%–56% of each range’s 44% from then until 2014 (see Figure 7.3a).
forest cover) in Asia and 750 km2–177,300 km2 These and other subspecies in Region II
(15%–98%) in Africa (see Table 7.1). occur in areas where forest was relatively
The subspecies in Region I are of great- widespread in 2000 but was reduced sub-
est concern, as they have experienced the stantially over the following 14 years.

212
Photo: Is there enough The habitats of more than half of tural habitats primarily in the absence of an
habitat for gibbons? The
ranges of Asian apes lost up African and Asian ape taxa fall within alternative, if the natural forest in their range
to 25% of their protected
forests from 2000 to 2014.
Region III; these ranges had diminished is cleared for agricultural and other uses, yet
© Andrew Walmsley/ forest cover in 2000 and experienced lim- all need some natural tree canopy to find
Borneo Nature Foundation
ited subsequent forest loss. On the whole, food and nesting substrate (Ancrenaz et al.,
Asian apes lost roughly four times more of 2015a; Hernandez-Aguilar, 2009; Hockings
their forest habitat between 2000 and 2014 et al., 2015; IUCN, 2016c; W. Brockelman,
than did African apes (with a median loss personal communication, 2016).
of 8.3% vs. 2.1%, respectively). Overall, about 26% of African ape habitat
The few African subspecies in Region IV in 2000 was within PAs (median 81,152 km2/
have relatively large geographic ranges with 8.1 million ha of subspecies’ geographic
more extensive forest cover (see Figure 7.3b). ranges). A slightly lower median proportion
This group consists of the western lowland —21%, or 9,917 km2 (991,700 ha)—of the
gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and central habitat of Asian apes was protected that year.
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes). From 2000 to 2014, forest loss was detected
Of great conservation concern is the combi- within all PAs, although at lower rates than
nation of limited forest cover and extensive outside PAs. In African ape ranges, forest
forest loss within Asian ape ranges. cover in PAs declined by less than 1%, which
resulted in a median 79,573 km2 (7.9 mil-
lion ha) of protected habitat in their ranges
Forest Dynamics Inside vs. in 2014 (see Table 7.2). Asian apes lost roughly
Outside Protected Areas 5% of protected forest during this period,
Protected areas are vital to the persistence which left their ranges with a median of
of ape populations. Evidence indicates that 9,255 km2 (925,500 ha) of protected habitat.
areas that have undergone large-scale clear- Median loss outside PAs in African ape
ing of forest, such as for plantations, will not ranges was three times higher than inside
sustain viable ape populations over time, PAs. While it is encouraging that the moun-
even though some ape species can make use tain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) expe-
of industrial plantations as supplemental rienced only a 0.3% decline in habitat outside
food sources or corridors in the short term PAs, such unprotected areas comprise less
(Ancrenaz, Calaque and Lackman-Ancrenaz, than 3% of this subspecies’ entire, highly
2004; Wich et al., 2012b). Apes use agricul- restricted range (see Table 7.1).
TABLE 7.2
Percentage of Forest Loss in Ranges of Asian and African Ape Subspecies,
2000 vs. 2014
Asian ranges African ranges

(n = 29) (n = 9)
Lowest Median Highest Lowest Median Highest
Inside protected areas 0.1 5.0 25.0 0.5 0.8 5.9
Outside protected areas 1.9 9.8 49.6 0.3 2.7 6.3
Overall range 1.7 8.3 43.7 0.7 2.1 6.2
Data sources: GLAD (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013); IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2016)

213
Among Asian apes, habitat loss inside

PAs ranged from 0.1% (Central Yunnan
black-crested gibbon) to 25% (Malaysian
lar gibbon), with a median loss of 5%. Eight
gibbon subspecies lost more than 8% of
their protected habitat; two of them—the
Malaysian lar gibbon and Abbott’s gray
gibbon (Hylobates abbotti)—lost more than
25% and 13%, respectively (see Table 7.1).
Four gibbon subspecies and the northwest
Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus
pygmaeus) lost less than 1% of their habitat
inside PAs. However, all five of these taxa
have small ranges, with forest covering less
than 15,000 km2 (1.5 million ha) in 2000.
Not surprisingly, habitat loss was greater
outside of PAs. Among the Asian ape ranges,
median habitat loss outside PAs was nearly
10% and ranged from 1.9% (Cao Vit gibbon)
to 50% (agile gibbon). Five subspecies,
comprising four Hylobates gibbons and the
siamang, lost more than 25% of their unpro-
tected habitat. African ape ranges lost 2.7%
(with losses reaching from 0.3% to 6.3%) of Is There Enough Space for
their unprotected 2000 habitat.
Given the rates of loss outside PAs,
Gibbons to Persist in the Wild?
species may increasingly rely on the forest The results of this habitat assessment show
remaining inside PAs, where loss rates are that enough protected forested area may
lower. Yet, a relatively high proportion (more exist to support hundreds and even thou-
than 20%) of total annual loss of forest sands of groups of most gibbon subspecies,
habitat of four mainland Asian gibbons and if it is managed appropriately for native
the Sumatran orangutan occurred in PAs. wildlife (see protection status in Table 7.1).
Buffer zones, comprising habitats just Gibbon densities range from 0.5–2.0
outside parks, can play a critical role in pre- groups per square kilometer, such that a well-
venting isolation of protected forests and managed 5,000-km2 park could technically
enhancing their capacity to maintain support viable gibbon populations. This con-
healthy populations of apes and other wild- clusion is based on the area of protected
life (Hansen and DeFries, 2007; Laurance forest as calculated by this analysis and a
et al., 2012). Forest loss between 2000 and conservative density estimate of one group
2014 within 10-km buffer zones did not differ per 2 km2 (IUCN, 2016c).
statistically from loss outside of PAs over- In numerous ape-range countries, how-
all (median = 8.7% vs. 6.1%, respectively), ever, management of and law enforcement
although it was substantially higher than in parks has only been able to slow, rather
loss within PAs (2.6%). Nevertheless, areas than stop, the encroachment into and the
with greater forest loss in buffer zones also loss of these forests (Curran et al., 2004;
faced greater forest loss inside PAs. Tranquilli et al., 2014). Poor enforcement

214
of laws against forest encroachment and To remain viable in the face of reduced
poaching in PAs signals an urgent need connectivity among populations, some spe-
for improved management, protection, cies may need to be managed as metapopu-
patrolling and community involvement lations, linked by dispersal, by connecting
(Geissmann, 2007). reserves and buffer areas via forest corri-
The ranges of Asian apes lost up to 25% dors. However, results of this analysis also
of their protected forests (median 5%) from show that forest inside 10-km buffer zones
2000 to 2014, a rate that must slow if apes around PAs, which would necessarily form
are to persist over the next few decades (see the basis of dispersal corridors for apes, is as
Table 7.1). Other factors, such as hunting
and disease, will intensify the effects of these
projected habitat losses on population
densities. In parts of Africa, habitat loss BOX 7.2
may be less of a concern than hunting (see Hunting May Wipe Out Ape
Box 7.2). There is still enough time to prevent Populations Sooner than
the decline seen in Asia from being repli- Forest Loss
cated in Africa. Assessing forest loss alone may greatly
Based solely on the extremely limited underestimate changes in ape popula-
amount of habitat remaining, it is clear that tion densities. Increased hunting associ-
certain species will need more protected ated with fragmenting and opening up of
closed-canopy forest may, in fact, deci-
forest area to persist over time. The follow- mate ape populations before the loss of
ing gibbons are especially vulnerable: habitat quality does (Hicks et al., 2010;
Ripple et al., 2016).
Abbott’s gray gibbon; Deforestation facilitates access to previ-
the Hainan gibbon; ously intact forests, which, in turn, enables
poaching for wild meat, participation in the
the pileated gibbon; and wild animal trade, and disease transmis-
the southern yellow-cheeked crested sion from humans (Köndgen et al., 2008;
Leendertz et al., 2006; Poulsen et al.,
gibbon (Nomascus gabriellae). 2009). Indeed, once people start cutting
forest, they hunt game and target large
Gibbons and some great ape subspecies mammals, including apes. While a sub-
(mountain and Grauer’s gorillas) persist stantial decrease in forest cover in an ape
primarily in protected conservation areas; range—for example, from 90% to 30%—
they continue to face threats from hunting in might not wipe out local species on its
own, associated hunting may very well
PAs that are not well patrolled (Geissmann, do so (Meijaard et al., 2010b; Tranquilli et
2007; IUCN, 2016c; Maldonado et al., 2012). al., 2014). Western lowland gorillas, for
To be able to persist, the following species example, face a greater threat from hunt-
ing and disease than forest loss (Maisels
will, at a minimum, need better management
et al., 2016b; Walsh et al., 2003).
of existing reserves within their ranges:
Biologists are creating comprehensive
layers of data on ape population densi-
both species of orangutan;
ties and areas most affected by wild meat
the agile gibbon; hunting (Max Planck Institute, n.d.-b).
Once available, the data will be able to
the Malaysian lar gibbon; be used to complement information on
the West Yunnan black-crested gibbon forest change, thereby greatly improving
(Nomascus concolor furvogaster); our understanding of the trajectory of ape
populations and assisting the conserva-
the Central Yunnan black-crested gibbon; tion community in identifying and safe-
and guarding the most vulnerable sites.
the mountain gorilla.

215
vulnerable to deforestation as other unpro- FIGURE 7.4

tected land. For some gibbon subspecies— Forest Cover and Loss in Ape Range Countries,
such as the Hainan gibbon, whose habitat 2000 vs. 2014
was reduced to less than 90 km2 (9,000 ha)
Key: Forest cover in 2000 Forest cover in 2014
by 2014—remaining forest cover is insuffi- Percentage of forest loss, 2000–14
cient in terms of both size and level of pro-
Forest cover (hundreds of thousands of km²)
tection to enable metapopulation movements 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(see Table 7.1). The conservation community

DRC
thus has only a few years to maintain or
Indonesia
re-establish connectivity and to make sure
that PAs are large enough and sufficiently Malaysia
protected to maintain viable populations of Myanmar
the subspecies. Cameroon
Hunting is the other major threat. While Gabon

the quantification of hunting within PAs is Republic of Congo
beyond the scope of this chapter, improved Ivory Coast
PA management will be needed to address
Guinea
this pressing concern (see Box 7.2).
Thailand
CAR
Lao PDR
Forest Dynamics by Country
Liberia
Between 2000 and 2014, apes worldwide India
lost 453,000 km2 (45.3 million ha) of forest, Sierra Leone
or more than 10% of the 2000 baseline. Of
Cambodia
that loss, 79% took place in Asia. Asian ape-
Viet Nam
range countries lost 357,500 km2 (35.8 mil-
Nigeria
lion ha) of forest cover, or more than 20% of
South Sudan
their forest habitat, an area nearly four times
as large as that lost in African range states, China
which shrank by 95,400 km2 (9.5 million ha) Equatorial Guinea
or 4% of African apes’ total forest habitat Ghana
(see Figure 7.4). Uganda
Destruction of ape habitat for agri Tanzania
culture has dramatically altered the forest Guinea-Bissau

landscape in some Asian states. From 2000 Senegal
to 2014, Malaysia lost 33% of its forest, Bangladesh
Indonesia lost 30% and Cambodia more
Mali
than 20%; these rates significantly exceeded
Brunei
those of all other ape-range countries, each
Angola
of which lost less than 10% of its forest
Burundi
cover. Forest loss in Indonesia (226,063 km2
or 22.6 million ha) far surpassed even that Rwanda
of Malaysia (88,763 km2 or 8.9 million ha), Burkina Faso
accounting for 63% of the total habitat loss 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
in Asia and 50% of the total destruction of Forest lost (%)
ape habitat globally. Data sources: GLAD (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013); IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2016); see Box 7.1

216
Large-scale agricultural plantations Annual Forest Loss Trends

account for the majority of forest loss within
ape ranges in both Malaysia (84%) and
in Ape Habitat
Indonesia (82%), as well as nearly 30% of loss Cumulative Loss of Tree Cover
in Cambodia. This expanding land use allo-
The availability of forest distribution data at
cation affects at least ten gibbon taxa and all
30-m resolution through the GFW platform
four orangutan taxa.
allows for the tracking of annual forest loss for
As noted above, Africa lost just 4% of
all ape taxa as of 2000. Annual data on cumu-
its ape habitat over the same time frame.
lative forest loss over the study period reveals
Much of that loss was concentrated in
several worrisome trends (see Figure 7.5).
West Africa, where the highest percentage
Ape taxa that lost the most forest habitat
of forest base was lost in Ghana, Ivory
between 2000 and 2014 all live in tropical
Coast and Sierra Leone. The Central African
Asia (see Figure 7.5a). The period witnessed
Republic (CAR), Gabon and South Sudan
steady deforestation in previously extensive
each lost less than 1% of their ape habitat
habitats of the agile gibbon, Malaysian lar
during this period. The DRC is home to the
gibbon and siamang, for example.
most ape habitat of any country—more
Figure 7.5b highlights ten subspecies
than 1.2 million km2 (120 million ha) or
that experienced the lowest cumulative
28% of all ape habitat (see Figure 7.4)—and forest habitat loss. Loss rates among the
supports central and eastern chimpanzees six African subspecies in this group have
(Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii), Grauer’s remained low but have increased, particu-
gorillas and bonobos (Pan paniscus), of larly since 2012, whereas those for the four
which the latter two taxa are endemic to Asian subspecies are tapering off. Absolute
the country. While the DRC lost more total forest loss may be low in the habitats of
forest cover (more than 46,000 km2 or 4.6 these four subspecies, yet their forest cover
million ha) between 2000 and 2014 than was already restricted, ranging from less than
other African nations, this area represented 700 km2 (70,000 ha) to just under 6,200 km2
less than 4% of its ape forest habitat, and the (620,000 ha) (see Table 7.1). In the limited
loss rate was only slightly higher than the forest that is left, each square kilometer lost
median African rate of 2.9%. is likely to have an outsized effect on the
Data indicate that the clearing of forest remaining population.
for plantations reduced the habitat of only Data relating to the establishment of
one African ape subspecies, the western plantations were available only as single
chimpanzee, between 2000 and 2014—by values for the period 2001–14, not on an
about 1% (GFW, 2014; Transparent World, annual basis. As a result, the cumulative
2015). The situation in Africa could rapidly annual loss values in Figure 7.5 exclude plan-
change for the worse, however. Nearly 60% tation data and so are only illustrative in
of oil palm concessions in Africa overlap their depiction of forest loss trends. Fifteen
with ape distributions, while 40% of unpro- of the 38 ape subspecies, including the ten in
tected ape habitat is in land suitable for Figure 7.5a, have faced substantially more
oil palm (Wich et al., 2014). Corporate extensive cumulative loss than is shown in
demand to convert these concessions to Figure 7.5a, although the trends are indica-
palm is expected to increase sharply in tive of the extent of their habitat loss (see
Africa as land suitable for oil palm and Table 7.1). For example, the agile gibbon,
other industrial-scale agriculture diminishes Malaysian lar gibbon, Abbott’s gray gib-
in Asia (Mongabay, 2016b). bon and siamang experienced the highest

217
overall loss of habitat regardless of the inclu- Figure 7.5a). The amount of remaining habi-
sion of plantation data, and each showed tat listed in Table 7.1 reflects the true 2014
even greater loss when plantations were fully habitat endpoint for subspecies whose ranges
included in the calculation (see Table 7.1 and overlap with plantations.
FIGURE 7.5
Ape Ranges that Experienced the (a) Highest and the (b) Lowest Cumulative Annual Forest Loss,
2001–14
Key: Sumatran lar gibbon Bornean gray gibbon Southwest Bornean orangutan Pileated gibbon Müller’s gibbon
Bornean white-bearded gibbon Siamang Abbott’s gray gibbon Malaysian lar gibbon Agile gibbon
Cumulative annual forest loss (%)
30
a
25
20
15
10
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Key: Cross River gorilla Mountain gorilla Western lowland gorilla Central chimpanzee West Yunnan black-crested gibbon
Central Yunnan black-crested gibbon Grauer’s gorilla Tonkin black-crested gibbon Cao Vit gibbon Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee
Cumulative annual forest loss (%)

3.0
b
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Notes: Plantation data were not available on an annual basis. Their inclusion would have increased the 2014 cumulative totals for all ten species in Figure 7.5a (plantations
did not affect the subspecies in Figure 7.5b). For total cumulative loss values for all ape subspecies, see Table 7.1.
Data source: GLAD (n.d.); Hansen et al. (2013)

218
Projecting Forward Figure 7.7). The increasing loss rate for habi-
tat of eastern chimpanzees stands in contrast
From 2000 to 2014, the annual rate of loss
to the decreasing loss rate of Hainan gib-
was relatively constant for most species,
bon habitat (see Figure 7.6). The latter was
providing a rationale for projecting this
severely diminished both before and during
same rate forward. Before future forest loss
the study period, due to massive deforesta-
could be estimated, a regression line was
fitted to the cumulative deforestation data; tion activities throughout Southeast Asia
Figure 7.6 shows two examples. The result- (Achard et al., 2014). Hainan gibbons cur-
ing equations were then used to predict the rently persist in a single island protected area.
amount of deforestation based on past The forest loss rates derived for each
trends, as discussed below. subspecies served as the basis for predicting
The tight fit of the regression function remaining forest habitat in the medium term
to the data allowed future losses to be pro- (2030) and longer term (2050), as shown
jected with a high degree of confidence (see in Figure 7.7. To avoid speculation about
FIGURE 7.6
Regression Lines Fitted to Cumulative Forest Loss for (a) the Eastern Chimpanzee and
(b) the Hainan Gibbon, 2000–14
Annual forest loss (%) Eastern chimpanzee regression equation: y = 0.010x² + 0.105x + 0.148, R² = 0.997
5.0
a
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
Annual forest loss (%) Hainan gibbon regression equation: y = -0.015x² + 60.528x - 61128, R² = 0.981
5.0
b
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

219
changes in rates of forest loss, this assessment FIGURE 7.7

relies exclusively on forest loss data to make Projected Loss of Forest Habitat, by Subspecies, 2000 vs.
the projections. 2030 and 2050
If forest loss continues at the same rate
Key: 2030 2050
into the future as it has since 2000, conse-
Cross River gorilla
quences for apes, particularly Asian taxa, will
Mountain gorilla
be severe. Five subspecies are predicted to
Western lowland gorilla
lose half of the habitat present in 2000 by
Central chimpanzee
2030 (see Figure 7.7). Nine subspecies, all
West Yunnan black-crested gibbon
gibbons, are projected to lose all their habi-
Central Yunnan black-crested gibbon
tat by 2050, assuming the rate of habitat loss
Grauer’s gorilla
remains constant (see Figure 7.7). Tonkin black-crested gibbon
In most cases, forest loss rates are pro- Cao Vit gibbon
jected to increase. In some cases, however, Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee
the rate of habitat loss slowed over time, Kloss’s gibbon
potentially to the point of becoming nega- Bonobo
tive, indicating possible regeneration. For Moloch gibbon
the Hainan gibbon and Kloss’s gibbon Northwest Bornean orangutan
(Hylobates klossii), the calculations project Eastern chimpanzee
a reduced amount of loss in 2050 compared Southern white-cheeked crested gibbon
to 2030, based on quadratic equations that Sumatran orangutan
best fit the loss data for 2000–14. When Eastern hoolock
extrapolated, the tapering loss rate for the Carpenter’s lar gibbon
Hainan gibbon shown in Figure 7.6b predicts Hainan gibbon
Western hoolock
a negative loss rate for the coming decades—
Yunnan lar gibbon
and possibly forest regeneration.
Northern white-cheeked crested gibbon
These forest loss projections are sim-
Western chimpanzee
plistic, and land use changes are dynamic
Northeast Bornean orangutan
within ape-range countries. Slower rates of
Central lar gibbon
forest loss within PAs, as shown in Table
Southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon
7.3, suggest that as a higher percentage of
Laotian black-crested gibbon
a given taxon’s range is under protection— Sumatran lar gibbon
either because more area is protected or Bornean gray gibbon
less unprotected forest remains—the rate Southwest Bornean orangutan
of loss will be slower in the future. As dis- Pileated gibbon
cussed throughout this volume, however, Müller’s gibbon
massive transportation infrastructure invest- Bornean white-bearded gibbon
ments in Southeast Asia and central Africa Siamang
are expected to speed deforestation and Abbott’s gray gibbon
associated agriculture and development, at Malaysian lar gibbon
least along new roads and railways (Dulac, Agile gibbon
2013; Quintero et al., 2010). The discovery 0 20 40 60 80 100

Forest lost (%)
of minerals underneath reserves has led to
Notes: Projections reflect the percentage of total forest habitat in 2000 that is predicted to be lost by
the downgrading or even degazetting of PAs
(a) 2030 and (b) 2050, using best-fit regression equations based on annual percentage loss from 2000
to facilitate extraction (Forrest et al., 2015; to 2014. Ape subspecies are ordered by their cumulative loss during 2000–14. Nine subspecies, all
see Chapter 4, pp. 116–119). Exploration gibbons, are projected to lose all their habitat by 2050, assuming a constant rate of habitat loss.

220
and extraction could affect forest loss rates Regular monitoring of remaining for-
even in current reserves. est cover will be a critical conservation tool
Regardless of the extent of forest cover, as surviving ape populations take refuge in
adverse impacts of human activities in ape increasingly isolated regions (IUCN, 2016c;
habitats—such as hunting, forest degrada- Junker et al., 2012). Early detection of the
tion and disease transmission—are major presence and location of forest loss can
conservation issues for apes. Even so, the guide further investigation of a target area
availability of sufficient forest with adequate through higher-resolution aerial images or
connectivity is a benchmark that must be
planned against if these species are to per-
sist into the future (Plumptre et al., 2016b;
Tranquilli et al., 2012).
A critical finding of this is that gibbon
subspecies with small geographic ranges
face a particularly uncertain future. These
taxa are little studied and poorly repre-
sented in conservation organization action
plans; moreover, their plight is less recog-
nized by the public and the media than that
of chimpanzees or gorillas. Conserving
remaining forest within gibbon ranges is
possible, but only if the conservation com-
munity replaces this apparent complacency
about the future of gibbons and dedicates
the same attention and resources to gibbons
that it does to the great apes.
Regular Monitoring of
Forest Change
Forest loss in remote areas, including within
and between PAs, often goes undetected
until large areas have been cleared, as forest
monitoring is typically limited to patrolling
on the ground by park staff (Dudley, Stolton
and Elliott, 2013). This chapter aims to help
range-state institutions and conservation
managers to:
(a) remain informed of habitat change in

their areas of interest through frequent
forest monitoring; and
(b) plan for enhanced ape protection by
enabling them not only to identify areas
of key forest habitat, but also to detect
and respond to forest loss quickly.

221
by rangers on the ground (see annexes XII their analyses of population status and local Photo: Large-scale agricul-
tural plantations account
and XIII). threats. If PAs are losing forest, it is likely that for 52%–87% of detected
forest loss within the ranges
Repeating analyses in particular areas they are losing apes directly to hunting as
of at least 12 ape subspecies
would allow managers to monitor key perfor- well (Walsh et al., 2003; Wich et al., 2012a). in Malaysia and Indonesia.
© HUTAN–Kinabatangan
mance indicators of ape habitat over time. Regular monitoring of habitat change can lead Orang-utan Conservation
Updated forest cover data provide a tool for to more rigorous assessments once population Project
primatologists and conservationists to inte- and wild meat hunting data become spatially
grate current habitat status information into explicit across all ape species and habitats.

222
GFW now offers a new system of weekly Conclusion

tree cover loss alerts at 30-m resolution; for
ape conservationists, this may be the most The greatest recent forest loss has occurred
important tool released to date. GFW’s within the ranges of at least 11 species and
online forest monitoring and alert system subspecies of gibbon and orangutan (see
combines cutting-edge algorithms, satellite Table 7.1). Ape ranges in Sumatra and Borneo
technology and cloud computing to iden- contained substantial forest through 2000
tify where trees are growing and disappear- but lost it rapidly during the 2000–14 study
ing in near-real time. Having been piloted in period, as clearing for plantation agriculture
a few countries in 2015, these GLAD alerts in Indonesia and Malaysia triggered some
covered virtually all ape range countries by of the world’s highest rates of deforestation.
early 2017 and are to cover the entire trop- Large-scale agricultural plantations account
ics by the end of 2017 (M. Hansen, personal for the majority (52%–87%) of detected forest
“
communication, 2017). loss within the ranges of at least 12 ape sub-
Protected areas A new collaboration between GFW and species in Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as
are becoming a last RESOLVE will make GLAD alerts in critical nearly 30% of loss of ape habitat in Cambodia.
stronghold for remain- ape regions easily accessible to the general Available data reveal that plantations in
ing populations of a public, along with a weekly feature called Africa corresponded to just 1% of habitat
growing number of “places to watch,” which highlights changes loss for only one African ape subspecies,
ape taxa, both in Asia, in tree cover that are of greatest concern to although nearly 60% of oil palm concessions
and, increasingly, ape conservation. Alternatively, subscribers occur within African ape ranges. Close to
”
in Africa. can receive these near-real-time alerts of 40% of unprotected ape habitat in Africa is
detections of forest loss for whatever areas land suitable for oil palm (Wich et al., 2014);
they select, be it a country, a forest reserve, as land available for expanding oil palm and
a conservation landscape, a road buffer, or other industrial-scale agriculture diminishes
a hand-drawn polygon on the platform’s in Asia, corporate demand for undeveloped
interactive map. land is likely to increase in Africa. Such
Future habitat assessments could eval- demand is likely to fuel a surge in both defor-
uate patterns of GLAD alerts as possible estation and degradation from associated
indicators of the intensity of imminent forest infrastructure development (Barber et al.,
loss. In areas for which GLAD alerts have 2014; Laurance et al., 2015b).
been set up, analyses could also track factors In 2000, African ape ranges were 94%
associated with forest loss, including slopes, forested (see Table 7.1). By 2014, African apes
distances to clearings, roads and towns (see still retained substantial forest cover in their
annexes XI and XII). ranges, but rates of loss had increased in the
Incorporating near-real-time GLAD previous five years. In contrast, ape ranges
alerts to improve the enforcement of existing in Asia were only 69% forested in 2000.
PAs would go a long way towards conserv- While the overall rate of forest loss in South
ing many ape populations, in particular the east Asia slowed somewhat in the following
small gibbon populations and their remain- decade—particularly when compared to the
ing forest patches in both mainland and extremely high rates caused by massive
insular Southeast Asia. For these and other deforestation during the 1990s (Achard et al.,
apes, the approach would allow managers to 2014)—apes there persist in isolated forest
identify critical forest corridors and buffer fragments and PAs.
zones that warrant conservation action and Protected areas are becoming a last
to enhance monitoring of forests within rec- stronghold for remaining populations of a
ognized corridors and buffer zones. growing number of ape taxa, both in Asia,

223
where forest loss continues to threaten ape 7 World Resources Institute’s Global Forest Watch
populations, and, increasingly, in Africa. PAs initiative (WRI-GFW)
(www.globalforestwatch.org)
experience lower rates of habitat loss than
8 University of Maryland (geog.umd.edu)
unprotected areas, but, as this analysis under-
scores, losses are still considerable (Gaveau
et al., 2009a; Geldmann et al., 2013).
The need to act is most acute in Asia. If
the frontier of deforestation is around PAs,
where forest remains, and loss rates stay
constant into the coming decades, forest
connectivity will be lost, as will the chance
to ensure that PAs are large enough and well
protected enough to maintain viable popu-
lations of subspecies. Stabilizing expanses
of protected forest and improving PA man-
agement effectiveness are priorities for ape
conservation in the immediate future.
Acknowledgments
Principal authors: Suzanne Palminteri2, Anup Joshi3,
Eric Dinerstein4, Lilian Pintea5, Sanjiv Fernando6,
Crystal Davis7, Matthew Hansen8
Annexes VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and XIII: The authors
Reviewers: Leo Bottrill, Mark Cochrane, Mark Harrison
and Fiona Maisels
Endnotes
1 Circular representation of protected areas: The
authors used the April 2016 version of the World
Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) for global
spatial analysis. In the WDPA data layer, some
protected areas are provided only as points, with-
out boundaries. Circular buffers were created
around these points, based on area information
in the WDPA. These buffered points were then
merged to create one visual layer for protected
areas. This approach resulted in the circular repre-
sentation of some protected areas in these maps.
2 Consultant
3 University of Minnesota (www.conssci.umn.edu)
4 RESOLVE (www.resolv.org)
5 Jane Goodall Institute (JGI)
(www.janegoodall.org.uk)
6 RESOLVE (www.resolv.org)

Photo: As a result of loss of natural habitats and wildlife, people will increasingly encounter apes only in captive settings. © Jurek Wajdowicz / Arcus Foundation 224

225
CHAPTER 8
The Status of Captive Apes
Introduction
As a result of human population growth and
the attendant loss of natural habitats and
wildlife, people will increasingly encounter
apes only in captive settings. The contexts of
these settings influence how viewers per-
ceive the conservation status of apes (Leighty
et al., 2015).
Apes in range states are held in a variety
of captive settings: they are kept in private
homes; publicly displayed as tourist attrac-
tions, in zoos, safari parks and by individu-
als; and taken in by specialized, non-profit
care facilities. The latter facilities, which are
dedicated to providing care for orphaned,
confiscated and injured apes, are known as
sanctuaries, rescue centers or rehabilitation
centers. While rescue and rehabilitation
centers typically focus on short-term care
Chapter 8 Captive Apes

226
and treatment of injured animals, sanctu- welfare standards for existing and new
aries provide long-term or lifetime care residents.
(CITES, 2010a; Durham, 2015). Some zoos In the absence of legal consequences for
also hold orphaned or confiscated apes; perpetrators of wildlife crimes, rescues
since the provision of such care is not their and even confiscations do nothing to
primary function, however, zoos are not deter further illegal hunting of wild
“
discussed in this study. apes; in fact, they may contribute to ille-
In the absence This chapter comprises two main sec- gal ape poaching and trade.
of legal consequences tions. The first considers the history and
Increased collaboration and collective
for perpetrators of context of range state sanctuaries, focusing efforts by sanctuaries, conservation-
wildlife crimes, on 56 such facilities identified by the authors. focused non-governmental organizations
rescues and even It examines the outlook for sanctuary apes (NGOs), governments, industry and
confiscations do and explores the opportunities and chal- other parties are needed to address the
nothing to deter lenges for these sanctuaries in view of cur- habitat destruction, poaching and
further illegal hunting rent and emerging threats. Unless otherwise
”
human–wildlife conflict that drive apes
of wild apes. cited, information is based on the authors’ into sanctuaries.
knowledge and observations; accounts and
Sanctuaries can improve welfare and
data provided by sanctuary practitioners and
conservation impacts by: undergoing
external experts; and unpublished data, as
independent inspection, accreditation
well as details provided on official and facil-
and evaluation against robust welfare
ity websites.1 The key findings of this sanc-
and conservation standards; accepting
tuary review include the following:
external scientific review of reintroduc-
Conditions at range state sanctuaries tion or translocation methodologies;
vary widely. Many have exemplary pro- committing to intake polices that sup-
port welfare standards, contribute to law
grams, but few facilities have been inde-
enforcement and prevent corruption;
pendently inspected and accredited to
and increasing engagement to address
verify their performance against welfare
the root causes that lead apes to need
and care standards.
captive care.
Suitable habitat for reintroduction and
translocation is increasingly limited, Section II updates captive ape popula-
meaning that most of the thousands tion statistics and discusses the regulatory
of apes already in sanctuaries and the landscape affecting captive apes. The key
thousands more still in need of captive findings of the statistics update are:
care will spend their lives in captivity.
If reintroduction or translocation is While the United States is starting to
possible, careful site selection, proper witness a transfer of chimpanzees from
rehabilitation, candidate selection and laboratories to sanctuaries, the slow pace
post-release monitoring are critical to is of concern, in part because of the
prevent significant adverse effects on the number of older chimpanzees.
welfare and conservation of both wild Ensuring transparency regarding the
and rehabilitant apes. number, location and welfare of apes
Overcrowding and resultant poor wel- is an ongoing challenge. In the United
fare lower the quality of life for sanctuary States, the government recently removed
apes. Careful consideration is needed to considerable amounts of previously avail-
determine whether and when new apes able data from online databases, raising
can be accepted without diminishing concerns about accountability.

227
Regulatory changes and actions by fed- and care centered on quality of life. A 2011–12
eral agencies in one country sometimes survey of 22 Pan African Sanctuary Alliance
have an unexpected impact on sanctu- (PASA) centers—including three facilities
aries within and beyond that jurisdiction. that do not care for apes—demonstrated
A recent case in point concerns a permit the breadth of sanctuary projects beyond
application for exportation of chim- ape rescue and welfare. Most PASA sanc-
panzees from the United States to the tuaries conducted conservation education
United Kingdom. The move raised issues programs: 86% were organizing on-site
regarding the international impact of the activities and 82% were running off-site
U.S. Endangered Species Act, the man- conservation education. Cumulatively, these
agement of captive apes within Europe programs reached an average of 19,730
and the illegal international trade in wild people per sanctuary per year. Most educa-
animals—all of which affect sanctuaries tional messaging was around wildlife laws
and their missions. and biodiversity (Ferrie et al., 2014).
Other activities conducted by PASA sanc-
tuaries included:
“
I. Beyond Capacity: staff development, including support In the United
Sanctuaries and the to attend alliance workshops (at 86% of States, the government
Status of Captive Apes in all surveyed facilities) and exchange with recently removed
Shrinking Natural Habitats overseas zoos and sanctuaries (32%); considerable amounts
supporting or assisting in the construc- of previously available
Background tion of roads, bridges and boreholes captive apes data
(46%) and health clinics and sanitation from online databases,
History and Scope of Range
facilities (27%); raising concerns about
”
State Sanctuaries
accountability.
supporting schools or education centers
Ape sanctuaries have been operational in
(87%) and community centers (27%);
range states for several decades. They are a
response to the specialized care needs of apes local grant programs or enterprise devel-
who have been confiscated from poachers opment assistance (36%);
or from the illegal trade, held as pets or population and habitat viability analysis
retired from unsuitable zoos. The authors and other censuses (64%);
identified 56 range state sanctuaries that research on ecology (55%) and social
care for apes, based on personal knowledge, behavior (46%);
expert accounts, and online descriptions
funding or staffing anti-poaching patrols
and photos. Most of these sanctuaries were
(73%);
founded and are run by dedicated individu-
als or NGOs with an interest in improving regular monitoring of primate habitats
ape welfare and contributing to ape conser- (46%);
vation. Eight of the 56 facilities (14%) are conducting anti-logging patrols (14%);
currently government-owned. and
Many ape sanctuaries have evolved from tree-planting (59%) (Ferrie et al., 2014).
an initial focus on individual rescues to a
broader scope that includes local conserva- In addition to providing employment
tion and community projects, contributions worth more than US$1.3 million per year
to the understanding of species behavior, for 21 sanctuaries, PASA sanctuary contribu-
and the provision of behavioral enrichment tions to local economies totaled an average

228

229
of more than US$78,000 annually (Ferrie Photo: Independent verifi-

cation or accreditation of
et al., 2014). captive facility standards
The authors’ review of Asian ape sanc- is critical to ensuring ape
welfare in sanctuaries.
tuary websites and interviews with Asian ape © Gorilla Rehabilitation
sanctuaries indicate a similarly broad scope and Conservation
Education (GRACE)
of activities, with conservation programs Center/Rick Barongi
including co-management of natural pro-

tected areas, acquisition of ape habitat to be
designated as protected areas and collabo-
ration with private land owners to protect
habitat corridors for apes (Durham, 2015;
Durham and Phillipson, 2014).
Sanctuary Standards
Conditions at ape sanctuaries vary widely.
Importantly, standards of welfare, health
care and facility management have improved
over the past few decades alongside the
expansion of captive facility activities.
Relevant guidelines are now available for
both great apes and gibbons (Farmer et al.,
2009; GFAS, 2013a, 2013b; PASA, 2016a).
Through alliances, networks and advisory
groups, sanctuary collaboration among facil-
ity directors, staff and outside experts has
had a positive influence on the development
and implementation of standards and the
depth of expertise in sanctuaries, as described
in Box 8.1 (Ferrie et al., 2014; K. Farmer,
personal communication, 2016).
The Global Federation of Animal Sanc
tuaries (GFAS), the Orangutan Veterinary
Advisory Group (OVAG), PASA and the
Wild Animal Rescue Network (WARN) have
contributed to sanctuaries’ recognition of
ape captive care and welfare standards.
PASA was formed in 2000, prior to the
existence of published standards for in situ
care of captive African apes. The African
primate sanctuary community and outside
experts jointly led the development of
PASA’s standards for African apes and other
primates (Farmer et al., 2009). PASA also
published manuals to guide primate health-
care and conservation education practices
(Cartwright, 2010; Unwin et al., 2009). OVAG

230
publishes workshop reports with orang ensuring ape welfare in sanctuaries. It is

utan health care and welfare protocols the only means for donors, governments,
(Commitante et al., 2015). the public and partners to ensure that sanc-
GFAS formed in 2007 and developed tuaries are meeting international welfare
international welfare standards for both standards.While inspections reasonably focus
great apes and gibbons. The Federation on the essential questions of quality wel-
offers independent inspections to verify or fare and care, increased emphasis and clear
accredit facilities’ adherence to these stand- standards around environmental practices,
ards. GFAS accreditation involves a more
rigorous screening than verification, includ-
ing operational as well as welfare standards
(GFAS, n.d.-c). WARN has been collaborat- BOX 8.1
ing with GFAS to encourage its members The Role of Collaborations
to seek GFAS verification or accreditation Historically, it has not been easy for ape
(GFAS, personal communication, 2016). sanctuaries to communicate regularly
with each other or with outside experts.
Many PASA members are also seeking GFAS Remote locations, a lack of Internet and
accreditation or verification. phone connectivity, and an absence of
At the time of writing, only 13% of sanc- travel funding can be barriers to communi-
cation. Collaborations among sanctuar-
tuaries considered in this chapter had been ies and with outside experts—including
inspected and confirmed as complying accredited zoos and zoo Species Survival
with GFAS standards. One WARN member Plan programs, field researchers, inde-
pendent welfare experts and veterinarians
ape sanctuary, International Animal Rescue
—have helped to develop the capacity of
(IAR) Ketapang, was accredited by GFAS, sanctuary staff and interested experts.
and six PASA member ape facilities—the These collaborations continue to be an
effective way to foster communication
Chimpanzee Conservation Center, the
and learning.
Fernan-Vaz Gorilla Project, Jeunes Animaux
Nearly three-fourths (71%) of the 56 sanc-
Confisqués au Katanga (J.A.C.K. – ‘young tuaries considered in this chapter are
animals confiscated in Katanga’), Centre part of collaborations—alliances, advisory
de Réhabilitation des Primates de Lwiro groups or networks—and some partici-
pate in more than one. Sixteen are mem-
(Lwiro Primate Rehabilitation Centre), bers of PASA; 9 are members of WARN;
Sanaga-Yong Chimpanzee Rescue Center 10 have participated in OVAG; 5 are
and Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary— members of the Jakarta Animal Aid Net
work; and 3 are members of the Gabon
were verified by GFAS (GFAS, n.d.-b). Great Ape Alliance. One captive facility, a
Between 2000 and 2014, PASA con- former zoo, is also a member of the South
ducted on-site inspections of 13 of its 19 ape East Asian Zoos Association.
sanctuaries. The Alliance’s revised standards OVAG, PASA and WARN bring outside
experts to sanctuaries and facilitate
no longer mandate regular on-site inde- information exchange and reciprocal
pendent inspection of member sanctuaries, visits among facilities. These collabora-
instead requiring sanctuaries to complete a tions provide sanctuaries with access to
experts on conservation education, stra-
questionnaire every five years; follow-up tegic planning, reintroduction, and veteri-
inspections are undertaken if deemed nec- nary medicine and health care. Funding
essary by PASA (PASA, 2016a). In contrast, raised by alliances, networks and advi-
sory groups has been used to pay for
GFAS requires on-site inspections for every
meeting space, accommodation and food
sanctuary verification or accreditation to host sanctuary staff, travel costs for
(GFAS, n.d.-a). outside experts and travel of sanctuary
staff to attend training.
Independent verification or accredita-
tion of captive facility standards is critical to

231
conservation activities (including reintro- are regularly poached for wild meat. In
duction) and collaboration in law enforce- addition, the demand for ape body parts for
ment efforts would improve verification and use in traditional medicine leads to poach-
accreditation practices. The relevance of these ing of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and
issues to sanctuaries is discussed through- gibbons in some range states (Campbell et
out the chapter. Developing and incorpo- al., 2008; Davis et al., 2013; Geissmann et
rating these standards could strengthen al., 2013; Lao MAF, 2011; Molur et al., 2005;
sanctuary and accreditation organization Moutinho et al., 2015; Rawson et al., 2011).
partnerships with conservation NGOs, gov- Infants captured by poachers are often oppor-
ernments, field researchers and donors. tunistically sold as pets. Poachers target
some gibbon species in particular for sale as
pets or to zoos and safari parks (Campbell
Drivers of Intake at et al., 2008; Geissmann et al., 2008; Molur
Ape Sanctuaries et al., 2005; Nijman and Geissmann, 2008;
Rawson et al., 2011). If confiscated or aban-
Drivers and proximate reasons for apes’ doned, these illegally captured apes are often
captive care needs differ across regions delivered to sanctuaries.
and range states. They include habitat loss The killing or capture of apes is also
and degradation, poaching and weak law common in the context of human–wildlife
enforcement. conflict (Davis et al., 2013; Rawson et al., 2011;
National laws prohibit the hunting of Williamson et al., 2014). Sanctuaries are
and trade in apes in all range states.2 With often called on to remove wild apes threat-
the exception of South Sudan, all ape range ened by these conflicts, and to translocate
states are parties to CITES, the Convention them to other natural habitat or place them
on International Trade in Endangered in captive care. If the apes are not removed,
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, they are often killed or captured, and the
2016a). All apes are listed in CITES Appen infants sold or kept as pets (Ancrenaz et al.,
dix I, which bans international commer- 2015a; Durham, 2015).
cial trade in listed species (CITES, 2017). Both poaching and human–wildlife con-
However, enforcement of these laws and of flict are associated with habitat destruction
CITES is inconsistent and transgressions and fragmentation, which are direct conse-
are common (Bennett, 2011; Campbell et al., quences of human activities such as log-
2008; Cotula et al., 2015; Imong et al., 2016). ging and forest clearance for the expansion
Weak law enforcement facilitates the of industrial, subsistence and small-scale
poaching of wild apes. In Africa, illegal agriculture, livestock grazing, extractive
hunting for wild meat (meat from wild industries and infrastructure (see Chapters
animals, often referred to as “bushmeat”) 1–6).3 As their habitats shrink, these apes are
is a significant threat to apes in Angola, exposed to a growing risk of being hunted,
Cameroon, Central African Republic (CAR), captured or killed. Examples of habitat
the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), destruction abound. Across Indonesia and
Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia and Malaysia, forest conversions destroy and
the Republic of Congo (Fruth et al., 2016; fragment ape habitats, often isolating apes
IUCN, 2014d; Maisels, Bergl and Williamson, in tiny patches of trees, where adults can
2016a; Plumptre et al., 2010, 2015; Refisch and easily be killed and their infants captured
Koné, 2005). In some range states in Asia, (Ancrenaz et al., 2015a; Campbell et al., 2008;
including Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Lao Singleton et al., 2016). In Indonesia in par-
PDR and Viet Nam, orangutans and gibbons ticular, fires set to clear land for agriculture

232
Photo: As their habitats have exacerbated this habitat destruction

shrink, apes are exposed
to a growing risk of being (Tabuchi, 2016). In the DRC, chimpanzees,
hunted, captured or killed.
Grauer’s gorillas (Gorilla beringei graueri)
© Jabruson 2017 (www.
jabruson.photoshelter.com) and mountain gorillas (Gorilla b. beringei)
are imperiled by the illegal local charcoal
trade and mining (Plumptre et al., 2015;
UNEP/CMS, 2009). Infrastructure such as
roads provides access for poachers and a
means to bring wild meat and live animals
to market (Poulsen et al., 2009). Roads
threaten gibbons more than other apes, as
these species rarely travel on the ground
and can have difficulty crossing these bar-
riers (Chan et al., 2005).
Civil unrest presents threats to apes, par-
ticularly to chimpanzees, Grauer’s gorillas
and mountain gorillas, as they are subject
to increased poaching and habitat destruc-
tion by displaced persons, armed militias
and military forces (Plumptre et al., 2015;
UNEP/CMS, 2009). Several pet apes have
been seized from military forces in the
DRC over the past several years (Engel and
Petropoulos, 2016).
As apes are increasingly captured or
driven from their natural habitats, the
demand for space in ape sanctuaries is cer-
tain to grow (Durham, 2015; Durham and
Phillipson, 2014). Among the most at risk
are Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus),
as infrastructure-related projects are pre-
dicted to disrupt the vast majority of their
habitat by 2030 (Gaveau et al., 2013). Their
situation is further compounded by climate
change, which is projected to render much
of their current habitat unsuitable (Grueter such as the mountain gorillas (Grueter et
et al., 2013; Struebig et al., 2015). In fact, al., 2013; Struebig et al., 2015).
the catastrophic forest fires that are used to Human population growth in ape range
clear land for agriculture in orangutan range countries is also expected to cause increased
states play a role in exacerbating global demand for ape sanctuary capacity. Human
warming and heightening the risk of larger, populations in Angola, Burundi, the DRC,
more frequent forest fires; as a consequence, Tanzania and Uganda are projected to
more habitat is at risk of destruction and increase five-fold by 2100. Nine countries are
more orangutans are likely to sicken and projected to account for 50% of global human
need sanctuary care (Ancrenaz et al., 2016; population growth between 2015 and 2050,
Tabuchi, 2016). Concurrently, climate change among them five ape range countries: the
may impact food availability for other apes, DRC, India, Indonesia, Tanzania and Uganda

233
(UN, 2015). Since important ape popula- seizures and rescues, a trend that tends to
tions occur outside of protected areas in persist unless law enforcement effectively
these five countries and human population deters poachers from further illegal activity
growth is sure to exacerbate illegal hunting (K. Farmer and D. Cox, personal commu-
and trade, apes will be placed at increasing nication, 2012). Meanwhile, international
risk (Indonesia MoF, 2009; IUCN, 2014d; media coverage of CITES and wildlife laws
Molur et al., 2005; Plumptre et al., 2010). has increased pressure on range states to
While improved enforcement of ape enforce bans on hunting CITES-listed spe-
protection laws is urgently needed, it is also cies, including apes (see Box 8.2). Ideally,
likely to increase demands on ape sanctu- such scrutiny will result in improved law
aries. In some African range states, better enforcement and better protection of wild
enforcement has entailed an increase in ape populations.

234
BOX 8.2 Notably, states can meet CITES requirements for national
legislation while still providing insufficient protection for apes,
The Illegal Trade in Apes as is the case in Thailand. A recent analysis of Thai wildlife
The fact that the Chimpanzee Conservation Center and the laws highlights several significant shortcomings that imperil
Centre de Réhabilitation des Primates de Lwiro recently took apes. The law currently places the burden of proof on the
in three chimpanzees confiscated from international trade government to demonstrate that wildlife was obtained ille-
indicates that trafficking in African apes continues, even if in gally, rather than requiring those possessing wildlife to prove
relatively low numbers. they obtained it legally. In addition, current criminal penalties
for illegally held or traded wildlife may not provide sufficient
A recent study shows demand for wild-caught apes in Penin
deterrence against wildlife crime. The study authors propose
sular Malaysia and Thailand, two regions where apes continue
detailed recommendations for improving a draft amendment
to be acquired by zoos and for wildlife attractions such as
to Thailand’s Wild Animal Preservation and Protection Act,
safari parks, tourist photo props and performances (Beastall
B.E. 2535 of 1992, which is under consideration (Moore,
and Bouhuys, 2016; see Table 8.1). Interviews of facility staff
Prompinchompoo and Beastall, 2016).
indicate that most of the apes whose origin was known had
been caught in the wild. The researchers found that Thai facil- In Indonesia, the government is considering revisions to its
ities held non-native apes in numbers far exceeding those Law for Conservation of Living Resources and Ecosystems,
recorded as legal imports, including a gorilla and gibbons for Law No. 5 of 1990, following government recognition that wild-
whom there were no legal import records. Zoo studbooks in life hunting and trade cases have typically resulted in short
Peninsular Malaysia and Thailand list dozens of orangutans prison sentences (under one year) and fines of less than 100
as wild-caught or of unknown origin, although some wild- million rupiah (US$7,500) (Jong, 2016).
caught individuals arrived as a result of enforcement actions Another issue undermining ape protection laws is fraudulent
(Beastall and Bouhuys, 2016). The data indicate that illegal international trade of apes under CITES, often with the use
trade in Asian apes remains a concern and needs to be of captive-bred source codes for wild-caught apes (CITES,
addressed through legislation, improved enforcement and 2014). Such fraud was particularly associated with trade
public awareness campaigns. cases from Guinea between 1999 and 2012. Guinea has no
Although prohibition of hunting and trade in apes is universal captive breeding facilities for apes; claims of captive-bred
across range states, legal protections for apes vary widely. apes from this state are thus inevitably fraudulent, and the
CITES depends on national laws for implementation. CITES has animals involved can be assumed to be wild-caught (CITES,
four requirements for each state party’s national legislation: 2012). CITES Trade Database records show that 122 chimpan-
zees and 10 gorillas were traded by Guinea as captive-bred
1. designation of at least one management authority and
(CITES, n.d.).
one scientific authority;
In 2016, the Conference of the Parties to CITES responded
2. prohibition of trade in species in violation of the Convention;
by approving a mechanism for CITES to review, investigate
3. ability to penalize such trade; and and enforce prohibitions on fraudulent uses of captive breed-
4. confiscation of specimens illegally traded or possessed ing codes (CITES, 2016b). This effort is intended to prevent
(CITES, 2010b). further laundering of wild-caught animals.
While the illegal trade in apes persists and presents a threat
Only 10 of the 26 ape range states have laws that satisfy all
to these species, it is typically a byproduct of illegal hunting,
four requirements: Cambodia, Cameroon, the DRC, Equato
involving the opportunistic sale of infants for additional
rial Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Senegal, Thailand
(see below) and Viet Nam. The remaining 16 range states do income. Among the threats to apes, the illegal trade is thus
not meet the four requirements. Eight range states have laws of a lower order of magnitude than the key drivers of popula-
meeting one to three of the four requirements: Bangladesh, tion declines, namely habitat loss and fragmentation, illegal
Burundi, Gabon, Guinea, India, Mali, the Republic of Congo hunting and human–wildlife conflict, all of which can facilitate
and Tanzania. Eight range states—Angola, Guinea-Bissau, the capture and sale of apes.
Ivory Coast, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), The trade poses a proportionally greater threat to some gib-
Liberia, Myanmar, Sierra Leone and Uganda—do not have bon species, however. Gibbon species that are specifically
legislation meeting any of the four requirements. Required targeted are Kloss’s gibbon (Hylobates klossii), the lar gib-
legislation is in development in all 16 of the above-listed range bon (Hylobates lar), Müller’s gibbon (Hylobates muelleri), the
states (CITES, 2016a). Once passed and promulgated, this Bornean gray gibbon (Hylobates funereus), the southern
legislation is expected to improve the states’ ability to con- yellow-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus gabriellae) and
fiscate illegally held apes and prosecute perpetrators. These the siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) (Brockelman and
steps, in turn, are certain to increase the number of apes in Geissmann, 2008; Geissmann and Nijman, 2008a, 2008b;
need of sanctuary care—and thus the demand for additional Geissmann et al., 2008; Nijman and Geissmann, 2008; Whittaker
sanctuary capacity. and Geissmann, 2008).

235
TABLE 8.1
Apes in Peninsular Malaysian and Thai Zoos and Wildlife Attractions, 2016
Ape species Number of apes in zoos and wildlife attractions
Peninsular Malaysia Thailand Total
Chimpanzee (subspecies unknown) 14 36 50
Western lowland gorilla – 1 1
Bornean orangutan 31 – 31
Sumatran orangutan 2 – 2
Orangutan (species unknown) 1 51 52
Agile gibbon 5 2 7
Lar gibbon 37 107 144
Moloch gibbon 1 – 1
Müller’s gibbon (subspecies unknown) 1 – 1
Pileated gibbon – 34 34
Hylobates gibbon (species unknown) – 2 2
Nomascus gibbon (species unknown) – 14 14
Siamang 7 3 10
Total 99 250 349
Notes: The agile gibbon, lar gibbon and siamang are native to Peninsular Malaysia and Thailand. The pileated gibbon is native to Thailand.
Data source: Beastall and Bouhuys (2016)
Apes in Range State national illegal wildlife trade (Durham,

2015). Similarly, in PASA range state sanc-
Sanctuaries
tuaries, most apes became residents as a
Origins of Apes in Range State result of human actions within national bor-
Sanctuaries ders, as opposed to the international trade.
In the DRC, the Centre de Réhabilitation des
Most apes arrive at sanctuaries as a result of
illegal wild meat hunting, habitat destruc- Primates de Lwiro received 16 chimpanzees
tion and fragmentation, human–wildlife in 2015–16; all originated in the DRC. One
conflict or after they are abandoned by or was confiscated in Rwanda, after having been
rescued from individuals who kept them as transported there by poachers (I. Vélez del
pets. Far fewer apes are in sanctuaries because Burgo, personal communication, 2016).
they were confiscated from the international The number of trade-related confisca-
wildlife trade. tions is somewhat higher in Guinea, which
Data from the Indonesian ape sanctuary has been a hotspot of international trade in
IAR Ketapang show that 43% of its rescues African apes (CITES, 2014). One Guinean
were illegally held as pets, 31% came from ape sanctuary, the Chimpanzee Conserva
oil palm plantations and 12% were found in tion Center, accepted seven chimpanzees in
local community agricultural landscapes, 2015–16; the group included six who were
while only 1% were liberated from the inter- native to Guinea and two confiscated from

236
the international trade. The sanctuary took majority of wild ape species (Brockelman
in one orphaned chimpanzee from Senegal, and Geissmann, 2008; Campbell et al., 2008;
where there are no sanctuary facilities Davis et al., 2013; Indonesia MoF, 2009;
(C. Colin, personal communication, 2016). IUCN, 2014d; Plumptre et al., 2015).
The prevalence of hunting and local
trade as proximate causes for the intake of
Status and Outlook for Apes in
apes in range state sanctuaries corroborates
data showing that habitat destruction, poach-
Range State Sanctuaries
ing for wild meat and traditional medicine, Table 8.2 lists range states with ape sanctu-
and killing related to human–wildlife con- aries and the species they hold. Except for
flicts remain the most pressing threats to the Bangladesh and Myanmar, Asian ape range
TABLE 8.2
Captive Center Capacity in Ape Range States, 2016
Ape range countries Species accepted

with sanctuaries
Cameroon Central chimpanzee, Nigeria–Cameroon chimpan-

zee, Cross River gorilla, western lowland gorilla
DRC Bonobo, central chimpanzee, eastern chimpanzee,

Grauer’s gorilla
Gabon Central chimpanzee, western lowland gorilla
Guinea Western chimpanzee

Africa
Liberia (facility in development) Western chimpanzee
Nigeria Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee
Republic of Congo Central chimpanzee, western lowland gorilla
Sierra Leone Western chimpanzee
Uganda Eastern chimpanzee
Cambodia Native gibbon species
China (Hong Kong) Lar gibbon, pileated gibbon
India Western hoolock
Indonesia Bornean orangutan, Sumatran orangutan, agile

gibbon, Bornean white-bearded gibbon, Kloss’s
gibbon, moloch gibbon, Müller’s gibbon, siamang
Lao PDR Northern and southern white-cheeked crested

Asia gibbon, other native gibbon species
Malaysia Bornean orangutan
Thailand Lar gibbon, pileated gibbon, other native gibbon

species
Viet Nam Pileated gibbon, northern white-cheeked crested

gibbon, northern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon,
southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon, other
native gibbon species
Data sources: Wildlife Impact (2015, 2016); online and unpublished facility accounts, reviewed by the authors

237
states have sanctuaries that hold apes of their lives, in these facilities. Many sanc-
(Wildlife Impact, 2016). The rescue center tuaries would need to invest heavily in infra-
at Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden in structure and staff to take on additional
Hong Kong is not currently known to hold lifetime residents. Overall, overcrowding
gibbons, but it is equipped to rescue and issues in sanctuaries are likely to worsen
quarantine them (KFBG, n.d.). given the number of apes in need, apes’ long
Nine African ape range states— life spans and current intake practices. Even
Cameroon, the DRC, Gabon, Guinea, now, sanctuaries would not be able to accom-
Liberia, Nigeria, the Republic of Congo, modate or provide minimum acceptable
Sierra Leone and Uganda—have sanctuar- welfare standards to the thousands of apes
ies that hold apes (Wildlife Impact, 2015, held illegally, nor the newly captured ones.
2016). More than half of the African ape Some countries without designated res-
range countries—namely Angola, Burundi, cue centers have shown a reluctance to con-
CAR, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Guinea- fiscate unlawfully held or traded live animals
Bissau, Mali, Rwanda, Senegal, South Sudan (André et al., 2008; Teleki, 2001). In per-
and Tanzania—do not have sanctuaries sonal communication with the authors in
that are currently equipped to care for apes November 2016, zoologist Tamar Ron and
(Wildlife Impact, 2015, 2016). Ivory Coast Maiombe National Park administrator José
does not have a sanctuary, but the Abidjan Bizi describe recent ape confiscations in
Zoo has accepted chimpanzees in need of Angola, a gorilla and chimpanzee range state
rescue. In 2014 it was at full capacity due to that lacks sanctuaries:
high rates of intake, including of pet chim-
panzees left at the zoo during the Ebola Of five infant chimpanzees and two infant
crisis (R. Champion, personal communica- gorillas confiscated by the Maiombe
tion, 2014). National Park in the past two years or
The number of apes in need far exceeds so, only one chimpanzee has survived.
existing captive facility capacity. Many facil- That one is being taken care of, together
ities are full and others have space for very with a number of other chimpanzees of
limited numbers of additional apes. More different ages, in a private facility of a
than 6,000 gibbons and between 25 and 126 person who has been trying to save
African apes are estimated to be illegally infant chimpanzees and gorillas over
held in range countries (Durham, 2015; several decades, with his own means,
Wildlife Impact, 2015). These numbers but unfortunately succeeds in providing
exclude the 66 chimpanzees abandoned them only with very substandard, inad-
by the New York Blood Center in Liberia equate conditions.
(Gorman, 2015a; see below). An estimate The [Maiombe National] Park staff does
for orangutans was not available. not have adequate capacity, means and
Many range state sanctuaries have the conditions to take care of confiscated
ultimate aim of reintroducing apes back into apes over time. There are no adequate
their natural habitats. In practice, however, facilities in the country, and the trans-
reintroduction is not always feasible, as it fer to facilities elsewhere would also
may be inconsistent with conservation aims. require resources that are not availa-
As noted by Durham (2015), the reality is ble. In addition to the abovementioned
that many apes entering captive settings will private initiative, there is an unknown
become lifetime residents. Even apes at number (estimated at several dozens) of
transit centers or other short-term facilities chimpanzees of different ages held pri-
often spend many years, or the remainder vately, mostly in Cabinda and Luanda,

238
Photo: Ape translocation all in quite inadequate and at times The creation of new sanctuaries might
or the release of captive
animals into natural habitats appalling conditions. The government appear an obvious solution. In practice,
can pose significant risks
has expressed strong interest in establish- however, they are very expensive and diffi-
to the health and welfare
of released and wild ape ing an ape sanctuary as part of its stra- cult to establish, requiring both specialized
populations, other wildlife,
tegic wildlife crime action effort, but expertise and a commitment for the life-
ecosystems and human
populations. would require substantial outside sup- time of long-lived, cost- and care-intensive
© Alejo Sabugo,
IAR Indonesia
port to fund development, running costs rescued apes. Few are willing or able to take
and staff capacity building, and to create on this challenge, especially in range coun-
the enabling conditions required for this tries with great need but with high levels of
ambitious endeavor. civil unrest or other challenges.

239
Further, the relationship between sanc- consequences, poverty and food availabil-
tuary presence or absence and the need for ity, access to employment and livelihoods,
ape rescues remains unclear, particularly the accessibility and ease of capture of wild
as ape seizures continue in states that have ape populations, and demand for and access
long had sanctuaries, such as Cameroon, to markets for wild meat, ape body parts
DRC and Indonesia. Numerous factors and live apes.
influence seizures and intake of apes by Certainly, the presence of sanctuaries
sanctuaries, including the presence and in range states makes ape confiscation more
effectiveness of law enforcement, corrup- practicable, in part because they can play a
tion, public awareness of laws and their key role in facilitating law enforcement
(Farmer, 2002; Teleki, 2001). Sanctuaries,
particularly those accredited as maintain-
ing high standards of care, also enable
improved welfare, lifelong care and, poten-
tially, reintroduction for rescued apes
(Trayford and Farmer, 2013). Thorough
analysis of need and feasibility, along with
collaboration among organizations, indi-
viduals and governments, may be a more
sustainable path to sanctuary development
than the ad hoc approach often used to
date. Integrating sanctuaries into broader
efforts to address habitat destruction, ape
killing and capture, and other factors that lead
apes to require care would further improve
sanctuary effectiveness.
Reintroduction and
Translocation
Suitable Habitat in Range States
Suitable habitat is rapidly disappearing across
ape range states (Funwi-Gaba et al., 2014;
Williamson et al., 2014). Despite diminish-
ing populations of wild apes, the size and
carrying capacity of existing suitable habi-
tat currently make it impossible to release
all the captive apes in range states. In some
areas there may simply be no suitable hab-
itats that are not already occupied by viable
populations of conspecifics or that do not
first require forest restoration, protected
area designation, sustained anti-poaching
enforcement or other long-term conserva-
tion efforts.

240
Given the rapid rate of orangutan habi- Nevertheless, reintroduction and trans-
tat conversion, experts have long concluded location can create myriad risks. One is the
that suitable habitats that still support orang risk of spreading disease to conspecifics,
utans are already populated at or beyond other wildlife and humans, which can poten-
carrying capacity (A. Russon, personal com- tially undermine any positive conserva-
munication, 2016). The situation is similar tion impacts (Beck et al., 2007; Campbell,
“
for gibbons in Kalimantan, Indonesia, as Cheyne and Rawson, 2015; IUCN/SSC,
Where reintro- discussed in the previous volume of State 2013; Jakob-Hoff et al., 2014; Schaumberg
duction or translocation of the Apes (Durham, 2015). Cross River et al., 2012; Unwin et al., 2012). Further, wild
are feasible options, gorillas (Gorilla gorilla diehli) are limited populations generally fill suitable habitats
monitoring of by the extent of human encroachment and to carrying capacity unless conditions pre-
progress and habitat use within their range (Imong et al., vent their success (Moehrenschlager et al.,
impacts is essential 2014a). Under these circumstances, even 2013). As a consequence, captive apes are
to determine whether habitat restoration is unlikely to enable gorilla often released into areas that are already
a project is achieving reintroduction, as these human populations inhabited by conspecifics and where condi-
measures of conser- and activities would create risks for humans tions—such as hunting or deforestation—
”
vation success. as well as released apes. limit the size of wild populations.
Studies of wild chimpanzees and bono-
bos (Pan paniscus) indicate that individuals
Reintroduction and Translocation
released into populations of wild conspecif-
Benefits and Risks ics reduce the reproductive success of wild
The release of captive animals into natural females (Wrangham, 2013). Other research
habitats can pose significant risks to the suggests that male chimpanzees should not
health and welfare of released and wild be released into wild chimpanzee ranges, as
ape populations, other wildlife, ecosystems they are likely to be attacked or killed by wild
and human populations (IUCN/SSC, 2013). conspecifics. Data from chimpanzee releases
Nevertheless, reintroduction and transloca- in the Republic of Congo, for instance, show
tion are the only ways to re-establish spe- that many released males were killed by wild
cies in habitats from which they have been conspecifics (Goossens et al., 2005). For
extirpated. ex-captive female orangutans who have been
Used with appropriate precaution in translocated to habitats with wild orangu-
suitable circumstances, reintroduction and tans, establishing a home range is extremely
translocation can thus be valuable tools. difficult because they are ostracized by resi-
They can add genetic diversity, boost pop- dent females, who do not recognize them as
ulation numbers and provide a focus for part of their social network (M. Ancrenaz,
species and habitat protection (IUCN/ personal communication, 2016). Indeed, the
SSC, 2013). Another commonly recognized social pressure imposed on translocated
conservation value of release projects is an animals by resident individuals is huge; it
increased presence of both enforcement generates stressful situations that can be
authorities (rangers or ecoguards) and long-lasting and that may explain why many
wildlife monitors (including translocation translocations fail (M. Ancrenaz, personal
project staff), which deters poaching and communication, 2016). Superimposing
other illegal activities at the release site individuals onto viable conspecific popula-
(Humle et al. 2011). Released animals can tions is thus not sound conservation or wel-
also act as a catalyst for ecosystem conserva- fare strategy, as it can diminish space and
tion (Humle et al., 2011; King, Chamberlan resources for wild apes while compromising
and Courage, 2012). the welfare of released apes.

241
Numerous factors determine appro- and Farmer, 2015). Although some reintro-
priate reintroduction and translocation ductions and translocations are carefully
candidates, including sex ratios and social researched, monitored and documented,
groupings among wild conspecifics, behav- many are not, and overall there is little trans-
ioral health and socialization, age, temper- parency regarding issues and outcomes
ament, cognition and learning issues, human (Guy et al., 2014). Unmonitored projects
bonding and human-focused behaviors can overlook ape deaths and harm to wild
(Bashaw, Gullot and Gill, 2010; Russon, conspecifics, released apes and humans.
2009). Not all individuals who do well in Conversely, even among well-monitored
captivity are good release candidates. Once projects, some may intentionally avoid
apes are past infancy, human-focused behav- reporting on adverse outcomes for fear of
iors and human bonding pose serious safety losing funding or public trust.
risks and problems for individual welfare Funders and governments can promote
and successful release (Campbell et al., 2015; scientific evaluation and rigor in ape reintro-
Riedler, Millesi and Pratje, 2010; Russon, ductions and translocations by requesting or
Smith and Adams, 2016). Indeed, overly funding external scientific review of meth-
habituated apes are more likely to approach, odologies. Governments can also promote
harass or even attack humans, thereby effective reintroduction and translocation
increasing their own risk of being killed efforts by providing administrative support,
or captured (Macfie and Williamson, 2010; building law enforcement and monitoring
Russon, 2009). capacity, and enabling habitat protections.
As part of the feasibility assessment
required by IUCN guidelines, reintroduc-
tion and translocation should be compared Captive Facility Sector Impact:
with other conservation measures to deter-
Benefits and Risks to Ape
mine the most effective actions for species
and habitat protection under the circum- Conservation and Welfare
stances (Beck et al., 2007; Campbell et al., Benefits to Ape Conservation
2015; IUCN/SSC, 2013; Wilson et al., 2014).
and Welfare
Wilson et al. (2014) found reintroduction
and translocation to be significantly more The rising acceptance of GFAS verification
costly and labor-intensive than other habitat and accreditation and increasing interest of
conservation measures. funders in demonstrated impacts, coupled
Where reintroduction or translocation with the sincere desire of most sanctuaries
are feasible options, monitoring of progress to improve welfare and address conservation
and impacts is essential to determine whether issues affecting apes, provide an environment
a project is achieving measures of conserva- ripe for positive change. Several sanctuaries
tion success, whether animals are surviving are pursuing exemplary welfare standards,
and adapting under differing seasonal con- good governance and conservation program-
ditions and whether breeding success is ming that complement sanctuary operations.
leading to population viability (Guy, Curnoe Some sanctuaries that have historically been
and Banks, 2014; Osterberg et al., 2014). run by expatriates have recently handed
Long-term monitoring also enables identi- over leadership to local successors. Others
fication of animals who might need addi- are actively working to find and train local
tional support through provisioning or management-level staff. Many sanctuaries do
even removal back to a captive setting an exceptional job of rescuing and caring for
(Farmer, Jamart and Goossens, 2010; Humle apes, while also providing opportunities for

242
learning about rehabilitation, care and dis- Challenges to Ape Conservation

ease. Sanctuary education and outreach work and Welfare
is generally seen as filling an important role,
particularly as sanctuaries are permanent Standards and Quality of Care
fixtures in local communities. and Welfare
Furthermore, as holders of rare ape spe- The quality of care and welfare in ape sanc-
cies, range state sanctuaries are uniquely tuaries ranges from much-lauded accred-
placed to be ambassadors for these species. ited or verified facilities, to those that are
Many people may never have seen these known to be operating well below PASA or
animals before, and seeing them rescued GFAS standards, and even to some that ape
and in good care in a conservation-related experts deem totally unacceptable by any
context could make a compelling case for standard. Many facilities have acceptable
their protection. standards for short-term care but are not
Importantly, most of the 56 sanctuaries suitable for lifetime care for apes.
considered in this chapter participate in Issues at sanctuaries that operate below
some form of anti-poaching patrol or ape acceptable standards include overcrowd-
tracking. Researchers have found that sen- ing or insufficient suitable space; a lack
sitization, community involvement and of behavioral enrichment; and unsuitable
the presence of researchers and trackers or social settings, such as solitary housing for
rangers can help deter ape poaching social ape species and unsafe facilities from
(Steinmetz et al., 2014; Sunderland-Groves which apes can break out or where they
et al., 2011; Tagg et al., 2015). Deterring can come into contact with visitors. Several
poaching by prosecuting poachers is also sanctuaries allow some public contact with
expected to have a positive impact on ape apes, increasing the risk of disease trans-
protection, particularly when coupled with mission for both visitors and apes and seri-
sanctuary care of captive apes. If anti- ous safety risks for humans (Macfie and
poaching efforts—such as education, the Williamson, 2010). Further, this approach
removal of snares and traps, and anti- may perpetuate the concept that apes are
poaching or tracking patrols—can decrease suitable as pets.
capture and deter poachers, there is hope Few sanctuaries across ape habitat
of protecting apes in their natural habitats. regions have been independently inspected
Sixteen African sanctuaries reviewed or accredited. Of the 56 sanctuaries consid-
for this chapter disseminate public informa- ered in this chapter, only 7 (13%) have been
tion on how their work benefits local com- inspected and accredited or verified as
munities. Two of them offer micro-credit meeting GFAS standards. This number
schemes and ten have alternative livelihood may understate ape facility engagement
programs, including artisan activities. Some with independent inspection, as it does not
of the sanctuaries provide local communi- include sanctuaries that are seeking GFAS
ties with services such as education develop- verification or accreditation. Yet even when
ment, medical care and infrastructure, as the latter group of sanctuaries is taken into
well as training or technical expertise in areas account, it remains clear that an increase in
such as farming and livestock husbandry. independent inspection and verification of
Training for sanctuary staff, including in sanctuary standards is needed.
veterinary care, education and community Government accountability in imple-
development, has led to significant improve- menting animal welfare and captive care
ments in the skill levels—and thus the standards could also be improved. Both
employability—of many staff members. promulgating and enforcing national laws

243
on welfare tied to GFAS standards would Photos of people hugging apes without Photo: Demand for sanctu-
ary space puts significant
help to ensure good care and welfare for apes safety gear (masks or gloves) elicited com- pressure on facilities—many
in all types of captive facilities. ments such as “Awhhh, I want one! They are of which are underfunded,
understaffed and operating
so adorable!!” (Sherman et al., 2016). Photos in difficult settings.
Photos Depicting Contact with Apes of new infants, particularly very young © Sanaga-Yong
Chimpanzee Rescue Center
Studies by Leighty et al. (2015) and Ross et captive-born infants, being held and fed
al. (2008) demonstrate that photos depict- by humans drew similar responses, such as
ing apes in contact with humans promote “I want!” (Sherman et al., 2016).
the perception that these animals are good These photos fuel arguments that sanc-
pets, and that they are not endangered. tuary media messages may reinforce interest
A review of publicly available images in apes as pets. Many sanctuaries have rules
on websites, Facebook and Twitter from 22 prohibiting volunteers and visitors from
African ape sanctuaries from 2013 to 2015 posting photos of themselves in contact with
shows that 19 sanctuaries (86%) publicly dis- resident apes. Sanctuaries need to pay equally
played photos of humans in direct contact close attention to social media reactions to
with (touching) apes. Sixteen sanctuaries sanctuary-posted photos and should scru-
(73%) had Facebook photos showing this pulously avoid posting photos of staff inter-
type of contact with primates. These 16 acting with apes in any manner that could
facilities posted 247 such photos between create the impression of apes as pets.
January 1 2013 and November 25 2015.
Written context for these photos, such as Sanctuary Capacity
explanations of veterinary care or rehabili- Breeding is a serious issue in many range state
tation, was present less than 70% of the time sanctuaries. Some sanctuaries purposefully
(Sherman, Brent and Farmer, 2016). breed apes, while others have what facility

244
managers consider “accidental births.” Captive that sanctuaries cannot always rescue addi-
births were confirmed at ten African ape tional apes without diminishing the welfare
sanctuaries between 2014 and 2016. Seven of existing residents.
of these ten posted about the births on Sanctuaries should clearly define their
social media—on their websites, Facebook maximum carrying capacity based on good
or Twitter—and in some cases used the welfare standards for resident apes, and then
births to fundraise. A review of social media develop intake policies designed to maintain
posts from January 1 2013 to November 25 those standards. As part of their decision-
2015, shows at least 19 births at these seven making process, sanctuaries need a realistic
“
sanctuaries (Wildlife Impact, 2015). Left understanding of their options to expand
Apes born in unchecked, this level of breeding will over- capacity, if any, and information on the
range state whelm sanctuaries or at least necessitate capacities of other captive facilities with
sanctuaries occupy significant expenses for facility expansion. appropriate standards, ideally within the
valuable space Good information on preventing accidental subspecies habitat region.
needed for victims of births and technical assistance on contracep- In the absence of such alternatives, a
poaching and habitat tion are readily available from zoo partners policy on euthanasia should be developed,
”
destruction. and veterinarians. as long as it is legal in the country. Such a
There is no conservation argument for policy can be designed to define circum-
the breeding of apes at range state sanctu- stances under which a sanctuary may make
aries, but there are clear arguments against a choice to end suffering and prevent con-
it. Ape conservation action plans do not signing an ape to a poor-quality life. Ending
recommend captive breeding in range state a life is never easy and never without oppo-
sanctuaries, except in the context of the nents; however, an ape in poorly operated
reintroduction of agile gibbons (Hylobates and overcrowded facilities can suffer from
agilis) and in case of emergency manage- increased aggression, increased stress (result-
ment scenarios for Hainan black-crested ing in lower immunity and increased illness),
gibbons (Nomascus hainanus).4 poor diet and abnormal behavior, while
Apes born in sanctuaries occupy valu- also causing greater physical harm to low-
able space needed for victims of poaching ranking members of the group. Conversely,
and habitat destruction. Models of PASA there can be social and conservation costs
chimpanzee sanctuary capacity show that to euthanizing otherwise healthy apes, par-
even occasional sanctuary births have large ticularly if it perpetuates public perceptions
impacts over time as they cause the total that apes are less valuable alive than dead.
population and costs to swell (Faust et al., In these difficult circumstances, an
2011). These effects are of particular concern important consideration is that apes and
given the continued influx of confiscated other native wildlife are the responsibility
apes and limited facility space. Current sanc- of the state, not of sanctuaries. Sanctuaries,
tuary populations already far exceed num- together with conservation and welfare
bers that could be released. Similarly, there groups, need to ensure that governments
is no welfare argument for breeding apes in are aware of the situations driving wild apes
range state sanctuaries, many of which suc- to need captive care, and to hold the state
cessfully manage non-breeding populations. responsible for the ultimate outcomes for
Demand for sanctuary space puts sig- those apes. Periodic independent inspections
nificant pressure on facilities—many of and evaluations would also help sanctuaries
which are underfunded, understaffed and assess viable options and make evidence-
operating in difficult settings—to make based decisions. Such analyses could be quite
painful choices. It is an unfortunate reality useful in helping sanctuaries ensure that

245
their strategic focus contributes to concrete consequences of hunting or buying apes is

welfare and conservation objectives. critical in addressing poaching and local
markets that sell ape meat and apes as pets.
Intake Policies Sanctuaries can therefore play a valuable role
Sanctuary intake policies differ primarily in in raising public awareness through targeted
whether they require confiscation and legal education campaigns.
action to accept animals. Confiscation can Second, sanctuaries should generally
denote anything from legal action and pros- not accept apes if they have not been legally
ecution to a piece of paper saying the animal confiscated or if there is no possibility for
was confiscated—without consequences for legal consequences for buyers or poachers,
the perpetrator. Some sanctuaries take only such as prosecution, fines or incarceration.
confiscated animals, while others accept all In the absence of confiscation and legal con-
apes, regardless of how they were acquired. sequences, buyers are likely to purchase
“
Some sanctuaries claim they must take every another ape. However, if the person or per-
ape delivered by the government. Others sons who sold or bought the ape are arrested To give the laws
have successfully negotiated agreements and sentenced, and the money is recovered, teeth, governments
with governments to require law enforce- then the law has been enforced and a deter- must publicize the
ment procedures as prerequisites for each rent message has been sent to poachers, traf- consequences of
new intake, or they have protocols to iden- fickers and buyers. To give the law teeth, holding and selling
tify solutions for animals they do not have the government must publicize the conse- apes and ensure that
space to accept. quences of holding and selling apes and offenders are convicted
Unless sanctuaries address such intake- ensure that convicted offenders serve out and serve out their
”
related concerns with governments, they their full sentences. full sentences.
may only perpetuate the failure of wildlife Unless their intake policies are tied to
law enforcement. While intake issues can legal consequences, sanctuaries may under-
grow thorny and divisive in the difficult mine ape conservation efforts by implying
operating environments of range state that it is acceptable to buy, transport and
sanctuaries—which are often compounded house apes. Moreover, if they do nothing to
by corruption, as discussed below—they are promote the enforcement of wildlife legisla-
nonetheless crucially important in defining tion in cases where it is clear that government
sanctuary purpose and assessing the impact officials are ignoring the law or involved in
on ape conservation and welfare. the illegal ape trade, sanctuaries are essen-
Community surveys undertaken in the tially allowing the government to flout the
Republic of Congo and Kalimantan, the law, thereby perpetuating the trade.
Indonesian portion of Borneo, demonstrate Tying the intake of animals to appro-
that public awareness of apes’ legally pro- priate legal consequences is a protocol that
tected status is generally widespread. Surveys the Eco Activists for Governance and Law
found that 90% of respondents in Congo Enforcement (EAGLE) Network, a coali-
and 73% of respondents in Kalimantan knew tion of law enforcement and conservation
that apes were protected under national laws NGOs in Africa, has long urged sanctuaries
(Cox et al., 2014; Meijaard et al., 2011). In to follow. The protocol is also in line with
Kalimantan this knowledge was associated the procedures used by the Humane Society
with a reduction in the killing of orangutans of the United States (HSUS) in rescuing ille-
(Meijaard et al., 2011). gally held animals. Prior to undertaking any
These findings have two key implica- such rescues, the HSUS works directly with
tions for sanctuaries. First, public aware- law enforcement to ensure the perpetra-
ness of apes’ protected status and the legal tors will be held accountable under the law

246
and to prevent them from simply acquiring conservation of apes and drawing up a
other animals and repeating their trans- division of responsibilities and financial
gressions (K. Nienstedt, personal communi- commitments among all parties, including
cation, 2016). While an analogous process governments, in a written agreement.
in developing countries is clearly more chal- Sanctuaries may benefit from being more
lenging, the international community could assertive in requesting financial and opera-
do more to support governments, sanctu- tional support from government partners.
aries and NGOs in their efforts to increase Governments that authorize the establish-
transparency, reduce corruption and improve
law enforcement effectiveness. Together,
these changes would help to encourage sanc-
tuaries to tie rescues to legal consequences.
Sanctuaries are rarely involved in pros-
ecutorial aspects of wildlife law, but they
can play a significant role in supporting
enforcement through partnerships and
outreach activities, as discussed below.
Some sanctuaries are demonstrating good
practice by ensuring that every animal they
receive has a legal history that can be traced,
thereby assisting law enforcement in hold-
ing suspects accountable and creating a
deterrent for people who are considering
wildlife crime.
Government Relations and Law

Enforcement: A Path for Improved
Transparency, Accountability and
Deterrence
Historically, NGOs have carried the burden
of supporting welfare-oriented projects such
as building and maintaining animal sanc-
tuaries to allow for the disposition and care
of illegally held wildlife confiscated by gov-
ernments. Many sanctuaries and related
NGOs have come to accept that government
partners are unwilling to make financial
contributions to ensure the welfare of con-
fiscated animals, and that they limit their
involvement to allowing such facilities to
operate within their boundaries. If govern-
ments value this capacity for humane care
of confiscated wildlife, however, then they
themselves should increasingly accept more
of the financial burden involved in this costly
process. To that end, sanctuaries should be
taking stock of their role in the long-term

247
ment of ape sanctuaries have historically animal trade, resulting in near-total impunity Photo: Sanctuaries, gov-
ernment partners and other
neglected to assume these important respon- for poachers, wildlife traders and influential stakeholders all must take
sibilities, although this step is ultimately individuals who participate in or facilitate additional action for the
confiscation and rescue of
needed to ensure the appropriate placement the trade in protected species (Lawson and apes to contribute to effec-
tive enforcement of wildlife
and long-term humane care of these ani- Vines, 2014; TRAFFIC, 2008; WWF and legislation and to the mainte-
mals. Moreover, range state governments Dalberg, 2012). In this way, governments nance of viable populations
of great apes in the wild.
have largely failed to enforce laws pertain- also fail to establish much-needed deter- © Jabruson 2017 (www.
ing to illegal activities that support the live rents to wildlife crime. At the same time, jabruson.photoshelter.com)

248
governments continue to appeal to the sym- (Bennett, 2015; Smith et al., 2015). In some
pathetic nature of sanctuaries. By accepting cases, sanctuaries have prioritized animal
the long-term financial burden that comes welfare concerns over adherence to ape pro-
with caring for these animals, these facilities tection laws by skirting processes aimed at
further remove government partners from formally registering intakes and attempting
any sense of responsibility. At the very least, to bring offenders to justice. A typical form
a government’s role as a partner in a sanctu- of corruption is the willingness of govern-
ary should include the capacity and willing- ment agents to accept bribes not to arrest
ness to ensure appropriate enforcement of perpetrators or, more passively, simply to
wildlife laws. allow an animal to be released or “dumped”
The long-term financial burden on at sanctuaries without legal consequences
sanctuaries has become increasingly unten- (especially if the animal belongs to a govern-
able as they become overcrowded. Moreover, ment official, influential businessperson or
acquiring necessary operational funds is other prominent individual).
becoming more difficult as the demand for Indeed, corruption enters the picture
sanctuary space continues to rise and funding long before an ape ever reaches a sanctuary.
sources become increasingly rare or com- Infant apes are very recognizable; they are
petitive. Only when governments assume not likely to make their way from a distant
more responsibility and are obliged to forest block to an urban center without
become more involved will they begin to attracting the attention of a host of resi-
take a serious leadership role in enforcing dents and civil servants, including wildlife
national laws pertaining to protected spe- rangers, police officers, and military and
cies, as well as managing the operational and customs officials. It is quite common for traf-
financial challenges faced by sanctuaries. fickers to bribe authorities in order to avoid
This same scenario largely holds true for in arrest and to gain free passage to transport
situ conservation projects; however, govern- an ape. In many cases, apes end up with
ments have recently begun to assume some high-level individuals in the government,
of the financial burden of implementing the military, business or the expat commu-
costly conservation activities, including nity. These individuals or companies are
law enforcement. Government partners may often immune to arrest due to their strong
not become committed to conservation connections or because they paid bribes to
and welfare activities until they have made escape prosecution. Once they begin to see
a considerable financial investment, which an ape as a long-term financial burden or
should simultaneously support programs physical risk, they typically attempt to trans-
that aim to reduce the number of apes in fer the animal to a sanctuary. Given their
need of sanctuary care and provide better resolute concern for individual apes, the
protection to wild ape populations. sanctuaries have historically been open to
Although it is difficult to gather data on accepting such burdens, with few questions
instances of corruption due to their inher- asked. If this cycle of impunity, corruption
ently clandestine nature, a wealth of anec- and crime is to be addressed, governments,
dotal evidence suggests that high levels of sanctuaries and conservation NGOs must no
corruption characterize most incidents longer turn a blind eye.
through which apes are brought into cap- Prosecution, sentencing and effective
tivity. In addition, multiple publications deterrence against future crime are fun-
have linked poor governance and corruption damental to successful law enforcement.
with increases in illegal wildlife trafficking Deterrence is in place if an established

249
punishment for committing a crime is suffi- that sanctuaries should undertake this
cient to discourage a potential offender from work alone. Rather, it is incumbent upon
breaking the law. In corrupt legal systems, sanctuaries to accept protected wildlife on
the deterrent effects are rarely sufficient, the condition of enforcement follow-up,
such that the motivation to break the law and to ensure that such follow-up is indeed
to obtain future benefits remains intact taking place. To that end, they may decide
(Bennett, 2015). Prosecution and sentenc- to work more closely with government part-
ing for wildlife crimes is still nascent in some ners, NGOs that specialize in law enforce-
ape range states, and even when perpetrators ment efforts or local and international
are convicted and incarcerated, they may NGOs that support wildlife conservation
“
simply pay bribes to be liberated (Martini, efforts.
2013; WWF and TRAFFIC, 2015; Wyatt and Many sanctuaries conduct educational If sanctuaries
Ngoc Cao, 2015). In some cases, judicial per- outreach programs aimed primarily at are to play an impor-
sonnel need training in the prosecution of younger audiences in order to discourage tant role in species
crimes and the development of sentencing them from considering the illegal hunting of conservation efforts,
that will deter crime. To be effective, deter- and trade in wildlife as a future occupation they must either be
rents must also reflect national contexts. or source of additional income. Increased directly engaged in
Punishments that would deter Indonesian collaboration with stakeholders that are amplifying deterrence
villagers who might kill orangutans that raid more closely linked to forests where apes are against future wildlife
their crops may not be effective to forestall poached—such as conservation NGOs, gov- crime, or in assisting
wild meat traffickers in Africa. Prosecutors ernment partners, development workers and the government and
should establish deterrents that can be industry—could ensure that these educa- other stakeholders in
”
monitored and evaluated for effectiveness tional activities are delivered to targeted doing so.
in their jurisdictional context. Those who audiences for a more positive impact. Many
break wildlife laws—be it companies, paid sanctuaries are located near urban centers,
or traditional hunters, or pet traders—need which are not typically areas in which poach-
to be prosecuted consistently, and their cases ers reside. However, urban areas tend to be
should be publicized to ensure deterrence. home to wealthier individuals who finance
By securing an appropriate and humane the trade; these people are important targets
placement for animals confiscated by law who may be responsive to information about
enforcement officials, sanctuaries can play wildlife laws and related court prosecu-
a vital role in contributing to in situ field tions. Consequently, it may be worthwhile
conservation efforts. Conversely, if facili- to enhance collaboration with conserva-
ties accept animals from law enforcement tionists and researchers who are close to the
officials based solely on a legal document that rural origins and the urban centers of the
authorizes the transfer but lacks any infor- illegal trade chain.
mation on the prosecution or sentencing of Equally important is the ability of sanc-
those responsible, they do little to deter future tuaries, conservation NGOs and all others
confiscations and may even serve to encour- engaged in conservation education and
age the trade. awareness raising to monitor the extent to
If sanctuaries are to play an important which these activities help to achieve conser-
role in species conservation efforts, they vation objectives. To date, despite millions
must either be directly engaged in amplify- of dollars spent on these seemingly impor-
ing deterrence against future wildlife crime, tant themes, data that demonstrate the value
or in assisting the government and other of conservation education remain surpris-
stakeholders in doing so. This does not imply ingly scarce.

250
It is challenging to demonstrate that any investigation of the illegal act and has
single program or campaign has influenced arrested, is actively seeking to arrest, or
behavior in a way that has led to a decrease is planning to prosecute and sentence
in the illegal hunting of apes, or in the suspected individuals;
destruction of ape habitat and habitat con- sanctuary staff members request periodic
nectivity. Pre- and post-education campaign meetings with the appropriate govern-
surveys can reveal increases in awareness, ment enforcement agency to confirm that
but they do not prove changes in behavior adequate follow-up of all ongoing cases
(Carleton-Hug and Hug, 2010). Survey with pending judgments has occurred or
responses can also indicate that people is in process;
are consciously keeping quiet about illegal
sanctuaries work in partnership with
or unpleasant activities, or that they have
authorities and conservation organiza-
learned the “right” answers to survey ques-
tions that pursue legal outcomes of
tions (Nuno and St John, 2015; L. Pintea,
wildlife cases to ensure that adequate
“
personal communication, 2015).
sentencing guidelines exist and that
Sanctuaries To demonstrate that a change in behav-
sentences are indeed served by convicted
could further advance ior has led to a decrease in the demand for
perpetrators;
ape conservation by apes, data on the behavior of people who
governments enforce legal consequences
becoming more buy and sell wild meat and apes are needed.
consistently for all perpetrators of wild-
active partners in Sanctuaries need to show that they have
life crime;
broader conservation reached appropriate demographic groups—
action and planning those comprising individuals who are most sanctuaries periodically share critical
”
efforts. likely to kill, sell or buy apes—and that these data and intelligence information with
audiences have not only gained relevant partners that are strategically placed
knowledge, but also modified the behaviors to help tackle the problem at the geo-
that led to ape poaching. To halt ape poach- graphic origin of the confiscations, and
ing behaviors, government partners must to facilitate coordinated intervention
also actively deter illegal hunting by conduct- efforts to prevent future poaching and
ing effective anti-poaching patrols, ensur- trafficking incidents; and that
ing that wildlife laws are properly enforced, sanctuaries regularly disseminate col-
and visibly prosecuting and sentencing lected data to strategic conservation and
offenders. advocacy partners and to media outlets,
In summary, sanctuaries, government or to partners that specialize in public
partners and other stakeholders all must communications designed to deter audi-
take additional action for the confiscation ences from involvement in the illegal
and rescue of apes to contribute to effective ape trade.
enforcement of wildlife legislation and to
the maintenance of viable populations of Habitat Protection and
great apes in the wild. These steps would Conservation Planning
require that: Sanctuaries could further advance ape con-
servation by becoming more active partners
sanctuaries do not accept apes that have in broader conservation action and plan-
been illegally held unless there is official ning efforts. At present, many sanctuaries do
documentation demonstrating that the not work closely with conservation organ-
government agency responsible for the izations, field researchers, businesses or
confiscation has conducted a thorough governments on management planning for

251
ape habitats (Wildlife Impact, 2016). These known whether the individual orangutans
plans determine the management of lands can adapt and survive after being translocated.
that are the source of many sanctuary apes. Scientists report that companies feel they
Significant populations of some apes—such have done a good thing and the issue is
as Bornean orangutans, western lowland resolved once they contact a sanctuary to
gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and central remove the “problem” ape (S. Cheyne, per-
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes)— sonal communication, 2016). While com-
“
are mainly located outside of protected areas panies do take a positive step by notifying
(Ancrenaz et al., 2015b; IUCN, 2014d). The sanctuaries about apes, they typically lack Efforts by
importance of working closely with conser- awareness of the cost and long-term require- sanctuaries, NGOs
vation NGOs, field researchers, businesses ments of a translocated ape. Moreover, com- and industry are
and governments to engage the agricul- panies rarely contribute to translocation, needed to promote
ture and logging industries and traditional post-release monitoring or long-term care sustainable manage-
land owners within ape habitats thus cannot costs. Many translocations simply displace ment of mosaic
be overstated. a problem without addressing the reasons landscapes. Once
Further, sanctuaries and NGOs should apes need to be translocated in the first place, small forest “islands”
press governments to ensure that national such as poor land management by compa- are removed, animals
laws provide adequate protections for crit- nies or plantation managers (S. Cheyne, cannot use the land-
”
ical ape habitats. It is legal in some range personal communication, 2016). scape anymore.
states to destroy ape habitats, and in some Allowing industry actors to clear-cut
cases conservation laws protecting apes may forest patches within the landscape makes
be overridden or ignored in favor of com- the overall landscape less and less suitable
mercial concessions (Rainer and Lanjouw, for orangutans and other wildlife. Research
2015; Tata et al., 2014; E. Meijaard, personal shows that where hunting is not an issue,
communication, 2017). Sanctuaries that do orangutans can use oil palm and sustaina-
not have the capacity or time to focus on bly logged landscapes, but to do so they
these broader conservation issues could col- need corridors and forest patches (Ancrenaz
laborate with or help promote the work of et al., 2015b; Wich et al., 2012b). Once
conservation partners to deliver in situ pro- these small forest “islands” are removed,
jects aimed at ensuring the long-term sur- animals cannot use the landscape anymore
vival of wild apes in their natural habitats. and the population becomes extremely
One particular area of concern regarding fragmented and not viable in the long term
habitat conservation relates to how sanctu- (M. Ancrenaz, personal communication,
aries and private companies address wild-to- 2016). Sanctuaries, industry and govern-
wild Asian ape translocations. In Borneo, ments need to collaborate on solutions that
some translocations have actually led to incorporate established oil palm planta-
additional forest clearing (M. Ancrenaz, per- tions and logging concessions while also
sonal communication, 2016). Companies accommodating apes.
have been known to ask sanctuaries or Efforts by sanctuaries, NGOs and indus-
governments to remove what they call “prob- try are needed to promote sustainable man-
lem” orangutans living in small patches of agement of these mosaic landscapes. Instead
forest in mosaic landscapes. If sanctuaries of removing individual animals at the expense
agree to remove the orangutans, industry of habitat for local wild apes, sanctuaries
actors tend to clear the patches because they should encourage industries, government,
no longer contain species of high conserva- and other stakeholders to focus on saving
tion value (M. Ancrenaz, personal commu- natural habitat—whatever size the patches—
nication, 2016). In these situations, it is not as a way to help support ape populations.

252
Sustainability and Funding of data required to answer this question

Relatively few grant programs support (Wildlife Impact, 2015).
range state sanctuaries. Many sanctuaries Another issue is that many sanctuaries
struggle with funding shortfalls, particu- lack succession planning and are thus
larly for basic operations (administration exposed to further sustainability risks. Since
and salaries), animal care and facility needs. building management-level capacity of local
Photo: Efforts by sanctuar-
ies, NGOs and industry are
Funders increasingly expect grantees to staff to sustain sanctuaries in the long term
needed to promote sustain- provide empirical evidence to demon- is difficult and time-consuming, it is often
able management of mosaic
landscapes—whatever size
strate whether and how they are impacting overlooked. Ape sanctuaries, as well as
the patches. © HUTAN– long-term survival of the species in the wild. many smaller conservation organizations,
Kinabatangan Orang-utan
Conservation Project/Marc
This presents a particular hurdle for sanc- rarely undertake professionally led strategic
Ancrenaz tuary applicants, who rarely collect the type planning, empirical monitoring of outcomes

253
or independent evaluation, even though falls. Collapse of peer facilities can create
these processes are essential to identifying enormous pressure on other national or
successful actions and addressing short- regional sanctuaries to find space for the
falls (Farmer, 2012; Ferraro and Pattanayak, failing facility’s animals, which could, in
2006; MEA, 2005). turn, overwhelm these sanctuaries’ capacity
Transparency about governance and to accept orphans.
outcomes is likewise uncommon. Indeed, Sanctuaries that struggle with a lack of
sanctuaries rarely document or share les- sustainability or risk complete failure are
sons learned from failure or near collapse not likely to be able to address the root
of facilities with other actors in the sector, problems of their instability without chang-
thus depriving the community of valuable ing their management structures and activ-
insight and the chance to avoid known pit- ities. Sanctuaries can increase transparency

254
and share knowledge through captive facil- are likely to build. Sanctuaries, govern-
ity alliances; they can also obtain fresh per- ments, donors, conservation NGOs and
spectives from outside experts, professionally other partners need to collaborate to iden-
led strategic planning, monitoring and inde- tify sustainable ways to ensure high stand-
pendent evaluation. These processes can ards of captive care for confiscated wildlife
help sanctuaries to identify problems and while simultaneously improving the protec-
“
potential solutions, focus efforts on project tion of wild apes and their habitats.
Explosive human goals, inform good governance and sus- The reintroduction or translocation of
population growth, tainability, provide empirical evidence of apes is often touted as a solution to captive
which is predicted impacts and guide the application of best facility overcrowding and ape welfare needs.
in several African practices. It is worth noting that planning, In fact, they are high-risk options that can
range states and in monitoring and evaluation require a contin- endanger the conservation of wild apes and
Indonesia, will uous commitment, which can be difficult for other wildlife, as well as the welfare of both
exacerbate threats sanctuaries in terms of time, funding and the wild ape populations and the released
to wild apes and expertise. Funder recognition and support apes. The ongoing destruction of forests
increase the need of these needs is thus important to their renders both options increasingly difficult,
for confiscations of uptake, as is knowledge sharing and guid- as little suitable habitat remains that is not
poached and trafficked ance from colleagues who have already gone already home to wild apes. Feasibility stud-
”
apes. through these processes. ies, comparisons of available conserva-
tion tools and a good understanding of the
local ecological, political and community
landscape can help sanctuaries determine
Conclusion whether reintroduction or translocation is
Ape sanctuaries can be found in most ape appropriate, or whether other conservation
range states in Asia, and in just under half tools would cost less and save more lives.
of African range states. Collaborations have Sanctuary accreditation organizations, inde-
enabled information sharing and training pendent evaluators and donors can play
among sanctuaries and with outside experts; an important role in creating accountability
they have also played a role in the evolu- on adherence to IUCN reintroduction and
tion of these facilities into organizations with translocation guidelines and best practices.
broad missions that encompass welfare, Granting foundations in particular can drive
conservation and community development. positive change by suggesting, or requiring,
Sanctuaries are currently under tremendous an independent scientific review of rein-
pressure to provide care for the many apes troduction methodologies or asking to see
rescued from the wild meat trade, habitat feedback from such efforts.
destruction, human–wildlife conflict and A significant number of apes currently
the pet trade. Explosive human population in sanctuaries or in need of rescue will not be
growth, which is predicted in several African releasable and are thus likely to need life-
range states and in Indonesia, will exacerbate time captive care. For many sanctuaries,
threats to wild apes and increase the need for securing operational funding is a signifi-
confiscations of poached and trafficked apes. cant hurdle, as are recruiting skilled staff
Moreover, international attention on and ensuring that facility space can provide
wildlife legislation is having a positive effect high welfare standards for increasing num-
on promoting the enforcement of laws that bers of residents. As confiscation numbers
forbid the capture of and trade in wild ani- increase, these issues will be compounded.
mals. With increased confiscations of apes, It is thus ever more critical that sanctuaries
overcrowding and pressures on sanctuaries ensure that their rescue and conservation

255
activities are carefully coordinated, targeted of protecting her rights (Tello, 2016). By con-
and evaluated to facilitate law enforce- trast, the enforcement of the U.S. Endangered
ment and to demonstrate progress in Species Act was the key issue in a lawsuit
addressing the root causes driving apes to against an unaccredited Alabama zoo that
need sanctuary. held a chimpanzee named Joe (USFWS, 2015).
Sanctuaries that fail to hold authorities After the case was filed, Joe was moved to
to account on the enforcement of wildlife the private sanctuary Save the Chimps, in
law may further discourage effective enforce- Florida, and the U.S. authorities subse-
ment, potentially exacerbating the illegal quently ordered the zoo to close (Brulliard,
ape trade. Conversely, improved engagement 2016; Sharp, 2016).
with governments on confiscation and
conservation planning and management
activities, targeted education programs Captive Apes in the United
and partnerships with conservation NGOs States, Japan and Europe
“
offer diverse opportunities for sanctuaries to
make a positive impact on these issues. While changes in the law and in law enforce- The ethical
Many facilities have already taken the ment are important, the benefits for apes imperative when it
lead on these efforts. They adhere to trans- are not always delivered swiftly (Durham comes to regulations,
parent standards and accreditation, includ- and Phillipson, 2014, p. 300). In the United actions and practices
ing non-breeding and no visitor–animal States, growing restrictions on breeding, designed to enhance
contact policies, demonstrated commitment invasive biomedical testing, use in entertain- apes’ quality of life is
to addressing the root causes of the need ment, private ownership and trade have to remove barriers
for sanctuary, the application of IUCN led to a drop in the number of chimpanzees and disincentives to
guidelines on reintroduction and transloca- used in various commercial endeavors. change so that the
tion, and a willingness to undertake moni- While these changes have been accompanied apes themselves
”
toring and independent evaluation. In so by an increase in the number in sanctuaries, benefit.
doing, they provide a pathway for all sanc- however, controversy surrounds delays in
tuaries to demonstrate their successes, a the transfer of chimpanzees to these facilities
critical step in attracting new funding and (Fears, 2016; see Table 8.3 and Figure 8.1).
the support they require to improve ape Given the age and health status of many
welfare and conservation. chimpanzees used commercially in labora-
tories and entertainment, such delays can
mean that some individuals will die before
they reach a sanctuary or shortly after arrival.
II. The Status of Captive
The ethical imperative when it comes to
Apes: A Statistical Update regulations, actions and practices designed
The regulatory landscape continues to shift to enhance apes’ quality of life is to remove
in a number of ways that impact how apes barriers and disincentives to change so that
may be kept or used in captivity. Some of the apes themselves benefit.
these changes have followed from legislation, The size and operations of chimpanzee
petitions and other regulatory mechanisms, sanctuaries in the United States vary consid-
or activism (Durham, 2015). Other changes erably. Some care for just a few chimpan-
have stemmed from law enforcement or zees alongside hundreds of other animals
lawsuits. In Argentina, for example, a judge ranging from chickens to tigers (Fund for
decreed that Cecilia, a chimpanzee living in Animals, n.d.); others specialize in chim-
isolation at a zoo, must be transferred to a panzees, holding anywhere from seven to
specialized sanctuary in Brazil as a matter more than 250 (see Table 8.4). As of October

256
TABLE 8.3
Number of Chimpanzees in Different Forms of Captivity in the United States as of October 2016
Captivity type 2011a 2014b 2016c % change 2011–16
Biomedical labs 962 794 658 -32
GFAS sanctuaries 522 525 556 7
Zoo accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) 261 258 259 -1
Exhibition* 106 196 111 5
Dealer or pet owner 60 52 37 -38
Entertainment 20 18 13 -35
Total 1,931 1,843 1,634 -15
Notes: * Exhibition comprises non-AZA zoos and other facilities that may or may not be open to the public. The category includes apes in sanctuaries that were not
accredited by GFAS or members of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance.
Data sources: (a) Durham and Phillipson (2014); (b) Durham (2015); (c) ChimpCARE (n.d.)
2016, Chimp Haven, the sanctuary for fed- stated intentions to expand over a number
erally owned chimpanzees, and Save the of years to house more chimpanzees from
Chimps accounted for 76.4% of chimpan- a laboratory that is phasing out its opera-
zees in accredited sanctuaries; the remain- tion (Milman, 2016).
ing eight sanctuaries were housing 141 In earlier volumes of State of the Apes,
individuals (23.6%). A new facility called data extracted from U.S. government inspec-
Project Chimps opened in 2016 and had tion reports were analyzed to determine
nine chimpanzees in residence by October (1) the number of apes in different forms of
of that year (Baeckler Davis, 2016). While captivity, and (2) risks to ape welfare associ-
it was not yet accredited, the organization ated with violations of the Animal Welfare
FIGURE 8.1
Number of Chimpanzees in Different Forms of Captivity in the United States as of October 2016
Key: 2011 2014 2016
Number of chimpanzees
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Biomedical labs GFAS sanctuaries AZA zoos Exhibition* Dealer or pet owner Entertainment
Notes: Exhibition comprises non-AZA zoos and other facilities that may or may not be open to the public. The category includes apes in sanctuaries that were not accredited
by GFAS or members of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance.
Data sources: 2011: Durham and Phillipson (2014); 2014: Durham (2015); 2016: ChimpCARE (n.d.)

257
TABLE 8.4 Network (GAIN, n.d.). Current ape figures

Number of Chimpanzees in Selected for Japan are shown in Table 8.5.
U.S. Sanctuaries, October 2016 Given that significant chunks of U.S. data
have been made inaccessible, this update
Sanctuary name Number % of provides only figures for chimpanzees and
of apes total
other apes reported in captive breeding pro-
Center for Great Apes 28 4.7 grams of the Species Survival Plans (SSPs) of
Chimp Haven 204 34.2
the U.S. Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
As shown in Figure 8.2, the numbers for most
Chimpanzee Sanctuary 7 1.2
ape taxa in captivity in the United States
Northwest
have not changed dramatically since 2012,
Chimps Inc. 7 1.2 the year covered in the previous volume of
Cleveland Amory Black 2 0.3 State of the Apes (Durham, 2015). Data for
Beauty Ranch gibbons exhibit a more conspicuous change:
Primarily Primates 38 6.4
Primate Rescue Center 9 1.5
Project Chimps 9 1.5 BOX 8.3

Access Denied: The Disappearance of U.S. Animal
Save the Chimps 252 42.2
Welfare Data
Wildlife Waystation 41 6.9
In early 2017, the federal agency that oversees the U.S. Animal Welfare
Total 597 100.0 Act (AWA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, abruptly removed public
access to online data and official AWA compliance documents (Wadman,
Data source: ChimpCARE (n.d.) 2017b). The agency terminated access to the searchable database and
electronic annual reports; it also cut access to inspection reports, which
provide details on inspections that find full compliance, new and repeated
Act (Durham and Phillipson, 2014). In 2017,
instances of non-compliance and associated terms of the agency’s
however, the U.S. Department of Agricul citations, such as the period allowed for correction (Daly and Bale, 2017).
ture removed the taxon field from database A number of stakeholders—from animal rights organizations and indus-
search options and stopped providing ani- try organizations for zoos and laboratories, to members of Congress—
expressed concerns about the overall impact for transparency and public
mal counts in its search results; as a result, it
perception (Wadman, 2017a). While the agency restored a small num-
was not possible to update key information ber of the deleted records, lawsuits under the Freedom of Information
on captive apes in the United States for this Act (FOIA) and Administrative Procedures Act are pending (Wadman
volume. Subsequently, the agency purged 2017a, 2017b). There is no clear resolution in sight and new concerns
continued to surface as recently as August 2017 (Brulliard, 2017a).
even more data, including information about
Although people may still file FOIA requests for records, responses are
violations and enforcement actions under notoriously slow and the government may withhold or redact informa-
the Animal Welfare Act, a move that spurred tion, which can involve blacking out anywhere from a few characters
broad criticism and legal action (Brulliard, (such as a name or dollar amount) to full pages (Winders, 2017). An
attorney involved with a suit recently received nearly 1,800 pages that
2017c; Wadman, 2017b; see Box 8.3). The
were entirely blacked out (Abel, 2017; Winders, 2017). Advocates for
fact that U.S. government authorities are no transparency have made efforts to fill the gap by posting records from
longer making certain data available online archives on other websites (Chan, 2017).
raises concerns about transparency and As noted in this chapter, the number, species, locations and names of
accountability. licensees who hold apes in captivity are no longer in the public data-
base; such records were used in prior volumes of State of the Apes and
In contrast to the recent changes in the were publicly available for several years prior (Brulliard, 2017a, 2017b).
United States, Japan has a program of full The impact on the figures provided in this volume are most significant
transparency whereby the name, age and for small apes, as they are more likely to be privately owned as house-
hold pets, or in private menageries and unaccredited roadside zoos.
location of every ape in the country is openly
reported through the Great Ape Information

258
numbers appear to have dropped from 624 the disparity, the drop largely reflects the
to a significantly lower range of 374–97 lack of “private ownership” data for pets,
(Gibbon SSP, unpublished data, 2016; roadside zoos and entertainment. This
Species360, 2016). However, while differ- information was available on government
ences in taxonomy and species coverage in databases at the time of the previous review,
the cited sources may account for some of but that is no longer the case (see Box 8.3).
While the quality and coverage of
information available about apes and their
FIGURE 8.2
welfare remain of concern for specific forms
Apes in Captivity in the United States, of captivity and certain jurisdictions, steps
by Taxon, 2012 and 2016 are being made towards improving stand-
Key: Chimpanzee Gorilla Orangutan ards and practice. In 2015, for instance, the
Gibbon
European Commission released a good
Apes in captivity (%)
practices document for zoo compliance
100
397 (15%) (European Commission, 2015). In countries
90 624 (20%)
of the European Union, the vast majority
222 (9%)
80
246 (8%) of apes in captivity are found in zoos, sub-
340 (13%)
70
310 (10%) ject to regulation under Directive 1999/22/
60 EC (Council of the European Union, 1999).
50 The number of apes in European zoos
40 is significant when compared to the U.S.
30
1,926 (62%) 1,634 (63%) (see above), South American (33 apes) and
20
Australian figures (158 apes) (Species360,
2016). Figure 8.3 shows numbers and the
10
proportion of apes in each group in Euro
0
2012 2016
pean zoos. In total, the European data set
Note: Gibbon figures include all gibbons and siamangs; chimpan-
zee figures include bonobos.
contains information on 2,354 apes in 215
Data sources: Center for Great Apes (n.d.); ChimpCARE (n.d.);
member institutions, whose holdings range
Durham (2015, Figure 8.3); Durham and Phillipson (2014, Table from 1 to 65 apes per site. Gibbons were the
10.6); Gibbon SSP, unpublished data (2016); Gorilla SSP (n.d.); most common taxon in the sample, followed
Orangutan SSP (n.d.); Species360 (2016)
by chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and
bonobos. The number of solitary apes in
TABLE 8.5 the sample was small: 18 apes, or less than
Number of Apes in Captivity and Number of Facilities 1% of the total. Given their social needs and
Housing Apes in Japan, October 2016 capabilities, all apes in captivity should be
part of groups of compatible individuals.
Taxon Number of apes Number of facilities A small, slowly declining number of
Bonobos 6 1 apes and other primates are still used in
circuses or other unsuitable settings in
Chimpanzees 317 50
Europe, although Italy, Norway and Scotland
Gorillas 20 7 are set to consider or implement bans (Banks,
Orangutans 49 21 2016; Born Free Foundation, 2016a, 2016b;
Tyson, Draper and Turner, 2016). Other
Gibbons 181 43
countries have opted for “white lists” of
Total 573 64* species that are approved for private own-
Note: * Some facilities hold more than one type of ape. ership; these lists do not include apes, mean-
Data source: GAIN (n.d.) ing that private individuals or companies

259
FIGURE 8.3 Wildlife Service, which, following a regula-

Apes in Selected European Zoos, tory decision by the U.S. National Institutes
by Taxon, 2012 and 2016 of Health to retire chimpanzees from medical
labs, authorized the transfer of eight generic
Key: Bonobo Chimpanzee Gorilla
Orangutan Gibbon chimpanzees from the Yerkes National Pri
Apes in captivity (%)
mate Research Center in the United States to
100 an unaccredited zoo in the United Kingdom,
90 Wingham Wildlife Park. The agency appears
80
754 (33%) 784 (33%) to have granted the permit at least in part
70
based on Yerkes’ pledge to make a dona-
300 (13%) 312 (13%)
tion to initiate a new project led by a British
60
charity in Uganda, rather than any potential
50
424 (18.5%) 440 (19%) enhancement of the species through the
40
transfer itself, as would be expected under
30
the U.S. Endangered Species Act (Gorman,
20 698 (30.5%) 697 (30%) 2016). A number of organizations—includ-
10 ing the United Nations Great Apes Survival
108 (5%) 121 (5%)
0
2012 2016
Partnership and the Wildlife Conservation
Note: Figures are drawn from aggregate data presented in species- Society—had previously declined the dona-
holding reports submitted to the International Species Informa tion offer from Yerkes (Bale, 2016).
tion System, which was rebranded as Species360 in 2016. Some
A range of global stakeholders opposed
figures may reflect holdings from prior years.
the transfer during the protracted permit-
Data sources: Durham (2015, Figure 8.1); Species360 (2016)
ting process (Gorman, 2015b, 2016). The
Pan African Sanctuary Alliance cited con-
cannot legally own them (Durham and cerns regarding a precedent that would make
Phillipson, 2014). fighting the commercial trade in apes even
Better science has also been a key to more difficult, especially with respect to
positive change. In response to data that illegal markets for infant apes (PASA, 2016b).
revealed a significant proportion of hybrids The EAZA noted challenges related to zoo
(“generic” chimpanzees) in its captive breed- and sanctuary capacity in Europe, stating:
ing program, the European Association of “There are still many chimpanzees in Europe
Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) decided to focus that need outplacement and not enough
its ongoing efforts on the western and cen- good places to put them” (Carlsen and de
tral subspecies (Pan troglodytes verus and Jongh, 2015). A lawsuit to block the transfer
Pan t. troglodytes), while instituting a breed- eventually failed and seven chimpanzees
ing moratorium for other chimpanzees, (the eighth had died in the interim) were
including hybrids (Carlsen and de Jongh, 2015; cleared for export to Wingham Wildlife
Hvilsom et al., 2013). Despite such progress, Park in September 2016 (Gorman, 2016).
a number of challenges remain, including As this case highlights, stakeholders have
with respect to international cooperation on not yet reached consensus on priorities or
priorities and good practices for the care and on what constitutes good practice in the
welfare of apes in captivity. management of captive apes. Better inter-
The need for global cooperation is par- national cooperation and articulation of
ticularly apparent given how regulations and scientifically and ethically sound practices
actions in one country or jurisdiction can would help to close regulatory loopholes,
have unexpected implications in another. reduce risk and accelerate progress towards
A case in point involves the U.S. Fish and global protection.

260
Captive Apes in Range States fied as a sanctuary. From 1976 until 2007, it
had served as a research laboratory for the
and Surrounding Regions
New York Blood Center, carrying out invasive
Updated figures for sanctuaries in and near biomedical experiments on chimpanzees.
ape range states are presented in Tables As mentioned above, the Blood Center with-
8.6 and 8.7. While figures for chimpanzees drew funding for the chimpanzee colony in
remained relatively stable overall, there were 2015; the decision triggered public outcry
increases for both bonobos and gorillas for their care and the launch of an intensive
relative to 2011 figures reported in the first fundraising effort (Gorman, 2015a). The
volume of State of the Apes (Durham and fate of the surviving chimpanzees in Liberia
Phillipson, 2014, tables 10.7, 10.8). has since improved, particularly now that
Another change is the inclusion of a the sanctuary is taking shape and the
Liberian facility that was recently reclassi- NGO Liberia Chimpanzee Rescue has been
TABLE 8.6
Number of Apes in African Sanctuaries, by Taxon and Country, 2011 vs. 2015
Country Number of Bonobos Chimpanzees Gorillas

sanctuaries
2011 2015 % change 2011 2015 % change 2011 2015 % change
Cameroon 4 244 245 0 33 36 9
DRC* 6 55 72 31 85 104 22 30 18 -40
Gabon 3 20 20 0 9 45 400
Gambia 1 77 106 38
Guinea 1 38 49 29
Ivory 1 n/a 1
Coast
Kenya 1 44 39 -11
Liberia 1 n/a 63
Nigeria 1 28 30 7
Republic of 3 156 145 -7 5 28 460

Congo
Rwanda* 1 0 0 0 6 0 -100
Sierra 1 101 75 -26

Leone
South 1 33 13 -61
Africa
Uganda 1 45 48 7
Zambia 1 120 126 5
Total 27 55 72 31 1,071 1,065 -1 83 127 53
Note: Figures account for total sanctuary population inclusive of births, deaths, transfers and new arrivals. The dark shaded rows are not range states. * Some 2011 figures
for DRC and Rwanda include counts from jointly ascribed transboundary operations. For details, see Durham and Phillipson (2014).
Data sources: Durham and Phillipson (2014); PASA (2015); Wanshel (2016)

261
launched to ensure their well-being (Palm, Menteng and 196 at Samboja Lestari. About
2015). Another chimpanzee, the lone sur- 150 of these apes were not in reintroduction
vivor of a group that the Blood Center training because of their health. Of the
reportedly abandoned on an island off the remainder, 114 were on pre-release islands
Ivory Coast in the early 1980s, is now receiv- and more than 400 had been deemed eligible
ing care funded by an organization, which for release—that is, healthy (N. Hermanu,
is also attempting to secure international personal communication, 2016).
transfer since placement with Chimfunshi In contrast, the GFAS-accredited sanc-
sanctuary in Zambia was denied in 2016 tuary IAR Ketapang saw an increase in its
(Wanshel, 2016; T. Calvi, personal commu- orangutan numbers in 2016. The team
nication, 2016). released 18 orangutans that year, yet 28
African zoos also hold apes, although were taken in, resulting in a total of 106
far fewer than sanctuaries; 59 apes were resident orangutans (K. Sánchez, personal
reported for zoos on the continent: 33 chim- communication, 2017). A similar pattern of
panzees, 5 gorillas, 20 gibbons and 1 orang growth was apparent for the gibbon- and
utan (Species360, 2016). Sanctuaries and siamang-focused sanctuary Kalaweit,
rescue centers thus account for more than which was featured in the second volume
95.5% of all apes reported to be in captivity of State of the Apes (Durham, 2015). In 2014,
within Africa. Kalaweit reported that it had rescued 16
Range state sanctuaries in Africa have apes over the prior year, and that the num-
received a slow but steady trickle of new ber of residents had thus grown by 6%, to
residents through rescue; in some cases, they 254 (Durham, 2015, pp. 237–9). By August
have transferred or consolidated apes among 2016, the apes in residence had increased
themselves. In contrast, Asian sanctuaries to 293—a rise of 15%—not counting apes
have continued to experience a staggering that had been released since 2014 (Kalaweit
demand for care. A recent analysis of data France, 2016).
on great apes seized between 2005 and 2016 As rescues and successful law enforce-
revealed that 67% of known cases were orang ment efforts continue, the obligations asso-
utans (GRASP, 2016). ciated with new arrivals are offsetting
The continuing challenges that face reintroduction efforts of Asian sanctuaries
orangutan rescue centers are illustrated in such as BOSF, IAR Ketapang and Kalaweit.
the first volume of this series, in a case Reintroduction is fraught with a series of
study on the Borneo Orangutan Survival complex challenges, as discussed above.
Foundation (BOSF), which at that time had Sanctuaries must juggle priorities such as
approximately 820 orangutans in its care field staffing, the garnering of representa-
(Durham and Phillipson, 2014, p. 303). Given tion at international stakeholder meetings
that Indonesia’s government aims to release and participation in land use planning, all
all healthy orangutans, BOSF efforts have con- while ensuring the health and welfare of
tinued to focus on rehabilitation (Indonesia apes in captivity and in their natural habi-
MoF, 2009). Since 2012, BOSF has reintro- tats. Table 8.7 lists the number of orangutans
duced 234 orangutans—39 of them between and gibbons in residence at sanctuaries and
January and November 2016; the organiza- rescue centers in Asia in 2016.
tion was aiming to release another 250 by the In Asia, much like in Europe, a substan-
end of 2017 (N. Hermanu, personal commu- tial proportion of captive apes resides in
nication, 2016). At this writing, 667 orang zoos. Excluding the data presented for
utans were at BOSF facilities: 471 at Nyaru Japan in Table 8.5, zoos that use Species360

262
TABLE 8.7
Number of Orangutans and Gibbons in Asian Sanctuaries, by Country, 2016
Country Orangutans Gibbons
Cambodia 77
Indonesia 1,147 293
Malaysia 98
Thailand 2 229
Viet Nam 45
Total 1,247 644
Notes: Figures may include pre-2016 holdings. Median used in instances where a range was reported. Figures account for total sanc-
tuary population inclusive of births, deaths and new arrivals from rescue or transfer.
Data sources: Durham (2015); Highland Farm (n.d.); Kalaweit France (2016); OFI (n.d.); Orangutan Appeal UK (n.d.); Species360
(2016); personal communication: Gibbon Rehabilitation Project (2017); N. Hermanu (2016); M. Kenyon (2016); Orangutan Project (2017);
E. Pollard (2016); K. Sánchez (2017)
for voluntary reporting housed 24 gorillas, If care is to be maintained and improved,

344 gibbons, approximately 200 chimpan- ensuring that these facilities have resources
zees and 130 orangutans (Species360, 2016). and are recognized as essential stakehold-
ers in policymaking and scientific research
must be seen as high priorities. Given the
sustained—and growing—demand for sanc-
Conclusion tuary space and services, sanctuaries will
Around the globe, thousands of apes are require reliable support and partnerships, so
illegally hunted, traded and exploited for that they may focus on providing the same
private or commercial ends. We may not high standard of care for incoming apes as
know precisely what percentage of these apes for existing residents.
are seized or found and then placed in cap-
tive care, but there is growing recognition
that the sanctuaries that take them in face Acknowledgments
significant challenges and that these out- Principal authors of Section I: Julie Sherman5 and
comes are insufficiently tracked at both the David Greer6
national and international levels (D’Cruze Section I contributors: Marc Ancrenaz, Nicholas
and Macdonald, 2016). Bachand, Susan Cheyne, Christelle Colin, Debby Cox,
As states develop stronger legal and Doug Cress, Kay Farmer, Erik Meijaard, Kari Nienstedt,
Tamar Ron, Anne Russon, Albert Schenk, Steve Unwin,
regulatory frameworks for ape protection, Itsaso Vélez del Burgo, Liz Williamson and individual
and as care practitioners continue to enhance sanctuaries and rescue centers.
their standards and capacity, the opportu- Principal author of Section II: Debra Durham7
nities to reduce the harm and improve the Author’s acknowledgments: For the statistics update,
quality of life for captive apes are certain to the author gratefully acknowledges the following par-
increase. Together with accredited zoos, the ties for sharing data: Species360, the Ape Taxon
Advisory Group and affiliated SSPs, ChimpCARE,
sanctuaries that provide care for rescued
PASA and the individual sanctuaries and rescue cent-
apes have an important role to play in drivers that provided figures and reports.
ing these practices forward, not least by Reviewers: Meredith Bastian, Kay Farmer and Karmele
joining forces with strong partners. Llano Sánchez

263
Endnotes
1 To protect the confidentiality of communication
conducted for this research, this review refrains
from citing certain sources that would reveal the
identity and location of reviewed facilities.
2 For more information, see Ancrenaz et al. (2016);
Campbell et al. (2015); Fruth et al. (2016); Humle
et al. (2016); Maisels et al. (2016a); Plumptre,
Robbins and Williamson (2016c) and Singleton et
al. (2016). The Wildlife Conservation and National
Parks Act predates South Sudan’s independence
but is still in force as a 2015 revision has yet to be
enacted into law (CANS, 2013; A. Schenk, personal
communication, 2017).
3 For details, see Ancrenaz et al. (2015b); Brou Yao
et al. (2005); Campbell et al. (2008); Geissmann
et al. (2013); Hockings and Humle (2009); Imong
et al. (2014a); Indonesia MoF (2009); Lao MAF
(2011); Molur et al. (2005); Rawson et al. (2011);
SWD (2011); Turvey et al. (2015); White and Fa
(2014); Wich et al. (2012b); Williamson et al. (2014).
4 For more information, see Campbell et al. (2008);
Dunn et al. (2014); Geissmann et al. (2013);
Gumal and Braken Tisen (2015); Indonesia MoF
(2009); Lao MAF (2011); Lu and Tianxiao (2012);
Maldonado and Fourrier (2015); Molur et al.
(2005); Morgan et al. (2011); Plumptre et al.
(2010); Rawson et al. (2011); SWD (2011); Turvey
et al. (2015).
5 Wildlife Impact – https://wildlifeimpact.org/
6 WWF – http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/
endangered_species/great_apes/apes_
programme/
7 Save the Chimps – http://www.savethechimps.org/

264
Annex I
Power Grid Electrocution: A Risk to Primates in Rural,
Suburban and Urban Environments
Medium-sized mammals rarely endure in anthropogenic environments. Primates are an exception, as they occur
in a number of towns and cities in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. In areas with a matrix of human
development, indigenous trees and green spaces, primates can successfully persist as either urban exploiters or
urban adaptors, often transforming such locations into important conservation centers. These settings are not free
from danger, however. Among the threats to primates is power infrastructure. While overhead distribution lines
may serve as aerial pathways for individual primates and groups, particularly in areas that are fraught with terres-
trial hazards, they also pose a substantial risk of electrocution.
Numerous anecdotes and reports attribute primate injuries and deaths to electrocutions (Ampuero and Sá
Lilian, 2012; Chetry et al., 2010; Rodrigues and Martinez, 2014; M. Ancrenaz, personal communication, 2017;
S. Cheyne, personal communication, 2017). Given the difficulty of recording electrocutions, few studies have been
able to quantify the impact of electrocutions on a population. Recently, however, researchers have begun to analyze
electrocution data, identifying patterns based on primate species, size, age, sex and locomotion of victims, as well
as seasonal variations in electrocutions (Katsis, 2017; Kumar and Kumar, 2015; Ram, Sharma and Rajpurohit, 2015;
Slade, 2016).
The findings show that electrocutions occur in at least 28 species across eight primate families ranging from
marmosets to orangutans (Slade and Cunneyworth, 2017, table 1). Electrocutions are not limited to arboreal spe-
cies; they also affect those classified as terrestrial in their natural habitat, albeit at a lower rate. Mortality rates are
generally high, as would be expected. Surviving individuals often have catastrophic injuries with poor to very poor
prognoses, even with veterinary intervention (Kumar and Kumar, 2015; Slade, 2016).
A number of mitigation methods can be applied to address the animal welfare issues associated with electro-
cutions. These vary in duration of effectiveness. As an emergency or short-term measure, pruning trees around
transformers and power cables can serve to disassociate vegetation from the power grid (Lokschin et al., 2007).
In the medium term, aerial bridges can be installed in strategic locations to provide alternatives to the use of
FIGURE AX.1
Uninsulated vs. Insulated Transformer
Key:
1. Hot clamp is
uncovered
1
2. Primary inputs
(bushings) are exposed 5
3. Secondary output
(terminals) and wire
connection are 2 6
exposed
3 4
4. Cables are
uncovered
5. Lightening arrestor
is uncovered
6. Fuse cutout is
uncovered
Uninsulated Insulated
Source: Courtesy of Refuge for Wildlife (with protection equipment made of
(refugeforwildlife.org) grey silicone rubber)

265
power cables (Jacobs, 2015; Lokschin et al., 2007). Insulating power cables and transformers in known electrocution
hotspots is a long-term measure that can nearly eliminate the risk of electrocution (Printes, 1999; Refuge for Wildlife,
n.d.; see Figure AX.1).
The financial burden of these mitigations generally lies solely with animal welfare organizations. As these
organizations rely mostly on grants and donations, the monitoring and implementation of such measures is
potentially unsustainable. Consequently, mitigations can have limited effectiveness, especially with the ongoing
expansion of power infrastructure into new areas. Nevertheless, two initiatives have had encouraging results.
The first, the Programa Macacos Urbanos in Porto Alegre, Brazil, lodged a legal complaint against the state
power company, citing primate electrocutions as an environmental crime. The judgment was entered in favor of
the plaintiff and obliged the company to install approximately US$30,000 worth of insulation materials on the grid
(Printes et al., 2010).
The second, Colobus Conservation in Diani, Kenya, worked with Kenya Power on identifying electrocution
hotspots. The parastatal voluntarily insulated cables at a cost of US$115,000. The negative impact of the power
infrastructure on primates violated Kenya Power’s code of ethics, which committed the company to addressing the
issue in a substantive manner (J. Guda, personal communication, 2017).
Primate electrocutions have a cost implication for power distribution companies in terms of power infra-
structure maintenance and associated customer power outages. Costs to a company for insulating cables can be
offset to an extent that is dependent on the number of electrocutions in an area. Increased power reliability leads to
improved customer good will, which is a benefit for a company.
Mitigation measures to prevent electrocutions are most effective when they are part of an integrated approach
involving the state, power companies, residents, and animal welfare, conservation and research organizations.
When these stakeholders work together, significant steps can be made towards creating valuable conservation areas
in anthropogenic habitats.
Annex II
The Potential of the Global Forest Watch Platform to
Transform the Use of Satellite Imagery to Monitor
Tree Cover Loss
The detection of tree cover loss over time using satellite imagery allows for the location, visualization and compari-
son of forest change before and after infrastructure development. However, using satellite data has historically
required substantial expertise and funding to acquire, process and interpret the raw information.
For example, Curran et al. (2004) compiled, classified and manually edited images of Gunung Palung National
Park in Indonesia at six time periods to document extensive “and accelerating” deforestation over 14 years.
Similarly, Laporte et al. (2007) tracked the progression of logging roads in the Republic of Congo over more than
25 years by compiling, geometrically correcting and visually enhancing more than 300 Landsat images, and then
manually digitizing and cross-checking each of the roads detected in the images. Gaveau et al. (2009a) analyzed
98 Landsat images to track deforestation in Sumatra from 1990 to 2000 and showed that protected areas lost some
forest but promoted protection overall, both inside and outside their boundaries. Each of these efforts provided
valuable evidence of the effects of human activity on forests, but the requisite effort and costs prevented widespread
use of satellite data.
Global Forest Watch (GFW), a new forest change analysis platform, has transformed the monitoring process
and increased access to the power of satellite imagery. It provides a publicly available tool for monitoring changes
in ape habitat in near-real time (GFW, 2014; see Chapter 7). The global reach of this information enables GFW to
provide a standardized way of analyzing change in tree cover, enabling comparison across sites.
Launched in 2014, GFW provides spatially explicit, high-resolution tree cover change data, derived from
thousands of satellite images that are updated annually for the entire world. GFW offers free access to annually
updated tree cover and tree cover change data at a resolution of 30 m × 30 m using Landsat imagery; by late 2017,
updates of tree cover change for most ape range states will be available on a weekly basis (Hansen et al., 2013;
M. Hansen, personal communication, 2017).1
Annexes
266
Ape range stakeholders can use the online GFW tools to monitor ape habitat regularly, analyze tree cover loss
and gain data for a country or protected area, create custom maps or download data for their target region. Users
can upload or draw a specific area, such as a species range or road corridor, and analyze tree cover within it over
time. GFW thus allows those involved in ape conservation, including at the grassroots level, to monitor changes
and generate critical information at various spatial scales as a means of enhancing their conservation efforts.
Several communities within chimpanzee habitat have started to use the Forest Watcher mobile app to find
and validate GFW forest loss data on their village lands and report on human activities responsible for deforesta-
tion. The free app requires a smartphone but allows non-technical users to download data, go offline and collect
location data on forest change, and upload upon return to Internet access. The next version of the Forest Watcher
app will have a weekly forest loss alert capability, which will help community participants to monitor, verify and
manage road impacts in near-real time.
Endnote
1. Satellite imagery technology and access are constantly developing; for example, the European Space Agency
now provides open access to Sentinel Online. This technical website includes 10-m resolution imagery for
most parts of the globe and one of their thematic areas is forest monitoring – https://sentinel.esa.int/web/
sentinel/thematic-areas/land-monitoring/forest-monitoring.
Annex III
Data Sets and Detailed Methods
Method
The first three case studies in Chapter 3 examine the effects of road improvement projects on ape habitat in
Indonesia and Tanzania using open-access satellite imagery. The analysis quantified the extent of loss each year,
which enabled comparison of the area or percent of habitat loss in years before and after the construction or
upgrade of a road, as well as a comparison of loss rates at various distances from the road. The chapter explores
tree cover change in zones within 5 km and within 10 km of each road; in Tanzania, the buffer zone extends to 30 km,
as no other roads existed in the area to confound results. ArcGIS was used to create and display the buffer areas
and to overlay them with Global Forest Watch (GFW) tree cover data.
The global forest change 2000–14 data set, freely available at GFW, served as the basis for the analysis (Hansen
et al., 2013). Canopy cover in the year 2000 served as the baseline forest coverage, and cover in each of the subsequent
14 years provided annual change data. The annually updated 30 m × 30 m Landsat tree cover data allowed changes
in available habitat to be quantified over time. Each road project began after 2000, the initial year of the data set,
and concluded before 2014, the most recent year for which the global forest change data are available.
Definition of “Forest”
Each case study used a “canopy density” value—the percent tree cover in each pixel of the satellite image data—
that reflected the general forest type in the area and the species’ ecological requirements and tolerance of canopy
openness (GFW, 2014; IUCN, 2016a; see annexes VIII and IX).
The GFW platform allows users to select canopy density values. Ape habitat for the Sumatra case studies
included all pixels with 75% or more tree cover, which reflects the dense, interconnected canopy required for move-
ment by resident gibbons. Chimpanzees in Tanzania have evolved in drier forests than those supporting gibbons and
orangutans in Sumatra, and chimpanzees are believed to tolerate a more open canopy (Kano, 1972). Habitat in west-
ern Tanzania was therefore defined as pixels with 30% or more tree cover, to include dry forests and savannah–
woodland habitats of chimpanzees. Tanzanian roads were digitized on screen in ArcGIS Desktop using historical
DigitalGlobe satellite images; the Landsat satellite images were accessed through Google Earth and Earth Engine.
The global forest change data set measures “tree cover,” which in some areas may overestimate forest cover by
including mature tree plantations as well as natural forest (Tropek et al., 2014). Therefore, this analysis incorporates

267
boundaries of agricultural plantations in Sumatra, which were located and delineated using visual interpretations
of satellite imagery, primarily Landsat, supplemented by high-resolution imagery from Google Maps, Bing Maps
or DigitalGlobe, if available (Transparent World, 2015). Detectable areas of agricultural plantations were considered
tree cover loss in the first year of the study (2001). Dates of plantation establishment were unknown, however, and
some mature plantations may have been included in the 2000 forest cover values. In these cases, the inclusion of
some mature plantation land may have overestimated initial natural forest cover and loss in the 2000–14 period
(Tropek et al., 2014).2
In contrast, the data set may underestimate forest cover in dry forest, such as savannah–woodland chimpan-
zee habitats (Achard et al., 2014). Piel et al. (2015a) compare changes in chimpanzee density in Tanzania to local
forest loss assessed using GFW data. They find lower mean chimpanzee densities associated with increasing
habitat loss, suggesting that chimpanzee distribution and abundance may decrease with forest loss and that the
GFW platform could be useful for assessing their status in chimpanzee habitats.
Data Sets and Tools

Hutan, Alam dan Lingkungan Aceh (HAkA) provided the north Sumatran road data. Tanzanian roads were digi-
tized in ArcGIS Desktop using DigitalGlobe historical satellite images at a spatial resolution of 60 cm; 30 m
Landsat satellite images were accessed through the Google Earth and Earth Engine platforms. High-resolution
UrtheCast satellite imagery, available from GFW, and high-resolution DigitalGlobe satellite image base maps
helped assess GFW’s capacity to verify forest loss associated with roads, identify causes of deforestation and visualize
their impact in this study’s areas of interest. The GFW tree cover change data were presented in maps produced
using ArcGIS.
Input from ape and regional experts and a review of related scientific literature (Barber et al., 2014;
Clements et al., 2014; Laurance, Goosem and Laurance, 2009) assisted in estimating the expected effects on ape
populations, based on recorded distances from roads traveled by hunters, farmers, loggers and others who threaten
forests. This straightforward method can help expose damage, predict potential further loss and target mitigation
efforts to reduce adverse effects on surrounding ape habitat. Regularly updated imagery allows for the detection
of forest loss, although detection of forest degradation, including hunting and other below-canopy effects, remains
a frontier in the application of remote sensing.
Endnote
2. Where accuracy is essential, when monitoring canopy cover using satellite imagery, ground truthing is
important. This is particularly relevant in areas that include plantations, as shaded coffee and cocoa planta-
tions resemble good forest habitat from above. Shaded coffee and cocoa plantations are used by many species
of animals, but this habitat is of limited or no value to arboreal primates, including gibbons and orangutans
(M. Coroi, personal communication, 2017).
Annex IV
Global Land Analysis and Discovery Alerts for Early
Detection of Forest Loss and Focusing of On-The-
Ground Response
Global Forest Watch (GFW) currently provides annual updates of forest cover and forest change at a resolution of
30 m. More importantly for detecting loss of ape habitat, managers will soon be able to use the power of Global
Land Analysis & Discovery (GLAD) alerts, products of an “as-it-happens” deforestation alarm system, which are
triggered when a threshold portion of a 30 m × 30 m pixel changes from forest to non-forest cover (GLAD, n.d.).
The platform allows users to receive forest loss alerts in their email inboxes for areas across the tropics at a 30-m
resolution, updated weekly. By helping to detect habitat loss at the very onset of road building, alerts can facilitate
more timely, and therefore more effective and efficient, interventions (Hansen et al., 2016).
Annexes
268
Subscribers—such as NGO staff, concession holders, park directors or other officials—can receive these near-
real-time alerts of detections of large-scale forest loss for whatever areas they select—be it a country, reserve,
conservation landscape, road buffer or other stretch or expanse. Internet access is needed to receive alerts. GLAD
started with the Congo Basin, Indonesia and Malaysia, and is now available to help managers easily and consist-
ently monitor change across most tropical forest (M. Hansen, personal communication, 2017).
In the near future, assessments of infrastructure effects on forest habitat could include evaluations of patterns
of GLAD alerts as possible indicators of the intensity and direction of imminent forest loss. Analyses could also
compare areas experiencing GLAD alerts to factors associated with forest loss, such as slope or distance to clearings,
roads and towns. The rapid alert system can help guide associated development and enforcement to ensure no
additional illegal development happens along roads where restrictions or planning regulations have been established.
Annex V
Conservation Action Planning Review Process Results
for Chimpanzees in Tanzania
Tanzania’s National Chimpanzee Management Plan workshop has identified roads as a “high” threat to both core
chimpanzee habitats and chimpanzee corridors in the country. In some locations that are critical for chimpanzees,
the threat could be “very high” (TAWIRI, in preparation). Roads already cut through most chimpanzee corridor
areas in Tanzania. Roads alone are not a major threat to chimpanzee corridors since migrating chimps can cross
isolated roads, but they are much more of a threat if the forest on either side of the road is not maintained. The
roads of greatest concern are those that fragment core chimpanzee habitat areas, such as the road currently being
planned and constructed along the eastern border of Mahale Mountains National Park.
A key driver of deforestation across the region is the arrival of settlers via roads and footpaths, as they clear
riverine forests for farming. These forests are sought after because they grow on the region’s more fertile soils,
which are also suited for farming. Riverine forest represents a small but critical habitat for chimpanzees in western
Tanzania—roughly 2% of the total chimpanzee range. No chimpanzees in the region live in miombo woodlands
without some access to riverine forest patches (Pusey et al., 2007).
Findings from the 2016 conservation action planning review process reveal that efforts have successfully
protected chimpanzee habitats in dry forests and miombo woodlands (see Figure AX.2a). However, interventions so
far have been less successful at protecting the evergreen forest habitats that are critical for chimpanzee survival in
the region (TAWIRI, in preparation; see Figure AX.2b). Wildlife managers in the region will need to continue to
monitor and develop conservation strategies that prevent loss along and near these riverine forests.
In developing the plan, the authors applied the Open Standards methodology to assess and rank the threat
roads pose to chimpanzee core habitat conservation targets and corridor conservation targets. Specifically, they
looked at:
Scope: The proportion of the core habitat and corridors that can reasonably be expected to be damaged
within ten years if current circumstances and trends persist.
Severity: Within the scope, the expected level of damage to the core habitat and corridors if current circum-
stances and trends persist.
Irreversibility: The degree to which projected damage may be reversed and the damaged core habitat and
corridors restored (CMP, 2013).
The immediate footprint of a road is considered a threat of very high severity to chimpanzee core habitat
since it directly eliminates woodland and forest habitat. Very high severity ranking implies that the threat is
likely to destroy or eliminate chimpanzee core habitat in the near future. The area around a road is considered a
high- or medium-severity threat, depending on the degree to which other human activities can be controlled in
the area. Roads by themselves generally have a medium irreversibility rating since the road footprint itself could
be restored within 50 years.

269
FIGURE AX.2
Status of Core Chimpanzee Habitat Areas and Corridors, Tanzania, 2000 vs. 2014
a
Chimpanzee habitat health:
Evergreen forest
Kasulu % loss 2000 baseline
>5 Poor
Gombe 2.5–5 Fair
National 1–2.5 Good
Park <1 Very good
TANZANIA Chimpanzee core area

Kigoma Chimpanzee corridor
National park boundary
N
Uvinza
Masito East Forest Reserve

La
Masito
ke
West Tongwe East

To ngwe
Forest Forest Reserve

Ta
Reserve
nga
Wes
nyika
t Fo
res
tR
ese
rve
Mahale Mountains
National Park
Mpanda
Katavi
0 10 20 km
National Park
Annexes
270
b
Chimpanzee habitat health:
Woodland
Kasulu % loss 2000 baseline
>5 Poor
Gombe 2.5–5 Fair
National 1–2.5 Good
Park <1 Very good
TANZANIA Chimpanzee core area

Kigoma Chimpanzee corridor
National park boundary
N
Uvinza
Masito East Forest Reserve

La
Masito
ke
West Tongwe East

To ngwe
Forest Forest Reserve

Ta
Reserve
nga
Wes
nyika
t Fo
res
tR
ese
rve
Mahale Mountains
National Park
Mpanda
Katavi
0 10 20 km
National Park
Notes: Habitat health was estimated using Global Forest Watch data to show the percentage of loss of (a) forest and woodland and (b) evergreen forest.
Data sources: GFW (2014); Hansen et al. (2013); TAWIRI (in preparation); courtesy of JGI.

271
Annex VI
The World Bank’s Safeguard Policies and the
Pro-Routes Project
The World Bank’s safeguard policy framework is designed to avoid negative environmental impacts, or otherwise
to minimize, reduce, mitigate or compensate for them by integrating environmental considerations into project
planning. The policies also require best practice in regard to public participation in decision-making (World Bank,
n.d.-b). At the time of writing, the Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework included:
operational policies (OP): concise statements of policy objectives and operational principles, including the
roles and obligations of the borrower and the World Bank; and
Bank procedures (BP): mandatory OP-related procedures to be followed by the borrower and the World Bank.3
The World Bank screens each proposed project to determine what type of environmental assessment is
appropriate. As part of this process, the Bank classifies each project based on its potential environmental impacts
and related factors. In accordance with OP/BP 4.01 on environmental assessments, the World Bank classified the
Pro-Routes plan as a Category A project, which the Bank defines as “likely to have significant adverse environ-
mental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented.” For proposed projects in this category, borrowers are
responsible for preparing an EIA or comparable report (World Bank, n.d.-a, 2013a, p. 2).
In line with OP/BP 4.01, borrowers for Category A projects that are “highly risky or contentious or that
involve serious and multidimensional environmental concerns” are encouraged to “engage an advisory panel of
independent, internationally recognized environmental specialists to advise on all aspects of the project relevant
to the [environmental assessment]” (World Bank, 2013a, p. 1). Accordingly, the Pro-Routes project planners estab-
lished an environmental and social advisory panel.
With reference to the environmental assessment, under OP/BP 4.01, the borrowers for the Pro-Routes project
are also required to (World Bank, n.d.-b):
inform decision-makers of the nature of environmental and social risks;

ensure that projects proposed for Bank financing are environmentally and socially sound and sustainable
(so as to promote positive impacts and avoid or mitigate negative impacts); and
increase transparency and provide mechanisms for the participation of stakeholders in the decision-making
process for the project.
Under OP/BP 4.04, policies relating to natural habitats further require borrowers to:
protect, maintain and restore natural habitats and their biodiversity;

ensure sustainability of the services and products that natural habitats provide to human society;
involve local communities in planning and implementation; and
take a precautionary approach to natural resource management.
Under OP/BP 4.36, concerning forests, borrowers must also:
contribute to sustainable development and meet the demand for forest products and services through sustain-
able forest management;
protect and maintain the rights of communities to use their traditional forest areas in a sustainable manner;
protect global environmental services and values of forests;
avoid encroachment on significant areas of forest; and
ensure forest restoration projects maintain or enhance biodiversity and ecosystem function.
Annexes
272
Endnote
3. The World Bank approved a new Environmental and Social Framework in August 2016. It will launch the
framework in 2018 and will apply it to all new investment projects; the Bank’s current safeguards are
expected to run parallel to the new framework for about seven years, in the context of projects approved
before the launch of the new framework (World Bank, n.d.-d; see Box 5.1).
Annex VII
The Decommissioning of Dams
Hydropower infrastructure, such as dams, provides energy to many communities, cities and countries around the
world. The ecological, economic and social impacts of dams are often inadequately considered, but they have been
well documented. Factors that often garner greater attention from decision-makers are the economic and safety
concerns associated with building and maintaining dam structures. As is the case with any type of hard infrastruc-
ture, dams must be maintained to certain standards in order to ensure the safety of downstream communities,
including animals living in riparian corridors (Brown et al., 2009; WCD, 2000).
Hundreds of thousands of people around the globe have perished following the failure of dams (Si, 1998);
such disasters can result from any number of design and deterioration issues (ASDSO, n.d.). In the United States
alone, hundreds of fatalities have resulted from people climbing on, paddling over, fishing near or otherwise
interacting with dam structures and ignoring risks associated with potential hydraulic undertows at the base of dam
structures (Tschantz, 2014).
Dam owners who decide to remove a structure typically cite socioeconomic concerns as the motivating factors
behind their decision (Engberg, 2002). For example, when a hydropower dam no longer produces enough power
to justify its existence on economic grounds, it is decommissioned.
In the United States, the Federal Power Act and the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act require hydropower regulators to consult with agencies charged with protecting natural resources before issu-
ing hydropower licenses. These requirements exist to protect access to important habitat for migratory fish species
(McDavitt, 2016). If installing a required fish passage system is cost-prohibitive compared with the income from
power production, a hydropower producer may abandon a project and the dam might eventually be removed. A case
in point involves the removal of two dams on the Elwha River in Washington State. Both federal environmental
agencies and native tribes had insisted that the dams incorporate adequate fish passage for salmon, which would
have been difficult to ensure and cost-prohibitive (Gowan, Stephenson and Shabman, 2006). After years of delib-
eration, the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams were removed in 2011 and 2014, respectively.
A non-hydropower dam may become obsolete when associated mills shut down, an impoundment fills with
sediment, its structure breaks down, its design proves to be ineffective for its intended purpose or if it no longer
has an identifiable purpose. If a dam has become obsolete, the owner may be particularly unwilling or unable to
bear maintenance costs and shoulder liabilities associated with keeping it intact, and the dam may be removed
(Engberg, 2002).
Given that the cost of dam removal can vary widely, and that the economic valuation of the ecosystem
services provided by a free-flowing river can be difficult to quantify, conducting a true cost–benefit analysis
of dam removal can be challenging (Whitelaw and MacMullen, 2002). As of 2015, more than 1,200 of about
80,000 dams in the United States had been removed, but fewer than 10% of those removals were scientifically
studied—and most of the studies that were conducted did not examine broader ecosystem responses (Bellmore
et al., 2016).
Research that did consider ecosystem impacts has shown that the potential benefits of dam removal include
the following:
reconnection of river habitat for fish and other aquatic species;

reestablishment of more natural flow patterns of water, sediment and nutrients through the ecosystem;

273
reduction of thermal impacts of impoundments;

improvement of aquatic organism access to upstream refugia from increasing water temperatures;
elimination of liability and maintenance costs;
decreases in flooding upstream; and
increases in connectivity of the river for recreational purposes (Lejon, Malm-Renöfält and Nilsson, 2009;
Magilligan et al., 2016; Wildman, 2013).
Ultimately, the removal of a dam means bringing a river closer to a more natural, functional state. When a
dam is constructed, the flow of animals, nutrients, sediment and other natural processes is stopped or limited
indefinitely (O’Connor, Duda and Grant, 2015). Downstream communities are the most impacted by dams; too
often, they are disadvantaged or disenfranchised, with no capacity to defend themselves against political pres-
sures to build new infrastructure (WCD, 2000). By taking the services provided by a functioning river into
account, along with the likely impacts to downstream communities, decision-makers can help to avert or at least
minimize negative impacts on local populations and biodiversity, be it with reference to the construction of a dam
or its removal.
Annex VIII
Data Sets Used
The assessment of the status of ape habitat at two spatial scales (see Figure 7.1) included the analysis of several
global data sets:
The Global Forest Change 2000–14 data set. Provided by the University of Maryland in association with
Google, Inc., and the foundation of GFW 2.3, these data on annual forest cover and tree cover loss are presented
at 30-m resolution. Development of this data set included verification using very high-resolution spatial data,
such as Quickbird imagery and existing percent tree cover data sets derived from Landsat data (Hansen et al.,
2013). Data are available online at: http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest.
IUCN Red List data on geographic ranges of each recognized subspecies. The range delineations vary in
terms of precision. Ranges of 22 subspecies—including most gibbons in mainland Asia and gorillas—reflect
the recent extent of their distribution, given the historical loss of forest cover. In contrast, ranges of the other
16 subspecies have less refined boundaries and reflect the apes’ historical distributions, which include areas of
urban development that are no longer home to apes (IUCN, 2016c).
The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). A joint effort between IUCN and the UN Environment
Programme (UNEP), the WDPA is managed by UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN and
UNEP-WCMC, 2016). The 2016 PA boundaries may include areas that were not protected throughout the
study period. The analysis included all reserves and PAs within IUCN protected area categories I–VI, except
those with a status of “not reported” or “proposed” and those designated as UNESCO biosphere reserves
(IUCN, 2016c, n.d.-b; UNESCO, n.d.-b). The analysis retained all PAs and other reserves with no IUCN clas-
sification, including thousands of forest reserves and a large number of community reserves. The WDPA does
not yet contain all of the world’s community reserves, but it is the most comprehensive database currently
available at the global scale.
Unpublished data on industrial plantations. Mapped by the World Resources Institute and Transparent
World, these data were used to account for the tree cover created by mature oil palm, timber, pulpwood and
rubber plantations, particularly in Southeast Asia (GFW, 2014; see Annex XI).
Errors in any of these data sets could influence results, but the global scale of this analysis precludes inclusion
of finer-scale data for each ape range country. Annex XII suggests additional data layers that could refine this analysis.
Annexes
274
Annex IX
Forest Habitat Definitions for 38 Ape Subspecies
Geographically unique ape subspecies have adapted to particular environmental conditions, including canopy
openness. This analysis uses different values of tree cover density to define habitat and to estimate forest change
in the ranges of each subspecies. For each subspecies, it defines a threshold canopy density (the percent tree cover
per pixel) below which the subspecies may not be viable.
The thresholds reflect each subspecies’ ecology, based on IUCN habitat data and scientific literature (IUCN,
2016c), tree cover within their range and in protected areas (PAs) with known occupancy; regional expert opinion
on chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas and orangutans was also taken into consideration, as was the ability of certain
subspecies to survive in a variety of forest types, including habitat degraded by humans (see Annex X).
Chimpanzees. Among the apes, chimpanzees tend to have the most flexible ranging behavior (Maldonado
et al., 2012; K. Abernethy, personal communication, 2016). Western chimpanzees occupy areas ranging from
closed-canopy moist forest to wooded savannah, indicating a habitat threshold that included pixels with 15%
or more tree cover. A lower canopy density was thus selected for all chimpanzee subspecies (see Annex X).
Gibbons. Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests comprise most ape habitat. For gibbons, who require
canopy connectivity and a diversity of fruit trees (W. Brockelman, personal communication, 2016), recom-
mended canopy cover is at least 75% (Gaveau et al., 2014; D. Gaveau, personal communication, 2016).
Gorillas. Most gorillas occupy densely forested areas, although habitat for Grauer’s and mountain gorillas
contains substantial areas of bamboo (K. Abernethy, personal communication, 2016).
Orangutans. A wide range of canopy density was suggested for orangutan habitats. At the high end, based on
natural forest cover in Borneo, the proposed density was at least 75% (D. Gaveau, personal communication,
2016). Yet, based on the ability of orangutans to use partially disturbed habitat so long as they are not hunted,
the density could be as low as 30% (E. Meijaard, personal communication, 2016).
Where the ranges of subspecies overlap, forest was defined in the overlapping regions using the requirements
of the more exacting subspecies—that is, the one with the higher canopy density percentage.
The availability of IUCN ape range data and the Google Earth Engine scripts on GFW will enable other users
to run such analyses at a higher or lower percent tree cover per pixel and thus tailor the parameters to specific
environments (see Annex VIII).
In this analysis, a single taxon-specific threshold value of canopy density was used to exclude areas where
forest structure or composition may not be suitable for a given ape subspecies. This approach may not ade-
quately reflect the ecological variability found among populations of some subspecies, particularly chimpanzees.
Eastern and western chimpanzees occupy regions dominated by either denser forest or savannah woodlands and
forest mosaic.
In the range of western chimpanzees, most deforestation occurs in zones of higher canopy density, and the
low canopy density percentage assigned to this subspecies to reflect its ecological flexibility probably underestimates
forest loss in the wetter southern half of its range (L. Pintea, unpublished data, 2016). Use of a denser canopy thresh-
old (for example, 30%, instead of 15%) for western chimpanzees would have decreased detected habitat loss by 2.5%
over the period under review, mainly because the baseline forest in 2000 (564,000 km2 or 56.4 million ha at 15%
canopy cover) would have covered a much smaller area (355,000 km2 or 35.5 million ha at 30%).
Analysis of forest change for these and other ape taxa will therefore benefit from the addition of environmental
layers, such as potential or suitable habitat, ecoregions and elevation (see Annex XII).

275
Annex X
Canopy Density Percentages Used for 38 Ape Subspecies
Common name Scientific name Threshold percentage Source
Bonobo Pan paniscus 50 occupancy
Central chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes 30 occupancy, expert
Eastern chimpanzee Pan t. schweinfurthii 30 occupancy, expert
Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee Pan t. ellioti 30 occupancy
Western chimpanzee Pan t. verus 15 occupancy
Cross River gorilla Gorilla gorilla diehli 50 occupancy
Grauer’s gorilla Gorilla beringei graueri 50 occupancy
Mountain gorilla Gorilla b. beringei 50 occupancy
Western lowland gorilla Gorilla g. gorilla 75 occupancy, expert
Northeast Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus morio 50 expert, range
Northwest Bornean orangutan Pongo p. pygmaeus 50 expert, range
Southwest Bornean orangutan Pongo p. wurmbii 50 expert, range
Sumatran orangutan Pongo abelii 50 expert, range
Eastern hoolock Hoolock leuconedys 75 ecology
Western hoolock Hoolock hoolock 75 ecology
Abbott’s gray gibbon Hylobates abbotti 75 ecology
Agile gibbon Hylobates agilis 75 ecology
Bornean gray gibbon Hylobates funereus 75 ecology
Bornean white-bearded gibbon Hylobates albibarbis 75 ecology
Carpenter’s lar gibbon Hylobates lar carpenteri 75 ecology
Central lar gibbon Hylobates l. entelloides 75 ecology
Kloss’s gibbon Hylobates klossii 75 ecology
Malaysian lar gibbon Hylobates l. lar 75 ecology
Moloch gibbon Hylobates moloch 75 ecology
Müller’s gibbon Hylobates muelleri 75 ecology
Pileated gibbon Hylobates pileatus 75 ecology
Sumatran lar gibbon Hylobates l. vestitus 75 ecology
Yunnan lar gibbon Hylobates l. yunnanensis 75 ecology
Cao Vit gibbon Nomascus nasutus 75 ecology
Central Yunnan black-crested gibbon Nomascus concolor jingdongensis 75 ecology
Hainan gibbon Nomascus hainanus 75 ecology
Laotian black-crested gibbon Nomascus c. lu 75 ecology
Northern white-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus leucogenys 75 ecology
Southern white-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus siki 75 ecology
Southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus gabriellae 75 ecology
Tonkin black-crested gibbon Nomascus c. concolor 75 ecology
West Yunnan black-crested gibbon Nomascus c. furvogaster 75 ecology
Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus 75 ecology
Notes: Percentages reflect overall vegetation cover and tolerance of canopy openness. IUCN geographic ranges of most gibbon species are highly fragmented; much of
their former range was already converted to non-forest land uses by 2000.
Annexes
276
Annex XI
Value and Limitations of the GFW Tool for Monitoring
Forest Cover Change
Value
Launched in 2014, Global Forest Watch provides access to spatially explicit, high-resolution forest change data,
which is derived from thousands of satellite images and updated annually for the entire world (GFW, 2014; Hansen
et al., 2013). GFW’s online forest monitoring and alert system combines cutting-edge algorithms, satellite technology
and cloud computing to identify where trees are growing and disappearing in near-real time.
In a few minutes, a user can obtain up-to-date information about the status of forest landscapes worldwide
or for a particular region, such as a country, species range or PA. The user can also modify the percent tree
cover per pixel (the canopy density) GFW uses to determine forest cover, so as to adjust any analysis to reflect a
more open or closed canopy. Users can generate regular, accurate summaries of forest extent and change, create
custom maps, analyze forest trends, subscribe to near-real-time alerts of forest loss or download data for their
local area, country or region.
GFW provides free access to the annually updated global forest change data at relatively high resolution,
along with tools with which to analyze tree cover loss and gain data. The analysis presented in Chapter 7 shows
the data’s broad application with respect to species
using both closed-canopy and more open-canopy
forest. GFW forest change information is highly scal-
BOX AX.1 able, from a forest corridor to all ape species’ ranges.
Detecting Plantations at a Broad Scale Applications include not only monitoring of PAs and
range polygons, but also identification and monitor-
A criticism of the Global Forest Change 2000–14 data set is that it
ing of forest corridors and other areas of concern. As
does not always distinguish between natural forest and industrial
discussed in the chapter, GLAD alerts will identify
plantations, such as oil palm. To address this issue and identify indus-
trial plantations in the areas under review, the analysis presented in
areas of likely forest loss on a weekly basis, facilitating
Chapter 7 incorporates data from an industrial plantation mapping each of these activities and helping resource managers
project undertaken by the World Resources Institute and Transparent to monitor forest cover consistently.
World (Transparent World, 2015). Overall forest loss figures in this Global Forest Watch Fires is a related platform
analysis include these plantations; to avoid double counting an area that provides near-real-time information on forest fires
once its forest was converted to plantation, any tree cover loss within in Southeast Asia. Fires have led to sweeping forest loss
plantations was ignored. in Indonesia, especially in peat forests that are critical
Areas under plantation are counted as “lost” as of 2001, so that cumu- orangutan habitat. The tool’s daily, spatially explicit
lative loss includes all plantation areas, regardless of whether an area updates on fire occurrence empower people to enhance
was developed. The map that shows forest cover in 2000 includes their monitoring of and responses to fires before they
any vegetation in these properties that was tall and dense enough to burn out of control and to hold accountable those who
be considered tree cover by GFW. An unknown proportion of forest may have burned forests illegally (GFW, n.d.-a).
within these areas had already been converted to tree plantations by
2000; without knowledge of the dates of initial conversion of each area,
it is impossible to discern whether the loss from 2000 to 2001 was all, Limitations
mostly, or only partially loss of natural forest. Despite its advantages, the use of GFW alone has cer-
Although the plantations were recently digitized from high-resolution tain limitations. For example, annual updates at 30-m
satellite imagery, the data lack information on the year in which each resolution or bi-weekly updates at 500-m resolution
plantation was established. Consequently, the annual forest loss data will not necessarily provide the precision needed to
in Figure 7.5 ignore the presence of plantations and thus show less
determine effects on a given primate population, the
loss than actually occurred in creating plantations in all cases.
cause of clearance or associated impacts, such as poach-
This limitation of the global forest change data may affect results in ing and non-timber forest product collection. Reliance
areas of high plantation density. Agricultural plantations (of oil palm, on remotely sensed information further constrains
rubber and timber) overlapped with portions of the ranges of 15 ape
the GFW platform’s ability to help explain drivers of
subspecies (13 of which are in Indonesia and Malaysia) and corre-
forest change.
spond with more than 50% of the forest loss in 12 of these ranges.
The Global Forest Change 2000–14 data set cre-
ated by Hansen et al. (2013) may underestimate forest

277
cover in dry forest habitats, such as those used by chimpanzees in Mali and Senegal (Achard et al., 2014). Setting
canopy density threshold values of 30% or 15% for regions with sparser tree cover helped control for this limitation,
while acknowledging that most deforestation occurs in zones of higher canopy density (K. Abernethy, personal com-
munication, 2016; L. Pintea, unpublished data, 2016). This looser definition of forest may lead to underestimating
of forest loss in more densely forested portions of the ranges of Pan spp.
Conversely, the data created by Hansen et al. (2013) measure “tree cover,” which in some areas may include
mature tree plantations as well as natural forest (Tropek et al., 2014). In addition to excluding known plantations
(see Box AX.1), setting a high canopy density threshold (50% or 75%) consistent with tropical moist forest canopy
helps to screen out young oil palm plantations, which have gaps in canopy cover due to the low height and small
crowns of palm saplings. For the ranges of some ape species, however, plantation data were unavailable; for others,
dates of plantation establishment were unknown (Transparent World, 2015). Consequently, mature plantations
may have been included in the 2000 forest cover values in some areas, causing both initial forest cover in 2000 and
loss in the 2000–14 period to be overestimated. Despite its limitations in distinguishing vegetation types at the
local scale, the global forest change data set developed by Hansen et al. (2013) may provide valuable forest cover
information for areas where local data may be lacking (Burivalova et al., 2015).
Annex XII
Future Refinements to the Ape Habitat Assessment
Aggregating and summarizing the data for 38 ape species and subspecies of 33 countries with varying canopy
cover requirements and numerous vegetation types for 2000–14 inherently involved accepting error. Given the
following unknowns and shortcomings, additional data or analysis would improve this assessment:
Forest use patterns by various subspecies within their range polygons are not fully known.
While IUCN geographic ranges represent the best available data on subspecies at the global scale, ape popula-
tions are not evenly distributed within them; range maps, therefore, are prone to commission (false presence)
errors (Rondinini et al., 2006). Moreover, updates to range map polygon boundaries rely on scarce species
presence data and are not consistent across subspecies (Wich et al., 2016).
The selection of a single canopy density threshold value for areas of range overlap of subspecies with differing
forest cover requirements created some discrepancy in the aggregations of forest presence and loss for coun-
tries and across all ape ranges.
PAs were created in different years, so certain forested areas may not have been fully protected until later in
the period under review.
Plantations were created in different years, so while they were considered a loss from 2001, they may have been
created before 2000 and would thus reduce the initial forest cover extent.
Assessing the status and trends in forest habitat is a first step in estimating the status of ape populations.
Future assessments of ape habitat will benefit from including additional data sets as they become available and
accessible. These may include:
species-specific habitat suitability maps that incorporate on-the-ground verification (Hickey et al., 2013; Jantz
et al., 2016; Torres et al., 2010; Wich et al., 2012b);
higher-resolution satellite imagery of important primate areas, via platforms such as Planet or DigitalGlobe,
which increasingly provide remotely sensed data that can help conservationists determine drivers of deforestation;
the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and other satellite-derived vegetation cover data, which could
help quantify forest degradation and may be particularly important for gibbons, as they require intact canopy;
elevation data (Tracewski et al., 2016);
information on forest structure, including cover, height, stand age and intactness;
land use data, including legal and illegal agriculture and settlements in addition to forestry;
Annexes
278
zoning data from both official (government) sources and unofficial sources—such as Global Witness,
Greenpeace and MightyEarth—to help assess emerging or future drivers of forest loss, such as rubber, oil
palm or logging concessions that may not yet be active but that have been allocated;
ground-truthed information on land cover, species presence and human activity, including roads, to help
determine drivers of forest loss; and
important ape landscape boundaries (Max Planck Institute, n.d.-b), which were not available for Asia and
were not used in the analysis in this chapter, as these would allow future habitat assessments to be conducted
within their boundaries.
For this global-scale analysis, no attempt was made to determine suitable environmental conditions (SEC),
which suggest the occurrence of an ape subspecies within its range (Junker et al., 2012). An Africa-wide great ape
suitability analysis, published in 2012 and presented in the first State of the Apes volume, acknowledges various
limitations of a modeling approach at that scale (Funwi-Gabga et al., 2014; Junker et al., 2012). These included
presence locations geographically biased to PAs, outdated vegetation and road data, and a lack of true absence data,
each of which may have skewed determination of suitable habitat.
Habitat suitability models use a variety of factors, including forest canopy cover, to help predict and map
potential habitats, but integrating these data has limited previous modeling efforts to small regions or coarse
spatial and temporal resolutions. Jantz et al. (2016) combined global forest change data with other Landsat
Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) satellite imagery to model and map changes in habitat suitability
between 2001 and 2014 over the entire chimpanzee range at 30-m resolution (see Annex X). However, the animal
presence data on which suitability maps are based do not exist across the ranges of most ape subspecies, and current
global satellite data do not allow for refinement of these results to account for suitability.
Reliable habitat suitability maps will allow future assessments to exclude areas of unsuitable land cover—such
as illegal oil palm and other plantations, pressure from human activity and natural barriers—and reduce the
amount of commission errors (Beresford et al., 2011). With broad applicability to a range of ape taxa, this type of
assessment will allow for more effective and efficient interventions.
Annex XIII
Applying Habitat Assessment to Conservation Action
Plans for Apes
Transparency to reveal the relative condition of forest habitat at high spatial and temporal resolution will be
increasingly central—not only to halting forest loss directly, but also to planning effective conservation strategies
for apes and other forest-dependent species.
Conservation action plans (CAPs) have been developed for at least 30 ape taxa. Some CAPs have identified
conservation units that, if successfully implemented, would protect majorities of the subspecies’ range (Plumptre
et al., 2010). However, ape-range authorities and conservationists often lack the means to monitor forest cover
status of these critical areas (Kühl, 2008).
CAPs that use the Open Standards process developed for chimpanzees and gorillas in Tanzania and eastern
DRC have used GFW data to assess viability of ape conservation targets, prioritize threats and measure conservation
success (TANAPA et al., 2015). For example, the process in Tanzania considered chimpanzee habitats to be in very
good or good condition if the areas lost less than 1% and 2.5%, respectively, of their forest with tree cover density
greater than 30% (TAWIRI, in preparation). For the period 2000–14, forest loss between 2.5% and 5% or greater
than 5%, respectively, would lead chimpanzee habitat viability to be categorized as fair or poor.
Tanzanian authorities will apply these standardized criteria in continuous monitoring of the viability of
chimpanzee habitats in the country, as new forest loss data are added to the GFW platform. Together with the
chimpanzee conservation community, and with an eye to supporting the conservation action planning process,
GFW is developing its new Map Builder platform to allow for comparisons of thresholds of tree cover loss across
customizable areas (GFW, n.d.-b).

279
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIIB Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

A.P.E.S. Ape Populations, Environments and Surveys
AWA Animal Welfare Act
AWF African Wildlife Foundation
AZA Association of Zoos and Aquariums
B–K Blangkejeren–Kutacane
BAP biodiversity action plan
BEGES Bureau d’Études Spécialisé en Gestion Environnementale et Sociale, DRC
BOSF Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation
BP bank procedures
BUPAC Bili–Uélé Protected Area Complex
CAP conservation action plan
CAR Central African Republic
CBG Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée
CI Cellule Infrastructures
CIA cumulative impact assessment
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
cm centimeter
DDNP Deng Deng National Park
DFID United Kingdom Department for International Development
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
DOPA Digital Observatory for Protected Areas
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
DSEZ Dawei Special Economic Zone
EAZA European Association of Zoos and Aquaria
EIA environmental impact assessment
ESAP environmental and social advisory panel
ESIA environmental and social impact assessment
FCFA Franc Communauté Financière Africaine (Central African franc)
FFI Fauna and Flora International
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FPIC free, prior and informed consent
FPP Forest Peoples Programme
FSC Forestry Stewardship Council
GAC Guinea Alumina Corporation
GEI Global Environmental Institute
GFAS Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries
GFW Global Forest Watch
Acronyms and Abbreviations

280
GLAD Global Land Analysis and Discovery

GLNP Gunung Leuser National Park
GP good practice
GRanD Database Global Reservoir and Dam Database
gROADS Global Roads Open Access Data Set
GW gigawatt
I–R–K Ilagala–Rukoma–Kashagulu
IAR International Animal Rescue
ICCN Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature
IFC International Finance Corporation
IGCP International Gorilla Conservation Programme
IHA International Hydropower Association
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
ha hectare
HKU University of Hong Kong
HSUS Humane Society of the United States
km kilometer
km2 square kilometer
kV kilovolt
ILO International Labour Organization
JRC European Commission Joint Research Centre
KBNP Kahuzi-Biega National Park
kg kilogram
KNU Karen National Union
Lao PDR Lao People’s Democratic Republic
LAPSSET Lamu Port, South Sudan, Ethiopia Transport (corridor)
LPHP Lom Pangar Hydropower Project
LRA Lord’s Resistance Army
m meter
MAAP Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project
MDB multilateral development bank
MMNP Mahale Mountains National Park
MW megawatt
MYR Malaysian ringgit
NCR native customary rights
NGO non-governmental organization
OP operational policy
OSM OpenStreetMap
OVAG Orangutan Veterinary Advisory Group
PA protected area
PAD project appraisal document
PADDD protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement

281
PASA Pan African Sanctuary Alliance

Pro-Routes High-Priority Roads Reopening and Maintenance
RAEL Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
RRI Rights and Resources Initiative
RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
Save Rivers Save Sarawak Rivers Network
SCORE Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy
SEB Sarawak Energy Berhad
sp. species (singular)
spp. species (plural)
SSP Species Survival Plan
TANROADS Tanzania National Roads Agency
TBC The Biodiversity Consultancy
TCL tiger conservation landscape
TH–L Tamiang Hulu–Lokop
THV terrestrial herbaceous vegetation
TNC The Nature Conservancy
TRIDOM Tri-National Dja–Odzala–Minkébé
UGM Universitas Gadjah Mada (university)
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
UNESCO United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization
WARN Wild Animal Rescue Network
WB World Bank
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WISER World Indigenous Summit on Environment and Rivers
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund
Acronyms and Abbreviations

282
GLOSSARY
Algorithm: A set of instructions or rules for performing tasks such as calculations, data processing and auto-
mated reasoning.
Alternative energy: Usable power derived from sources other than fossil fuels, often with a focus on avoiding
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. See also: clean energy and renewable energy.
Anthropocene: A buzzword used to refer to the current geological epoch in view of humankind’s profound impact
on Earth. The term was popularized by atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen in 2000 and recommended for adop-
tion by a dedicated working group of the International Union of Geological Sciences in 2016. Scholars disagree about
the start date of the Anthropocene, with suggestions ranging from 8,000 years ago to about 1950.
ArcGIS Desktop: A mapping and spatial data analysis application produced by Esri.
ArcGIS Online: An Internet-based mapping platform developed by Esri that enables users to access, create and
share maps, scenes, apps, layers, analytics and spatial data. Available at: www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgisonline.
Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES): A suite of computer models that support science-based
decision-making to promote environmental sustainability. Available at: aries.integratedmodelling.org.
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Heritage Parks: Sites throughout the ASEAN region—Brunei,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam—that
are designated conservation areas in recognition of their rich biodiversity; four of the 37 sites are also UNESCO
World Heritage sites.
Base-load demand: The power required to run facilities, electronics and appliances that are always on, such as
hospitals and refrigerators, in contrast to peak-load demand, which is the power needed to run appliances and
machines that can be turned on and off, such as computers and televisions.
Behavioral enrichment: Conditions or stimuli introduced to establish and support species-specific natural
behaviors and reduce aberrant ones, with the goal of improving the psychological and physiological well-being of
captive animals.
Bimaturism: Development characterized by differing stages or timings within a species or within a sex; among
orangutans, mature males are flanged or unflanged (see flanged).
Bing Maps: An online mapping service that is part of Microsoft’s Bing suite of search engines and that offers
worldwide orthographic aerial and satellite imagery. Available at: www.bing.com/maps.
Biodiversity: The variety of plant and animal life on earth or in a particular habitat.
Biodiversity hotspot: A significant reservoir of biodiversity that is threatened with destruction.
Biota: Plant and animal life of a specific region.
Blood diamond: A diamond mined in a war zone and sold to finance an insurgency, an invading army’s war efforts
or a warlord’s activity.
Blood gold: Gold mined by enslaved or otherwise victimized populations, including brutalized Congolese and
the impoverished illegal miners of South Africa.
Boom-and-bust cycle: Alternating periods of economic growth and contraction. An increase in business activity,
for example in connection with exploitation of a valuable natural resource, may be followed by sharp price declines
for the resource or its overexploitation, a spike in unemployment and a drop in returns to investors.
Brachiation: Arboreal locomotion that relies exclusively on the arms to propel the body forward. Related term:
brachiate.
Catchment: A rural or urban area where the natural landscape collects water from rain, or other precipitation.
This gradually drains into a common outlet, such as a river, a bay or another body of water. Also referred to as a
drainage area, river basin or watershed.

283
Circular economy: An economic model that aims to transform waste into resources and to bridge gaps between
production and consumption.
Clean energy: Usable power generated with little or no pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, as derived from
renewable sources such as sunlight, wind, biomass and waves, in contrast to “dirty” sources of energy, such as fossil
fuels (coal, natural gas and oil). Not all geothermal and hydroelectric power is clean energy. See also: alternative
energy and renewable energy.
Cleaner production: Processes and services that are characterized by the continual application of strategies that
increase efficiency and reduce risks to the environment.
Cloud computing (or cloud technology): The use of a network of remote servers hosted on the Internet to store,
manage and process data.
Conspecific: A member of the same species.
Core area: The most heavily used portion of the home range of a group or individual.
Corridor: See Wildlife Corridor.
Cost–benefit analysis: A process by which the benefits of a given situation or action are summed and the corre-
sponding costs are subtracted; opportunity costs may also be factored in.
Cost engineering: The practice of managing project costs by using approaches such as estimating, cost control,
cost forecasting, investment appraisal and risk analysis.
Critical habitat: An area of high biodiversity value. The International Finance Corporation defines it as habitat
of significant importance to critically endangered, endangered, endemic, or restricted-range species; habitat that
supports globally significant concentrations of migratory or congregatory species; a highly threatened or unique
ecosystem; or an area associated with critical evolutionary processes (IFC, 2012a, p. 4).
Critically endangered: Facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.
Cumulative impact: The incremental effects of one project, combined with the past, present and foreseeable
future effects arising from other developments (such as infrastructure, extractive or agricultural activities) in
selected areas.
Cumulative impact assessment (CIA): An evaluation that factors in the combined effects of past, present and
foreseeable human activities, over time and on the environment, economy and society in a particular place.
Customary title to land: Recognition of a community’s rights to access, use and control an area of land, usually
based on long-established, traditional patterns or norms. Customary forest and community territory fall within this
category. Customary or international law may be the source of such titles, particularly if relevant rights are not
enshrined in a country’s statutory legislation.
Deciduous: Pertaining to trees that lose their leaves for part of the year.
Decommissioning: In relation to dams, full decommissioning is the full removal of a dam; partial decommissioning
is the partial removal of a dam.
Delegated management contractor: A public or private entity that is hired to implement a specified aspect of a
development project on behalf of a state or other stakeholder.
Deterrent: A punishment or other measure established to discourage future attempts at breaking the law.
Developer: In the context of infrastructure, a firm that undertakes any of a variety of tasks related to developing
a project, such as planning, finance, engineering, construction, hiring and management of assessors, compliance
with regulations and coordination with partners.
Development corridor: An area characterized by major integrated infrastructure, such as paved roads, railroads,
power lines and gas lines that run in parallel and are designed to open up regions for increased economic activity
and land use, such as in Africa and other parts of the developing world.
Dichromatic: Exhibiting two color variations independent of sex and age.
DigitalGlobe: A commercial vendor of high-resolution satellite imagery and geospatial content. Available at:
www.digitalglobe.com.
Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA): A global database of protected areas and their characteristics,
operated by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Available at: dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu.
Glossary
284
Dimorphic: Having two distinct forms.

Dipterocarp: A tall hardwood tree of the family Dipterocarpaceae that grows primarily in Asian rainforests and
that is the source of valuable timber, aromatic oils and resins.
Dispatchable renewables: Renewable electricity whose output can be adjusted to meet demand.
Dispersing sex: Either male or female apes who, upon reaching sexual maturity, depart from their birth area to
establish their own range.
Diurnal: Daily, or active during the day.
Downstream: Towards the mouth of a river.
Ecosystem representativeness: The degree to which an ecosystem unit is representative of a biological or physical
class to which it belongs, typically in accordance with biological and physical criteria. A patch of old-growth
rainforest in a protected area may have a high or low representative value with respect to the vegetation type in
the surrounding landscape.
Endangered: Facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.
Endemic: Native to or only found in a certain place; indigenous.
Endemism: The state of being unique to a particular geographic area.
Environmental (and social) impact assessment (EIA or ESIA): An analytical tool used to identify and assess
potential environmental (and social) impacts of a project, development or policy. The parameters for drawing up
an EIA (or ESIA) are typically laid out in an environmental (and social) management framework. ESIAs are some-
times referred to as social and environmental impact assessments (SEIAs).
Environmental (and social) management framework: A plan that specifies what procedures to use in the prep-
aration and approval of a site-specific environmental (and social) impact assessment or environmental (and social)
management plan for a development project.
Environmental (and social) management plan: Guidance that identifies a set of mitigation, management, mon-
itoring and institutional measures and explains how to apply them during the implementation and operation
phases of a development project. Drawn up in accordance with an environmental (and social) management frame-
work, the plan is designed to eliminate, offset and reduce adverse environmental (and social) impacts identified
in an environmental (and social) impact assessment.
Environmental protection function: The ability of a forest or other ecosystem to contribute to the conservation
of a landscape, habitat, soil or hydrogeological area, or to the preservation of human settlements or other assets, by
preventing or reducing the impact of destructive natural events.
Externality: A positive or negative consequence of an economic activity as experienced by a party that is not
directly related to the production or consumption.
Fission–fusion: Pertaining to communities whose size and composition are dynamic due to the coming together
(fusion) and moving away (fission) of individuals.
Flanged: Pertaining to one of two morphs of adult male orangutan, the other being “unflanged”; characterized by
large cheek pads, greater size, a long coat of dark hair on the back and a throat sac used for “long calls.”
Floodplain: Relatively flat land that stretches out from either side of a river and that may flood during heavy rain
or snowmelt. Since floodplain soil integrates materials deposited by a river, it is typically rich in nutrients and
ideal for cultivation.
Folivore: Any chiefly leaf-eating animal. Related terms: folivorous, folivory.
Forest-smart approach: A strategy that aims to maximize the benefits from development investments while
minimizing the negative impacts to forests and forest biodiversity.
Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC): The principle that a community has the right to give or withhold its
consent to proposed projects that may affect the lands they customarily own, occupy or otherwise use. It is a
normative obligation whereby a state must seek the voluntary consent of indigenous peoples (including indigenous
forest-dependent communities) as a precondition to allowing or engaging in activities that could significantly
affect the communities’ substantive rights, such as the right to property. While there is no internationally agreed
definition of FPIC or any single mechanism for its implementation, international human rights instruments and other
treaty obligations grant potentially impacted peoples the right to give or withhold their consent to proposed actions.

285
Frugivore: Any chiefly fruit-eating animal. Related terms: frugivorous, frugivory.

Functional connectivity: The degree to which the land that divides and separates natural habitats facilitates
or impedes the habitats’ ability to allow movements of animals and to perform ecosystem functions. See also:
structural connectivity.
G20: An international forum for the leaders, finance ministers and central bank governors of 20 major economies.
Its members are the eight leading industrialized nations—in descending order, the United States, Japan, Germany,
the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada and Russia; 11 emerging-market and smaller industrialized countries,
namely Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and
Turkey; and the European Union.
Gallery forest: A narrow stretch of forest along the banks of a body of water, such as a river or wetland, that
projects into non-forested landscapes. See also: riparian forest.
Geobrowser: A geographical web browser designed to access satellite and aerial imagery, ocean bathymetry and
other geographic data over the Internet to represent Earth as a three-dimensional globe.
Geographic information system (GIS): A tool that allows users to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage and
present spatial and geographic data.
Georeferencing: The process of aligning geographic data to a known coordinate system so it can be viewed and
analyzed with other geographic data.
Gigawatt: A unit of power equal to one billion watts.
GLAD (Global Land Analysis & Discovery): A laboratory in the Department of Geographical Sciences at the
University of Maryland that investigates methods, causes and impacts of global land surface change. GLAD’s pri-
mary data source is Earth-observation imagery; its key focus area is land cover extent. Available at: glad.geog.umd.edu.
Global Accessibility Map: A mapping tool designed to estimate the travel time from any point on Earth to the
nearest city exceeding 50,000 people. Developed by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and first
published by the World Bank in 2008, it can serve as a proxy for rural populations’ access to services and resources
in urban areas. Available at: forobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/gam. See also: Roadless Forest.
Global Forest Watch (GFW): An open-access initiative of the World Resources Institute that provides a range of
remote-sensing and other databases designed to monitor forests globally. Available at: www.globalforestwatch.org.
Global Positioning System (GPS): A US-owned tool that allows users access to positioning, navigation and timing
services. The US Air Force maintains and develops the utility.
Global Roadfree Areas Map: Launched in 2012 under the aegis of the RoadFree initiative, this collaboration
between Google, the Society for Conservation Biology and the European Parliament assesses the status, quality
and extent of all protected areas. Available at: roadfree.org.
Global Roadmap: An initiative run by an alliance of environmental scientists, geographers, planners and agricul-
tural specialists whose aim is to enhance planning for roads in ways that reduce the environmental impacts of roads,
limit construction of new roads and road improvements to where they will have the greatest social and economic
benefits, assist environmental managers to better plan and prioritize roads, and educate the general public about the
environmental risks of poorly planned roads and transportation projects. Available at: www.global-roadmap.org.
Global Roads Open Access Data Set (gROADS): A freely available data set on roads. Horizontal-accuracy limi-
tations (±2 km) restrict its use to general comparisons. Available at: sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/groads-
global-roads-open-access-v1.
GLOBIO tool: Designed to facilitate environmental assessments and provide policy support, this global biodiversity
model serves to evaluate past, present and future impacts of human activity on biodiversity. Available at: www.globio.info.
Google Earth: A geobrowser released by Google in 2005. Available at: www.google.com/earth/index.html.
Google Earth Engine: A cloud computing platform that processes satellite imagery and other Earth-observation
data and analyzes geospatial information. It provides access to a large catalog of satellite imagery and the compu-
tational power needed to analyze those images. Available at: earthengine.google.com.
Google Maps: Launched in 2005, this online mapping service offers satellite imagery, street maps, panoramic views
of streets, information on traffic conditions and route planning. Data for rural areas are patchier than for urban
centers. Available at: maps.google.com.
Glossary
286
Green procurement: The acquisition of products and services that cause minimal adverse environmental impacts.
The approach incorporates human health and environmental concerns into the search for high-quality products
and services at competitive prices.
Ground truth: Empirical evidence collected on location, as opposed to information inferred from other sources,
such as satellite imagery.
Habitat: The natural and required environment of an animal, plant or other organism
Herbivore: Any plant-eating animal. Related terms: herbivorous, herbivory.
Home range: An area that is used by an individual or group on a regular basis and, in territorial species, is
defended from others. Not to be confused with ape range, which is the extent of occurrence (EOO) of each species,
as explained in the Notes to Readers, p. ix.
Hybrid: The offspring of two different species or varieties of plant or animal; something that is formed by combin-
ing different elements.
Hydrological connectivity: The degree to which water, and the organisms, matter and energy within it, is able to
freely move with natural timing through the hydrologic cycle, including along and between longitudinal (river
length), lateral (floodplain) and vertical (groundwater) dimensions.
Impounding reservoir: An artificial lake formed by constructing a dam across a natural watercourse so that water
builds up behind it.
Impoundment: The accumulation of water in a reservoir or other storage area.
Indigenous: Originating from or occurring naturally in a certain place.
Induced access: Project-related encroachment into a landscape.
Infanticide: The act of killing an infant.
Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) for Business: A database for accessing biodiversity information,
including Key Biodiversity Areas and legally protected areas. Via an interactive mapping tool, decision-makers can
identify biodiversity risks and opportunities within a project’s boundary. Available at: www.ibatforbusiness.org.
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST): A suite of open source software models
used to map and value goods and services from nature. Available at: www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest.
Interbirth interval: The biologically determined period of time between consecutive births.
Karst: A landscape formed through the dissolution of soluble rocks, such as limestone, dolomite and gypsum, and
characterized by underground drainage systems with sinkholes, dolines and caves.
Keystone species: A species that plays a crucial role in the way an ecosystem functions, and whose presence and
role has a disproportionately large effect on other organisms within the ecosystem.
Landsat imagery: Medium-resolution (30 m × 30 m) satellite images acquired by any of the six satellites in the
Landsat program. Landsat images can be viewed and downloaded for free from the United States Geological Survey
Earth Explorer website. Available at: earthexplorer.usgs.gov.
Landsat program: The longest-running endeavor to capture satellite imagery of Earth. Since the program’s launch
in 1972, its satellites have acquired millions of images. See also: Landsat imagery and Landsat Thematic Mapper.
Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM): A Earth-observing sensor placed aboard a satellite in the Landsat program. A
TM features seven bands of image data (in visible and infrared wavelengths), most of which have a resolution of 30 m.
An Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) sensor, which includes an eighth (panchromatic) band with a spatial
resolution of 15 m, was onboard Landsat 7 when it successfully launched in 1999. See also: Landsat imagery.
Landscape metrics: Measurements of one or more sections of an area of land, such as patches of forest or mosaics,
used to quantify composition and spatial configuration, including forest size and fragmentation.
Logging Roads: By combining OpenStreetMap and satellite imagery, this initiative maps and dates logging roads,
particularly in the Congo Basin. Available at: loggingroads.org.
Mast fruiting: The simultaneous production of fruit by a large numbers of trees every 2–10 years, without any
seasonal change in temperature or rainfall.
Megawatt: A unit of power equal to one million watts.
Metapopulation: A group of spatially separated populations of the same species that interact at some level.

287
Miombo: An oak-like tree (genus Brachystegia); a type of savannah woodland found across eastern and southern
Africa dominated by these trees.
Mitigation: The act of making a condition or consequence less severe.
Mitigation hierarchy: A tool used to limit the negative impacts of development projects on biodiversity.
Monodominant forest: A forest in which more than 60% of the tree canopy consists of a single species of tree.
Monogamy: The practice of having a single mate over a period of time.
Morph: A distinct form of an organism or species.
My DigitalGlobe: A web-based application through which users can view, analyze and download DigitalGlobe’s
high-resolution satellite images. Available at: services.digitalglobe.com/myDigitalGlobe.
National strategic areas: In line with Indonesia’s 2007 law on spatial planning, domestic conservation areas rec-
ognized for their rich biodiversity. In an effort to protect the ecosystems and curb rent-seeking among officials,
the law stipulates that individuals who engage in or facilitate illegal activities in such areas may be charged with
criminal offences.
Natural resource management: The application of scientific and technical principles to control environmental
assets such as land, water, soil, plants and animals so as to meet ecological, economic, social and policy objectives.
Net gain: In an ecological context, a positive outcome for biodiversity following a development project and the
application of targeted conservation measures.
No deforestation: A corporate policy aimed at protecting forest and peatland while minimizing the impact of
operations on biodiversity and local communities. Implementation of the policy requires assessments to be con-
ducted for high conservation value forest areas prior to the clearing of any land. Related term: zero deforestation.
No net loss: In an ecological context, an outcome that avoids an overall loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services
following a development project and targeted conservation activities. This term is often used in association with the
mitigation hierarchy.
Offset: Compensation for loss of biodiversity due to a development project.
Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation: An adaptive planning framework utilized by governments and
non-governmental organizations around the world to conserve flora and fauna collaboratively and systematically.
Available at: cmp-openstandards.org.
OpenStreetMap (OSM): Launched in 2004, this free and editable map of the world is continually updated by
registered members. OSM data feeds into the Roadless Forest and Logging Roads mapping initiatives, among
other programs focused on environmental crises. Available at: www.openstreetmap.org.
OpenStreetMap (OSM) Analytics: Released in 2016, this platform enables the tracking of mapping activity for roads
and buildings at the global level. Available at: osm-analytics.org.
Optimism bias: A systematic tendency to underestimate the probability of negative events.
Outstanding Universal Value: A UNESCO designation used to recognize heritage of exceptional cultural or natural
significance and signal that its permanent protection is of the highest importance to the international community.
Pathogen: A virus, bacteria or other microorganism that can cause disease.
Pathogenic: Capable of causing disease.
Pelage: Fur; coat.
Pith: The spongy tissue in the stems and branches of many plants.
Pixel: The smallest unit of information in an image; the fundamental unit of data collection in remote sensing.
Planet: A commercial vendor of high-resolution satellite imagery and geospatial content. Available at: www.planet.com.
Pollution haven: A jurisdiction that attracts polluting industries due to limited environmental restrictions, as
posited by the pollution haven hypothesis (or pollution haven effect).
Polyandrous: Pertaining to a mating system that involves one female and two or more males.
Polygynandrous: Pertaining to an exclusive mating system that involves two or more males and two or more
females. The numbers of males and females are not necessarily equal.
Polygynous: Pertaining to a mating system that involves one male and two or more females.
Glossary
288
Preputial: Relating to the foreskin or clitoral hood.

Project appraisal document (PAD): A comprehensive, continually updated record of a development project,
covering aspects such as the development problem to be addressed, the technical approach to be followed, the
expected results, the financial plan and budget, the overall project implementation and procurement plan, and the
monitoring and evaluation plan.
Protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD): Legal reductions in the size or protec-
tion status of parks and other protected areas, typically to gain access to natural resources inside those parks or to
permit infrastructure projects to cut through them.
Protection forest: An area of forest that is characterized by average slope gradients of at least 40° and on which
commercial logging is illegal; and/or is managed primarily for its beneficial effects on water and soil movement;
and/or managed for its ability to protect people or assets against the impacts of destabilizing natural events or
adverse climates.
Radar: A system that detects the presence, direction, distance and speed of aircraft, ships and other objects by
sending out pulses of high-frequency electromagnetic waves that are reflected off the object back to the source.
Ramsar wetlands: Water-saturated land areas designated under the Convention on Wetlands, known as the Ramsar
Convention, an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international coop-
eration for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.
Range: In the context of ‘ape ranges’, the extent of occurrence (EOO) of each species. An EOO includes all known
populations of a species contained within the shortest possible continuous imaginary boundary. It is important to
note that some areas within these boundaries are unsuitable and unoccupied.
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus (REDD+): A United Nations initiative
that goes beyond curbing the release of greenhouse gases to include the role of conservation, sustainable manage-
ment of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
Regression line: An approach for modeling the relationship between two variables.
Reintroduction: The managed release of an organism into its natural habitat after life in captivity.
Remote sensing: The science of identifying, measuring and observing objects or areas from a distance, typically
from aircraft or satellites.
Renewable energy: Usable power derived from natural sources whose supply is not depleted when used, such as
sunlight, geothermal heat, tides and wind, in contrast to finite resources such as oil and coal. See also: alternative
energy and clean energy.
Resettlement action plan: A detailed, legally binding strategy that developers must fulfill when relocating and
compensating people affected by an infrastructure project.
Residual impact: In the context of the mitigation hierarchy, a negative effect that remains after the implementation
of mitigation measures.
Riparian (or riverine) forest: A forest that grows alongside a body of water, such as rivers, streams and lakes.
See also: gallery forest.
River basin development: Use, control or diversion of elements of a network of watercourses to promote eco-
nomic growth, often with significant impacts on quantity, quality, sediment load, timing and predictability of the
water regime, such as through hydropower development.
River reach: A segment of a river that can be distinguished from other segments by its width, habitat composition,
vegetation coverage, the presence of dams or other structures, and other characteristics; distinct reaches exhibit
differing natural resource problems and are evaluated separately.
River system: The natural structure within which a river flows, typically including a watershed.
RoadFree: An initiative designed to highlight the importance of roadless wilderness areas for biodiversity con-
servation and reductions in atmospheric carbon emissions. RoadFree helped to give rise to the Global Roadfree
Areas Map. Available at: roadfree.org.
Roadless Forest: Designed to evaluate the benefits of road-free forests, this European Union initiative is strongly
linked to EU policies on reducing illegal logging and carbon emissions resulting from forest disruption. To inform
decision-making, it makes use of the Global Accessibility Map to identify which areas are most likely to benefit from
infrastructure development and to highlight associated risks to protected areas. Available at: roadlessforest.eu.

289
Roadside zoo: An unaccredited zoo or roadside attraction engaged in commercial exhibition and other activities
with animals, potentially including apes.
Run-of-river scheme: A hydroelectric power scheme that operates without water storage, using the flow of a
river channel.
Sanctuary: A non-profit facility dedicated to providing care for orphaned, confiscated or injured wildlife.
Sentinels: A family of satellites developed for the operational needs of Copernicus, an Earth-observation program
headed by the European Commission in partnership with the European Space Agency. The Sentinels provide
observations such as radar images, high-resolution optical images, and data for the monitoring of atmospheric
composition and global sea-surface height.
Silverback: An adult male gorilla that has reached maturity and developed silver hairs on the saddle of his back.
Smart green infrastructure: Facilities that avoid critical habitats, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on
communities and biodiversity, and compensate for any inadvertent or unavoidable damage.
Spatial resolution: The level of detail in a digital (usually satellite) image; often expressed in meters, measuring the
edge length of a pixel, the smallest unit of the image. The smaller the pixel size, or the greater the number of pixels
in an image, the higher the spatial resolution. Satellite images tend to be grouped into three resolution categories:
low resolution (>30 m), medium (2–30 m) and high (<2 m).
Standing sale: The selling of timber as it stands in the forest, in advance of harvesting and generally by weight.
Stranded asset: An economic resource that has become obsolete or nonperforming before the end of its useful life
and that is recorded as a loss.
Structural connectivity: The makeup of a landscape based on ecological attributes of the area (habitat type and
composition) and its connectivity (vs. fragmentation) across a landscape, excluding behavioral patterns of organisms
in the area. See also: functional connectivity.
Subadult: A stage of development where an individual has not yet acquired all adult characteristics.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Seventeen global aims established by the United Nations to end poverty,
protect the planet and result in peace and prosperity for all. The SDGs were adopted by the 193 countries of the
UN General Assembly in 2015, with specific targets to be achieved by 2030.
Swamp forest (or freshwater swamp forest): Natural forest that stands in waterlogged soil and has more than 30%
canopy cover.
Sympatric: Pertaining to species or populations that occupy the same geographic ranges.
Taxon: Any unit used in the science of biological classification or taxonomy (plural: taxa).
Terawatt: A unit of power equal to one trillion watts, or one million megawatts.
Terra nullius: In international law, land that does not officially belong to anyone or any state, and that can be acquired
through occupation.
Terrestrial herbaceous vegetation: Species of herbs that are staple food items for apes, such as Marantaceae
and Zingiberaceae.
Terrestriality: Adaptation to living on the ground.
Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA): Guidance on low-cost methods for evaluating
the benefits people receive from nature at a particular site to generate information that can be used to influence
decision-making. Available at: tessa.tools.
Translocation: In conservation, the process of moving an organism from one area to another, in captive or
wild settings.
Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra: A 25,000-km2 (2.5 million-ha) conservation site that comprises three
of Indonesia’s national parks: Bukit Barisan Selatan, Gunung Leuser and Kerinci Seblat. It is home to many endan-
gered species, including the endemic Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii).
UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve: Any of the 669 sites around the word that are internationally recognized
for the simultaneous conservation and sustainable use of their ecosystems. Each reserve has three interrelated zones:
a strictly protected core zone; a buffer zone that is used in ways that facilitate scientific research, monitoring, training
and education; and a transition area that fosters sustainable human and economic development.
Glossary
290
UNESCO World Heritage site: An area of internationally recognized cultural and natural significance, including
geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas that constitute the habitat of threatened
animal and plant species that are of outstanding value to science or conservation.
Upstream: Towards the source of a river.
Upstream planning: Advance target setting and coordination of feasibility studies, design, implementation and
operation of an investment project, usually involving collaboration among public authorities and other stakeholders,
often with technical assistance.
UrtheCast: An Earth-imaging system company that specializes in geospatial analysis. Its high-resolution satellite
imagery is made available on Global Forest Watch. Available at: www.urthecast.com.
Watershed: A tract of land drained by a river and its tributaries.
Wean: To accustom a young animal to nourishment other than the mother’s milk.
Wetlands: Areas where water is sometimes or always above, at or near the surface of the soil.
Wildlife corridor: Habitat that joins two or more larger areas of similar habitat and thus allows wildlife move-
ment, supports the viability of populations and maintains ecological processes. Corridors can occur naturally, such
as riparian forests, or be created through habitat management practices.
Zero-sum game: A situation in which each participant’s gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or
gains of the utility of the other participants. Suggesting that the earth’s carrying capacity is a zero-sum game implies
that any land, food or resources consumed or degraded by humans must ultimately incur a comparable cost to
other species or ecosystems.

291
REFERENCES
Abel, D. (2017). Animal advocates say removal of database hurts efforts to prevent abuse. Boston Globe, July 9, 2017.
Available at: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/07/19/animal-advocates-say-removal-database-hurts-
efforts-prevent-abuse.
Abell, R., Thieme, M.L., Revenga, C., et al. (2008). Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new map of biogeographic
units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 58, 403–14. DOI: 10.1641/B580507.
Abernethy, K., Maisels, F. and White, L.J.T. (2016). Environmental issues in central Africa. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 41, 1–33. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615–085415.
Abood, S.A., Lee, J.S.H., Burivalova, Z., Garcia-Ulloa, J. and Koh, L.P. (2015). Relative contributions of the log-
ging, fiber, oil palm, and mining industries to forest loss in Indonesia. Conservation Letters, 8, 58–67. DOI:
10.1111/conl.12103.
Abram, N.K., Meijaard, E., Wells, J.A., et al. (2015). Mapping perceptions of species’ threats and population trends
to inform conservation efforts: the Bornean orangutan case study. Diversity and Distributions, 21, 487–99.
DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12286.
Abutu, A. and Charles, E. (2016). C/River communities reject superhighway. Daily Trust, March 9, 2016. Available at:
https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/news/environment/c-river-communities-reject-superhighway/137088.html.
Achard, F., Beuchle, R., Mayaux, P., et al. (2014). Determination of tropical deforestation rates and related carbon
losses from 1990 to 2010. Global Change Biology, 20, 2540–54. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12605.
ADB (2008). Preparing the Cumulative Impact Assessment for the Nam Ngum 3 Hydropower Project. Manila,
Philippines: Asian Development Bank (ADB). Available at: https://www.adb.org/projects/documents/preparing-
cumulative-impact-assessment-nam-ngum-3-hydropower-project-financed-j-0.
ADB (2011). Asia Solar Energy Initiative: A Primer. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank (ADB).
ADB (2012). Environment Safeguards: A Good Practice Sourcebook. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank
(ADB). Available at: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33739/files/environment-
safeguards-good-practices-sourcebook-draft.pdf.
ADB (2017). Meeting Asia’s Infrastructure Needs. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank (ADB). Available at:
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/227496/special-report-infrastructure.pdf.
Adeney, J.M., Christensen, N. and Pimm, S.L. (2009). Reserves protect against deforestation fires in the Amazon.
PLoS One, 4, e5014.
ADF (2011). Lom-Pangar Hydroelectric Project. Republic of Cameroon. Project Appraisal Report. November 2011.
Tunis, Tunisia: African Development Fund (ADF), African Development Bank Group. Available at: http://www.
afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/Cameroon%20-%20AR%20-%20Lom-
Pangar%20Hydroelectric%20Project%20(Final).pdf.
AfDB (2011a). Africa in 50 Years’ Time: The Road Towards Inclusive Growth. Tunis, Tunisia: African Development
Bank (AfDB). Available at: https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/Africa
%20in%2050%20Years%20Time.pdf.
AfDB (2011b). Republic of Cameroon. Lom-Pangar Hydroelectric Project. Summary of the Environmental and Social
Impact Assessment (ESIA). Abidjan, Ivory Coast: African Development Bank (AfDB), Energy, Environment
and Climate Change Department. Available at: https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/
Environmental-and-Social-Assessments/2011%20Lom-Pangar%20R%C3%A9sum%C3%A9%20Environnemental
%20et%20Social_EN.pdf.
AfDB (2013). Safeguards and Sustainability Series: African Development Bank Group’s Integrated Safeguards System.
Policy Statement and Operational Safeguards. Tunis, Tunisia: African Development Bank (AfDB). Available at:
https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/December_2013_-_AfDB
%E2%80%99S_Integrated_Safeguards_System__-_Policy_Statement_and_Operational_Safeguards.pdf.
References
292
AfDB (2015). Multinational Cameroon-Congo-Ketta Djoum Road Project and Facilitation of Transportation on the
Yaoundé-Brazzaville Corridor_Phase 2 – Summary ESIA – 06 2015. Tunis, Tunisia: African Development
Bank (AfDB). Available at: https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/document/multinational-cameroon-congo-
ketta-djoum-road-project-and-facilitation-of-transportation-on-the-yaounde-brazzaville-corridor_phase-
2-summary-esia-06–2015–54091/.
AfDB, OECD and UNDP (2015). African Economic Outlook 2015: Regional Development and Spatial Inclusion.
African Development Bank (AfDB), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Available at: www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/sites/
default/files/content-pdf/AEO2015_EN.pdf.
Africa-EU Energy Partnership (2013). Country Power Market Brief: Cameroon. Brussels, Belgium: Alliance for Rural
Electrification. Available at: https://www.ruralelec.org/publications/country-power-market-brief-cameroon.
AgDevCo (2013). Developing Sustainable Agriculture in Africa. London, UK: African Agriculture Development
Company (AgDevCo). Available at: http://www.agdevco.com/uploads/reports/AgDevCo%20Brochure_June
%202013%20low%20res(1).pdf.
AgDevCo (2017). About Us. London, UK: African Agricultural Development Company (AgDevCo). Available at:
http://www.agdevco.com/about-us.html. Accessed July, 2017.
Agence Ecofin (2012). Cameroun: 2000 Emplois Camerounais pour le Barrage de Lom Pangar. Agence Ecofin.
Available at: https://www.agenceecofin.com/hydroelectricite/0701–2818-cameroun-2000-emplois-camerounais-
pour-le-barrage-de-lom-pangar.
AGRECO (2007). Etude d’Impact Social et Environnemental de la Réhabilitation de Routes en RDC, Projet Pro-
Routes, Cadre Stratégique, Rapport Final. Brussels, Belgium: Ministère des Travaux Publics et Infrastructures
& Union Européenne.
AIIB (2016). Environmental and Social Framework. Beijing, China: Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
Available at: https://www.aiib.org/en/policies-strategies/_download/environment-framework/201602260
43633542.pdf.
Akpan, A. (2016a). Communities, NGOs tackle Cross River government over superhighway project. The Guardian,
August 26, 2016. Available at: https://guardian.ng/features/communities-ngos-tackle-cross-river-government-
over-superhighway-project.
Akpan, A. (2016b). Government, groups fault Cross River’s EIA on highway project. The Guardian, June 6, 2016.
Available at: https://guardian.ng/property/government-groups-fault-cross-rivers-eia-on-highway-project.
Akpan, A. (2016c). Pressure mounts against Cross River super highway project. The Guardian, September 25, 2016.
Available at: https://guardian.ng/news/pressure-mounts-against-cross-river-super-highway-project.
Akpan, A. (2017). Groups fault FG’s EIA to Cross River on super highway project. The Guardian, July 17, 2017.
Available at: https://guardian.ng/property/groups-fault-fgs-eia-to-cross-river-on-super-highway-project.
Alcamo, J. (2008). Environmental Futures: The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Alden Wily, L. (2011a). ‘The law is to blame’: the vulnerable status of common property rights in sub-Saharan
Africa. Development and Change, 42, 733–57. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–7660.2011.01712.x.
Alden Wily, L. (2011b). Whose Land Is It? The Status of Customary Land Tenure in Cameroon. Centre for Environment
and Development (CED), FERN and Rainforest Foundation UK.
Alden Wily, L. (2016). Traditional forest communities as owner-conservators: is this a viable way forward?
Unpublished paper.
Alexander, N. (2014). The Emerging Multi-Polar World Order. Washington DC: Heinrich Böll Foundation North America.
Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J. (2012). World Food and Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision. ESA
Working Paper No. 12–03. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Alshuwaikhat, H.M. (2005). Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental impact assessment
failures in developing countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 307–17. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.09.003.
Ampuero, F. and Sá Lilian, R.M. (2012). Electrocution lesions in wild brown howler monkeys (Alouatta guariba
clamitans) from São Paulo city: importance for conservation of wild populations. ESVP/ECVP Proceedings,
146, 88.

293
Ancrenaz, M., Ambu, L., Sunjoto, I., et al. (2010). Recent surveys in the forests of Ulu Segama Malua, Sabah,
Malaysia, show that orang-utans (P. p. morio) can be maintained in slightly logged forests. PLoS One, 5, e11510.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011510.
Ancrenaz, M., Calaque, R. and Lackman-Ancrenaz, I. (2004). Orangutan nesting behavior in disturbed forest of
Sabah, Malaysia: implications for nest census. International Journal of Primatology, 25, 983–1000.
Ancrenaz, M., Cheyne, S., Humle, T. and Robbins, M.M. (2015a). Impacts of industrial agriculture on ape ecology.
In State of the Apes: Industrial Agriculture and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus Foundation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 165–92. Available at: https://www.stateoftheapes.com/volume-2-industrial-
agriculture/.
Ancrenaz, M., Dabek, L. and O’Neil, S. (2007). The costs of exclusion: recognizing a role for local communities in
biodiversity conservation. PLoS Biology, 5, e289. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050289.
Ancrenaz, M., Gumal, M., Marshall, A.J., et al. (2016). Pongo pygmaeus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T17975A17966347. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016–1.RLTS.T17975A17966347.en. Accessed August 14, 2017.
Ancrenaz, M., Oram, F., Ambu, L., et al. (2015b). Of pongo, palms and perceptions a multidisciplinary assessment of
Bornean orang-utans Pongo pygmaeus in an oil palm context. Oryx, 49, 465–72. DOI: 10.1017/S0030605313001270.
Ancrenaz, M., Sollmann, R., Meijaard, E., et al. (2014). Coming down from the trees: is terrestrial activity in
Bornean orangutans natural or disturbance driven? Scientific Reports, 4, 4024. DOI: 10.1038/srep04024.
Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04024#supplementary-information.
Anderson, D.P., Nordheim, E.V. and Boesch, C. (2006a). Environmental factors influencing the seasonality of
estrus in chimpanzees. Primates, 47, 43–50.
Anderson, J., Benjamin, C., Campbell, B. and Tiveau, D. (2006b). Forests, poverty and equity in Africa: new perspec-
tives on policy and practice. International Forestry Review, 8, 44–53.
André, C., Kamate, C., Mbonzo, P., Morel, D. and Hare, B. (2008). The Conservation Value of Lola ya Bonobo
Sanctuary. In Bonobos Revisited: Ecology, Behavior, Genetics, and Conservation, ed. I. Takesi and J. Thompson.
New York, NY: Springer, pp. 303–22.
Andrews, A. (1990). Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: a review. Australian Zoologist, 26,
130–41. DOI: 10.7882/az.1990.005.
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., et al. (2014). Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-
comparative analysis. World Development, 64, S12-S28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006.
Angelsen, A. and Kaimowitz, D. (1999). Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models.
The World Bank Research Observer, 14, 73–98. DOI: 10.1093/wbro/14.1.73.
Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A. and Lunn, D. (2014). Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of
hydropower megaproject development. Energy Policy, 69, 43–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069.
Antara News (2015). Indonesian govt. to focus on geothermal energy development : President Jokowi. Antara
News, August 22, 2015. Available at: http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/100118/indonesian-govt-to-focus-
on-geothermal-energy-development-president-jokowi. Accessed January 22, 2017.
Anthony, N.M., Johnson-Bawe, M., Jeffery, K., et al. (2007). The role of Pleistocene refugia and rivers in shaping
gorilla genetic diversity in central Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 20432–6.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0704816105.
Arcus Foundation (2015). State of the Apes: Industrial Agriculture and Ape Conservation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.stateoftheapes.com/volume-2-industrial-agriculture/.
Arunmart, P. (1996). Feasibility Study on Burma Link. Bangkok, Thailand: Bangkok Post.
ASI (2015). Integrated Resource Corridors Initiative, Scoping and Business Plan. Adam Smith International (ASI),
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Department for International Development (DFID). Available at: http://
www.adamsmithinternational.com/documents/resource-uploads/IRCI_Scoping_Report_Business_Plan.pdf.
ASM-PACE and Phillipson, A. (2014). Artisanal and small-scale mining and apes. In State of the Apes: Extractive
Industries and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus Foundation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 162–95.
Available at: https://www.stateoftheapes.com/themes/artisanal-and-small-scale-mining/.
References
294
Asner, G.P., Llactayo, W., Tupayachi, R. and Luna, E.R. (2013). Elevated rates of gold mining in the Amazon revealed
through high-resolution monitoring. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 18454–9. DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1318271110.
Association of State Dam Safety Officials (2016). Dam Failures and Incidents. Lexington, KY: Association of State
Dam Safety Officials. Available at: http://damsafety.org/what-are-causes-dam-failures. Accessed October 6, 2016.
AU (2009). Africa Mining Vision. African Union (AU). Available at: http://www.africaminingvision.org/amv_
resources/AMV/Africa_Mining_Vision_English.pdf.
AU (2015). Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want. African Union (AU). Available at: https://au.int/sites/default/files/
pages/3657-file-agenda2063_popular_version_en.pdf.
Auty, R. (2002). Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies: The Resource Curse Thesis. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
AWF (2015). AWF Kickstarts Efforts in Bili Uele Protected Area. Nairobi, Kenya: African Wildlife Foundation (AWF).
Available at: https://www.awf.org/blog/awf-kickstarts-efforts-bili-uele-protected-area.
AWF (2016). Bili Uele Landscape Strategy: 2016–2021. Nairobi, Kenya: African Wildlife Foundation (AWF).
Ayres, J.M. and Clutton-Brock, T.H. (1992). River boundaries and species range size in Amazonian primates. The
American Naturalist, 140, 531–7. DOI: 10.1086/285427.
Baabud, S.F., Griffiths, M., Afifuddin and Safriansyah, R. (2016). Total Economic Value (TEV) of Aceh’s Forests.
European Union Delegation for Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam. Vienna, Austria: CEU Consulting GmbH.
Babbitt, B. (2002). What goes up, may come down. BioScience, 52, 656–8. DOI: 10.1641/0006–3568(2002)052[0656:
WGUMCD]2.0.CO;2.
Baeckler Davis, S. (2016). A Journey Begins. Blue Ridge, GA: Project Chimps. Available at: http://projectchimps.
org/a-journey-begins/. Accessed October 2, 2016.
Bale, R. (2016). Controversial Plan Would Send Lab Chimps to Unaccredited Zoo. Washington DC: National
Geographic. Available at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/yerkes-research-chimpanzees-
controversy/. Accessed October 1, 2016.
Banks, M. (2016). New Bill from Scottish Government set to Ban Wild Animals in Circuses. London, UK: EU Today.
Available at: http://eutoday.net/news/circus-2983. Accessed October 1, 2016.
Barbash, F. (2014). Six killed in Thailand when elephant collides with traffic. Washington Post, March 12, 2014.
Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/12/six-killed-in-thailand-
when-van-crashes-into-wild-elephant/.
Barber, C.P., Cochrane, M.A., Souza, C.M. and Laurance, W.F. (2014). Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating
effect of protected areas in the Amazon. Biological Conservation, 177, 203–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2014.07.004.
Barr, R., Burgués Arrea, I., Asuma, S., Behm Masozera, A. and Gray, M. (2015). Pave the Impenetrable? An Economic
Analysis of Potential Ikumba-Ruhija Road Alternatives In and Around Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable National
Park. Conservation Strategy Fund Technical Series No. 35. Sebastopol, CA: Conservation Strategy Fund.
Available at: http://www.conservation-strategy.org/en/publication/pave-impenetrable-economic-analysis-
potential-ikumba-ruhija-road-alternatives-and-arou-0.
Barra, A.F., Burnouf, M.M.J., Damania, R. and Russ, J.D. (2016). Economic Boom or Ecologic Doom? Using Spatial
Analysis to Reconcile Road Development with Forest Conservation. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/952691468195575937/Economic-boom-or-ecologic-doom-
using-spatial-analysis-to-reconcile-road-development-with-forest-conservation.
Barreto Jr, P., Brandão, A., Baima, S. and Souza Jr, C. (2014). O risco de desmatamento associado a doze hidrelétricas
na Amazônia. In Tapajós: Hidrelétricas, Infraestrutura e Caos, ed. W. C. de Sousa. São José, Brazil: Instituto
Aeronáutica, pp. 149–75.
Bartlett, T.Q. (2001). Extra-group copulations by sub-adult gibbons: implications for understanding gibbon social
organisation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 114 (supple 32), 36.
Bartlett, T.Q. (2007). The Hylobatidae: small apes of Asia. In Primates in Perspective, ed. C. Campbell, A. Fuentes,
K. C. Mackinnon, M. Panger and S. K. Bearder. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 274–89.
Bashaw, M.J., Gullott, R.L. and Gill, E.C. (2010). What defines successful integration into a social group for hand-
reared chimpanzee infants? Primates, 51, 139–47. DOI: 10.1007/s10329–009–0176–8.

295
Baskaran, N. and Boominathan, D. (2010). Road kill of animals by highway traffic in the tropical forests of
Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 2, 753–9.
Bassey, E., Nkonyu, L. and Dunn, A. (2010). A Reconnaissance Survey of the Bushmeat Trade in Eight Border
Communities of South-East Nigeria, September–October 2009. Nigeria: Wildlife Conservation Society.
BBOP (2009–2012). Standard & Guidelines. Washington DC: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP).
Available at: bbop.forest-trends.org/pages/guidelines.
BBOP (2012). Resource Paper: No Net Loss and Loss–Gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offsets. Washington DC:
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Available at: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/
files/doc_3103.pdf.
Beastall, C.A. and Bouhuys, J. (2016). Apes in Demand: For Zoo and Wildlife Attractions in Peninsular Malaysia and
Thailand. Selangor, Malaysia: TRAFFIC. Available at: http://www.trafficj.org/publication/16_Apes_in_
Demand.pdf.
Beck, B., Walkup, K., Rodrigues, M., et al. (2007). Best Practice Guidelines for the Re-introduction of Great Apes.
Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN
SSC), Primate Specialist Group.
Bellmore, J.R., Duda, J.J., Craig, L.S., et al. (2017). Status and trends of dam removal research in the United States.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 4, e1164-n/a. DOI: 10.1002/wat2.1164.
Benítez-López, A., Alkemade, R. and Verweij, P.A. (2010). The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal
and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biological Conservation, 143, 1307–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2010.02.009.
Bennett, E.L. (2011). Another inconvenient truth: the failure of enforcement systems to save charismatic species.
Oryx, 45, 476–9. DOI: 10.1017/S003060531000178X.
Bennett, E.L. (2015). Legal ivory trade in a corrupt world and its impact on African elephant populations.
Conservation Biology, 29, 54–60. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12377.
Bennett, G., Gallant, M. and ten Kate, K. (2017). State of Biodiversity Mitigation 2017. Markets and Compensation
for Global Infrastructure Development. Washington DC: Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Available at:
http://forest-trends.org/releases/p/sobm2017.
Beresford, A.E., Buchanan, G.M., Donald, P.F., et al. (2011). Poor overlap between the distribution of protected areas
and globally threatened birds in Africa. Animal Conservation, 14, 99–107. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469–1795.2010.00398.x.
Berg, A., Portillo, R., Yang, S.S. and Zanna, L. (2012). Public Investment in Resource-Abundant Developing Countries.
Washington DC: International Monetary Fund (IMF). Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/
wp/2012/wp12274.pdf.
Berg, C.N., Deichmann, U., Liu, D. and Selod, H. (2015). Transport Policies and Development. Policy Research
Working Paper 7366. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/893851468188672137/pdf/WPS7366.pdf.
Bergl, R.A. (2006). Conservation Biology of the Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli). New York, NY: City
University of New York.
Bergl, R.A., Oates, J.F. and Fotso, R. (2007). Distribution and protected area coverage of endemic taxa in west
Africa’s Biafran forests and highlands. Biological Conservation, 134, 195–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2006.08.013.
Bhagabati, N.K., Ricketts, T., Sulistyawan, T.B.S., et al. (2014). Ecosystem services reinforce Sumatran tiger conser-
vation in land use plans. Biological Conservation, 169, 147–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.010.
BIC (2016). World Bank’s Updated Safeguards a Missed Opportunity to Raise the Bar for Development Policy.
Banking Information Center (BIC). Available at: http://www.bankinformationcenter.org/world-banks-updated-
safeguards-a-missed-opportunity-to-raise-the-bar-for-development-policy/.
Blake, S., Deem, S.L., Strindberg, S., et al. (2008). Roadless wilderness area determines forest elephant movements
in the Congo Basin. PLoS One, 3, e3546. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003546.
Blake, S., Strindberg, S., Boudjan, P., et al. (2007). Forest elephant crisis in the Congo Basin. PLoS Biology, 5, e111.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050111.
References
296
Blaser, M., Feit, H.A. and McRae, G. (2004). In the Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects, and
Globalization. London, UK: Zed Books.
Bleisch, B. and Geissmann, T. (2008). Nomascus nasutus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T41642A10526189.en. Accessed December 11, 2016.
Bleisch, B., Geissmann, T., Timmins, R.J. and Xuelong, J. (2008). Nomascus concolor. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2008: e.T39775A10265349. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T39775A10265349.en.
Blomley, T. (2013). Lessons Learned from Community Forestry in Africa and Their Relevance for REDD+. Washington
DC: USAID-supported Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Program.
Boakes, E.H., Mace, G.M., McGowan, P.J.K. and Fuller, R.A. (2010). Extreme contagion in global habitat clearance.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277, 1081–5. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1771.
Bonn, A., Allott, T., Evans, M., Joosten, H. and Stoneman, R. (2016). Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services:
Science, Policy and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Born Free Foundation (2016a). Italian Government Proposes an End to Animal Circuses. Horsham, UK: Born Free
Foundation. Available at: http://www.bornfree.org.uk/index.php?id=34&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2123&
cHash=764e4075f905659779faae1cbfa53735. Accessed October 1, 2016.
Born Free Foundation (2016b). Wild Animal Circuses Look Set to be Outlawed in Norway from Early 2017. Horsham,
UK: Born Free Foundation. Available at: http://www.bornfree.org.uk/campaigns/zoo-check/zoo-news/
article/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2285.
Bortolamiol, S., Cohen, M., Jiguet, F., et al. (2016). Chimpanzee non-avoidance of hyper-proximity to humans.
The Journal of Wildlife Management, 80, 924–34. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.1072.
Boutot, L., Lino, M., Ntep, J. and Essam, S. (2005). Etude Environnementale du Barrage de Lom Pangar: Rapport Après
Consultation. Thème no. 12: Zones d’Emprunt, Accès, Cité et Zone de Chantier. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Ministry
of Water Resources and Energy. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/t12_
chantier_carrieres_lom_pangar.pdf.
Bowland, C. and Otto, L. (2012). Implementing Development Corridors: Lessons from the Maputo Corridor. South
African Foreign Policy and African Drivers Programme. Johannesburg, South Africa: South African Institute
of International Affairs. Available at: http://www.saiia.org.za/policy-briefings/implementing-development-
corridors-lessons-from-the-maputo-corridor.
Bradley, B.J., Doran-Sheehy, D.M., Lukas, D., Boesch, C. and Vigilant, L. (2004). Dispersed male networks in western
gorillas. Current Biology, 14, 510–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.02.062.
BRM (2017). Lom Pangar dam officially delivered and handed over to Cameroonian authorities. Business in
Cameroon, July 7, 2017. Available at: www.businessincameroon.com/electricity/0707-7249-lom-pangar-dam-
officially-delivered-and-handed-over-to-cameroonian-authorities.
Brncic, T., Amarasekaran, B. and McKenna, A. (2010). Final Report of the Sierra Leone National Chimpanzee Census
Project. Freetown, Sierra Leone: Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary.
Brncic, T., Amarasekaran, B., McKenna, A., Mundry, R. and Kühl, H.S. (2015). Large mammal diversity and their
conservation in the human-dominated land-use mosaic of Sierra Leone. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24,
2417–38. DOI: 10.1007/s10531–015–0931–7.
Brockelman, W. and Geissmann, T. (2008). Hylobates lar. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T10548A3199623.en. Accessed November 15, 2015.
Brodie, J.F., Giordano, A.J., Dickson, B., et al. (2015). Evaluating multispecies landscape connectivity in a threatened
tropical mammal community. Conservation Biology, 29, 122–32. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12337.
Brou Yao, T., Oszwald, J., Bigot, S. and Servat, E. (2005). Risques de déforestation dans le domaine permanent de
l’état en Côte d’ivoire: quel avenir pour ces derniers massifs forestiers? Télédétection, 5, 3.
Brown, C., King, S., Ling, M., et al. (2016). Natural Capital Assessments at the National and Sub-National Level.
Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

297
Brown, P.H., Tullos, D., Tilt, B., Magee, D. and Wolf, A.T. (2009). Modeling the costs and benefits of dam con-
struction from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S303-S11. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.025.
Brulliard, K. (2016). Chimp is freed from ‘solitary confinement,’ meets Jane Goodall, retires in Florida. Washington
Post, April 29, 2016. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/04/29/chimp-
is-freed-from-solitary-confinement-meets-jane-goodall-retires-in-florida/. Accessed November 26, 2016.
Brulliard, K. (2017a). People who care about animal welfare are demanding information from USDA. Washington
Post, August 10, 2017. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/08/10/people-
who-care-about-animal-welfare-are-demanding-information-from-usda/. Accessed August 12, 2017.
Brulliard, K. (2017b). USDA abruptly purges animal welfare information from its website. Washington Post,
February 3, 2017. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/02/03/the-usda-
abruptly-removes-animal-welfare-information-from-its-website/. Accessed February 8, 2017.
Brulliard, K. (2017c). USDA removed animal welfare reports from its site. A showhorse lawsuit may be why.
Washington Post, February 9, 2017. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/
02/09/usda-animal-welfare-records-purge-may-have-been-triggered-by-horse-industry-lawsuit.
Brunner, J., Talbott, K. and Elkin, C. (1998). Logging Burma’s Frontier Forests: Resources and the Regime. Washington
DC: World Resources Institute.
Bruno Manser Fonds (2012a). Sold Down River. Basel, Switzerland: Bruno Manser Fonds. Available at: http://www.
bmf.ch/upload/berichte/sold_down_the_river_bmf_dams_report.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2016.
Bruno Manser Fonds (2012b). The Taib Timber Mafia. Basel, Switzerland: Bruno Manser Fonds. Available at: http://
bmf.ch/upload/berichte/bmf_taib_family_report_2012_09_20_2.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2016.
Bryson-Morrison, N., Tzanopoulos, J., Matsuzawa, T. and Humle, T. (2017). Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus)
activity and patterns of habitat use in the anthropogenic landscape of Bossou, Guinea, West Africa.
International Journal of Primatology, 38, 282–302. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–016–9947–4.
Burgess, N.D., Balmford, A., Cordeiro, N.J., et al. (2007). Correlations among species distributions, human density
and human infrastructure across the high biodiversity tropical mountains of Africa. Biological Conservation,
134, 164–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.024.
Burivalova, Z., Bauert, M.R., Hassold, S., Fatroandrianjafinonjasolomiovazo, N.T. and Koh, L.P. (2015). Relevance
of global forest change data set to local conservation: case study of forest degradation in Masoala National Park,
Madagascar. Biotropica, 47, 267–74. DOI: 10.1111/btp.12194.
BurmaNet News (2000). KNU: Hundreds of Civilians Forced to Construct Bongti-Tavoy Highway. KNU Mergui-
Tavoy District Information Department. BurmaNet News, June 3, 2000.
Byiers, B. and Vanheukelom, J. (2014). What Drives Regional Economic Integration? Lessons from the Maputo
Development Corridor and the North-South Corridor. Maastricht, the Netherlands: European Centre for
Development Policy Management (ECDPM). Available at: http://ecdpm.org/wp-content/uploads/DP-157-
Regional-Economic-Integration-Maputo-Development-Corridor-2014.pdf.
Bynens, E., Ellenberg, L., Oldorff, D., et al. (2007). Projet d’appui à la réhabilitation et l’entretien de la route Bukavu –
Walikale. Etude technique détaillé et étudé d’impact socio-économique et environnemental. GTZ. Unpublished report.
Byron, R.N. and Arnold, J.E.M. (1999). What futures for the people of the tropical forests? World Development,
27, 789–805.
Caillaud, D., Ndagijimana, F., Giarrusso, A.J., Vecellio, V. and Stoinski, T.S. (2014). Mountain gorilla ranging patterns:
influence of group size and group dynamics. American Journal of Primatology, 76, 730–46. DOI: 10.1002/
ajp.22265.
Caldecott, J.O., Bennett, J.G. and Ruitenbeek, H.J. (1989). Cross River National Park (Oban Division): Plan for
Developing the Park and its Support Zone. Godalming, UK: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
Cam Iron and Rainbow Environment Consult (2010). Etude d’Impact Environnemental et Social du Projet de
Minerai de Fer de Mbalam. Yaoundé, Cameroun: Cam Iron and Rainbow Environment Consult.
Cameron, K.N., Reed, P., Morgan, D.B., et al. (2016). Spatial and temporal dynamics of a mortality event among
central African great apes. PLoS One, 11, e0154505. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154505.
References
298
Campbell, C., Andayani, N., Cheyne, S., et al. (2008). Indonesian Gibbon Conservation and Management Workshop
Final Report. Apple Valley, MN: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission
(IUCN SSC), Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Available at: http://www.gibbons.asia/wp-content/
uploads/2015/03/Indonesian-Gibbon-Conservation-Workshop.pdf.
Campbell, C.O., Cheyne, S.M. and Rawson, B.M. (2015). Best Practice Guidelines for the Rehabilitation and
Translocation of Gibbons. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival
Commission (IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group.
Campbell-Smith, G., Campbell-Smith, M., Singleton, I. and Linkie, M. (2011a). Apes in space: saving an imperilled
orangutan population in Sumatra. PLoS One, 6, e17210. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017210.
Campbell-Smith, G., Campbell-Smith, M., Singleton, I. and Linkie, M. (2011b). Raiders of the lost bark: orangutan
foraging strategies in a degraded landscape. PLoS One, 6, e20962. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020962.
Cannon, J.C. (2017a). Cross River superhighway changes course in Nigeria. Mongabay, April, 2017. Available at:
https://news.mongabay.com/2017/04/cross-river-superhighway-changes-course-in-nigeria.
Cannon, J.C. (2017b). Not out of the woods: concerns remain with Nigerian superhighway. Mongabay, May, 2017.
Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2017/05/not-out-of-the-woods-concerns-remain-with-nigerian-
superhighway.
Cannon, J.C. (2017c). Scrapping Nigerian superhighway buffer isn’t enough, say conservation groups. Mongabay,
February, 2017. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2017/02/scrapping-nigerian-superhighway-buffer-
isnt-enough-say-conservation-groups.
CANS (2003). Wild Life Conservation and National Parks Act, 2003. Civil Authority of New Sudan (CANS).
Carleton-Hug, A. and Hug, J.W. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education
programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 159–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.005.
Carlsen, F. and de Jongh, T. (2015). EAZA EEP Opposes Transfer of Chimpanzees from YNPRC to Wingham Wildlife
Park. European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), European Endangered Species Programme EEP.
Available at: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2843283/EEP-Letter-Regarding-Wingham.pdf.
Carne, C., Semple, S., Morrogh-Bernard, H., Zuberbühler, K. and Lehmann, J. (2014). The risk of disease to great
apes: simulating disease spread in orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes
schweinfurthii) association networks. PLoS One, 9, e95039. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095039.
CARP (n.d.). Central African Regional Program for the Environment GIS and Remote Sensing Datasets. Gombe, DRC:
Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE)/US Agency for International Development
(USAID). Available at: http://carpe.umd.edu/. Accessed January, 2018.
Cartwright, B. (2010). Pan African Sanctuary Alliance Education Resource Manual. Portland, OR: Pan African
Sanctuary Alliance (PASA).
CEE Bankwatch Network (2015). New Beijing-Backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Struggles to Convince
on Environment and Sustainability Issues. CEE Bankwatch Network. Available at: http://bankwatch.org/
bwmail/63/new-beijing-backed-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-struggles-convince-environment.
Center for Great Apes (n.d.). Meet the Orangutans. Wauchula, FL: Center for Great Apes. Available at: http://www.
centerforgreatapes.org/meet-apes/orangutans/. Accessed October 3, 2016.
Chaléard, J.-L., Chanson-Jabeur, C. and Béranger, C. (2006). Le Chemin de Fer en Afrique. Paris, France:
KARTHALA Editions.
Chan, B., Fellowes, J., Geissmann, T. and Zhang, J. (2005). Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for the
Hainan Gibbon–VERSION I (Last Updated November 2005). Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden Technical Report
No. 3. Hong Kong: Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden (KFBG).
Chan, M. (2017). The government purged animal welfare data. So this guy is publishing it. Time, February 17, 2017.
Available at: http://time.com/4673506/russ-kick-usda-animal-welfare-data.
Chan, S.W.D. (2016). Asymmetric bargaining between Myanmar and China in the Myitsone Dam controversy: social
opposition akin to David’s stone against Goliath. Presented at: International Studies Association Conference,
2016, Hong Kong. Available at: http://web.isanet.org/Web/Conferences/AP%20Hong%20Kong%202016/
Archive/71f82563–316f-415d-85ce-6458e57111a6.pdf.

299
Channa, P. and Gray, T. (2009). The Status and Habitat of Yellow-Cheeked Crested Gibbon Nomascus gabriellae in
Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary, Mondulkiri. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
Greater Mekong-Cambodia Country Programme.
Chapman, C.A., Lawes, M.J. and Eeley, H.A.C. (2006). What hope for African primate diversity? African Journal
of Ecology, 44, 116–33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–2028.2006.00636.x.
Chase, J., Benoy, G., Hann, S. and Culp, J. (2016). Small differences in riparian vegetation significantly reduce land
use impacts on stream flow and water quality in small agricultural watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 71, 194–205.
Chetry, D., Chetry, R., Ghosh, K. and Singh, A.K. (2010). Status and distribution of the eastern hoolock gibbon
(Hoolock leuconedys) in Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Primate Conservation, 25,
87–94. DOI: 10.1896/052.025.0113.
Cheyne, S.M. (2008). Feeding ecology, food choice and diet characteristics of gibbons in a disturbed peat-swamp
forest, Indonesia. In XXII Congress of the International Primatological Society, Edinburgh, UK, ed. P. C. Lee,
P. Honess, H. Buchanan-Smith, A. MaClarnon and W. I. Sellers. Bristol, UK: Top Copy, pp. 3–8.
Cheyne, S.M. (2010). Behavioural ecology of gibbons (Hylobates albibarbis) in a degraded peat-swamp forest. In
Indonesian Primates, ed. S. Gursky and J. Supriatna. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 121–56. DOI: 10.1007/978–1-
4419–1560–3_8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1-4419–1560–3_8.
Cheyne, S.M., Gilhooly, L.J., Hamard, M.C., et al. (2016). Population mapping of gibbons in Kalimantan, Indonesia:
correlates of gibbon density and vegetation across the species range. Endangered Species Research, 30, 133–43.
Cheyne, S.M., Höing, A., Rinear, J. and Sheeran, L.K. (2012). Sleeping site selection by agile gibbons: the influence
of tree stability, fruit availability and predation risk. Folia Primatologica, 83, 299–311.
Chhatre, A. and Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from
forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 17667–70. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0905308106.
ChimpCARE (n.d.). Where are Our Amazing Chimpanzees in the United States. Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL:
ChimpCARE. Available at: http://www.chimpcare.org/map. Accessed October 2, 2016.
Choudhury, A. (2013). Description of a new subspecies of hoolock gibbon Hoolock hoolock from northeast India.
Newsletter and Journal of the Rhino Foundation for Nature in Northeast India, 9, 49–59.
Cibot, M., Bortolamiol, S., Seguya, A. and Krief, S. (2015). Chimpanzees facing a dangerous situation: a high-traffic
asphalted road in the Sebitoli area of Kibale National Park, Uganda. American Journal of Primatology, 77,
890–900. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22417.
CIESIN and ITOS (2013). Global Roads Open Access Data Set, Version 1 (gROADSv1). Palisades, NY: NASA
Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Center for International Earth Science Information
Network (CIESIN; Columbia University), Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS, University of
Georgia). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7927/H4VD6WCT. Accessed April, 2018.
CIFOR (2015). Sumatran Road Plan Could Spell a Dark New Chapter for Storied Ecosystem: Study. Bogor, Indonesia:
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Available at: http://blog.cifor.org/27018/leuser-ecosystem-
aceh-spatial-plan-ladia-galaska-road?fnl=en.
CITES (2010a). Disposal of Confiscated Live Specimens of Species Included in the Appendices, Resolution Conf. 10.7
(Rev. CoP15). Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). Available at: https://cites.org/eng/res/10/10–07R15.php.
CITES (2010b). National Laws for Implementation of the Convention, Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15). Geneva,
Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Available at: https://cites.org/eng/res/08/08–04R15.php.
CITES (2012). Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention: Compliance and Enforcement Matters, SC62
Doc. 29. Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES). Available at: https://cites.org/eng/com/sc/62/E62–29.pdf.
CITES (2014). Great Apes Exported from Guinea to China from 2009 to 2011. Statement by Secretariat. January, 2014.
Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). Available at: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/common/docs/CITES-Guinea-China-great-apes.pdf.
Accessed November 15, 2016.
References
300
CITES (2016a). Draft Resolution on Review of Trade in Animal Specimens Reported as Produced in Captivity, CoP 17
Doc. 32, CoP17 Com. II.18. Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Available at: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/Com_II/E-CoP17-
Com-II-18.pdf.
CITES (2016b). Status of Legislative Progress for Implementing CITES (updated on 1 September 2016) (English only),
CoP17 Doc. 22, Annex 3 (Rev. 1). Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Available at: https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/
WorkingDocs/E-CoP17–22-A3-R1.pdf.
CITES (2017). Appendices I, II and III. Valid from April 4, 2017. Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Available at: https://cites.org/eng/app/
appendices.php. Accessed April 5, 2017.
CITES (n.d.-a). CITES Appendices. Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Available at: https://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.php. Accessed
May, 2017.
CITES (n.d.-b). CITES Trade Database. Geneva, Switzerland: Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Available at: https://trade.cites.org. Accessed November 17, 2016.
Clements, G.R. (2013). The environmental and social impacts of roads in Southeast Asia. Doctoral thesis. Cairns,
Australia: James Cook University.
Clements, G.R., Lynam, A.J., Gaveau, D., et al. (2014). Where and how are roads endangering mammals in southeast
Asia’s forests? PLoS One, 9, e115376. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115376.
CMP (2013). Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. Version 3.0. Washington DC: Conservation Measures
Partnership (CMP).
Cochard, R. (2017). Degradation and biodiversity losses in Aceh Province, Sumatra. In Redefining Diversity and
Dynamics of Natural Resources Management in Asia. Volume 1. Sustainable Natural Resources Management in
Dynamic Asia, ed. G. Shivakoti, U. Pradhan and H. Helmi. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 231–71.
Coffin, A.W. (2007). From roadkill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads. Journal of Transport
Geography, 15, 396–406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.11.006.
Colchester, M., Wee, A.P., Wong, M.C. and Jalong, T. (2007). Land is Life: Land Rights and Oil Palm Development
in Sarawak. Forest Peoples Programme and Sawit Watch. Available at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/
fpp/files/publication/2010/08/sarawaklandislifenov07eng.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2016.
Collier, P., Kirchberger, M. and Söderbom, M. (2015). The Cost of Road Infrastructure in Low and Middle Income
Countries. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
124841468185354669/pdf/WPS7408.pdf.
Commitante, R., Unwin, S., Jaya, R., et al. (2015). Orangutan Veterinary Advisory Group Workshop Report. Los
Angeles, CA: Orangutan Conservancy.
Connette, G., Oswald, P., Songer, M. and Leimgruber, P. (2016). Mapping distinct forest types improves overall
forest identification based on multi-spectral landsat imagery for Myanmar’s Tanintharyi region. Remote
Sensing, 8, 882.
Corridor Partnership (n.d.). Southern Cameroun. Nairobi, Kenya: The Corridor Partnership. Available at:
http://thecorridorspartnership.com/pages/pilot-corridors/southern-cameroun-corridor/.
Cotula, L. (2016). Foreign Investment, Law and Sustainable Development: A Handbook on Agriculture and Extractive
Industries. IIED Natural Resource Issues No. 31. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED).
Cotula, L., Jokubauskaite, G., Sutz., P. and Singleton, I. (2015). Legal frameworks at the interface between industrial
agriculture and ape conservation. In State of the Apes: Industrial Agriculture and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus
Foundation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–33. Available at: https://www.stateoftheapes.
com/volume-2-industrial-agriculture/.
Council of the European Union (1999). 1999/22/EC Keeping of wild animals in zoos. Official Journal L 094,
09/04/1999, 0024–6. Available at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/nature_and_bio
diversity/l28069_en.htm.

301
Cowlishaw, G. and Dunbar, R.I. (2000). Primate Conservation Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cox, D.A., Poaty, P., Tolliday, C.M., et al. (2014). Impact of public awareness campaign for reduction in the illegal
trade of great apes in Congo Republic. Presented at: International Primatological Society, XXV Congress,
August 11–16, 2014, Hanoi, Vietnam. Madison: International Primatological Society.
Cuny, P. (2011). Etat de lieux de la foresterie communautaire et communale au Cameroun. The Netherlands:
Tropenbos. Available at: http://www.tropenbos.org/publications/current+status+of+community+forestry+
in+cameroon.
Curran, L.M., Trigg, S.N., McDonald, A.K., et al. (2004). Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian
Borneo. Science, 303, 1000–3. DOI: 10.1126/science.1091714.
Currey, K. (2013). Social and environmental safeguard policies at the World Bank: historical lessons for a changing
context. Draft internal briefing note. New York, NY: Ford Foundation.
Dai, Y. (2013). Outlook for energy supply and demand in China. In Green Low-Carbon Development in China, ed.
J. Xue, Z. Zhao, Y. Dai and B. Wang. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 81–102. DOI: 10.1007/978–3-319–01153–0.
Daily, G. and Ellison, K. (2012). The New Economy of Nature: The Quest to Make Conservation Profitable. Washington
DC: Island Press.
Daily, G.C., Zhiyun, O., Hua, Z., et al. (2013). Securing natural capital and human well-being: innovation and
impact in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33, 677–85.
Daly, N. and Bale, R. (2017). We asked the Government Why Animal Welfare Records Disappeared. They sent 1,700
Blacked-Out Pages. Washington DC: National Geographic. Available at: http://news.nationalgeographic.
com/2017/05/usda-animal-welfare-records-foia-black-out-first-release/. Accessed May 1, 2017.
Damania, R., Barra, A.F., Burnouf, M. and Russ, J.D. (2016). Transport, Economic Growth, and Deforestation in the
Democratic Republic of Congo: A Spatial Analysis. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: https://open
knowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24044. Accessed May, 2017.
Damarad, T. and Bekker, G.J. (2003). COST 341: Habitat Fragmentation due to Transportation Infrastructure:
Findings of the COST Action 341. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Dames and Moore (1997). Annexe: etude sur les ressources biologiques – Cameroon. In Projet d’Exportation
Tchadien. Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01210/WEB/IMAGES/MULTI0–7.PDF.
Das, J., Biswas, J., Bhattacherjee, P.C. and Rao, S.S. (2009). Canopy bridges: an effective conservation tactic for
supporting gibbon populations in forest fragments. In The Gibbons: New Perspectives on Small Ape Socioecology
and Population Biology, ed. D. Whittaker and S. Lappan. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 467–75. DOI: 10.1007/978–
0-387–88604–6_22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978–0-387–88604–6_22.
Davis, J.T., Mengersen, K., Abram, N.K., et al. (2013). It’s not just conflict that motivates killing of orangutans. PLoS
One, 8, e75373. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075373.
D’Cruze, N. and Macdonald, D.W. (2016). A review of global trends in CITES live wildlife confiscations. Nature
Conservation, 15. DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.15.10005.
DDA (2014). Voices from the Ground: Concerns Over the Dawei Special Economic Zone and Related Projects. Dawei
Township, Myanmar: Dawei Development Association (DDA). Available at: http://www.burmalibrary.org/
docs19/Voices_from_the_ground-en-red.pdf.
DDA, TYG and TripNet (2015). We Used to Fear Bullets Now We Fear Bulldozers: Dirty Coal Mining by Military
Cronies and Thai Companies. Burma Partnership: Dawei Development Association (DDA), Tarkapaw Youth
Group (TYG) and Tenasserim River and Indigenous People Networks (TripNet). Available at: http://www.
burmapartnership.org/2015/10/we-used-to-fear-bullets-now-we-fear-bulldozers-dirty-coal-mining-by-military-
cronies-thai-companies-ban-chaung-dawei-district-myanmar/.
De Koninck, R., Bernard, S. and Girard, M. (2012). Aceh’s forests as an asset for reconstruction. In From the Ground
Up: Perspectives on Post-Tsunami and Post-Conflict Aceh, ed. P. Daly, R. M. Feener and A. J. Reid. Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 156–75.
de Wasseige C., Flynn, J., Louppe, D., Hiol Hiol, F. and Mayaux, P. (2013). The Forests of the Congo Basin: State of the
Forest 2013. Neufchateau, Belgium: Weyrich. Available at: http://www.observatoire-comifac.net/docs/edf2013/
EN/EDF2013_EN.pdf.
References
302
Dean, J.M., Lovely, M.E. and Wang, H. (2009). Are foreign investors attracted to weak environmental regulations?
Evaluating the evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics, 90, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jdeveco.2008.11.007.
Debonnet, G. and Vié, J.C. (2010). Rapport de Mission de Suivi au Parc National de Kahuzi-Biega (RDC). United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN).
Delgado, R.A. (2010). Communication, culture and conservation in orangutans. In Indonesian Primates, ed.
S. Gursky and J. Supriatna. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 23–40. DOI: 10.1007/978–1-4419–1560–3_3. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1-4419–1560–3_3.
Delgado, R.A. and Van Schaik, C.P. (2000). The behavioral ecology and conservation of the orangutan (Pongo
pygmaeus): a tale of two islands. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 9, 201–18. DOI:
10.1002/1520–6505(2000)9:5<201::AID-EVAN2>3.0.CO;2-Y.
DFID (2010). Annual Review: PRO ROUTES AUGUST 2010. Department for International Development (DFID).
Available at: iati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/4109130.xls.
Dierkers, G. and Mattingly, J. (2009). How States and Territories Fund Transportation: An Overview of Traditional
and Nontraditional Strategies. Washington DC: National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best
Practices. Environment, Energy & Natural Resources Division. Available at: https://www.nga.org/files/live/
sites/NGA/files/pdf/0907TRANSPORTATIONSTRATEGIES.PDF.
DigitalGlobe (n.d.). DigitalGlobe. Westminster, CO: DigitalGlobe. Available at: https://www.digitalglobe.com.
Accessed December, 2016–April, 2017.
Dinsi, S.C. and Eyebe, S.A. (2016). Great Ape Conservation in Cameroon: Mapping Institution and Policies. Poverty
and Conservation Learning Group (PCLG) Research Report. London, UK: International Institute for Environment
and Development (IIED). Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G04017.pdf.
Dkamela, G.P. (2011). The Context of REDD+ in Cameroon: Drivers, Agents and Institutions. Bogor, Indonesia:
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Doran-Sheehy, D., Mongo, P., Lodwick, J. and Conklin-Brittain, N.L. (2009). Male and female western gorilla diet:
preferred foods, use of fallback resources, and implications for ape versus old world monkey foraging strategies.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 140, 727–38. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21118.
Doumenge, C. and Heymer, A. (1992). Evaluation de l’impact environnemental de la route Kisangani – Bukavu/
Goma (Zaire). GTZ/International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Unpublished report.
DSU (2016). Better Decision-Making about Large Dams with a View to Sustainable Development. 22nd December
2016. Reference 7199. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Dutch Sustainability Unit (DSU), Netherlands Commission
for Environmental Assessment. Available at: http://api.commissiemer.nl/docs/os/i71/i7199/7199_advice_on_
better_decision-making_about_large_dams.pdf.
Dubois, G., Bastin, L., Martinez Lopez J., et al. (2015). The Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA) Explorer
1.0. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://dopa.jrc.ec.
europa.eu/sites/default/files/test/2015%20Online%20LB-NA-27162-EN-N2%20.pdf.
Dudley, N., Stolton, S. and Elliott, W. (2013). Wildlife crime poses unique challenges to protected areas. Parks,
19, 7–12.
Dulac, J. (2013). Global Land Transport Infrastructure Requirements to 2050. Paris, France: International Energy Agency.
Dunn, A. (2016). On a road to nowhere? Gorilla Journal, 53. Available at: http://www.berggorilla.org/en/journal/issues/
journal-no-51/article-view/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=859&cHash=d71bc775cf973adfcd1141544ced400a.
Dunn, A., Bergl, R., Byler, D., et al. (2014). Revised Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Cross River
Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) 2014–2019. New York, NY: International Union for Conservation of Nature
Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group and Wildlife Conservation Society.
Available at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1200343/24396223/1392763857780/CRG_action_plan_2014.
pdf?token=qRnBxb%2Fev%2BkjCcK7a1OdITpCpqo%3D.
Dunn, A. and Imong, I. (2017). A brief update on the proposed superhighway in Cross River State. Gorilla Journal,
54. Available at: www.berggorilla.org/en/journal/issues/journal-no-54/article-view/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=917
&cHash=1831ff7c0faadd33c6f7a922d808b072.

303
Durán, A.P., Rauch, J. and Gaston, K.J. (2013). Global spatial coincidence between protected areas and metal mining
activities. Biological Conservation, 160, 272–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.003.
Durham, D. (2015). The status of captive apes. In State of the Apes: Industrial Agriculture and Ape Conservation, ed.
Arcus Foundation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 228–59. Available at: http://www.stateof
theapes.com/themes/the-status-of-captive-apes/.
Durham, D. and Phillipson, A. (2014). Status of captive apes across Africa and Asia: the impact of extractive industry.
In State of the Apes: Extractive Industries and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus Foundation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 279–305. Available at: http://www.stateoftheapes.com/volume-1-extractive-industries/.
Ebrahim-zadeh, C. (2003). Back to basics: when countries get too much of a good thing. Christine Ebrahim-zadeh
explains Dutch disease. Finance and Development-English Edition, 40, 50–1. Available at: http://www.webcitation.
org/5YeSchvbI.
ECD (2016). EIA Procedure. Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar: Myanmar Environmental Conservation Department (ECD).
Available at: http://www.ecd.gov.mm/?q=policy.
EDC (2011a). Lom Pangar Hydroelectric Project Environmental and Social Assessment, Executive Summary. Yaoundé,
Cameroon: Electricity Development Corporation (EDC).
EDC (2011b). Projet Hydroélectrique de Lom Pangar; Evaluation Environnementale et Sociale (EES). Volume 1.
Evaluation des Impacts Environnementaux et Sociaux (EIES). Yaoundé, Cameroon: Electricity Development
Corporation (EDC).
EDC (2011c). Réformulation de l’étude d’impacts et du Plan de Gestion Environnementale et Sociale du Barrage de
Lom Pangar: Mise en Oeuvre de la Compensation Biodiversité: Parc National de Deng-Deng. Yaoundé, Cameroon:
Electricity Development Corporation (EDC). Available at: http://www.edc-cameroon.org/IMG/pdf/sde/
ANNEXE%204%20PNDD%20projet%20110111.pdf.
EDC (n.d.-a). La Pêche s’Organise Autour de Lom Pangar. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Electricity Development Corporation
(EDC). Available at: http://www.edc-cameroon.org/francais/societe/nos-activites/article/la-peche-s-organise-
autour-de-lom. Accessed August, 2017.
EDC (n.d.-b). Mise en Eau Partielle de Lom Pangar: Pari Tenu! Yaoundé, Cameroon: Electricity Development
Corporation (EDC). Available at: http://www.edc-cameroon.org/francais/projets/lom-pangar/actualite/article/
mise-en-eau-partielle-de-lom. Accessed August, 2017.
Eddy, T. (2015). Embodying ecological policy in defending the Leuser ecosystem area for sustaining collective life.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5, 252–64.
Edelman, M. and Haugerud, A., ed. (2005). The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Inc.
EDG (2007). Etude Détaillée de l’Impact Socio-Environnemental de la Route Allant de Kisangani et Bunduki.
Kinshasa, DRC: Ministère des Travaux Publics et Infrastructures & DFID, Environment and Development
Group (EDG).
Edwards, D.P., Sloan, S., Weng, L., et al. (2014). Mining and the African environment. Conservation Letters, 7,
302–11. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12076.
Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. and Daily, G.C. (1997). The Stork and the Plow: The Equity Answer to the Human Dilemma.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
EIB (2013). Environmental and Social Handbook. Volume I: EIB Environmental and Social Standards. Luxembourg:
European Investment Bank (EIB). Available at: http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/environmental_
and_social_practices_handbook_en.pdf.
Elder, A.A. (2009). Hylobatid diets revisited: the importance of body mass, fruit availability, and interspecific
competition. In The Gibbons: New Perspectives on Small Ape Socioecology and Population Biology, ed. D. Whittaker
and S. Lappan. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 133–59. DOI: 10.1007/978–0-387–88604–6_8. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.1007/978–0-387–88604–6_8.
Elkan, P., Elkan, S., Moukassa, A., et al. (2006). Managing threats from bushmeat hunting in a timber concession
in the Republic of Congo. In Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests, ed. W. F. Laurance and C. A. Peres. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 393–415.
Ellioti.org (n.d.). P.T. Ellioti by the Numbers. Ellioti.org. Available at: http://www.ellioti.org/p.t.ellioti-by-the-numbers.
html. Accessed August, 2017.
References
304
Emery Thompson, M. and Wrangham, R.W. (2008). Diet and reproductive function in wild female chimpanzees
(Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) at Kibale National Park, Uganda. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
135, 171–81. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20718.
Emery Thompson, M. and Wrangham, R.W. (2013). Pan troglodytes robust chimpanzee. In Mammals of Africa.
Volume II: Primates, ed. T. M. Butynski, J. Kingdon and J. Kalina. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 55–64.
Emery Thompson, M., Zhou, A. and Knott, C.D. (2012). Low testosterone correlates with delayed development in
male orangutans. PLoS One, 7, e47282. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047282.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1998). Baram River. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Available at: https://
www.britannica.com/place/Baram-River. Accessed September 14, 2017.
Engberg, C.C. (2002). The dam owner’s guide to retirement planning: assessing owner liability for downstream
sediment flow from obsolete dams. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 21, 177.
Engel, R. and Petropoulos, A. (2016). Saving Cobra: the rescue of an orphaned chimpanzee. NBC, May 9, 2016.
Available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/saving-cobra-rescue-orphaned-chimpanzee-n570416.
Accessed September, 2016.
Environmental Justice Atlas (n.d.). Exploitation of Forests, Cameroon. Environmental Justice Atlas. Available at:
https://ejatlas.org/print/exploitation-of-forests-cameroon.
ERI (2009). Total Impact: The Human Rights, Environmental, and Financial Impacts of Total and Chevron’s Yadana
Gas Project in Military-Ruled Burma (Myanmar). Bangkok, Thailand: Earth Rights International (ERI).
ERM (2016). Calabar-Ikom-Katsina Ala superhighway ESIA gap analysis: gap analysis report. Report to World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) UK May, 2016.
ESI Africa (2016). The dawn of wind energy in Africa. ESI Africa. Available at: https://www.esi-africa.com/magazine_
articles/dawn-wind-energy-africa/.
Espinosa, S., Branch, L.C. and Cueva, R. (2014). Road development and the geography of hunting by an Amazonian
indigenous group: consequences for wildlife conservation. PLoS One, 9, e114916. DOI: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0114916.
Esri (2016). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.4.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
ETP (n.d.). Malaysia Economic Transformation Programme. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Economic Transformation
Programme (ETP). Available at: http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/About_ETP-@-Overview_of_ETP.aspx.
European Commission (2015). EU Zoos Directive Good Practices Document. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
European Commission (n.d.). Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA). Ispra, Italy: European Commission.
Available at: dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en.
Fa, J.E., Seymour, S., Dupain, J., et al. (2006). Getting to grips with the magnitude of exploitation: bushmeat in
the Cross–Sanaga rivers region, Nigeria and Cameroon. Biological Conservation, 129, 497–510. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.031.
Fan, P., Fei, H., Xiang, Z., et al. (2010). Social structure and group dynamics of the Cao Vit gibbon (Nomascus nasutus)
in Bangliang, Jingxi, China. Folia Primatologica, 81, 245–53.
Fan, P.-F., He, K., Chen, X., et al. (2017). Description of a new species of hoolock gibbon (Primates: Hylobatidae)
based on integrative taxonomy. American Journal of Primatology, 79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22631.
Fan, P.-F. and Jiang, X.-L. (2008). Effects of food and topography on ranging behavior of black crested gibbon
(Nomascus concolor jingdongensis) in Wuliang Mountain, Yunnan, China. American Journal of Primatology,
70, 871–8. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20577.
Fan, P.-F. and Jiang, X.-L. (2010). Maintenance of multifemale social organization in a group of Nomascus concolor
at Wuliang Mountain, Yunnan, China. International Journal of Primatology, 31, 1–13. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–
009–9375–9.
Fan, P.-F., Jiang, X.-L. and Tian, C.-C. (2009). The critically endangered black crested gibbon Nomascus concolor
on Wuliang Mountain, Yunnan, China: the role of forest types in the species conservation. Oryx, 43, 203–8.
DOI: 10.1017/S0030605308001907.
FAO (2015). Global Forest Resources Assessment: How Are the World’s Forests Changing? Rome, Italy: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4793e.pdf.

305
FAO, Action Against Hunger, Action Aid, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and
World Vision International (2016). Free Prior and Informed Consent: An Indigenous Peoples’ Right and a Good
Practice for Local Communities. Manual for Project Practitioners. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO). Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i6190e.pdf.
Farmer, K.H. (2002). Pan-African Sanctuary Alliance: status and range of activities for great ape conservation.
American Journal of Primatology, 58, 117–32. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.10054.
Farmer, K.H. (2012). Building Sustainable Sanctuaries. Cambridge, UK: Arcus Foundation. Available at: http://www.
sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Arcus_Building_Sustainable_Sanctuaries.pdf.
Farmer, K.H., Jamart, A. and Goossens, B. (2010). The re-introduction of chimpanzees Pan troglodytes troglodytes
to the Conkouati-Douli National Park, Republic of Congo. In Global Re-Introduction Perspectives: Additional
Case-Studies from Around the Globe, ed. P. S. Soorae. Abu Dhabi, UAE: International Union for Conservation
of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), Re-introduction Specialist Group, pp. 231–7.
Farmer, K.H., Unwin, S., Cress, D., et al. (2009). Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) Operations Manual.
Portland, OR: Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA).
Faust, L.J., Cress, D., Farmer, K.H., Ross, S.R. and Beck, B.B. (2011). Predicting capacity demand on sanctuaries for
African chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). International Journal of Primatology, 32, 849–64. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–
011–9505-z.
Fawcett, K. (2000). Female relationships and food availability in a forest community of chimpanzees. PhD thesis.
Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh.
Fearnside, P.F. (2006). Containing destruction from Brazil’s Amazon highways: now is the time to give weight to
the environment in decision-making. Environmental Conservation, 33, 181–3. DOI: 10.1017/S0376892906003109.
Fearnside, P.M. (2016a). Greenhouse gas emissions from Brazil’s Amazonian hydroelectric dams. Environmental
Research Letters, 11, 011002.
Fearnside, P.M. (2016b). Tropical dams: to build or not to build? Science, 351, 456–7.
Fearnside, P.M. and de Alencastro Graça, P.M.L. (2006). BR-319: Brazil’s Manaus-Porto Velho Highway and the
potential impact of linking the arc of deforestation to central Amazonia. Environmental Management, 38,
705–16. DOI: 10.1007/s00267–005–0295-y.
Fears, D. (2016). NIH vowed to move its research chimps from labs, but only 7 got safe haven in 2015. Washington
Post, February 26, 2016. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/02/26/despite-
nihs-promise-only-7-research-chimps-got-safe-haven-in-2015/.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1992). Environmental Impact Assessment Decree, No 86 of 1992, Laws of the Federation
of Nigeria. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Available at: http://www.nigeria-law.org/Environmental%20Impact%20
Assessment%20Decree%20No.%2086%201992.htm.
Ferraro, P.J. and Pattanayak, S.K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity con-
servation investments. PLoS Biology, 4, e105. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105.
Ferrie, G.M., Farmer, K.H., Kuhar, C.W., et al. (2014). The social, economic, and environmental contributions of
Pan African Sanctuary Alliance primate sanctuaries in Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23, 187–201.
DOI: 10.1007/s10531–013–0592–3.
Fishpool, L.D.C. and Evans, M.I. (2001). Important Bird Areas in Africa and Associated Islands: Priority Sites for
Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Birdlife International.
FLEGT (2016). Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT). Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/illegal_logging.htm.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about
it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25, 344–67. DOI: 10.1093/oxrep/grp024.
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–4. DOI: 10.1126/
science.1111772.
Forman, R.T.T. and Alexander, L.E. (1998). Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 29, 207–31. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207.
Forrest, J.L., Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., et al. (2015). Tropical deforestation and carbon emissions from protected area
downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD). Conservation Letters, 8, 153–61. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12144.
References
306
Foster, V. and Briceño-Garmendia, C.M. (2010). Africa Infrastructure: A Time for Transformation. Washington DC:
World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/246961468003355256/Africas-
infrastructure-a-time-for-transformation.
FPP, IIFB and CBD (2016). Local Biodiversity Outlooks. Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Contributions
to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. A Complement to the Fourth Edition of
the Global Biodiversity Outlook. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme (FPP), The International
Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) and The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Available at: http://localbiodiversityoutlooks.net.
FPP, Pusaka and Pokker SHK (2014). Securing Forests, Securing Rights: Report of the International Workshop on
Deforestation and the Rights of Forest Peoples. Forest Peoples’ Programme (FPP), Pusaka and Pokker SHK.
Available at: https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/default/files/private/publication/2014/09/prreport.pdf.
Franco, J. (2014). Reclaiming Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in the Context of Global Land Grabs. Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: Transnational Institute. Available at: https://www.tni.org/files/download/reclaiming_fpic_0.pdf.
Frankfurt School–UNEP Centre/BNEF (2017). Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2017. Frankfurt,
Germany: Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. Available at: http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/
files/publications/globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinvestment2017.pdf.
Freudenthal, E., Nnah, S. and J., K. (2011). REDD and Rights In Cameroon: A Review of the Treatment of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities in Policies and Projects. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme
and Centre for Environment and Development. Available at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/forest-carbon-
partnership-facility-fcpf/publication/2011/redd-and-rights-cameroon-review-trea.
Fruth, B., Hickey, J.R., André, C., et al. (2016). Pan paniscus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/15932/0.
Fruth, B., Williamson, E.A. and Richardson, M.C. (2013). Bonobo Pan paniscus. In Handbook of the Mammals of
the World. Volume 3: Primates, ed. R. A. Mittermeier, A. B. Rylands and D. E. Wilson. Barcelona, Spain: Lynx
Edicions, pp. 853–4.
FSC (2015). FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship. Bonn, Germany: Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC). Available at: http://www.fsc-uk.org/en-uk/business-area/fsc-certificate-types/forest-management-fm-
certification/what-standard-is-used.
Fund for Animals (n.d.). About The Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch. Available at: http://www.fundforanimals.
org/blackbeauty/about/.
Fünfstück, T., Arandjelovic, M., Morgan, D.B., et al. (2014). The genetic population structure of wild western low-
land gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) living in continuous rain forest. American Journal of Primatology, 76,
868–78. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22274.
Funwi-Gabga, N., Kuehl, H., Maisels, F., et al. (2014). The status of apes across Africa and Asia. In State of the Apes:
Extractive Industries and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus Foundation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 253–77.
GAIN (n.d.). Great Ape Information Network. Kyoto, Japan: Great Ape Information Network (GAIN). Available at:
http://www.shigen.nig.ac.jp/gain/index.jsp.
Galeano, E. (2009). Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. London, UK: Serpent’s Tail.
Galinato, G.I. and Galinato, S.P. (2013). The short-run and long-run effects of corruption control and political
stability on forest cover. Ecological Economics, 89, 153–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.02.014.
Ganas, J., Robbins, M.M., Nkurunungi, J.B., Kaplin, B.A. and McNeilage, A. (2004). Dietary variability of mountain
gorillas in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. International Journal of Primatology, 25, 1043–72.
DOI: 10.1023/b:ijop.0000043351.20129.44.
Garcia, L.C., Ribeiro, D.B., de Oliveira Roque, F., Ochoa-Quintero, J.M. and Laurance, W.F. (2017). Brazil’s worst
mining disaster: corporations must be compelled to pay the actual environmental costs. Ecological Applications,
27, 5–9. DOI: 10.1002/eap.1461.
Gartland, A. (2017). NGOs urge UNESCO to intervene to save rainforest heritage site. Changing Times, March 24,
2017. Available at: https://changingtimes.media/2017/03/24/ngos-urge-unesco-to-intervene-to-save-sumatras-
leuser-ecosystem/. Accessed February 2, 2018.

307
Gascon, C., Malcolm, J.R., Patton, J.L., et al. (2000). Riverine barriers and the geographic distribution of Amazonian
species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 13672–7. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.230136397.
Gauvey Herbert, D. (2017). Kony 2017: from guerrilla marketing to guerrilla warfare. Foreign Policy, May, 2017.
Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/02/kony-2017-from-guerilla-marketing-to-guerilla-warfare-
invisible-children-africa/.
Gaveau, D.L.A., Epting, J., Lyne, O., et al. (2009a). Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation
in Sumatra. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 2165–75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–2699.2009.02147.x.
Gaveau, D.L.A., Kshatriya, M., Sheil, D., et al. (2013). Reconciling forest conservation and logging in Indonesian
Borneo. PLoS One, 8, e69887. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069887.
Gaveau, D.L.A., Sheil, D., Husnayaen, et al. (2016). Rapid conversions and avoided deforestation: examining four
decades of industrial plantation expansion in Borneo. Scientific Reports, 6, 32017. DOI: 10.1038/srep32017.
Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32017#supplementary-information.
Gaveau, D.L.A., Sloan, S., Molidena, E., et al. (2014). Four decades of forest persistence, clearance and logging on
Borneo. PLoS One, 9, e101654. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101654.
Gaveau, D.L.A., Wandono, H. and Setiabudi, F. (2007). Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: have
protected areas halted forest loss and logging, and promoted re-growth? Biological Conservation, 134, 495–504.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.035.
Gaveau, D.L.A., Wich, S., Epting, J., et al. (2009b). The future of forests and orangutans (Pongo abelii) in Sumatra:
predicting impacts of oil palm plantations, road construction, and mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions
from deforestation. Environmental Research Letters, 4, 034013.
GEF (2013). Project Identification Form: Strengthening Forest and Ecosystem Connectivity in RIMBA Landscape of
Central Sumatra through Investing in Natural Capital, Biodiversity Conservation, and Land-based Emission
Reductions. Washington DC: Global Environment Facility (GEF).
GEI (2013). Environmental and Social Challenges of China’s Going Global. Beijing, PRC: Global Environmental
Institute (GEI). Available at: www.geichina.org/_upload/file/book/2013Goingout_EN.pdf.
GEI (2015). Understanding China’s Overseas Investments Governance and Analysis of Environmental and Social
Policies. Beijing, PRC: Global Environmental Institute (GEI). Available at: http://www.geichina.org/_upload/file/
book/goingoutreport/Understanding_China’s_Overseas_Investments_Governance_and_Anyalsis%20of_
E&S_Policies.pdf.
GEI (2016). Cambodian FDI Policy and Management System: Analysis of Chinese Investments in Cambodia. Beijing,
PRC: Global Environmental Institute (GEI). Available at: http://www.geichina.org/_upload/file/report/China_
Going_Global_Cambodia.pdf.
Geissmann, T. (1991). Reassessment of age of sexual maturity in gibbons (Hylobates spp.). American Journal of
Primatology, 23, 11–22. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.1350230103.
Geissmann, T. (2007). Status reassessment of the gibbons: results of the Asian primate red list workshop 2006. Gibbon
Journal, 3, 5–15.
Geissmann, T. and Bleisch, W. (2008). Nomascus hainanus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T41643A10526461.en.
Geissmann, T., Grindley, M., Ngwe, L., et al. (2013). The Conservation Status of Hoolock Gibbons in Myanmar. Zürich,
Switzerland: Gibbon Conservation Alliance.
Geissmann, T., Manh Ha, N., Rawson, B., et al. (2008). Nomascus gabriellae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2008: e.T39776A10265736. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39776/0.
Geissmann, T. and Nijman, V. (2008a). Hylobates muelleri ssp. funereus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2008: e.T39890A10271063. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T39890A10271063.en.
Geissmann, T. and Nijman, V. (2008b). Hylobates muelleri ssp. muelleri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T39888A10270564.en.
References
308
Geist, H.J. and Lambin, E.F. (2002). Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation.
BioScience, 52, 143–50. DOI: 10.1641/0006–3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2.
Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., et al. (2013). Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss
and population declines. Biological Conservation, 161, 230–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.018.
GFAS (2013a). Standards for Great Ape Sanctuaries. Phoenix, AZ: Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries
(GFAS). Available at: http://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/GreatApe
Standards_Dec2015.pdf. Accessed September, 2016.
GFAS (2013b). Standards for Old World Primates. Phoenix, AZ: Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS).
Available at: http://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/OldWorldMonkey
Standards_Dec2015.pdf. Accessed September, 2016.
GFAS (n.d.-a). Accreditation Frequently Asked Questions. Phoenix, AZ: Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries
(GFAS). Available at: http://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/for-sanctuaries/faq/#visit.
GFAS (n.d.-b). GFAS Accredited Sanctuaries and GFAS Verified Sanctuaries. Phoenix, AZ: Global Federation of
Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS). Available at: http://www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/about-gfas/gfas-sanctuaries/.
GFAS (n.d.-c). How to Apply. Phoenix, AZ: Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS). Available at: http://
www.sanctuaryfederation.org/gfas/for-sanctuaries/how-to-apply/.
GFW (2014). Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA). Version 1.2. Washington DC: Global Forest Watch
(GFW) World Resources Institute. Available at: data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/63f9425c45404c36a23495
ed7bef1314?uiTab=metadata.
GFW (n.d.-a). GFW Fires. Washington DC: Global Forest Watch (GFW) World Resources Institute. Available at:
http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/about/. Accessed March, 2017.
GFW (n.d.-b). GFW Map Builder. Washington DC: Global Forest Watch (GFW) World Resources Institute.
Available at: http://developers.globalforestwatch.org/map-builder/. Accessed March, 2017.
GFW (n.d.-c). GFW Open Data Portal. Washington DC: Global Forest Watch (GFW) World Resources Institute.
Available at: http://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/16dae98167264b8abfbd13e23802e4f3_0.
Gilardi, K.V., Gillespie, T.R., Leendertz, F.H., et al. (2015). Best Practice Guidelines for Health Monitoring and Disease
Control in Great Ape Populations. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species
Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group.
Gillanders, R. (2014). Corruption and infrastructure at the country and regional level. The Journal of Development
Studies, 50, 803–19. DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2013.858126.
Gillespie, T.R. and Chapman, C.A. (2008). Forest fragmentation, the decline of an endangered primate, and changes
in host–parasite interactions relative to an unfragmented forest. American Journal of Primatology, 70, 222–30.
DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20475.
GLAD (n.d.). Global Forest Watch. College Park, MD: Global Land Analysis & Discovery (GLAD), University of
Maryland. Available at: http://glad.umd.edu/projects/global-forest-watch. Accessed December, 2016.
Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2016). The Sustainable Infrastructure Imperative: Financing for
Better Growth and Development. The 2016 New Climate Economy Report. Washington DC: New Climate
Economy. Available at: http://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/08/NCE_
2016Report.pdf.
Global Road Map (n.d.). Key Facts about Roads. Cairns, Australia: James Cook University. Available at: http://www.
global-roadmap.org/about/. Accessed January, 2017.
Global Wind Report (2015). Global Wind Report 2015: Annual Market Update. Brussels, Belgium: Global Wind
Energy Council.
Global Witness (2012). In the Future, There Will be No Forests Left. London, UK: Global Witness. Available at: https://
www.globalwitness.org/sites/default/files/library/HSBC-logging-briefing-FINAL-WEB_0.pdf. Accessed
November 10, 2016.
Golder Associates (2015). SETRAG - Progamme de Maintenance Des Voies et Des Installations Connexes: Plan d’Action
Sur La Biodiversité. Libreville, Gabon: SETRAG.
Google Earth (n.d.). Google Earth. Google Earth. Available at: https://www.google.com/earth/index.html. Accessed
January, 2017.

309
Google Earth Engine Team (n.d.). Google Earth Engine: A Planetary-Scale Geospatial Analysis Platform. Google Earth
Engine. Available at: https://earthengine.google.com. Accessed 2017.
Goossens, B., Kapar, M.D., Kahar, S. and Ancrenaz, M. (2011). First sighting of Bornean orang-utan twins in the wild.
Asian Primates Journal, 2, 10–2.
Goossens, B., Setchell, J.M., Tchidongo, E., et al. (2005). Survival, interactions with conspecifics and reproduction
in 37 chimpanzees released into the wild. Biological Conservation, 123, 461–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2005.01.008.
Gorilla SSP (n.d.). Gorilla Species Survival Plan. The Gorilla Species Survival Plan (SSP). Available at: http://www.
gorillassp.org/aboutSSP.html. Accessed October 10, 2014.
Gorman, J. (2015a). Chimpanzees in Liberia, used in New York blood center research, face uncertain future. The New
York Times, May 28, 2015. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/science/chimpanzees-liberia-new-
york-blood-center.html.
Gorman, J. (2015b). Plan to export chimps tests law to protect species. The New York Times, November 14, 2015.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/science/plan-to-export-chimps-tests-law-to-protect-
species.html.
Gorman, J. (2016). 2nd lawsuit filed in US to block chimps’ move to England. The New York Times, April 26, 2016.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/science/2nd-lawsuit-filed-in-us-to-block-chimps-move-
to-england.html.
Goufan, J.-M. and Adeline, T. (2005). Etude Environnementale du Barrage de Lom Pangar. Etude de l’Urbanisation
(thème 10) – Volet ‘Afflux de population’ – Rapport Après Consultation. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Ministry of Water
Resources and Energy. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/t10_urbanisation_
vol1_v4_lom_pangar.pdf.
Gowan, C., Stephenson, K. and Shabman, L. (2006). The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision
making: hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha River. Ecological Economics, 56, 508–23.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.018.
GRASP (2016). Apes Seizure Database Reveals True Extent of Illegal Trade. Great Apes Survival Project (GRASP).
Available at: http://www.un-grasp.org/apes-seizure-database-reveals-true-extent-of-illegal-trade/. Accessed
October, 2016.
Gray, M., Roy, J., Vigilant, L., et al. (2013). Genetic census reveals increased but uneven growth of a critically endan-
gered mountain gorilla population. Biological Conservation, 158, 230–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.
2012.09.018.
Green, J.M.H., Cranston, G.R., Sutherland, W.J., et al. (2017). Research priorities for managing the impacts and
dependencies of business upon food, energy, water and the environment. Sustainability Science, 12, 319–31.
DOI: 10.1007/s11625–016–0402–4.
Griffiths, M. and Van Schaik, C.P. (1993). The impact of human traffic on the abundance and activity periods of
Sumatran rain forest wildlife. Conservation Biology, 7, 623–6.
Gron, K. (2010). Lar gibbon Hylobates lar. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI: Primate Info Net.
Available at: http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/lar_gibbon. Accessed July 12, 2017.
Grueter, C.C., Ndamiyabo, F., Plumptre, A.J., et al. (2013). Long-term temporal and spatial dynamics of food avail-
ability for endangered mountain gorillas in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. American Journal of Primatology,
75, 267–80. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22102.
Grumbine, R.E., Dore, J. and Xu, J. (2012). Mekong hydropower: drivers of change and governance challenges.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 91–8. DOI: 10.1890/110146.
Gubelman, E. (1995). Proposal for the contraction of the Kacwamuhoro-Kiyebe-Katoma-Ruhija road around
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park: findings of a feasibility study and preliminary project proposal for CARE.
Unpublished report.
Guerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., et al. (2015). Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions:
from promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 7348–55. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1503751112.
Gullett, W. (1998). Environmental impact assessment and the precautionary principle: legislating caution in envi-
ronmental protection. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 5, 146–58. DOI: 10.1080/14486563.
1998.10648411.
References
310
Gumal, M. and Braken Tisen, O. (2015). Orangutan Strategic Action Plan: Trans-Boundary Biodiversity Conser
vation Area. Wildlife Conservation Society, Malaysia Program and Sarawak Forestry Corporation, Sarawak
Forest Department.
Guy, A.J., Curnoe, D. and Banks, P.B. (2014). Welfare based primate rehabilitation as a potential conservation
strategy: does it measure up? Primates, 55, 139–47. DOI: 10.1007/s10329–013–0386-y.
GVC, BIC and IRN (2006). In Whose Interest? The Lom Pangar Dam and Energy Sector Development in Cameroon.
June, 2006. Global Village Cameroon (GVT), Bank Information Center (BIC) and International Rivers Network
(IRN). Available at: https://www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached-files/whoseinterest.pdf.
HAkA, KPHA, OIC, et al. (2016). The Importance of the Kappi Area in the Gunung Leuser National Park and
Further Support for its Current Core Area Status. Medan, Indonesia: ALERT, Forest, Nature, and Environment
of Aceh (HAkA), Koalisi Peduli Hutan Aceh (KPHA), Orangutan Information Centre (OIC), PanEco
Foundation, Sumatran Orangutan Society (SOS) and Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL) Available at: https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/51b078a6e4b0e8d244dd9620/t/586645cc414fb5c4d35e8c87/1483097562011/
Report+to+Minister.pdf.
Halleson, D. (2016). The central African Iion ore corridor: transforming the Congo Basin. Presented at: Integrated
Resources Corridor Partnership Workshop, June 21–22, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Cameroon: World Wide
Fund for Nature (WWF).
Hamard, M., Cheyne, S.M. and Nijman, V. (2010). Vegetation correlates of gibbon density in the peat-swamp forest
of the Sabangau catchment, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 607–16.
DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20815.
Hanafiah, J. (2016). Aceh governor eyes geothermal project in Indonesia’s leuser ecosystem. Mongabay, August, 2016.
Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2016/08/aceh-governor-eyes-geothermal-project-in-indonesias-
leuser-ecosystem/. Accessed April 5, 2017.
Hansen, A.J. and DeFries, R. (2007). Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands.
Ecological Applications, 17, 974–88. DOI: 10.1890/05–1098.
Hansen, M.C., Alexander, K., Alexandra, T., et al. (2016). Humid tropical forest disturbance alerts using Landsat data.
Environmental Research Letters, 11, 034008.
Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., et al. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover
change. Science, 342, 850–3. DOI: 10.1126/science.1244693. Available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/
content/sci/342/6160/850.full.pdf. Data available on-line from: http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/
science-2013-global-forest. Accessed through Global Forest Watch September 2016-February 2017. www.
globalforestwatch.org.
Harcourt, A.H. and Greenberg, J. (2001). Do gorilla females join males to avoid infanticide? A quantitative model.
Animal Behaviour, 62, 905–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1835.
Harcourt, A.H. and Wood, M.A. (2012). Rivers as barriers to primate distributions in Africa. International Journal
of Primatology, 33, 168–83. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–011–9558-z.
Hart, J. (2014). Summary results of elephant surveys in North Central DR Congo 2007–2013. Submission to African
Elephant Data Base.
Harvey, P. and Knox, H. (2015). Roads: An Anthropology of Infrastructure and Expertise. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Haskoning (Nederland B.V. Environment) (2011). Specific Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) for the Interaction
between the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline Project and the Lom Pangar Dam Project. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Cameroon
Oil Transportation Company.
Head, J.S., Boesch, C., Makaga, L. and Robbins, M.M. (2011). Sympatric chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes)
and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) in Loango National Park, Gabon: dietary composition, seasonality, and
intersite comparisons. International Journal of Primatology, 32, 755–75. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–011–9499–6.
Head, J.S., Boesch, C., Robbins, M.M., et al. (2013). Effective sociodemographic population assessment of elusive
species in ecology and conservation management. Ecology and Evolution, 3, 2903–16. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.670.
Helsingen, H., Sai Nay Won Myint, Bhagabati, N., et al. (2015). A Better Road to Dawei: Protecting Wildlife, Sustaining
Nature, Benefiting People. Yangon, Myanmar: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

311
Hernandez-Aguilar, R.A. (2009). Chimpanzee nest distribution and site reuse in a dry habitat: implications for early
hominin ranging. Journal of Human Evolution, 57, 350–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.03.007.
Hettige, H. (2006). When Do Rural Roads Benefit the Poor and How? An In-Depth Analysis. Manila, Philippines:
Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Hickey, J.R., Nackoney, J., Nibbelink, N.P., et al. (2013). Human proximity and habitat fragmentation are key drivers
of the rangewide bonobo distribution. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 3085–104. DOI: 10.1007/s10531–013–0572–7.
Hicks, T.C., Darby, L., Hart, J., et al. (2010). Trade in orphans and bushmeat threatens one of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo’s most important populations of eastern chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii).
African Primates (Print), 7, 1–18.
Hicks, T.C. and van Boxel, J.H. (2010). The Study Region and a Brief History of the Bili Project. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED).
Highland Farm (n.d.). Meet our Gibbons. Tambol Chongkab, Thailand: Gibbon at Highland Farm. Available at:
http://www.gibbonathighlandfarm.org/content-Meetourgibbons-5–7334–2.html. Accessed February 10, 2017.
Hobbs, J. and Kumah, F. (2015). The extractives slowdown in Africa: a window of opportunity? Africa Policy Review.
Available at: http://africapolicyreview.com/the-extractives-slowdown-in-africa-a-window-of-opportunity/.
Hobbs, J.B. and Butkovic, L. (2016). Proceedings of the Integrated Resources Corridor Workshop 2016. Nairobi, Kenya:
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Regional Office for Africa.
Hockings, K.J. (2011). Behavioral flexibility and division of roles in chimpanzee road-crossing. In The Chimpanzees
of Bossou and Nimba, ed. T. Matsuzawa, T. Humle and Y. Sugiyama. Tokyo, Japan: Springer, pp. 221–9.
Hockings, K.J., Anderson, J.R. and Matsuzawa, T. (2006). Road crossing in chimpanzees: a risky business. Current
Biology, 16, R668-R70. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.08.019.
Hockings, K.J., Anderson, J.R. and Matsuzawa, T. (2009). Use of wild and cultivated foods by chimpanzees at
Bossou, Republic of Guinea: feeding dynamics in a human-influenced environment. American Journal of
Hockings, K.J. and Humle, T. (2009). Best Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Mitigation of Conflict Between
Humans and Great Apes. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival
Commission (IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group.
Hockings, K.J., McLennan, M.R., Carvalho, S., et al. (2015). Apes in the Anthropocene: flexibility and survival. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 30, 215–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.02.002.
Hockings, K.J. and Sousa, C. (2013). Human–chimpanzee sympatry and interactions in Cantanhez National Park,
Guinea-Bissau: current research and future directions. Primate Conservation, 26, 57–65. DOI: 10.1896/052.026.0104.
Hohmann, G., Fowler, A., Sommer, V. and Ortmann, S. (2006). Frugivory and gregariousness of Salonga bonobos
and Gashaka chimpanzees: the influence of abundance and nutritional quality of fruit. In Feeding Ecology in Apes
and Other Primates, ed. G. Hohmann, M. M. Robbins and C. Boesch. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 123–59.
Hohmann, G., Gerloff, U., Tautz, D. and Fruth, B. (1999). Social bonds and genetic ties: kinship, association and
affiliation in a community of bonobos (Pan paniscus). Behaviour, 136, 1219–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/
156853999501739.
Honjiang, C. (2016). The Belt and Road Initiative and Its Impact on Asia-Europe Connectivity. Beijing, PRC: China
Institute of International Studies. Available at: http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2016–07/21/content_8911184.htm.
Horta, K. (2012). Public-private-partnership and institutional capture: the state, international institutions and
indigenous peoples in Chad and Cameroon. In The Politics of Resource Extraction: Indigenous Peoples,
Multinational Corporations, and the State, ed. S. Sawyer and E. T. Gomez. UN Research Institute for Social
Development. Available at: https://urgewald.org/sites/default/files/the_politics_of_resource_extraction.pdf.
Houghton, R.A., House, J.I., Pongratz, J., et al. (2012). Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change.
Biogeosciences, 9, 5125–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9–5125–2012.
Human Rights Watch (2016). World Report 2017: Malaysia, Events of 2016. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
Available at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/malaysia. Accessed April 6, 2017.
Humle, T. (2011). Location and ecology. In Chimpanzees of Bossou and Nimba, ed. T. Matsuzawa, T. Humle and
Y. Sugiyama. Tokyo, Japan: Springer-Verlag, pp. 371–80.
References
312
Humle, T. (2015). The Dimensions of Ape–Human Interactions in Industrial Agricultural Landscapes. Background
Paper for State of the Apes: Industrial Agriculture and Ape Conservation. Arcus Foundation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.stateoftheapes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Ape–
Human-Interactions-in-Industrial-Agricultural-Landscapes.pdf.
Humle, T. and Farmer, K. (2015). Primate rehabilitation in Africa: myths and realities. African Conservation
Telegraph, 9, 2.
Humle, T. and Hill, C. (2016). People–primate interactions: implications for primate conservation. In Introduction
to Primate Conservation, ed. S. A. Wich and A. J. Marshall. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 219–40.
Humle, T., Boesch, C., Campbell, G., et al. (2016a). Pan troglodytes ssp. verus (errata version published in 2016). The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T15935A102327574. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conser
vation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016–2.RLTS.T15935A17989872.en.
Humle, T., Colin, C., Laurans, M. and Raballand, E. (2011). Group release of sanctuary chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
in the Haut Niger National Park, Guinea, west Africa: ranging patterns and lessons so far. International Journal
of Primatology, 32, 456–73. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–010–9482–7.
Humle, T., Maisels, F., Oates, J.F., Plumptre, A. and Williamson, E.A. (2016b). Pan troglodytes (errata version published
in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T15933A102326672. Gland, Switzerland: International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/15933/0. Accessed
November 15, 2016.
Humphrey, C., Griffith-Jones, S., Xu, J., Carey, R. and Prizzon, A. (2015). Multilateral Development Banks in the 21st
Century. Three Perspectives on China and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. London, UK: Overseas
Development Institute. Available at: https://www.odi.org/publications/10159-multilateral-development-
banks-21st-century-three-perspectives-china-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank.
Hunsberger, C., Corbera, E., Borras Jr, S.M., et al. (2015). Land-Based Climate Change Mitigation, Land Grabbing
and Conflict: Understanding Intersections and Linkages, Exploring Actions for Change. MOSAIC Research Project:
MOSAIC Working Paper Series No 1. Available at: https://www.iss.nl/sites/corporate/files/CMCP_72-
Hunsberger_et_al.pdf.
Hvilsom, C., Frandsen, P., Børsting, C., et al. (2013). Understanding geographic origins and history of admixture
among chimpanzees in European zoos, with implications for future breeding programmes. Heredity, 110, 586.
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2013.9. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy20139#supplementary-information.
IBAT (n.d.). Global Biodiversity Decision Support Platform. Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) for
Business. Available at: https://www.ibatforbusiness.org.
Ibisch, P.L., Hoffmann, M.T., Kreft, S., et al. (2016). A global map of roadless areas and their conservation status.
Science, 354, 1423–7. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf7166.
ICA (2014). Infrastructure Financing Trends in Africa. Infrastructure Consortium for Africa (ICA), African Development
Bank. Available at: http://www.icafrica.org/fileadmin/documents/Annual_Reports/INFRASTRUCTURE_
FINANCING_TRENDS_IN_AFRICA_%E2%80%93_2014.pdf.
ICCN (2009). Plan General de Gestion du Parc National de Kahuzi-Biega. Gombe–Kinshasa, DRC: Institut
Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN). Available at: http://www.kahuzi-biega.org/publications/
publications/.
ICCN (2015). Rapport Annuel des Activités du Parc National de Kahuzi-Biega. Gombe–Kinshasa, DRC: Institut
Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN).
ICCN (2016). Rapport à l’UNESCO sur l’Etat de Conservation des Sites de patrimoine mondial en RDC. Gombe–
Kinshasa, DRC: Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN). Available at: http://whc.unesco.
org/en/list/137/documents/.
ICOLD (n.d.). Definition of a Large Dam. Paris, France: International Commissionon on Large Dams (ICOLD).
Available at: www.icold-cigb.org/GB/dams/definition_of_a_large_dam.asp.
IDB (n.d.). Project Snapshot: Hydroelectric Project takes Unprecedented Measures to Protect Habitat, Reventazón
Hydroelectric Project, Costa Rica. Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Available at:
http://www.iadb.org/en/topics/sustainability/project-snapshot-hydroelectric-project-takes-unprecedented-
measures-to-protect-habitat,7998.html. Accessed June 28, 2017.

313
IEA (2012). Technology Roadmap: Hydropower. Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA). Available at:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/2012_Hydropower_Roadmap.pdf.
IEA (2016). World Energy Outlook 2016. Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA). Available at: https://www.
docdroid.net/IOBt86G/world-energy-outlook-2016.pdf#page=4.
IFC (2012a). Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.
Washington DC: International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank Group. Available at: https://www.ifc.
org/wps/wcm/connect/a359a380498007e9a1b7f3336b93d75f/Updated_GN6–2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
IFC (2012b). Performance Standard 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts.
Washington DC: International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank Group.
IFC (2012c). Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural
Resources. Washington DC: International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank Group. Available at: http://
www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/bff0a28049a790d6b835faa8c6a8312a/PS6_English_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
IFC (2013). Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management: Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets.
Washington DC: International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank Group.
IFC (n.d.). Chad–Cameroon Pipeline Project Documentation. Washington DC: International Finance Corporation
(IFC), World Bank Group. Available at: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/region__ext_content/regions/
sub-saharan+africa/investments/chadcameroon. Accessed October 6, 2016.
IGF (2013). A Mining Policy Framework. Mining and Sustainable Development, Managing One to Advance Another.
Ottawa, Canada: Intergovernmental Forum on mining, minerals, metals and sustainable development (IGF).
Available at: http://www.globaldialogue.info/MPFOct2013.pdf.
IHA (2010). Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol. London, UK: International Hydropower Association
(IHA). Available at: http://www.hydrosustainability.org/Protocol/Protocol.aspx.
Ihua-Maduenyi, M. (2016). FG stops work on Cross River superhighway. Punch, March 14, 2016. Available at: http://
punchng.com/fg-stops-work-on-cross-river-superhighway/.
Ihua-Maduenyi, M. (2017). W’Bank manager lauds rerouting of C’River superhighway. Punch, April 3, 2017.
Available at: http://punchng.com/wbank-manager-lauds-rerouting-of-criver-superhighway/.
ILO (n.d.). C169: Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Geneva, Switzerland: International
Labour Organization (ILO). Available at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::
NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C169.
Imong, I., Kuhl, H.S., Robbins, M.M. and Mundry, R. (2016a). Evaluating the potential effectiveness of alternative
management scenarios in ape habitat. Environmental Conservation, 43, 1–11.
Imong, I., Robbins, M.M., Mundry, R., Bergl, R. and Kühl, H.S. (2014b). Distinguishing ecological constraints from
human activity in species range fragmentation: the case of Cross River gorillas. Animal Conservation, 17, 323–31.
DOI: 10.1111/acv.12100.
Imong, I., Robbins, M.M., Mundry, R., Bergl, R. and Kühl, H.S. (2014). Informing conservation management about
structural versus functional connectivity: a case-study of Cross River gorillas. American Journal of Primatology,
76, 978–88. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22287.
Indonesia CMEA (2011). Masterplan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development 2011–2025.
Jakarta, Indonesia: Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs (CMEA), Republic of Indonesia Ministry of
National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency.
Indonesia Investments (2011). Master Plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia’s Development (MP3EI).
Jakarta, Indonesia: Department of Planning (BAPPENAS). Available at: https://www.indonesia-investments.
com/projects/government-development-plans/masterplan-for-acceleration-and-expansion-of-indonesias-
economic-development-mp3ei/item306.
Indonesia MoF (2009). Orangutan Indonesia Conservation Strategies and Action Plan 2007–2017. Jakarta, Indonesia:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia (MoF). Directorate General of Forest Protection and
Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.
com/static/f/1200343/20457144/1348934583800/Indonesian_Orangutan_NAP_2007–2017.pdf?token=zWCX
NjRaYJv5Lx7C30sEQgryqWI%3D.
Ingle, N. (2016). Op-Ed. Will the ax fall on Nigeria’s national parks? NY Times, November 3, 2016. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/opinion/will-the-ax-fall-on-nigerias-national-parks.html?_r=0.
References
314
Integrated Environments (2010). Environmental Management Plan: Trung Son Hydropower Project (TSHPP). Prepared
for the Trung Son Project Management Board. Calgary, Alberta: Integrated Environments (2006) Ltd. Available
at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTVIETNAM/Resources/A7.pdf.
International Rivers (n.d.-a). Bakun Dam. Berkeley, CA: International Rivers. Available at: https://www.international
rivers.org/campaigns/bakun-dam. Accessed September 12, 2017.
International Rivers (n.d.-b). Economic Impact of Dams. Oakland, CA: International Rivers. Available at: https://
www.internationalrivers.org/economic-impacts-of-dams. Accessed May, 2017.
International Rivers (n.d.-c). Grand Inga Hydroelectric Project: An Overview. Berkeley, CA: International Rivers.
Available at: https://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/grand-inga-hydroelectric-project-an-overview-
3356. Accessed August, 2017.
International Rivers (n.d.-d). Murum Dam. Berkeley, CA: International Rivers. Available at: https://www.international
rivers.org/campaigns/murum-dam. Accessed September 12, 2017.
IRENA (2015). Africa 2030: Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Future. Abu Dhabi, UAE: International Renewable
Energy Agency (IRENA).
ITALTHAI (n.d.). Overview. Bangkok, Thailand: ITALTHAI. Available at: www.italthaigroup.com/en/overview.
ITD (2011). Dawei project overview and work in progress. Internal Company Report, July. Bangkok, Thailand: Italian-
Thai Development Co. (ITD).
ITD (2012). Dawei deep seaport and industrial estate development project. PowerPoint slides. Bangkok, Thailand:
Italian-Thai Development Co (ITD).
IUCN (2013). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.
IUCN (2014a). Biodiversity Offsets Technical Study Paper. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN).
IUCN (2014b). Plan d’Action Régional Pour la Conservation des Gorilles de Plaine de l’Ouest et des Chimpanzés
d’Afrique Centrale 2015–2025. Gland, Switzerland: Groupe de Spécialistes des Primates de la CSE/UICN.
IUCN (2014c). Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of Western Lowland Gorillas and Central Chimpanzees
2015–2025. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission
(IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group. Available at: https://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/
wea_apes_plan_2014_7mb.pdf.
IUCN (2014d). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Gland, Switzerland: International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.
IUCN (2016a). IUCN was at the 3rd Asia Ministerial Conference on Tiger Conservation. Gland, Switzerland:
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: https://www.iucn.org/news/species/
201607/iucn-was-3rd-asia-ministerial-conference-tiger-conservation.
IUCN (2016b). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016.2. Gland, Switzerland: International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed September, 2016.
IUCN (2016c). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016.3. Gland, Switzerland: International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed December 7, 2016.
IUCN (2016d). Understanding Human Dependence on Forests: An Overview of IUCN’s Efforts and Findings, and
their Implications. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at:
https://www.iucn.org/news/forests/201611/understanding-human-dependence-forests-overview-iucn%E2
%80%99s-efforts-and-findings-and-their-implications.
IUCN (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017.1. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.
IUCN (n.d.-a). Categories and Criteria. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Available at: www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria. Accessed March, 2017.
IUCN (n.d.-b). Protected Areas Categories. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN). Available at: https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories.

315
IUCN SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland,
Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC).
Available at: http://www.issg.org/pdf/publications/RSG_ISSG-Reintroduction-Guidelines-2013.pdf.
IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group (2006). Primates of Peru: Taxonomy and Conservation Status. Gland, Switzerland:
International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC). Available at:
http://www.primate-sg.org/primates_of_peru/.
IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2016). The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Cambridge, UK: United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). Available at: http://www.
protectedplanet.net.
Jacobs, A. (2015). Factors affecting the prevalence of road and canopy bridge crossings by primates in Diani Beach,
Kenya. Masters thesis. Canterbury, UK: University of Kent.
Jaeger, J.A.G., Bowman, J., Brennan, J., et al. (2005). Predicting when animal populations are at risk from roads: an
interactive model of road avoidance behavior. Ecological Modelling, 185, 329–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2004.12.015.
Jaeger, J.A., Fahrig, L. and Ewald, K.C. (2006). Does the configuration of road networks influence the degree to which
roads affect wildlife populations? In Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and
Transportation, ed. C. L. Irwin, P. Garrett and K. P. McDermott. Center for Transportation and the Environment,
North Carolina State University, pp. 151-63. Available at: http://www.icoet.net/ICOET_2005/05proceedings_
directory.asp.
Jakob-Hoff R.M., MacDiarmid S.C. and C., L. (2014). Manual of Procedures for Wildlife Disease Risk Analysis. Paris,
France: World Organization for Animal Health in association with the International Union for Conservation
of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC).
Jalil, M.F., Cable, J., Sinyor, J., et al. (2008). Riverine effects on mitochondrial structure of Bornean orang-utans
(Pongo pygmaeus) at two spatial scales. Molecular Ecology, 17, 2898–909. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–294X.2008.03793.x.
Jantz, S., Pintea, L., Nackoney, J. and Hansen, M. (2016). Landsat ETM+ and SRTM data provide near real-time
monitoring of chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) habitats in Africa. Remote Sensing, 8, 427.
Jong, H.N. (2016). Govt to revise wildlife law as protected animals face extinction. Jakarta Post, March 1, 2016.
Available at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/03/01/govt-revise-wildlife-law-protected-animals-
face-extinction.html. Accessed February 23, 2017.
Joshi, A.R., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E., et al. (2016). Tracking changes and preventing loss in critical tiger
habitat. Science Advances, 2. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1501675.
Junker, J., Blake, S., Boesch, C., et al. (2012). Recent decline in suitable environmental conditions for African great
apes. Diversity and Distributions, 18, 1077–91. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12005.
Kabukuru, W. (2016). World Bank’s monkey business. New African, March, 2016.
Kahler, M., Henning, C.R., Bown, C.P., et al. (2016). Global Order and the New Regionalism. Discussion Paper Series
on Global and Regional Governance. (September). New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations. Available at:
https://www.cfr.org/report/global-order-and-new-regionalism.
Kalaweit France (2016). Compte rendu de l’Assemblée Générale du Samedi 17 Septembre 2016. Paris, France: Kalaweit.
Available at: http://kalaweit.org/gestion/Modules/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/CR_AG_2015.pdf.
Kallang, P. (2016). Murum Another Dam Which Does Not Make Economic Sense. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malaysiakini.
Available at: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/342275. Accessed November 15, 2016.
Kalpers, J., Gray, M., Asuma, S., et al. (2011). Buffer zone and human–wildlife conflict management. In 20 Years of IGCP:
Lessons Learned in Mountain Gorilla Conservation, ed. M. Gray and E. Rutagarama. Kigali, Rwanda: International
Gorilla Conservation Programme, pp. 105–37.
Kampala, L.E. (2012). Request for expression of interest for the development of 1900 km of roads supporting primary
growth sectors through contractor facilitated financing mechanism, procurement reference number: UNRA/
Works/2011–2012/00002/02/01–05. Uganda National Road Authority (UNRA). Daily Monitor.
Kano, T. (1972). Distribution and adaptation of the chimpanzee on the eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika. In
African Studies VII. Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University, pp. 37–129.
References
316
Katsis, L. (2017). Spatial patterns of primate electrocutions in Diani, Kenya. Masters thesis. Bristol, UK: University
of Bristol.
Kelly, A.S., Connette, G., Helsingen, H. and Soe, P. (2016). Wildlife Crossing: Locating Species’ Movement Corridors
in Tanintharyi. Yangon, Myanmar: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
Kenrick, J. (2006). Equalising processes, processes of discrimination and the Forest People of Central Africa.
In Property and Equality. Volume 2: Encapsulation, Commercialization, Discrimination, ed. T. Widlock and
W. Tadesse. Oxford, UK: Berghahn, pp. 104–28.
Kenrick, J. and Lewis, J. (2004). Indigenous peoples’ rights and the politics of the term ‘indigenous’. Anthropology
Today, 20, 4–9. DOI: 10.1111/j.0268–540X.2004.00256.x.
KFBG (n.d.). Wild Animal Rescue Centre (WARC). Hong Kong: Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden (KFBG). Available
at: http://www.kfbg.org/eng/warc.aspx. Accessed September, 2016.
Kidd, C. and Kenrick, J. (2009). The Forest People of Africa: land rights in context. In Land Rights and the Forest
Peoples of Africa: Historical, Legal and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. V. Couillard, J. Gilbert, J. Kenrick and
C. Kidd. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme, pp. 4–27.
Kidd, C. and Kenrick, J. (2011). Mapping everyday practices as rights of resistance: indigenous peoples in central
Africa. In The Politics of Indigeneity: Dialogues and Reflections on Indigenous Activism, ed. S. Venkateswar
and E. Hughes. London, UK: Zed Books.
Kigula, J. (2015). Participatory forest management: Tanzania’s experience. Presented at: Colloquium between Forest
Dwellers and the Kenya Forestry Service, March 5, 2015, Eldoret.
Kikawasi, G.J. (2012). Causes and effects of delays and disruptions in construction projects in Tanzania, 2012.
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Conference Series, 1, 52–9.
Killeen, T.J. (2007). A Perfect Storm in the Amazon Wilderness: Development and Conservation in the Context of
the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America (IIRSA). Washington DC:
Conservation International.
Kindlmann, P. and Burel, F. (2008). Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecology, 23, 879–90. DOI: 10.1007/
s10980–008–9245–4.
King, T., Chamberlan, C. and Courage, A. (2012). Assessing initial reintroduction success in long-lived primates by
quantifying survival, reproduction and dispersal parameters: western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)
in Congo and Gabon. International Journal of Primatology, 33, 134–49. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–011–9563–2.
Kis-Katos, K. and Suharnoko Sjahrir, B. (2014). The Impact of Fiscal and Political Decentralization on Local Public
Investments in Indonesia. Discussion Paper 7884. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Kitzes, J. and Shirley, R. (2016). Estimating biodiversity impacts without field surveys: a case study in northern
Borneo. Ambio, 45, 110–9. DOI: 10.1007/s13280–015–0683–3.
Kleinschroth, F., Gourlet-Fleury, S., Sist, P., Mortier, F. and Healey, J.R. (2015). Legacy of logging roads in the Congo
Basin: how persistent are the scars in forest cover? Ecosphere, 6, 1–17. DOI: 10.1890/ES14–00488.1.
Kleinschroth, F., Healey, J.R., Gourlet-Fleury, S., Mortier, F. and Stoica, R.S. (2017). Effects of logging on roadless
space in intact forest landscapes of the Congo Basin. Conservation Biology, 31, 469–80. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12815.
Knott, C.D. (1998). Changes in orangutan caloric intake, energy balance, and ketones in response to fluctuating fruit
availability. International Journal of Primatology, 19, 1061–79. DOI: 10.1023/a:1020330404983.
Knott, C.D. (2005). Energetic responses to food availability in the great apes: implications for hominin evolution.
In Seasonality in Primates Studies of Living and Extinct Human and Non-Human Primates, ed. D. K. Brockman
and C. P. Van Schaik. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 351–78.
Knowledge@Wharton (2017). Where Will China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ Initiative Lead? Available at: http://knowledge.
wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-chinas-one-belt-one-road-initiative-match-the-hype/#. March 22, 2017.
KNU (2012). The KNU Press Release on 1st Meeting between KNU Delegation and Union-Level Peace Delegation. Karen
National Union (KNU). Available at: http://www.knuhq.org/the-knu-press-release-on-1st-meeting-between-
knu-delegation-and-union-level-peace-delegation.
Köndgen, S., Kühl, H., N’Goran, P.K., et al. (2008). Pandemic human viruses cause decline of endangered great apes.
Current Biology, 18, 260–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.012.

317
Kondolf, G.M., Rubin, Z.K. and Minear, J.T. (2014). Dams on the Mekong: cumulative sediment starvation. Water
Resources Research, 50, 5158–69. DOI: 10.1002/2013WR014651.
Kormos, R., Boesch, C., Bakarr, M.I. and Butynski, T.M. (2003). West African Chimpanzees: Status, Survey and
Conservation Action Plan. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World
Conservation Union.
Kormos, R., Kormos, C.F., Humle, T., et al. (2014). Great apes and biodiversity offset projects in Africa: the case for
national offset strategies. PLoS One, 9, e111671. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111671.
KPMG (2014). Cameroon Country Mining Guide. Switzerland: KPMG Global Mining Institute.
Krief, S., Cibot, M., Bortolamiol, S., et al. (2014). Wild chimpanzees on the edge: nocturnal activities in croplands.
PLoS One, 9, e109925. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109925.
Krief, S., Jamart, A., Mahé, S., et al. (2008). Clinical and pathologic manifestation of oesophagostomosis in African
great apes: does self-medication in wild apes influence disease progression? Journal of Medical Primatology, 37,
188–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600–0684.2008.00285.x.
Kühl, H. (2008). Best Practice Guidelines for the Surveys and Monitoring of Great Ape Populations. No. 36. Gland,
Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Kumar, A., Tormod, S., Ahenkorah, A., et al. (2011). Hydropower. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy
Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, ed. O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, et al. Cambridge, UK
and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 437–96.
Kumar, P. (2011). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Environmental and Economic Foundations. Oxford,
UK: Routledge.
Kumar, V. and Kumar, V. (2015). Seasonal electrocution fatalities in free-range rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)
of Shivalik hills area in northern India. Journal of Medical Primatology, 44, 137–42. DOI: 10.1111/jmp.12168.
Kummer, D.M. and Turner, B.L. (1994). The human causes of deforestation in southeast Asia. BioScience, 44, 323–8.
DOI: 10.2307/1312382.
Lambi, C.M., Kimengsi, J.N., Kometa, C.G. and Tata, E.S. (2012). The management and challenges of protected
areas and the sustenance of local livelihoods in Cameroon. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 2, 10.
Lanjouw, A. (2014). Mining/oil extraction and ape populations and habitats. In State of the Apes: Extractive
Available at: http://www.stateoftheapes.com/themes/industrial-mining-oil-and-gas/.
Lao MAF (2011). Gibbon Conservation Action Plan for Lao PDR. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (MAF) Division of Forest Resource Conservation, Department
of Forestry.
Laporte, N.T., Stabach, J.A., Grosch, R., Lin, T.S. and Goetz, S.J. (2007). Expansion of industrial logging in central
Africa. Science, 316, 1451. DOI: 10.1126/science.1141057.
Lappan, S. (2008). Male care of infants in a siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) population including socially
monogamous and polyandrous groups. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 1307–17. DOI: 10.1007/
s00265–008–0559–7.
LAPSSET (2017). Coordinated Approach Key to the Success of the LAPSSET Corridor. Nairobi, Kenya: Lamu Port,
South Sudan, Ethiopia Transport Corridor (LAPSSET). Available at: http://www.lapsset.go.ke/coordinated-
approach-key-to-the-success-of-the-lapsset-corridor/.
Lasch, C., Pintea, L., Traylor-Holzer, K. and Kamenya, S. (2011). Tanzania Chimpanzee Conservation Action Planning
Workshop Report. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: The Jane Goodall Institute.
Laurance, S.G.W., Stouffer, P.C. and Laurance, W.F. (2004). Effects of road clearings on movement patterns of
understory rainforest birds in central Amazonia. Conservation Biology, 18, 1099–109. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523–
1739.2004.00268.x.
Laurance, W.F. (2004). The perils of payoff: corruption as a threat to global biodiversity. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 19, 399–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.06.001.
Laurance, W.F. (2005). When bigger is better: the need for Amazonian mega-reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
20, 645–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.009.
References
318
Laurance, W.F. (2007). Road to ruin. Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 4, 9.

Laurance, W.F. (2008). Expect the unexpected. New Scientist, April 12, 2008.
Laurance, W.F. (2014). How Global Forest-Destroyers are Turning Over a New Leaf. London, UK: The Conversation.
Available at: https://theconversation.com/how-global-forest-destroyers-are-turning-over-a-new-leaf-22943.
February 12, 2014.
Laurance, W.F. (2016a). Conservationists Aghast at Scheme to Degrade ‘Heart of Biodiversity’. Alliance of Leading
Environmental Researchers and Thinkers (ALERT). Available at: http://alert-conservation.org/issues-
research-highlights/2016/12/30/conservationists-aghast-at-scheme-to-degrade-heart-of-biodiversity.
Accessed January 5, 2017.
Laurance, W.F. (2016b). Lessons from research for sustainable development and conservation in Borneo. Forests, 7, 314.
Laurance, W.F. (2016c). Perils for the Last Place Where Tigers, Orangutans, Elephants and Rhinos Survive. Alliance
of Leading Environmental Researchers and Thinkers (ALERT). Available at: http://alert-conservation.org/
issues-research-highlights/2016/9/28/dangers-loom-for-the-last-place-where-tigers-orangutans-elephants-
and-rhinos-survive-in-the-wild. Accessed September 15, 2016.
Laurance, W.F., Achard, F., Peedell, S. and Schmitt, S. (2016). Big data, big opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 14, 347.
Laurance, W.F. and Balmford, A. (2013). A global map for road building. Nature, 495, 308. DOI: 10.1038/495308a.
Laurance, W.F., Campbell, M.J., Alamgir, M. and Mahmoud, M.I. (2017a). Road expansion and the fate of Africa’s
tropical forests. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2017.00075.
Laurance, W.F., Clements, G.R., Sloan, S., et al. (2014a). A global strategy for road building. Nature, 513, 229. DOI:
10.1038/nature13717. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13717#supplementary-information.
Laurance, W.F., Cochrane, M.A., Bergen, S., et al. (2001). The future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science, 291, 438–9.
DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5503.438.
Laurance, W.F., Croes, B.M., Guissouegou, N., et al. (2008). Impacts of roads, hunting, and habitat alteration on
nocturnal mammals in African rainforests. Conservation Biology, 22, 721–32. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523–1739.2008.00917.x.
Laurance, W.F., Croes, B.M., Tchignoumba, L., et al. (2006). Impacts of roads and hunting on central African
rainforest mammals. Conservation Biology, 20, 1251–61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523–1739.2006.00420.x.
Laurance, W.F. and Edwards, D.P. (2014). Saving logged tropical forests. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12, 147.
Laurance, W.F., Goosem, M. and Laurance, S.G.W. (2009). Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 659–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.009.
Laurance, W.F., Mahmoud, M.I. and Kleinschroth, F. (2017b). Infrastructure expansion and the fate of Central
African forests. In Central African Forests Forever, ed. M. Brouwer. Berlin, Germany: Central African Forests
Commission (COMIFAC) and German Development Bank (KfW), pp. 88–95.
Laurance, W.F., Peletier-Jellema, A., Geenen, B., et al. (2015a). Reducing the global environmental impacts of rapid
infrastructure expansion. Current Biology, 25, R259-R62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.050.
Laurance, W.F. and Peres, C.A. (2006). Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J. and Cassman, K.G. (2014b). Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 107–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.001.
Laurance, W.F., Sloan, S., Weng, L. and Sayer, J.A. (2015b). Estimating the environmental costs of Africa’s massive
‘development corridors’. Current Biology, 25, 3202–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.046.
Laurance, W.F., Useche, D.C., Rendeiro, J., et al. (2012). Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected
areas. Nature, 489, 290. DOI: 10.1038/nature11318. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature
11318#supplementary-information.
Lawson, K. and Vines, A. (2014). Global Impacts of the Illegal Wildlife Trade: The Costs of Crime, Insecurity and
Institutional Erosion. London, UK: Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs).
Lawson, S. (2014). Consumer Goods and Deforestation: An Analysis of the Extent and Nature of Illegality in Forest
Conversion for Agriculture and Timber Plantations [Forest Trends Report Series]. Forest Trends and DFID.
Available at: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_4718.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2016.

319
Le Saout, S., Hoffmann, M., Shi, Y., et al. (2013). Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science, 342,
803–5. DOI: 10.1126/science.1239268.
Ledec, G.C. and Johnson, S.D.R. (2016). Biodiversity Offsets: A User Guide. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/344901481176051661/Biodiversity-offsets-a-user-guide.
Lee, T., Jalong, T. and Wong, M.C. (2014). No Consent to Proceed: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Violations at the
Proposed Baram Dam in Sarawak. Fact finding mission report. Sarawak, Malaysia: Save Sarawak Rivers Network.
Available at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2014/08/noconsenttoproceedbaramreport
2014–1.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2016.
Leendertz, F.H., Lankester, F., Guislain, P., et al. (2006). Anthrax in western and central African great apes. American
Journal of Primatology, 68, 928–33. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20298.
Lehner, B., Liermann, C.R., Revenga, C., et al. (2011). High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams
for sustainable river-flow management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9, 494–502. DOI: 10.1890/100125.
Leighton, D.S.R. (1987). Gibbons: territoriality and monogamy. In Primate Societies, ed. B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheyney,
R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham and T. T. Struhsaker. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Leighty, K.A., Valuska, A.J., Grand, A.P., et al. (2015). Impact of visual context on public perceptions of non-human
primate performers. PLoS One, 10, e0118487. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118487.
Lejon, A., Malm Renöfält, B. and Nilsson, C. (2009). Conflicts associated with dam removal in Sweden. Ecology
and Society, 14, 4–22.
Leroy, E.M., Rouquet, P., Formenty, P., et al. (2004). Multiple Ebola virus transmission events and rapid decline of
central African wildlife. Science, 303, 387–90. DOI: 10.1126/science.1092528.
Liden, R. and Lyon, K. (2014). The Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol for Use by World Bank Clients:
Lessons Learned and Recommendations. Water Papers 89147. World Bank, Water Partnership Program.
Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/870411468336660190/pdf/891470REVISED00Box
0385238B00PUBLIC0.pdf,.
Lima, I.B.T., Ramos, F.M., Bambace, L.A.W. and Rosa, R.R. (2008). Methane emissions from large dams as renewable
energy resources: a developing nation perspective. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13,
193–206. DOI: 10.1007/s11027–007–9086–5.
Liu, D.S., Iverson, L.R. and Brown, S. (1993). Rates and patterns of deforestation in the Philippines: application of
geographic information system analysis. Forest Ecology and Management, 57, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
0378–1127(93)90158-J.
Liu, L. (2003). Study on Infrastructure and Its Contributions to Economic Growth. Report 76. Nanchang, PRC:
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics.
Live Science (2011). Gorilla Stronghold Found, Apes Still In Danger. Available at: http://www.livescience.com/13436-
cameroon-gorilla-count.html. Accessed March 28, 2011.
Loken, B., Boer, C. and Kasyanto, N. (2015). Opportunistic behaviour or desperate measure? Logging impacts
may only partially explain terrestriality in the Bornean orang-utan Pongo pygmaeus morio. Oryx, 49, 461–4.
DOI: 10.1017/S0030605314000969.
Loken, B., Spehar, S. and Rayadin, Y. (2013). Terrestriality in the Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio)
and implications for their ecology and conservation. American Journal of Primatology, 75, 1129–38. DOI:
10.1002/ajp.22174.
Lokschin, L.X., Rodrigo, C.P., Hallal Cabral, J.N. and Buss, G. (2007). Power lines and howler monkey conservation
in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Neotropical Primates, 14, 76–80. DOI: 10.1896/044.014.0206.
LRA Crisis Tracker (2016). The State of the LRA in 2016. Gland, Switzerland: Invisible Children and The Resolve
LRA Crisis Initiative. Available at: https://reports.lracrisistracker.com/pdf/2016-The-State-of-the-LRA.pdf.
March, 2016.
Lu, Y. and Tianxiao, Z. (2012). The Conservation Action Plan of Western Black Crested Gibbon in Yunnan Province
(2012–2015). Western Black Crested Gibbon Conservation Network.
MAAP (2016). MAAP #40: Early Warning Deforestation Alerts in the Peruvian Amazon. Monitoring of the Andean
Amazon Project (MAAP). Available at: http://maaproject.org/2016/gladalerts/.
References
320
MAAP (n.d.). Methodology. Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP). Available at: http://maaproject.
org/methodology. Accessed February–March, 2017.
MacArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Macfie, E.J. and Williamson, E.A. (2010). Best Practice Guidelines for Great Ape Tourism. Gland, Switzerland: International
Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group.
MacKay, F. (2017). Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Conservation: Recent Developments in Human Rights Jurisprudence.
Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. Available at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/en/rights-
based-conservation/news-article/2017/indigenous-peoples-rights-and-conservation-recent.
Mackinnon, J. (1974). The behaviour and ecology of wild orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus). Animal Behaviour, 22, 3–74.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003–3472(74)80054–0.
Magilligan, F., Graber, B., Nislow, K., et al. (2016). River restoration by dam removal: enhancing connectivity at
watershed scales. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 4, 1–14.
Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A. and Boitani, L. (2008). Size-dependent resistance of protected areas to land-use change.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 1297–304. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1756.
Maisels, F., Bergl, R.A. and Williamson, E.A. (2016a). Gorilla gorilla (errata version published in 2016). The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T9404A102330408. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/9404/0.
Maisels, F., Strindberg, S., Blake, S., et al. (2013). Devastating decline of forest elephants in central Africa. PLoS One, 8,
e59469. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059469.
Maisels, F., Strindberg, S., Breuer, T., et al. (2016b). Gorilla gorilla ssp. gorilla. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/9406/0.
Maldonado, O., Aveling, C., Cox, D., et al. (2012). Grauer’s Gorillas and Chimpanzees in Eastern Democratic Republic
of Congo (Kahuzi-Biega, Maiko, Tayna and Itombwe Landscape): Conservation Action Plan 2012–2022. Gland,
Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Maldonado, O. and Fourrier, M. (2015). Conservation Action Plan for Great Apes in Eastern Democratic Republic of
the Congo — Revised version – March-July 2015. Jane Goodall Institute, Ministry of Environment, Nature
Conservation & Tourism and the ICCN.
Mandle, L., Bryant, B.P., Ruckelshaus, M., et al. (2016a). Entry points to considering ecosystem services within
infrastructure planning: How to integrate conservation with development in order to aid them both. Conservation
Letters, 9, 221–7. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12201.
Mandle, L., Wolny, S., Hamel, P., et al. (2016b). Natural Connections: How Natural Capital Supports Myanmar’s People
and Economy. Washington DC: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
Mansoer, W.R. and Idral, A. (2015). Geothermal resources development in Indonesia: a history. Presented at: World
Geothermal Congress 2015, April19–25, Melbourne, Australia.
March, J.G., Benstead, J.P., Pringle, C.M. and Scatena, F.N. (2003). Damming tropical island streams: problems,
solutions, and alternatives. BioScience, 53, 1069–78. DOI: 10.1641/0006–3568(2003)053[1069:DTISPS]2.0.CO;2.
Maron, M., Hobbs, R.J., Moilanen, A., et al. (2012). Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of bio
diversity offset policies. Biological Conservation, 155, 141–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.003.
Marshall, A.J., Ancrenaz, M., Brearley, F.Q., et al. (2009). The effects of forest phenology and floristics on popula-
tions of Bornean and Sumatran orangutans. In Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and
Conservation, ed. S. A. Wich, S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C. P. Van Schaik. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, pp. 97–117.
Marshall, A.J. and Leighton, M. (2006). How does food availability limit the population density of white-bearded
gibbons? In Feeding Ecology of the Apes, ed. G. Hohmann, M. Robbins and C. Boesch. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–35.
Marshall, A.J., Nardiyono, Engström, L.M., et al. (2006). The blowgun is mightier than the chainsaw in determining
population density of Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) in the forests of East Kalimantan. Biological
Conservation, 129, 566–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.025.

321
Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The Environmentalism of the Poor. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Martini, M. (2013). Wildlife crime and corruption: in which way does corruption exacerbate the problem of poaching
and illegal wildlife trade in southern Africa and how can anti-corruption contribute to the fight against it?
U4 Expert Answer, 367, February 15, 2013. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. Available at: https://www.
transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/367_Wildlife_Crimes_and_Corruption.pdf.
Mascia, M.B. and Pailler, S. (2011). Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its
conservation implications. Conservation Letters, 4, 9–20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755–263X.2010.00147.x.
Masi, S., Cipolletta, C. and Robbins, M.M. (2009). Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) change their
activity patterns in response to frugivory. American Journal of Primatology, 71, 91–100. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20629.
Masi, S., Mundry, R., Ortmann, S., et al. (2015). The influence of seasonal frugivory on nutrient and energy intake
in wild western gorillas. PLoS One, 10, e0129254. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129254.
Mason, M. (1999). Environmental Democracy: A Contextual Approach. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.
Matsuzawa T, H.T., Sugiyama Y. (2011). The Chimpanzees of Bossou and Nimba. Tokyo, Japan: Springer.
Max Planck Institute (n.d.-a). A.P.E.S. Database. Available at: http://apesportal.eva.mpg.de/database/archiveTable.
Accessed October, 2017.
Max Planck Institute (n.d.-b). A.P.E.S. Portal Dashboard. Munich, Germany: Max Planck Institute. Available at:
http://mapper.eva.mpg.de/status/tools/dashboard.
Mbodiam, B. (2010). Mines: Une Nouvelle Société à l’Assaut de l’Or à Bétaré Oya. Cameroonvoice.com. Available at:
http://www.cameroonvoice.com/news/article-news-1954.html.
Mbodiam, B.R. (2016). Cameroon: onslought of more than 6000 fishermen on fish-filled waters of Lom Pangar Dam.
Business in Cameroon, June 21, 2016. Available at: www.businessincameroon.com/fish/2106–6317-cameroon-
onslought-of-more-than-6000-fishermen-on-fish-filled-waters-of-lom-pangar-dam.
McCarthy, J.F. (2000). ‘Wild Logging’: The Rise and Fall of Logging Networks and Biodiversity Conservation Projects
on Sumatra’s Rainforest Frontier. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
McCarthy, J.F. (2002). Power and interest on Sumatra’s rainforest frontier: clientelist coalitions, illegal logging and
conservation in the Alas Valley. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 33, 77–106. DOI: 10.1017/S0022463402000048.
McCarthy, N. (2017). Solar employs more people in US electricity generation than oil, coal and gas combined.
Forbes Magazine Online, January 25, 2017. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/
01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#47ac39f28000.
McConkey, K.R. (2000). Primary seed shadow generated by gibbons in the rain forests of Barito Ulu, central Borneo.
American Journal of Primatology, 52, 13–29. DOI: 10.1002/1098–2345(200009)52:1<13::AID-AJP2>3.0.CO;2-Y.
McConkey, K.R. (2005). The influence of gibbon primary seed shadows on post-dispersal seed fate in a lowland
dipterocarp forest in central Borneo. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 21, 255–62.
McConkey, K.R. and Chivers, D.J. (2007). Influence of gibbon ranging patterns on seed dispersal distance and
deposition site in a Bornean forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 23, 269–75. DOI: 10.1017/S0266467407003999.
McDavitt, B. (2016). Ladders and Licenses: Fish Passages Play Role in Relicensing Hydroelectric Facilities. Gloucester,
MA: NOAA Fisheries. Available at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2015/october/27_
ladders_and_licenses__fish_passages_play_role_in_relicensing_hydroelectric_facilities.html?utm_source=
Hydropower+Habitat+Story&utm_campaign=Hydropower&utm_medium=email. Accessed October 7, 2016.
McGrew, W.C., Baldwin, P.J. and Tutin, C.E.G. (1981). Chimpanzees in a hot, dry and open habitat: Mt Assirik,
Senegal, west Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 10, 227–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047–2484
(81)80061–9.
McKenzie, E., Rosenthal, A., et al. (2012). Developing Scenarios to Assess Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs: Guidance and
Case Studies for InVEST Users. Washington DC: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
McLennan, M.R. (2008). Beleaguered chimpanzees in the agricultural district of Hoima, western Uganda. Primate
Conservation, 23, 45–54.
McLennan, M.R. and Asiimwe, C. (2016). Cars kill chimpanzees: case report of a wild chimpanzee killed on a road
at Bulindi, Uganda. Primates, 57, 377–88. DOI: 10.1007/s10329–016–0528–0.
References
322
McLennan, M.R. and Ganzhorn, J.U. (2017). Nutritional characteristics of wild and cultivated foods for chimpanzees
(Pan troglodytes) in agricultural landscapes. International Journal of Primatology, 38, 122–50. DOI: 10.1007/
s10764–016–9940-y.
McLennan, M.R. and Hill, C.M. (2012). Troublesome neighbours: changing attitudes towards chimpanzees
(Pan troglodytes) in a human-dominated landscape in Uganda. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 219–27.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.03.002.
McLennan, M.R. and Hockings, K.J. (2016). The aggressive apes? Causes and contexts of great ape attacks on local
persons. In Problematic Wildlife: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach, ed. F. M. Angelici. Cham, Switzerland: Springer,
pp. 373–94. DOI: 10.1007/978–3-319–22246–2_18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-319–22246–2_18.
McRae, B.H., Dickson, B.G., Keitt, T.H. and Shah, V.B. (2008). Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology,
evolution, and conservation. Ecology, 89, 2712–24. DOI: 10.1890/07–1861.1.
MCRB (2016). Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures. Yangon, Myanmar: Myanmar Centre for Responsible
Business (MCRB). Available at: http://www.myanmar-responsiblebusiness.org/resources/environmental-
impact-assessment-procedures.html.
McSweeney, K., Nielsen, E.A., Taylor, M.J., et al. (2014). Drug policy as conservation policy: narco-deforestation.
Science, 343, 489–90. DOI: 10.1126/science.1244082.
MEA (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MEA).
Meehan, D. (2013). The Mbalam–Nabeba Iron Ore Project: Developing Central Africa’s Iron Ore Region. Presentation
by Sundance Resources Ltd. Presented at Cameroon Mining Forum (CIMEC) 2013. Available at: https://
cameroonminingopportunities.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/presentation-acc80-cimec-d-meehan-presentation-
cameroon-mining-forum-2013.pdf.
Megevand, C. (2013). Deforestation Trends in the Congo Basin: Reconciling Economic Growth and Forest Protection.
Washington DC: World Bank.
Meijaard, E., Abram, N.K., Wells, J.A., et al. (2013). People’s perceptions about the importance of forests on Borneo.
Meijaard, E., Albar, G., Nardiyono, et al. (2010a). Unexpected ecological resilience in Bornean orangutans and
implications for pulp and paper plantation management. PLoS One, 5, e12813. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012813.
Meijaard, E., Buchori, D., Hadiprakarsa, Y., et al. (2011). Quantifying killing of orangutans and human-orangutan
conflict in Kalimantan, Indonesia. PLoS One, 6, e27491. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027491.
Meijaard, E., Welsh, A., Ancrenaz, M., et al. (2010b). Declining orangutan encounter rates from Wallace to the present
suggest the species was once more abundant. PLoS One, 5, e12042. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012042.
Meijaard, E. and Wich, S. (2014). Extractive Industries and Orangutans. Occasional Paper for State of the Apes, Volume 1.
Cambridge, UK: Arcus Foundation. Available at: https://www.stateoftheapes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/
Extractive-Industries-and-Orangutans1.pdf.
METI (2015). Infrastructure System Export Promotion Survey, 2014 Fiscal Year: Infrastructure and Mining [in Japanese].
Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
Milman, O. (2016). Mass chimpanzee transfer begins in effort to protect endangered species. The Guardian,
September 9, 2016. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/09/georgia-chimpanzees-
sanctuary-project-chimps-transfer. Accessed October 2, 2016.
MINFOF (2015). Annual Report of the Deng Deng National Park. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Ministère des Forêts et de
la Faune (MINFOF).
Mining Review Africa (2016). Sundance Resources Secures New Funding for Mbalam Nabeba Development.
Rondebosch, South Africa: Mining Review Africa. Available at: https://www.miningreview.com/news/
sundance-resources-funding-for-mbalam-nabeba-development/. Accessed November 25, 2016.
Mitani, J.C. (2009). Male chimpanzees form enduring and equitable social bonds. Animal Behaviour, 77, 633–40.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.021.
Mitani, J.C., Watts, D.P. and Amsler, S.J. (2010). Lethal intergroup aggression leads to territorial expansion in wild
chimpanzees. Current Biology, 20, R507-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.04.021.

323
Mitchard, E. (2012). Are Cameroon’s forests doomed? Deforestationwatch, October 23, 2012. Available at: http://
deforestationwatch.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/are-cameroons-forests-doomed.
Mitchell, M.W., Locatelli, S., Sesink Clee, P.R., Thomassen, H.A. and Gonder, M.K. (2015). Environmental variation
and rivers govern the structure of chimpanzee genetic diversity in a biodiversity hotspot. BMC Evolutionary
Biology, 15, 1. DOI: 10.1186/s12862–014–0274–0.
Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B. and Wilson, D.E., ed. (2013). Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Volume 3:
Primates. Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions.
MLUD (2016). Public Notice: Notice of Revocation of Rights of Occupancy for Public Purpose Land Use Act 1978.
January 22. Calabar, Nigeria: Ministry of Lands and Urban Development (MLUD), Government of Cross River
State of Nigeria.
MME (n.d.). Mission and Values. Littoral, Cameroun: Mississauga Mining & Exploration (MME). Available at:
http://mississaugamining.com/mission-and-values/. Accessed December, 2017.
MNRT (2012). Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania, Facts and Figures. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Ministry
of Natural Resources and Tourism of Tanzania (MNRT).
MoC (2007). Notice on the Release of ‘A Guide for Chinese Enterprises on Sustainable Silviculture Overseas’ by
Ministry of Commerce and State Forestry Administration. Beijing, PRC: Ministry of Commerce (MoC) of the
People’s Republic of China. Available at: http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/b/g/200712/20071205265858.html.
MoC (2014). Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment. Beijing, PRC: Ministry of Commerce
(MoC) of the People’s Republic of China, China Statistics Press.
MoC (2016a). Officials Talk about China’s Overseas Investment and Cooperation in 2015. Beijing, PRC: Ministry of
Commerce (MoC) of the People’s Republic of China. Available at: http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/ae/ai/
201601/20160101235603.shtml.
MoC (2016b). Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment. Beijing, PRC: Ministry of Commerce
(MoC) of the People’s Republic of China, China Statistics Press.
MoC (2016c). Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment. [in Chinese]. Beijing, PRC: Ministry
of Commerce (MoC) of the People’s Republic of China, China Statistics Press.
Modus Aceh (2016). Kenapa harus ngotot proyek PT Hitay Panas Energy di Lapangan Kafi. Banda Aceh, Indonesia:
Modus Aceh. Available at: http://www.modusaceh.co/news/kenapa-harus-ngotot-proyek-pt-hitay-panas-
energy-di-lapangan-kafi/index.html.
Moehrenschlager, A., Shier, D.M., Moorhouse, T.P. and Stanley Price, M.R. (2013). Righting past wrongs and ensuring
the future: challenges and opportunities for effective reintroductions amidst a biodiversity crisis. In Key Topics
in Conservation Biology 2, ed. D. W. MacDonald and K. Willis. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 405–29. DOI: 10.1002/
9781118520178.ch22. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118520178.ch22.
Molina, S., Cerdas Vegas, G., Jarrín Hidalgo, S., Torres, V. and Rivasplata Cabrera, F. (2015). De IIRSA a COSIPLAN,
Cambios y Continuidades. Boletín No. 2. La Paz, Bolivia: Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo Laboral y
Agrario (CEDLA).
Molur, S., Walker, S., Islam, A., et al., ed. (2005). Conservation of Western Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock
hoolock) in India and Bangladesh. Coimbatore, India: Zoo Outreach Organisation/CBSG-South Asia.
Mongabay (2016a). Controversial dam officially cancelled in Borneo after Indigenous protests. Mongabay, March,
2016. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2016/03/controversial-dam-officially-canceled-in-borneo-
after-indigenous-protests/. Accessed September 14, 2017.
Mongabay (2016b). Palm oil giant defends its deforestation in Gabon, points to country’s ‘right to develop’.
Mongabay, December, 2016. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2016/12/palm-oil-giant-defends-its-
deforestation-in-gabon-points-to-countrys-right-to-develop/.
MONUSCO (2015). North Kivu. Kinshasa, RDC: Mission de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation
en République démocratique du Congo (MONUSCO). Available at: https://monusco.unmissions.org/sites/
default/files/north_kivu.factsheet.eng_.pdf.
Moore, P., Prompinchompoo, C. and Beastall, C.A. (2016). CITES Implementation in Thailand: A Review of the Legal
Regime Governing the Trade in Great Apes and Gibbons and Other CITES-Listed Species. Selangor, Malaysia:
TRAFFIC.
Moorthy, E. (1997). With the Karen on the Thai border. Wall Street Journal.
References
324
Morgan, B., Adeleke, A., Bassey, T., et al. (2011). Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Nigeria-Cameroon
Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti). New York, NY: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species
Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group and Zoological Society of San Diego, CA. Available
at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1200343/20456353/1348922758247/NCCAP.pdf?token=whcKSia0%2F
%2BabiK74%2BLfCDsBQPMc%3D.
Morgan, D. and Sanz, C. (2006). Chimpanzee feeding ecology and comparisons with sympatric gorillas in the
Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo. In Primates: Feeding Ecology in Apes and Other Primates: Ecological,
Physiological, and Behavioural Aspects, ed. G. Hohmann, M. M. Robbins and C. Boesch. Cambridge Studies in
Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, 48 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–122.
Morgan, D. and Sanz, C. (2007). Best Practice Guidelines for Reducing the Impact of Commercial Logging on Great
Apes in Western Equatorial Africa. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species
Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group.
Morgan, D., Sanz, C., Onononga, J.R. and Strindberg, S. (2006). Ape abundance and habitat use in the Goualougo
Triangle, Republic of Congo. International Journal of Primatology, 27, 147–79. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–005–9013–0.
Morrogh-Bernard, H., Husson, S., Page, S.E. and Rieley, J.O. (2003). Population status of the Bornean orang-utan
(Pongo pygmaeus) in the Sebangau peat swamp forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation,
110, 141–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006–3207(02)00186–6.
Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London, UK: Pluto Press.
Moutinho Sá, R.M., Ferreira da Silva, M., Sousa, F.M. and Minhós, T. (2012). The trade and ethnobiological use of
chimpanzee body parts in Guinea-Bissau. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 24, 31–4.
Moyer, D., Plumptre, A.J., Pintea, L., et al. (2006). Surveys of Chimpanzees and Other Biodiversity in Western Tanzania.
Arlington, VA: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Muehlenbein, M.P. and Ancrenaz, M. (2009). Minimizing pathogen transmission at primate ecotourism destina-
tions: the need for input from travel medicine. Journal of Travel Medicine, 16, 229–32. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708–8305.
2009.00346.x.
Mueller, N.D., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., et al. (2012). Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management.
Nature, 490, 254. DOI: 10.1038/nature11420. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11420
#supplementary-information.
Mulavwa, M.N., Yangozene, K., Yamba-Yamba, M., et al. (2010). Nest groups of wild bonobos at Wamba: selection
of vegetation and tree species and relationships between nest group size and party size. American Journal of
Murai, M., Ruffler, H., Berlemont, A., et al. (2013). Priority areas for large mammal conservation in Equatorial Guinea.
Myers, N. (1998). Lifting the veil on perverse subsidies. Nature, 392, 327. DOI: 10.1038/32761.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for
conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853. DOI: 10.1038/35002501. Available at: https://www.nature.com/
articles/35002501#supplementary-information.
Nater, A., Mattle-Greminger, M.P., Nurcahyo, A., et al. (2017). Morphometric, behavioral, and genomic evidence
for a new orangutan species. Current Biology, 27, 3487–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.047.
Natural Capital Coalition (2016). Natural Capital Protocol. National Capital Coalition. Available at: http://natural
capitalcoalition.org/protocol/.
Natural Capital Coalition (n.d.). Natural Capital Coalition. Natural Capital Coalition. Available at: http://natural
capitalcoalition.org/.
Naughton-Treves, L. (1997). Farming the forest edge: vulnerable places and people around Kibale National Park,
Uganda. Geographical Review, 87, 27–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1931–0846.1997.tb00058.x.
NBS (n.d.). China’s National Statistics. Beijing, PRC: National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS). Available at:
http://data.stats.gov.cn/index.htm. Accessed July 6, 2017.
NCFA (n.d.). Natural Capital Finance Alliance. Natural Capital Finance Alliance (NCFA). Available at: http://www.
naturalcapitaldeclaration.org.

325
Ndobe, S.N. and Klemm, J. (2014). The Lom Pangar Hydropower Dam Project. Evaluating the Project’s Impacts
within the Framework of the World Bank Safeguard Policies. Lessons for the World Bank Safeguards Review. March.
Synchronicity Earth.
Ndobe, S.N. and Mantzel, K. (2014). Deforestation, REDD and Takamanda National Park in Cameroon: A Case Study.
Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) and Umverteilen.
Nellemann, C. and Newton, A. (2002). The Great Apes, The Road Ahead: A GLOBIO Perspective on the Impacts of
Infrastructure Development on the Great Apes. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), GRID-
Arendal, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Available at: http://www.globio.info/downloads/249/
Great+Apes+-+The+Road+Ahead.pdf.
Nelson, A. (2008). Travel Time to Major Cities: A Global Map of Accessibility. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2788/95835.
Nelson, A. and Chomitz, K.M. (2011). Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest
fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS One, 6, e22722. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022722.
Nelson, J. (2007). Securing Indigenous Land Rights in the Cameroon Oil Pipeline Zone. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest
Peoples Programme. Available at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2010/08/cameroon
pipelinejul07lowreseng.pdf.
Nelson, J., Kenrick J. and Jackson, D. (2001). Report on a Consultation with Bagyeli Pygmy Communities Impacted
by the Chad-Cameroon Oil-Pipeline Project. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. Available at:
http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2010/07/ccpbagyeliconsultmay01eng.pdf.
NEPAD (n.d.). New Partnership for Africa’s Development. Midrand, South Africa: New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD). Available at: http://www.nepad.org/. Accessed January 20, 2017.
Ngano, G. (2010). Three nations, one conservation complex. ITTO Tropical Forest Update, 20, 11–3.
Ngoprasert, D., Lynam, A.J. and Gale, G.A. (2017). Effects of temporary closure of a national park on leopard move-
ment and behaviour in tropical Asia. Mammalian Biology, 82, 65–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.
2016.11.004.
Nguiffo, S. (2016). La cartographie participative et le droit des espaces et des ressources au Cameroun. Presented at:
RRI Land Tenure Facility workshop, February 29, 2016, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Nguiffo, S. and Djeukam, R. (2008). Using the law as a tool to secure the land rights of indigenous communities
in southern Cameroon. In Legal Empowerment in Practice: Using Legal Tools to Secure Land Rights in Africa,
ed. L. Cotula and P. Mathieu. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED),
pp. 29–44. Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/12552IIED.pdf.
Nguiffo, S., Kenfack, P.E., Mballa, N. (2009). Historical and Contemporary Land Laws and their Impact on Indigenous
Peoples’ Land Rights in Cameroon. Report No. 2. Land Rights and the Forest Peoples of Africa: Historical, Legal and
Anthropological Perspectives. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme (FFP).
Nijman, V. (2009). An Assessment of Trade in Gibbons and Orang-Utans in Sumatra, Indonesia. Selangor, Malaysia:
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
Nijman, V. and Geissmann, T. (2008). Symphalangus syndactylus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:
e.T39779A10266335. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T39779A10266335.en.
Accessed December 11, 2016.
Noam, Z. (2007). Eco-authoritarian conservation and ethnic conflict in Burma. Policy Matters: Conservation and
Human Rights, 15. Available at: http://lib.icimod.org/record/13286/files/1734.pdf.
Normand, E. and Boesch, C. (2009). Sophisticated Euclidean maps in forest chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 77,
1195–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.01.025.
Nuno, A. and St John, F.A.V. (2015). How to ask sensitive questions in conservation: a review of specialized question-
ing techniques. Biological Conservation, 189, 5–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.047.
Oates, J.F. (1999). Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Oates, J.F., Bergl, R.A. and Linder, J.M. (2004). Africa’s Gulf of Guinea forests: biodiversity patterns and conserva-
tion priorities. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science, 6, 1–90.
References
326
Oates, J.F., Sunderland-Groves, J.L., Bergl, R., et al. (2007). Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Cross River
Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species
Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), and Arlington,VA: Primate Specialist Group and Conservation International.
Oberndorf, R.B. (2012). Legal Review of Recently Enacted Farmland Law and Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Lands
Management Law: Improving the Legal and Policy Frameworks Relating to Land Management in Myanmar. Forest
Trends and Food Security Working Group’s Land Core Group.
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., Jenkins, C.N., Vijay, V., Li, B.V. and Pimm, S.L. (2016). Incorporating explicit geospatial
data shows more species at risk of extinction than the current Red List. Science Advances, 2. DOI: 10.1126/
sciadv.1601367.
O’Connor, J.E., Duda, J.J. and Grant, G.E. (2015). 1000 dams down and counting. Science, 348, 496–7. DOI: 10.1126/
science.aaa9204.
OFI (n.d.). Orangutan Care Center and Quarantine. Orangutan Foundation International (OFI). Available at:
https://orangutan.org/occq/. Accessed March, 21 2017.
Ogawa, H., Yoshikawa, M. and Idani, G. (2014). Sleeping site selection by savanna chimpanzees in Ugalla, Tanzania.
Primates, 55, 269–82. DOI: 10.1007/s10329–013–0400–4.
Ojeme, V. (2011). Why Nigeria Is Underdeveloped, by Dowden. Nigeria: Vanguard. Available at: https://www.vanguard
ngr.com/2011/09/why-nigeria-is-underdeveloped-by-dowden.
Okeke, F. (2013). Land cover change analysis in the Afi-Mbe-Okwangwo landscape, Cross River State, Nigeria. Wildlife
Conservation Society, Nigeria Program. Report to CRSFC and UN-REDD.
Olawoyin, O. (2017). Lagos is Nigeria’s most indebted state with highest domestic, foreign debts. Premium Times,
April 28, 2017. Available at: http://www.premiumtimesng.com/regional/ssouth-west/229830-lagos-nigerias-
indebted-state-highest-domestic-foreign-debts.html.
Ondoua Ondoua, G., Beodo Moundjim, E., Mambo Marindo, J.C., et al. (2017). An Assessment of Poaching and
Wildlife Trafficking in the Garamba-Bili-Chinko Transboundary Landscape. Cambridge, UK: TRAFFIC.
Available at: http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Garamba-Bili-Chinko.pdf.
OpenStreetMap (n.d.). OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap. Available at: https://www.openstreetmap.org. Accessed
July 21, 2017.
Opperman, J., Grill, G. and Hartmann, J. (2015). The Power of River: Finding Balance Between Energy and Conservation
in Hydropower Development. Washington DC: The Nature Conservancy.
Opperman, J., Hartmann, J. and Raepple, J. (2017). The Power of Rivers: A Business Case. Washington DC: The Nature
Conservancy.
Orangutan Appeal UK (n.d.). Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Centre. Brockenhurst, UK: Orangutan Appeal UK.
Available at: https://www.orangutan-appeal.org.uk/about-us/sepilok-orangutan-rehabilitation-centre.
Accessed October 10, 2017.
Orangutan SSP (n.d.). Orangutan SSP Member Zoos. Orangutan Species Survival Plan (SSP). Available at: http://
www.orangutanssp.org/member-zoos.html. Accessed September 30, 2016.
Osterberg, P., Samphanthamit, P., Maprang, O., Punnadee, S. and Brockelman, W.Y. (2014). Population dynamics of
a reintroduced population of captive-raised gibbons (Hylobates lar) on Phuket, Thailand. Primate Conservation,
28, 179–88. DOI: 10.1896/052.028.0114.
Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Xiao, Y., et al. (2016). Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital.
Science, 352, 1455–9. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2295.
Owono, J.C. (2001). Case study 8 Cameroon – Campo Ma’an the extent of Bagyeli Pygmy involvement in the
development and management plan of the Campo Ma’an UTO. In From Principles to Practice: Indigenous Peoples
and Protected Areas in Africa, ed. J. Nelson and L. Hossack, pp. 243–68. Available at: http://www.forestpeoples.
org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2010/08/camerooncampomaaneng.pdf.
Oxfam, ILC and RRI (2016). Common Ground: Securing Land Rights and Safeguarding the Earth. Oxfam, International
Land Coalition (ILC), and Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). Available at: https://rightsandresources.org/
en/publication/global-call-common-ground/#.WlEexEx2tZU. Accessed March 1, 2016.
Pacca, S. and Horvath, A. (2002). Greenhouse gas emissions from building and operating electric power plants in
the Upper Colorado River Basin. Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 3194–200. DOI: 10.1021/es0155884.

327
Palm, J. (2015). Fresh start for Liberian chimpanzees used for medical tests. Reuters. Available at: http://www.reuters.
com/article/us-liberia-chimpanzees-idUSKBN0U61KP20151223. Accessed October 4, 2016.
Palombit, R.A. (1992). Pair bonds and monogamy in wild siamang (Hylobates syndactylus) and white-handed gibbons
(Hylobates lar) in northern Sumatra. PhD thesis. University of California.
Palombit, R. (1994). Dynamic pair bonds in hylobatids: implications regarding monogamous social systems.
Behaviour, 128, 65–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853994X00055.
Palombit, R.A. (1997). Inter- and intraspecific variation in the diets of sympatric siamang (Hylobates syndactylus)
and lar gibbons (Hylobates lar). Folia Primatologica, 68, 321–37.
Panaligan, R. (2005). Another tragedy in Aceh: illegal logging. Jakarta Post, Available at: https://www.seapa.org/
another-tragedy-in-aceh-illegal-logging/.
PASA (2015). 2015 census for African sanctuaries. Portland, OR: Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA).
Unpublished report.
PASA (2016a). Operations Manual, 2nd edn, December 2016. Portland, OR: Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA).
Available at: https://www.pasaprimates.org/manuals-reports/.
PASA (2016b). US Fish & Wildlife Approves Exporting Chimps to UK Zoo in an Unprecedented ‘Pay to Play’ Scheme.
Portland, OR: Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA). Available at: https://www.pasaprimates.org/advocacy/
yerkes-wingham-update/. Accessed October 27, 2016.
Payne, J. (1988). Orang-utan Conservation in Sabah. Report 3759. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF), Malaysia International.
Percoco, M. (2014). Quality of institutions and private participation in transport infrastructure investment: evidence
from developing countries. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 70, 50–8. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.004.
Perram, A. (2015). Consulting Study 10A: institutional framework governing the palm oil sector in Cameroon: a
report on laws, regulations and practices. In HCS+ Consulting Study 10: Overview of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms and Relevant Actors. Available at: http://www.simedarby.com/sustainability/clients/simedarby_
sustainability/assets/contentMS/img/template/editor/HCSReports/Consulting%20Report%2010.pdf.
Perram, A. (2016). Behind the Veil: Transparency, Access to Information and Community Rights in Cameroon’s
Forestry Sector. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme. Available at: http://www.forestpeoples.
org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2016/06/behind-veil-artwork-english-web-1.pdf.
PGM Nigeria (2016a). Draft environmental impact assessment (EIA) report of the proposed Calabar–Ikom–Katsina
Ala superhighway project. Submitted to Federal Ministry of Environment. Abuja, Nigeria: Government of Cross
River State, Nigeria.
PGM Nigeria (2016b). Final environmental impact assessment (EIA) report of the proposed Calabar–Ikom–Katsina Ala
superhighway project. Submitted to Federal Ministry of Environment. Abuja, Nigeria: Government of Cross
River State, Nigeria.
PGM Nigeria (2017). Proposed Calabar-Ikom-Katsina Ala Superhighway project. Environmental impact assessment,
May 2017. Final report submitted to Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja. PGM Nigeria.
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. and Green, R.E. (2011). Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation:
land sharing and land sparing compared. Science, 333, 1289–91. DOI: 10.1126/science.1208742.
PIB (2016a). New Delhi Resolution on Tiger Conservation Adopted: Third Asian Ministerial Conference on Tiger
Conservation Concludes. Press Information Bureau (PIB), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government
of India. Available at: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=138879. April 14, 2016.
PIB (2016b). Pledge for Tiger Conservation. Press Information Bureau (PIB) Government of India. Available at:
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=138879.
Piel, A.K., Cohen, N., Kamenya, S., et al. (2015). Population status of chimpanzees in the Masito-Ugalla ecosystem,
Tanzania. American Journal of Primatology, 77, 1027–35. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22438.
Piel, A.K., Lenoel, A., Johnson, C. and Stewart, F.A. (2015). Deterring poaching in western Tanzania: the presence of
wildlife researchers. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 188–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.11.014.
Planet (n.d.). Planet. San Francisco, CA: Planet Labs Inc. Available at: https://www.planet.com. Accessed December,
2016–April, 2017.
References
328
Planet Survey and CED (2003). Extractive Industries and Respect for the World Bank Operational Directives vis-à-
vis Indigenous Peoples Case Study on the Implementation of the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline. Planet Survey and
Centre for Environment and Development (CED). Available at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/
publication/2010/08/eirinternatwshopcamerooncaseeng.pdf.
Plumptre, A.J., Davenport, T.R.B., Behangana, M., et al. (2007). The biodiversity of the Albertine Rift. Biological
Plumptre, A., Hart, J.A., Hicks, T.C., et al. (2016a). Pan troglodytes ssp. schweinfurthii (errata version published in
2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T15937A102329417. Gland, Switzerland: International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016–2.RLTS.
T15937A17990187.en.
Plumptre, A.J. and Johns, A.G. (2001). Changes in primate communities following logging disturbance. In The
Cutting Edge: Conserving Wildlife in Logged Tropical Forests, ed. R. Fimbel, A. Grajal and J. G. Robinson. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 71–92.
Plumptre, A.J., Nixon, S., Critchlow, R., et al. (2015). Status of Grauer’s gorilla and chimpanzees in Eastern Democratic
Republic of Congo: historical and current distribution and abundance. Report to Arcus Foundation, USAID
and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Plumptre, A.J., Nixon, S., Kujirakwinja, D.K., et al. (2016b). Catastrophic decline of world’s largest primate: 80%
loss of Grauer’s gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) population justifies critically endangered status. PLoS One, 11,
e0162697. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162697.
Plumptre, A.J., Reynolds, V. and Bakuneeta, C. (1997). The effects of selective logging in monodominant tropical forest
on biodiversity. Report to Project R6057, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), London, UK.
Plumptre, A., Robbins, M. and Williamson, E.A. (2016). Gorilla beringei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39994/0. Accessed November 15, 2016.
Plumptre, A.J., Rose, R., Nangendo, G., et al. (2010). Eastern Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii): Status
Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2010–2020. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of
Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC), Primate Specialist Group.
Poff, N.L., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., et al. (1997). The natural flow regime. BioScience, 47, 769–84. DOI: 10.2307/1313099.
Pohlman, C.L., Turton, S.M. and Goosem, M. (2009). Temporal variation in microclimatic edge effects near power
lines, highways and streams in Australian tropical rainforest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149, 84–95.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.07.003.
Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guariguata, M.R., et al. (2012). Community managed forests and forest protected
areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management, 268,
6–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034.
Poulsen, J.R., Clark, C.J., Mavah, G. and Elkan, P.W. (2009). Bushmeat supply and consumption in a tropical logging
concession in northern Congo. Conservation Biology, 23, 1597–608. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523–1739.2009.01251.x.
Printes, R. (1999). The Lami Biological Reserve, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil and the danger of power lines to howlers
in urban reserves. Neotropical Primates, 4, 135–6.
Printes, R.C., Buss, G., Jardim, M.M. de A., et al. (2010). The Urban Monkeys Program: a survey of Alouatta clamitans
in the south of Porto Alegre and its influence on land use policy between 1997 and 2007. Primate Conservation,
25, 11–9. DOI: 10.1896/052.025.0103.
PROFOR (2012). Poverty-Forests Linkages Toolkit: Overview and National Level Engagement. Washington DC:
World Bank. Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/12618.
Profundo (2016). Foreign land acquisitions in Cameroon: International linkages and financial flows. Internal research
paper for Forest Peoples Programme: Profundo Research and Advice.
Property Hunter (2016). The Pan-Borneo Highway: Making a Strong Connection. Property Hunter. Available at:
https://www.propertyhunter.com.my/news/2016/08/2798/sabah/the-pan-borneo-highway-making-a-
strong-connection.
Pruetz, J.D. and Bertolani, P. (2009). Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) behavioral responses to stresses associ-
ated with living in a savanna-mosaic environment: implications for hominin adaptations to open habitats.
PaleoAnthropology, 2009, 252–62.

329
Prüfer, K., Munch, K., Hellmann, I., et al. (2012). The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human
genomes. Nature, 486, 527. DOI: 10.1038/nature11128. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature
11128#supplementary-information.
PT Hitay and UGM (2016). Kajian Harmonisasi untuk Pengembangan Energi Terbaharukan di Taman Nasional
Gunung Leuser. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: PT Hitay Panas Energy and the Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah
Mada (UGM).
Pusey, A.E., Pintea, L., Wilson, M.L., Kamenya, S. and Goodall, J. (2007). The contribution of long-term research at
Gombe National Park to chimpanzee conservation. Conservation Biology, 21, 623–34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523–
1739.2007.00704.x.
Quintero, J.D., Roca, R., Morgan, A.J., Mathur, A. and Xiaoxin, S. (2010). Smart Green Infrastructure in Tiger Range
Countries: A Multi-Level Approach. Global Tiger Initiative, GTISGI Working Group, Technical Paper. Discussion
Papers. Washington DC: World Bank.
Rabanal, L.I., Kuehl, H.S., Mundry, R., Robbins, M.M. and Boesch, C. (2010). Oil prospecting and its impact on
large rainforest mammals in Loango National Park, Gabon. Biological Conservation, 143, 1017–24. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.017.
Radio Free Sarawak (2015). CM dealing with Blockade. Radio Free Sarawak, July, 2015. Available at: https://radiofree
sarawak.org/2015/07/cm-dealing-with-baram-blockade/. Accessed November 4, 2016.
Radio Okapi (2013). Province Orientale: La Route Kisangani-Buta-Dulia Rouverte. Gombe, DRC: Radio Okapi.
Available at: https://www.radiookapi.net/regions/province-orientale/2013/12/22/province-orientale-la-route-
kisangani-buta-dulia-rouverte. Accessed December 22, 2013.
Rainer, H. (2014). Avoiding the chainsaws: industrial timber extraction and apes. In State of the Apes: Extractive
Rainer, H. and Lanjouw, A. (2015). Encroaching on ape habitat: deforestation and industrial agriculture in
Cameroon, Liberia and on Borneo. In State of the Apes: Industrial Agriculture and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus
Foundation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–69.
Rainforest Action Network (2014). Last Place on Earth: Leuser Ecosystem. San Francisco, CA: Rainforest Action
Network. Available at: https://www.ran.org/lastplaceonearth.
Ram, C., Sharma, G. and Rajpurohit, L.S. (2015). Mortality and threats to hanuman langurs (Semnopithecus entellus
entellus) in and around Jodhpur (Rajasthan). The Indian Forester, 10, 1042–5.
Rambu Energy (2016). President Widodo Inaugurates Lahendong Geothermal Power Plant Unit 5 and 6. Jakarta,
Indonesia: Rambu Energy. Available at: https://www.rambuenergy.com/2016/12/president-widodo-inaugurates-
lahendong-geothermal-power-plant-unit-5-and-6/. Accessed November 27, 2017.
Rawson, B.M., Insua-Cao, P., Manh Ha, N., et al. (2011). The Conservation Status of Gibbons in Vietnam. Hanoi,
Vietnam: Fauna and Flora International/Conservation International.
Ray, S. (2015). Infrastructure Finance and Financial Sector Development. ADBI Working Paper 522. Tokyo, Japan:
Asian Development Bank Institute. Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/159842/
adbi-wp522.pdf.
REDD+ (n.d.). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Nations. New York,
NY: United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://redd.unfccc.int/.
Reed, S.E. and Merenlender, A.M. (2008). Quiet, nonconsumptive recreation reduces protected area effectiveness.
Conservation Letters, 1, 146–54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755–263X.2008.00019.x.
Refisch, J. and Koné, I. (2005). Impact of commercial hunting on monkey populations in the Tai region, Cote d’Ivoire.
Biotropica, 37, 136–44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744–7429.2005.03174.x.
Refuge for Wildlife (n.d.). Stop the Shocks. Guanacaste Province, Costa Rica: Refuge for Wildlife. Available at:
http://refugeforwildlife.com/stop-the-shocks/.
Reichard, U. (1995). Extra-pair copulations in a monogamous gibbon (Hylobates lar). Ethology, 100, 99–112.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439–0310.1995.tb00319.x.
Reinartz, G., Ingmanson, E.J. and Vervaecke, H. (2013). Pan paniscus gracile chimpanzee (bonobo, pygmy chimpanzee).
In Mammals of Africa. Volume II: Primates, ed. T. Butynski, J. Kingdon and J. Kalina. London, UK: Bloomsbury
Publishing, pp. 64–9.
References
330
Republic of Cameroon (2001). Loi No. 001 du 16 Avril 2001 Portant Code Minier. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Republic
of Cameroon.
Republic of Cameroon (2009a). Cameroun Vision 2035: Document de Travail. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Republic of
Cameroon, Ministry of Economy, Planning and Regional Development. Available at: http://extwprlegs1.fao.
org/docs/pdf/cmr145894.pdf.
Republic of Cameroon (2009b). Growth and Employment Strategy Paper: Reference Framework for Government
Action over the Period 2010–2020. August 2009. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Republic of Cameroon. Available at: http://
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10257.pdf.
Republic of Cameroon (2012). National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Version II (NBSAB II): MINEPDED.
Yaoundé, Cameroon: Ministry of Environment, Protection of Nature and Sustainable Development. Available
at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/cm/cm-nbsap-v2-en.pdf. December 2012.
Republic of Guinea (n.d.). Mining-Infrastructure Synergies, Growth Corridors. Conakry, Guinea: Ministry of Mines
and Geology. Available at: http://mines.gov.gn/en/priorities/infrastructure/.
Republik Indonesia (2014). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 21 Tahun 2014 Tentang Panas Bumi/Law
of the Republic of Indonesia 21 Year 2014 About Geothermal. Republik Indonesia. Available at: http://www.
indolaw.org/UU/Law%20No.%2021%20of%202014%20on%20Geothermal.pdf.
Reynolds, V. (2005). The Chimpanzees of the Budongo Forest: Ecology, Behaviour, and Conservation. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Rhodes, J.R., Lunney, D., Callaghan, J. and McAlpine, C.A. (2014). A few large roads or many small ones? How to
accommodate growth in vehicle numbers to minimise impacts on wildlife. PLoS One, 9, e91093. DOI: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0091093.
Richter, B.D., Postel, S., Revenga, C., et al. (2010). Lost in development’s shadow: the downstream human conse-
quences of dams. Water Alternatives, 3, 14.
Riedler, B., Millesi, E. and Pratje, P.H. (2010). Adaptation to forest life during the reintroduction process of immature
Pongo abelii. International Journal of Primatology, 31, 647–63. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–010–9418–2.
Riesco, I.L. (2005). After the Tsunami: The EC, the Environment and Rebuilding Indonesia. European Community
Forest Platform-FERN. Available at: http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/media/documents/document_
865_934.pdf.
Rio Tinto Simfer S.A. (2012a). Social and Environmental Impact Assessment, Simandou Project Mine Component.
Conakry, Republic of Guinea: Rio Tinto Simfer SA.
Rio Tinto Simfer S.A. (2012b). Social and Environmental Impact Assessment, Simandou Project Rail Component.
Conakry, Republic of Guinea: Rio Tinto Simfer SA.
Ripple, W.J., Abernethy, K., Betts, M.G., et al. (2016). Bushmeat hunting and extinction risk to the world’s mammals.
Royal Society Open Science, 3. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160498.
Robbins, A.M., Stoinski, T., Fawcett, K. and Robbins, M.M. (2011). Lifetime reproductive success of female mountain
gorillas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 146, 582–93. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21605.
Robbins, M.M. (2011). Gorillas: diversity in ecology and behavior. In Primates in Perspective, 2nd edn, ed. C. J.
Campbell, A. Fuentes, K. C. MacKinnon, S. Bearder and R. M. Stumpf. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
pp. 326–39.
Robbins, M.M. and Sawyer, S. (2007). Intergroup encounters in mountain gorillas of Bwindi Impenetrable National
Park, Uganda. Behaviour, 144, 1497–519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853907782512146.
Roberts, M., Patel, J. and Minella, G. (2015). Why Invest in Infrastructure? Research Report. New York, NY: Deutsche
Asset and Wealth Management.
Robertson, Y. (2002). Briefing Document on Road Network through the Leuser Ecosystem. Cambridge University:
International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC).
Robinson, J.G., Redford, K.H. and Bennett, E.L. (1999). Wildlife harvest in logged tropical forests. Science, 284, 595–6.
DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5414.595.
Robson, S.L. and Wood, B. (2008). Hominin life history: reconstruction and evolution. Journal of Anatomy, 212,
394–425. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469–7580.2008.00867.x.

331
Rodrigues, N.N. and Martinez, R.A. (2014). Wildlife in our backyard: interactions between Wied’s marmoset
Callithrix kuhlii (Primates: Callithrichidae) and residents of Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil. Wildlife Biology, 20, 91–6.
DOI: 10.2981/wlb.13057.
Rogala, J., Hebblewhite, M., Whittington, J., et al. (2011). Human activity differentially redistributes large mammals
in the Canadian Rockies National Parks. Ecology and Society, 16, 16.
Rogers, M.E., Abernethy, K., Bermejo, M., et al. (2004). Western gorilla diet: a synthesis from six sites. American
Journal of Primatology, 64, 173–92. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20071.
Rondinini, C., Wilson, K.A., Boitani, L., Grantham, H. and Possingham, H.P. (2006). Tradeoffs of different types
of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecology Letters, 9, 1136–45. DOI:
10.1111/j.1461–0248.2006.00970.x.
Ross, S.R., Lukas, K.E., Lonsdorf, E.V., et al. (2008). Inappropriate use and portrayal of chimpanzees. Science, 319,
1487. DOI: 10.1126/science.1154490.
Roy, J., Vigilant, L., Gray, M., et al. (2014). Challenges in the use of genetic mark-recapture to estimate the popula-
tion size of Bwindi mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei). Biological Conservation, 180, 249–61. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.011.
RRI (2016). Closing the Gap: Strategies and Scale Needed to Secure Rights and Save Forests. Rights and Resources
Initiative (RRI). Available at: http://rightsandresources.org/en/publication/closing-the-gap/#.WQD45FPyuuU.
RRI (2017). From Risk and Conflict to Peace and Prosperity: The Urgency of Securing Community Land Rights in a
Turbulent World. Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). Available at: http://rightsandresources.org/en/publication/
risk-conflict-to-peace-prosperity/#.WQD4G1PyuuU.
Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., et al. (2015). Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem
service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Economics, 115, 11–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2013.07.009.
Rudel, T.K., Defries, R., Asner, G.P. and Laurance, W.F. (2009). Changing drivers of tropical deforestation create new
challenges and opportunities for conservation. Conservation Biology, 23, 1396–405. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523–
1739.2009.01332.x.
Russon, A. (2009). Orangutan rehabilitation and reintroduction: successes, failures and role in conservation. In
Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation, ed. S. A. Wich, S. S. Utami Atmoko,
T. Mitra Setia and C. P. Van Schaik. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 327–50.
Russon, A.E., Smith, J.J. and Adams, L. (2016). Managing human-orangutan relationships in rehabilitation. In
Ethnoprimatology: Primate Conservation in the 21st Century, ed. M. Waller: Springer, pp. 233–58.
Russon, A.E., Wich, S.A., Ancrenaz, M., et al. (2009). Geographic variation in orangutan diets. In Orangutans:
Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation, ed. S. A. Wich, S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia
and C. P. Van Schaik. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 135–56.
Sanusi, L. (2012). Nigeria’s economic development aspirations and the leadership question: is there a nexus? Speech
by Mr Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Presented at: 2nd General Dr Yakubu
Gowon Distinguished Annual Lecture, October 19, 2012, Lagos, Nigeria. Available at: http://www.bis.org/
review/r121105f.pdf.
Sarawak Report (2014). Bakun turbines running at just 50% capacity. Sarawak Report, January, 2014. Available at:
http://www.sarawakreport.org/2014/01/bakun-turbines-running-at-just-50-capacity-exclusive/. Accessed
April, 6 2017.
Sarawak Report (2016). Plantaion boss wanted over Bill Kayong murder. Sarawak Report, July 16, 2016. Available at:
http://www.sarawakreport.org/2016/07/plantation-boss-wanted-over-bill-kayong-murder-world-exclusive/.
Satriastanti, F.E. (2016). Indonesian environment ministry shoots down geothermal plan in Mount Leuser national
park. Mongabay, September, 2016. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2016/09/indonesian-environment-
ministry-shoots-down-geothermal-plan-in-mount-leuser-national-park/. Accessed September 12, 2016.
Schaumburg, F., Mugisha, L., Peck, B., et al. (2012). Drug-resistant human Staphylococcus aureus in sanctuary apes pose
a threat to endangered wild ape populations. American Journal of Primatology, 74, 1071–5. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22067.
Scudder, T. (2005). The Future of Large Dams: Dealing with Social, Environmental, Instituional and Political Costs.
London, UK: Earthscan Publications.
References
332
SEDIA (2008). Sabah Development Corridor Blueprint. Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: Sabah Economic Development
and Investment Authority (SEDIA). Available at: http://www.sedia.com.my/SDC_Blueprint.html.
Seiler, N., Boesch, C., Mundry, R., Stephens, C. and Robbins, M.M. (2017). Space partitioning in wild, non-territorial
mountain gorillas: the impact of food and neighbours. Royal Society Open Science, 4. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.170720.
Seiler, N. and Robbins, M.M. (2016). Factors influencing ranging on community land and crop raiding by mountain
gorillas. Animal Conservation, 19, 176–88. DOI: 10.1111/acv.12232.
Seto, K.C., Güneralp, B. and Hutyra, L.R. (2012). Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts
on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16083–8. DOI: 10.1073/
pnas.1211658109.
Seymour, F., La Vina, T. and Hite, K. (2014). Evidence Linking Community-Level Tenure and Forest Condition: An
Annotated Bibliography. San Francisco, CA: Climate and Land Use Alliance.
Sharp, J. (2016). Mobile Zoo Closes Following USDA Judge’s Order. Available at: http://www.al.com/news/mobile/
index.ssf/2016/11/mobile_zoo_closes_following_us.html. Accessed November 17, 2016.
Shearman, P., Bryan, J. and Laurance, W.F. (2012). Are we approaching ‘peak timber’ in the tropics? Biological
Shepherd, C. and Nijman, V. (2008). The Wild Cat Trade in Myanmar. Selangor, Malaysia: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
Available at: http://www.traffic.org/publications/the-wild-cat-trade-in-myanmar.html.
Sherman, J., Brent, L. and Farmer, K. (2016). A picture is worth a thousand words: an analysis of animal images posted
on the internet by African ape sanctuaries. Poster presentation. Presented at: International Primatological Society,
26th Congress, August 23, 2016, Chicago, IL. International Primatological Society.
Shipping Position Online (2016). The Deep Seaport Craze in Nigeria. Available at: http://shippingposition.com.ng/
editorial/the-deep-seaport-craze-in-nigeria. Accessed November 14, 2016.
Shirley, R. and Kammen, D. (2015). Energy planning and development in Malaysian Borneo: assessing the benefits
of distributed technologies versus large scale energy mega-projects. Energy Strategy Reviews, 8, 15–29. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2015.07.001.
Shirley, R., Kammen, D. and Wynn, G. (2014). Kampung capacity: analyzing local energy solutions in the Baram River
basin, east Malaysia. Unpublished paper.
Si, Y. (1998). The world’s most catastrophic dam failures: the August 1975 collapse of the Banqiao and Shimantan
dams. In Dai Qing, The River Dragon Has Come!, ed. M. E. Sharpe. New York, NY: San José State University,
pp. 25–38. Available at: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/aug1975.htm.
Silveira, L., Sollmann, R., Jácomo, A.T.A., Diniz Filho, J.A.F. and Tôrres, N.M. (2014). The potential for large-scale
wildlife corridors between protected areas in Brazil using the jaguar as a model species. Landscape Ecology, 29,
1213–23. DOI: 10.1007/s10980–014–0057–4.
Simpson, A. (2014). Energy, Governance and Security in Thailand and Myanmar (Burma): A Critical Approach to
Environmental Politics in the South. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Simpson, A. (2015). Starting from year zero: environmental governance in Myanmar. In Environmental Challenges
and Governance: Diverse Perspectives from Asia, ed. S. Mukherjee and D. Chakraborty. London, UK: Routledge,
pp. 152–65. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275973353_Starting_from_year_zero_
Environmental_governance_in_Myanmar.
Singleton, I., Knott, C.D., Morrogh-Bernard, H.C., Wich, S.A. and Van Schaik, C.P. (2009). Ranging behavior of
orangutan females and social organization. In Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and
Conservation, ed. S. A. Wich, S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C. P. Van Schaik. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Singleton, I., Wich, S., Husson, S., et al. (2004). Orangutan Population and Habitat Viability Assessment: Final
Report. Apple Valley, MN: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission
(IUCN SSC), Conservation Breeding Specialist Group.
Singleton, I., Wich, S.A., Nowak, M. and Usher, G. (2016). Pongo abelii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/121097935/0. Accessed August 14, 2017.

333
Skinner, J. and Haas, L.J. (2014). Watered Down? A Review of Social and Environmental Safeguards for Large
Dam Projects. Natural Resource Issues No. 28. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED).
Slade, A. (2016). Survivorship, demographics and seasonal trends among electrocuted primate species in Diani, Kenya.
Masters thesis. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.
Slade, A. and Cunneyworth, P. (2017). Electrocution trends in six sympatric primates in the suburban environment
of Diani, Kenya. Unpublished report. Diani, Kenya: Colobus Conservation.
Sloan, S., Bertzky, B. and Laurance, W.F. (2017). African development corridors intersect key protected areas. African
Journal of Ecology, 55, 731–7. DOI: 10.1111/aje.12377.
Smith, J., Obidzinski, K., Subarudi, S. and Suramenggala, I. (2003). Illegal logging, collusive corruption and frag-
mented governments in Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Forestry Review, 5, 293–302.
Smith, R.J., Biggs, D., St. John, F.A.V., ‘t Sas-Rolfes, M. and Barrington, R. (2015). Elephant conservation and corruption
beyond the ivory trade. Conservation Biology, 29, 953–6. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12488.
Smith, T. (2013). Cameroon’s rich biodiversity is under threat. UCLA Today. Available at: http://newsroom.ucla.
edu/stories/preserving-camaroon-s-treasures-248074. Accessed August 28, 2013.
Smithsonian Institution (n.d.). Human Origins. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Available at: http://human
origins.si.edu/evidence/genetics.
Sop, T., Cheyne, S.M., Maisels, F.G., Wich, S.A. and Williamson, E.A. (2015). Abundance annex: ape population
abundance estimates. In State of the Apes 2015: Industrial Agriculture and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus Foundation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, online. Available at: http://www.stateoftheapes.com/volume-
2-industrial-agriculture/.
Sovacool, B.K. and Bulan, L.C. (2011). Behind an ambitious megaproject in Asia: the history and implications of
the Bakun hydroelectric dam in Borneo. Energy Policy, 39, 4842–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2011.06.035.
Species360 (2016). Species-holding reports (Gorilla, Hylobatidae, Pan, Pongo). Unpublished data. Species360.
Spignesi, S.J. (2004). Catastrophe! The 100 Greatest Disasters of All Time. New York, NY: Citadel Press.
Spira, C., Kirkby, A., Kujirakwinja, D. and Plumptre, A.J. (2017). The socio-economics of artisanal mining and
bushmeat hunting around protected areas: Kahuzi–Biega National Park and Itombwe Nature Reserve, eastern
Democratic Republic of Congo. Oryx, 1–9. DOI: 10.1017/S003060531600171X.
Spittaels, S. and Hilgert, F. (2010). Mapping Conflict Motives: Province Orientale (DRC). Number 22. Antwerp,
Belgium: International Peace Information Service.
Stanley, E.H. and Doyle, M.W. (2003). Trading off: the ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 1, 15–22. DOI: 10.1890/1540–9295(2003)001[0015:TOTEEO]2.0.CO;2.
Steinmetz, R., Srirattanaporn, S., Mor-Tip, J. and Seuaturien, N. (2014). Can community outreach alleviate poach-
ing pressure and recover wildlife in south-east Asian protected areas? Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1469–78.
DOI: 10.1111/1365–2664.12239.
Stewart, K.J. (1988). Suckling and lactational anoestrus in wild gorillas (Gorilla gorilla). Journal of Reproduction
and Fertility, 83, 627–34.
Stokes, E.J., Strindberg, S., Bakabana, P.C., et al. (2010). Monitoring great ape and elephant abundance at large
spatial scales: measuring effectiveness of a conservation landscape. PLoS One, 5, e10294. DOI: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0010294.
Stokstad, E. (2017). New great ape species found, sparking fears for its survival. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.aar3900.
Straumann, L. (2014). Money Logging: on the Trail of the Asian Timber Mafia. Basel, Switzerland: Schwabe AG.
Struebig, M.J., Wilting, A., Gaveau, D.L.A., et al. (2015). Targeted conservation to safeguard a biodiversity hotspot
from climate and land-cover change. Current Biology, 25, 372–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.067.
Struhsaker, T.T. (1999). Primate communities in Africa: the consequences of long-term evolution or the artifact of
recent hunting. In Primate Communities, ed. J. G. Fleagle, C. H. Janson and K. E. Reed. New York, NY: Cambridge
References
334
Sulistyawan, B.S., Eichelberger, B.A., Verweij, P., et al. (2017). Connecting the fragmented habitat of endangered
mammals in the landscape of Riau–Jambi–Sumatera Barat (RIMBA), central Sumatra, Indonesia (connecting
the fragmented habitat due to road development). Global Ecology and Conservation, 9, 116–30. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.12.003.
Sundance (2016). Quarterly Activity Report. Perth, Australia: Sundance Resources Ltd.
Sunderland-Groves, J.L., Slayback, D.A., Bessike Balinga, M.P. and Sunderland, T.C.H. (2011). Impacts of co-
management on western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) habitat and conservation in Nialama Classified
Forest, Republic of Guinea: a satellite perspective. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 2745. DOI: 10.1007/
s10531–011–0102–4.
Sunderlin, W.D., Dewi, S. and Puntodewo, A. (2007). Poverty and Forests: Multi-Country Analysis of Spatial
Association and Proposed Policy Solutions. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 47. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Available at: http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/
OP-47.pdf.
SWD (2011). Orangutan Action Plan 2012–2016. Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD).
Available at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1200343/24377541/1392391814550/Sabah_Orangutan_Action_
Plan_2012–2016.pdf?token=LgJ5zbZ2eM5CMaiazY5GHhAGbcg%3D.
Tabuchi, H. (2016). How big banks are putting rain forests in peril. New York Times, December 3, 2016. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/business/energy-environment/how-big-banks-are-putting-rain-forests-
in-peril.html?ref=business. Accessed December 4, 2016.
Tagg, N., Willie, J., Duarte, J., Petre, C.A. and Fa, J.E. (2015). Conservation research presence protects: a case study of
great ape abundance in the Dja region, Cameroon. Animal Conservation, 18, 489–98. DOI: 10.1111/acv.12212.
TANAPA, TAWIRI, WD-MNRT, et al. (2015). Gombe-Mahale Ecosystem Conservation Action Planning, v 2.0.
Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), Wildlife Division–
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (WD–MNRT), et al. Available at: http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/
static/f/1200343/26920244/1458214306290/TANAPA_et_al_2015_GME_CAP_2.0.pdf?token=34OmlSmt4
LtbEajrZFdmoJMxZto%3D.
Tang, D. and Kelly, A.S. (2016). Design Manual: Building a Sustainable Road to Dawei: Enhancing Ecosystem Services
and Wildlife Connectivity. Yangon, Myanmar: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
Tasch, B. (2015). The 23 poorest countries in the world. Business Insider UK, July, 2015. Available at: http://uk.business
insider.com/the-23-poorest-countries-in-the-world-2015–7.
Tata, H.L., van Noordwijk, M., Ruysschaert, D., et al. (2014). Will funding to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation
and (forest) Degradation (REDD+) stop conversion of peat swamps to oil palm in orangutan habitat in Tripa
in Aceh, Indonesia? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19, 693–713. DOI: 10.1007/s11027–
013–9524–5.
TAWIRI (2017). Tanzania national chimpanzee management plan. Unpublished draft. Arusha, Tanzania: Tanzania
Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
TBC (2016). Government Policies on Biodiversity Offsets. Cambridge, UK: The Biodiversity Consultancy (TBC).
TBC (n.d.). World Bank ESS6. Cambridge, UK: The Biodiversity Consultancy (TBC). Available at: http://www.the
biodiversityconsultancy.com/approaches/world-bank-ess6/.
TBC and CSBI (2015). A Cross-Sector Guide to Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy. Cambridge, UK: The Biodiversity
Consultancy (TBC) and Cross-Sector Biodiversity Initiative (CSBI).
Teleki, G. (2001). Sanctuaries for ape refugees. In Great Apes and Humans: The Ethics of Coexistence, ed. B. Beck,
T. Stoinski, M. Hutchins, et al. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 133–49.
Tello, I.Z. (2016). En una decisión judicial inédita, la mona cecilia será trasladada de Mendoza a Brasil. Los Andes.
Available at: http://www.losandes.com.ar/article/tras-una-decision-judicial-inedita-la-mona-cecilia-sera-
trasladada-a-brasil?rv=4. Accessed November 6, 2016.
Tempo (2017). Jokowi Confident in Realization of Renewable Energy Projects. Jakarta, Indonesia: Tempo. Available at:
https://en.tempo.co/read/news/2015/08/22/055694138/Jokowi-Confident-in-Realization-of-Renewable-
Energy-Projects. Accessed January 22, 2017.
ten Kate, K. and Crowe, M.L.A. (2014). Biodiversity Offsets: Policy Options for Governments. Gland, Switzerland:
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

335
Thant, H. (2016). New environmental impact rules released. The Myanmar Times.
The Economist (2014). Nigeria: Africa’s new number one. The Economist, April 12, 2014. Available at: https://www.
economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600734-revised-figures-show-nigeria-africas-largest-economy-
step-change.
The Guardian (n.d.). China GDP: how it has changed since 1980. The Guardian. Online data spreadsheet. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980#data.
Then, S. (2016). New Murum Dam to boost energy output in Sarawak. The Star Online. Available at: http://www.
thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/09/27/new-murum-dam-to-boost-energy-output-in-sarawak/. Accessed
September 14, 2017.
This Day (2016). Another Chinese firm expresses interest in Bakassi Deep Seaport, superhighway. This Day.
Available at: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016/10/17/another-chinese-firm-expresses-interest-in-
bakassi-deep-seaport-superhighway/. Accessed October 17, 2016.
Thompson, M.E. (2013). Reproductive ecology of female chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology, 75, 222–37.
DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22084.
Thouless, C.R., Dublin, H.T., Blanc, J.J., et al. (2016). African Elephant Status Report 2016: An Update from the
African Elephant Database. Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, No. 60.
Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission (IUCN
SSC), African Elephant Specialist Group. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/ssc-groups/mammals/african-
elephant-specialist-group.
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., et al. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven environmental change. Science, 292,
281–4. DOI: 10.1126/science.1057544.
Tilt, B., Braun, Y. and He, D. (2009). Social impacts of large dam projects: a comparison of international case studies
and implications for best practice. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S249-S57. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.030.
TNC, WWF and UoM (2016). Improving Hydropower Outcomes through System-Scale Planning: An Example from
Myanmar. United Kingdom, Department for International Development (DFID). The Nature Conservancy
(TNC), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the University of Manchester (UoM).
Torres, J., Brito, J.C., Vasconcelos, M.J., et al. (2010). Ensemble models of habitat suitability relate chimpanzee (Pan
troglodytes) conservation to forest and landscape dynamics in western Africa. Biological Conservation, 143,
416–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.007.
Tracewski, Ł., Butchart, S.H.M., Di Marco, M., et al. (2016). Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century
deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology, 30, 1070–9. DOI: 10.1111/
cobi.12715.
TRAFFIC (2008). What’s Driving the Wildlife Trade? A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social Drivers
of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. East Asia and
Pacific Region Sustainable Development Discussion Papers. Washington DC: East Asia and Pacific Region
Sustainable Development Department, World Bank. Available at: http://www.trafficj.org/publication/08_
what%27s_driving_the_wildlife_trade.pdf.
TRAFFIC (2014). Myanmar: A Gateway For Illegal Trade in Tigers and Other Wild Cats to China. Cambridge, UK:
TRAFFIC.
Tranquilli, S., Abedi-Lartey, M., Abernethy, K., et al. (2014). Protected areas in tropical Africa: assessing threats and
conservation activities. PLoS One, 9, e114154. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114154.
Tranquilli, S., Abedi-Lartey, M., Amsini, F., et al. (2012). Lack of conservation effort rapidly increases African great
ape extinction risk. Conservation Letters, 5, 48–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755–263X.2011.00211.x.
Transparent World (2015). Tree Plantations. Global Forest Watch. Available at: http://data.globalforestwatch.org/
datasets/baae47df61ed4a73a6f54f00cb4207e0_5?uiTab=metadata. Accessed December, 2016.
Trayford, H.R. and Farmer, K.H. (2013). Putting the spotlight on internally displaced animals (IDAs): a survey
of primate sanctuaries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. American Journal of Primatology, 75, 116–34. DOI:
10.1002/ajp.22090.
References
336
Tribal Energy and Environmental Information (n.d.). Geothermal Energy: Construction Impacts. Office of Indian
Energy and Economic Development. Available at: https://teeic.indianaffairs.gov/er/geothermal/impact/
construct/index.htm. Accessed March 9, 2017.
Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. (2000). Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic com-
munities. Conservation Biology, 14, 18–30. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523–1739.2000.99084.x.
Tropek, R., Sedláček, O., Beck, J., et al. (2014). Comment on ‘High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest
cover change’. Science, 344, 981. DOI: 10.1126/science.1248753.
Tschantz, B. (2014). What we know (and don’t know) about low-head dams. Journal of Dam Safety, 12, 37–45.
Tsunokawa, K. and Hoban, C. (1997). Roads and the Environment: A Handbook. Technical Paper No. 376, Chapter 10.
Washington DC: The World Bank.
Tucker, S. (2011). Integration by education: a study of Cameroon’s Bakola-Bagyeli. Journal of Politics and Society,
21, 89–116.
Turvey, S.T., Traylor-Holzer, K., Wong, M.H., et al. (2015). International Conservation Planning Workshop for the
Hainan Gibbon: Final Report. London, UK: Zoological Society of London/IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding
Specialist Group. Available at: http://www.gibbons.asia/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Hainan-Gibbon-Action-
Plan-2016–2020.pdf.
Tweh, C.G., Lormie, M.M., Kouakou, C.Y., et al. (2015). Conservation status of chimpanzees Pan troglodytes verus
and other large mammals in Liberia: a nationwide survey. Oryx, 49, 710–8. DOI: 10.1017/S0030605313001191.
Tyson, L., Draper, C. and Turner, D. (2016). The Use of Wild Animals in Performance 2016. Horsham, UK: Born Free
Foundation. Available at: http://www.bornfree.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/files/zoo_check/publications/
PERFORMING_ANIMALS_REPORT_2016.pdf.
UN Population Division (2015). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables.
Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241. New York, NY: United Nations (UN), Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Population Division.
UN Population Division (2017). World Population Prospects. Volume 1. 2017 Revision. New York, NY: United
Nations (UN), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Available at: https://esa.un.org/
unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf.
UN Population Division (n.d.). World Population Prospects 2017: Fertility Indicators. New York, NY: United Nations
(UN), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Available at: https://esa.un.org/unpd/
wpp/Download/Standard/Fertility. Accessed October, 2017.
UNEP/CMS (2009). Mountain Gorilla Gorilla beringei beringei Gorilla Agreement Action Plan. Revised Version of
UNEP/CMS/GOR-MOP1/Doc.7d. Bonn, Germany: Convention on Migratory Species (UNEP/CMS).
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (n.d.). Protected Planet: World Database on Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK: United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: www.protectedplanet.net. Accessed October, 2016.
UNEP–WCMC and IUCN (2017). Protected Planet: World Database on Protected Areas. United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at: www.protectedplanet.net/c/world-database-on-
protected-areas. Accessed August, 2017.
UNESCO (n.d.-a). Decision: 31 COM 7A.5: Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo) (N 137).
Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage
Convention (WHC). Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1268.
UNESCO (n.d.-b). Directory of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR). Paris, France: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Available at: www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-
sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/world-network-wnbr/wnbr/.
UNESCO WHC (2016). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris, France:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention
(WHC). Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/document/156250.
UNESCO WHC (2017). Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention (WHC). Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/
en/list/1167. Accessed September 12, 2017.

337
UNESCO WHC (n.d.). Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention (WHC). Available at: http://whc.unesco.
org/en/list/682.
University of Cambridge (2012). Capturing the Benefits of Ecosystem Services to Guide Decision-making in the
Greater Virungas Landscape of the Albertine Rift Region. Policy Workshop Report. Cambridge, UK: University
of Cambridge.
Unwin, S., Cress, D., Colin, C., Bailey, W. and Boardman, W. (2009). Primate Veterinary Health Manual, 2nd edn.
Portland, OR: Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA).
Unwin, S., Robinson, I.A.N., Schmidt, V., et al. (2012). Does confirmed pathogen transfer between sanctuary work-
ers and great apes mean that reintroduction should not occur? American Journal of Primatology, 74, 1076–83.
DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22069.
U-PCLG (2015). Assessing Options for the Proposed Improvement of the Ikumba to Ruhija Road, U-PCLG Position
Paper. Uganda Poverty and Conservation Learning Group (U-PCLG). Available at: http://igcp.org/wp-content/
uploads/U-PCLG-position-on-Ruhija-Road-Mar12_2015.pdf.
USFWS (2015). US Fish and Wildlife Service Finalizes Rule Listing All Chimpanzees as Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Available at: http://www.fws.gov/news/
ShowNews.cfm?ID=E81DA137-BAF2–9619–3492A2972E9854D9. Accessed June 19, 2017.
USGS (n.d.). Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation (GTOPO30). Reston, VA: US Geological Survey (USGS). Available at:
https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/GTOPO30. Accessed January, 2018.
Uwaegbulam, C. (2016). Stakeholders approve $12m UN-REDD plus strategy for Nigeria. The Guardian, September 5,
2016. Available at: https://guardian.ng/property/stakeholders-approve-12m-un-redd-plus-strategy-for-nigeria.
van Beukering, P.J.H., Cesar, H.S.J. and Janssen, M.A. (2003). Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on
Sumatra, Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 44, 43–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921–8009(02)00224–0.
van den Berg, J. and Biesbrouck, K. (2000). The Social Dimension of Rainforest Management in Cameroon: Issues
for Co-Management. Tropenbos-Cameroon Series 4. Kribi, Cameroon: The Tropenbos-Cameroon Programme.
Van Der Hoeven, C.A., De Boer, W.F. and Prins, H.H.T. (2010). Roadside conditions as predictor for wildlife crossing
probability in a central African rainforest. African Journal of Ecology, 48, 368–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–2028.
2009.01122.x.
van der Ree, R., Smith, D.J. and Grilo, C., ed. (2015). Handbook of Road Ecology. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Van Gils, H. and Kayijamahe, E. (2010). Sharing natural resources: mountain gorillas and people in the Parc National
des Volcans, Rwanda. African Journal of Ecology, 48, 621–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–2028.2009.01154.x.
van Noordwijk, M.A., Sauren, S.E.B., Nuzuar, et al. (2009). Development of independence: Sumatran and Bornean
orangutans compared. In Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation, ed. S. A. Wich,
S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C. P. Van Schaik. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–203.
van Noordwijk, M.A., Willems, E.P., Utami Atmoko, S.S., Kuzawa, C.W. and Van Schaik, C.P. (2013). Multi-year
lactation and its consequences in Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii). Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology, 67, 805–14. DOI: 10.1007/s00265–013–1504-y.
Van Schaik, C.P., Monk, K.A. and Robertson, J.M.Y. (2001). Dramatic decline in orang-utan numbers in the Leuser
ecosystem, northern Sumatra. Oryx, 35, 14–25. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365–3008.2001.00150.x.
Vancutsem, C. and Achard, F. (2016). Mapping intact and degraded humid forests over the tropical belt from 32 years
of Landsat time series. Presented at: Living Planet Symposium, 9–13 May, Prague, Czech Republic. Available at:
http://lps16.esa.int/files/Contribution2034.pdf.
Vanguard (2015). Imperatives of dredging Calabar Port. Vanguard News, August 13, 2015. Available at: https://www.
vanguardngr.com/2015/08/imperatives-of-dredging-calabar-port/.
Vanguard (2017). Superhighway: C-River gives FG two weeks ultimatum on EIA. Vanguard News, March 11, 2017
Available at: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/03/superhighway-c-river-gives-fg-two-weeks-ultimatum-eia/.
Vanthomme, H., Kolowski, J., Korte, L. and Alonso, A. (2013). Distribution of a community of mammals in rela-
tion to roads and other human disturbances in Gabon, central Africa. Conservation Biology, 27, 281–91. DOI:
10.1111/cobi.12017.
References
338
Vanthomme, H., Kolowski, J., Nzamba, B.S. and Alonso, A. (2015). Hypothesis-driven and field-validated method
to prioritize fragmentation mitigation efforts in road projects. Ecological Applications, 25, 2035–46. DOI:
10.1890/14–1924.1.
Varki, A. and Altheide, T.K. (2005). Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: searching for needles in a
haystack. Genome Research, 15, 1746–58.
Venables, A.J. (2016). Using natural resources for development: why has it proven so difficult? Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 30, 161–84.
Venter, O., Sanderson, E.W., Magrach, A., et al. (2016). Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint
and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications, 7, 12558. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12558.
Verhegghen, A., Eva, H., Ceccherini, G., et al. (2016). The potential of sentinel satellites for burnt area mapping and
monitoring in the Congo Basin forests. Remote Sensing, 8, 986.
Virunga National Park (n.d.). Virunga Alliance. Kivu Nord, DRC: Virunga National Park. Available at: https://
virunga.org/virunga-alliance/. Accessed July 20, 2017.
Wade, R.H. (2011). Boulevard of Broken Dreams: The Inside Story of the World Bank’s Polonoroeste Road Project
in Brazil’s Amazon. London, UK: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WP55_world-bank-road-
project-brazil.pdf.
Wadman, M. (2017a). Activists battle US government in court over making animal welfare reports public.
Science, May 24, 2017. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/should-animal-welfare-reports-
automatically-be-public-courts-prepare-weigh.
Wadman, M. (2017b). More groups sue to force USDA to restore online animal welfare records. Science, February 22,
2017. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/breaking-reversal-usda-reposts-some-animal-
welfare-records-it-had-scrubbed-website.
Wallace, A.R. (1849). On the monkeys of the Amazon. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 20, 107–10.
Walsh, P.D., Abernethy, K.A., Bermejo, M., et al. (2003). Catastrophic ape decline in western equatorial Africa.
Nature, 422, 611. DOI: 10.1038/nature01566. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01566#
supplementary-information.
Walsh, P.D., Biek, R. and Real, L.A. (2005). Wave-like spread of Ebola Zaire. PLoS Biology, 3, e371. DOI: 10.1371/
journal.pbio.0030371.
Walston, J., Robinson, J.G., Bennett, E.L., et al. (2010). Bringing the tiger back from the brink: the six percent
solution. PLoS Biology, 8, e1000485. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000485.
Wanshel, E. (2016). ‘World’s loneliest chimp’, abandoned on a small island, gets cuddly teddy bear after three years
alone. Huffington Post. Available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ponso-chimp-abandoned-on-island-gets-
teddy-bear_us_56d9f24be4b0ffe6f8e95fc3.
Warigi, G. (2015). Uganda’s change of mind on pipeline and the headache it is giving Kenya. Daily Nation, Available at:
http://allafrica.com/stories/201510250142.html.
Watkins, K., Chansopheaktra, S., Brander, L., et al. (2016). Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services in Mondulkiri:
Outcomes and Recommendations for Sustainable and Inclusive Land Use Planning in Cambodia. Phnom Penh,
Cambodia: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Cambodia.
Watson, J.E.M., Shanahan, D.F., Di Marco, M., et al. (2016). Catastrophic declines in wilderness areas undermine
global environment targets. Current Biology, 26, 2929–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049.
Watts, D.P. (1984). Composition and variability of mountain gorilla diets in the central Virungas. American Journal
of Primatology, 7, 323–56. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.1350070403.
Watts, D.P. (1989). Infanticide in mountain gorillas: new cases and a reconsideration of the evidence. Ethology, 81,
1–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439–0310.1989.tb00754.x.
Watts, D.P., Muller, M., Amsler, S.J., Mbabazi, G. and Mitani, J.C. (2006). Lethal intergroup aggression by chimpanzees
in Kibale National Park, Uganda. American Journal of Primatology, 68, 161–80. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20214.
WBCSD (n.d.). Natural Capital Protocol Toolkit. Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD). Available at: www.naturalcapitaltoolkit.org.

339
WCD (2000). Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-making. World Commission on Dams
(WCD). London, UK: Earthscan Publications. Available at: https://www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/
files/attached-files/world_commission_on_dams_final_report.pdf.
WCS (2011). Projet pour la Protection des Populations de Gorilles et la Conservation de la Biodiversité dans la Forêt
de Deng – Deng. SYNTHESE DES ACTIVITES 2009 – 2010. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Wildlife Conservation Society
(WCS). Available at: https://programs.wcs.org/cameroon/Wild-Places/Deng-Deng-National-Park.aspx.
WCS (2015a). Biological monitoring, Tanintharyi. Unpublished survey reports. Yangon, Myanmar: Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS).
WCS (2015b). Projet pour la Protection des Populations de Gorilles et de Chimpanzés, et Conservation de la Bio
diversité dans la Forêt de Deng - Deng Région de l’Est Cameroun. RAPPORT FINAL. Yaoundé, Cameroon: Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS). Available at: https://programs.wcs.org/cameroon/.
WCS (2015c). Survey of the Lokofa Block of the Salonga National Park. Kinshasa, DRC: Wildlife Conservation
Society (WCS).
WCS (n.d.). Superhighway Rerouted and Wildlife Saved! New York, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).
Available at: https://secure.wcs.org/campaign/superhighway-thank-you. Accessed August, 2017.
Weinhold, D. and Reis, E. (2008). Transportation costs and the spatial distribution of land use in the Brazilian Amazon.
Global Environmental Change, 18, 54–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.06.004.
Weng, L., Boedhihartono, A.K., Dirks, P.H.G.M., et al. (2013). Mineral industries, growth corridors and agricul-
tural development in Africa. Global Food Security, 2, 195–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.07.003.
Wenstöp, F.E. and Carlsen, A.J. (1988). Ranking hydroelectric power projects with multicriteria decision analysis.
Interfaces, 18, 36–48. DOI: 10.1287/inte.18.4.36.
White, A. and Fa, J.E. (2014). The bigger picture: indirect impacts of extractive industries on apes and ape habitat.
In State of the Apes: Extractive Industries and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus Foundation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–225.
Whitelaw, E. and Macmullan, E. (2002). A framework for estimating the costs and benefits of dam removal.
BioScience, 52, 724–30. DOI: 10.1641/0006–3568(2002)052[0724:AFFETC]2.0.CO;2.
Whittaker, D. and Geissmann, T. (2008). Hylobates klossii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.
T10547A3199263. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Available at:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/10547/0. Accessed November 15, 2016.
Wich, S.A., de Vries, H. and Ancrenaz, M. (2009a). Orangutan life history variation. In Orangutans: Geographic
Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation, ed. S. A. Wich, S. Utami Atmoko, T. Mitra Setia and C. P. Van
Schaik. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–75.
Wich, S.A., Fredriksson, G.M., Usher, G., et al. (2012a). Hunting of Sumatran orang-utans and its importance
in determining distribution and density. Biological Conservation, 146, 163–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biocon.2011.12.006.
Wich, S.A., Garcia-Ulloa, J., Kühl, Hjalmar S., et al. (2014). Will oil palm’s homecoming spell doom for Africa’s great
apes? Current Biology, 24, 1659–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.077.
Wich, S.A., Gaveau, D., Abram, N., et al. (2012b). Understanding the impacts of land-use policies on a threatened
species: is there a future for the Bornean orang-utan? PLoS One, 7, e49142. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049142.
Wich, S.A., Geurts, M.L., Mitra Setia, T. and Utami Atmoko, S.S. (2006). Influence of fruit availability on Sumatran
orangutan sociality and reproduction. In Feeding Ecology in Apes and Other Primates: Ecological, Physical and
Behavioral Aspects, ed. G. Hohmann, M. M. Robbins and C. Boesch. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 337–58.
Wich, S.A., Meijaard, E., Marshall, A.J., et al. (2008). Distribution and conservation status of the orang-utan (Pongo
spp.) on Borneo and Sumatra: how many remain? Oryx, 42, 329–39. DOI: 10.1017/S003060530800197X.
Wich, S., Riswan, J.J., Refish, J. and Nelleman, C. (2011). Orangutans and the Economics of Sustainable Forest
Management in Sumatra. Norway: UNEP, GRASP, PanEco, YEL, ICRAF, GRID-Arendal, Birkeland Trykkeri
AS. Available at: www.grida.no/search?query=Orangutans+and+the+Economics+of+Sustainable+Forest
+Management+in+Sumatra.
Wich, S.A., Singleton, I., Nowak, M.G., et al. (2016). Land-cover changes predict steep declines for the Sumatran
orangutan (Pongo abelii). Science Advances, 2. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500789.
References
340
Wich, S.A., Utami Atmoko, S., Mitra Setia, M. and Van Schaik, C.P., ed. (2009b). Orangutans: Geographic Variation in
Behavioral Ecology and Conservation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wich, S.A., Utami Atmoko, S.S., Mitra Setia, M., et al. (2004). Life history of wild Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii).
Journal of Human Evolution, 47, 385–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.006.
Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., et al. (2011). A landscape-based conservation strategy to double
the wild tiger population. Conservation Letters, 4, 219–27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755–263X.2010.00162.x.
Wilcox, B.A. (1978). Supersaturated island faunas: a species-age relationship for lizards on post-Pleistocene land-
bridge islands. Science, 199, 996–8. DOI: 10.1126/science.199.4332.996.
Wildlife Impact (2015). An analysis of the current status, challenges and opportunities in the African ape sanctuary
sector: recommendations for prioritizing support and activities. Internal report for the Arcus Foundation.
Wildlife Impact (2016). Priority landscapes: conservation planning and captive care capacity. Internal report for the
Arcus Foundation.
Wildman, L. (2013). Dam removal: a history of decision points. In The Challenges of Dam Removal and River
Restoration. Reviews in Engineering Geology, XXI, ed. J. V. De Graff and J. E. Evans: Geological Society of
America, pp. 1–10. Available at: http://geoscienceworld.org/content/the-challenges-of-dam-removal-and-
river-restoration.
Wilkie, D., Shaw, E., Rotberg, F., Morelli, G. and Auzel, P. (2000). Roads, development, and conservation in the
Congo Basin. Conservation Biology, 14, 1614–22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523–1739.2000.99102.x.
Willems, W.J.H. and Van Schaik, H.P.J. (2015). Water and Heritage: Material, Conceptual, and Spiritual Connections.
Leiden, the Netherlands: Sidestone Press. Available at: https://www.sidestone.com/books/water-heritage.
Accessed October 7, 2016.
Williams, J.M., Lonsdorf, E.V., Wilson, M.L., et al. (2008). Causes of death in the Kasekela chimpanzees of Gombe
National Park, Tanzania. American Journal of Primatology, 70, 766–77. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20573.
Williams, S. (2015). Moving the economy forward. ABM (African Business Magazine), January 14, 2015. Available at:
http://africanbusinessmagazine.com/company-profile/african-development-bank/moving-economy-forward/.
Williamson, E.A. (2014). Mountain gorillas: a shifting demographic landscape. In Primates and Cetaceans: Field
Research and Conservation of Complex Mammalian Societies, ed. J. Yamagiwa and L. Karczmarsk. Tokyo,
Japan: Springer.
Williamson, E.A. and Butynski, T.M. (2013a). Gorilla beringei eastern gorilla. In Mammals of Africa. Volume II:
Primates, ed. T. M. Butynski, J. Kingdon and J. Kalina. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 45–53.
Williamson, E.A. and Butynski, T.M. (2013b). Gorilla gorilla western gorilla. In Mammals of Africa. Volume II:
Primates, ed. T. M. Butynski, J. Kingdon and J. Kalina. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 39–45.
Williamson, E.A., Maisels, F.G., Groves, C.P., et al. (2013). Hominidae. In Handbook of the Mammals of the World.
Volume 3: Primates, ed. R. A. Mittermeier, A. B. Rylands and D. E. Wilson. Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions,
pp. 792–854.
Williamson, E.A., Rawson, B.M., Cheyne, S.M., Meijaard, E. and Wich, S.A. (2014). Ecological impacts of extractive
industries on ape populations. In State of the Apes: Extractive Industries and Ape Conservation, ed. Arcus
Foundation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–99.
Wilson, D. and Reeder, D. (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wilson, H.B., Meijaard, E., Venter, O., Ancrenaz, M. and Possingham, H.P. (2014a). Conservation strategies for
orangutans: reintroduction versus habitat preservation and the benefits of sustainably logged forest. PLoS One,
9, e102174. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102174.
Wilson, M.L., Boesch, C., Fruth, B., et al. (2014b). Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive strategies
than human impacts. Nature, 513, 414. DOI: 10.1038/nature13727.
Wilson, M.L. and Wrangham, R.W. (2003). Intergroup relations in chimpanzees. Annual Review of Anthropology,
32, 363–92. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.120046.
Winders, D. (2017). USDA Blackout: Scrutinizing the Deletion of Thousands of Animal Welfare Act-Related Records.
American Bar Association Animal Law Committee. Available at: http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/thedl.cfm?
filename=/IL201050/relatedresources/Summer2017.pdf.

341
Winemiller, K.O., McIntyre, P.B., Castello, L., et al. (2016). Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon,
Congo, and Mekong. Science, 351, 128–9. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac7082.
Withanage, H., Masayda, R., Hernandez, R. and Neura, A. (2006). Development Debacles: A Look into ADB’s
Involvement in Environmental Degradation, Involuntary Resettlement and Violation of Indigenous People’s Rights.
Quezon City, Philippines: NGO Forum on ADB.
Wood, C. (2003). Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries: An Overview. Manchester, UK: University
of Manchester.
World Bank (2008). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant in the Amount of SDR 32 Million (US$50
Million Equivalent) to the Democratic Republic of Congo for a High-Priority Road Reopening and Maintenance
Project, Pro-Routes. Report No. 40028. Africa Transport Sector, Country Department AFCC2, Africa Regional
Office. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2009). Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet Concept Stage: Lom Pangar Hydropower Project. Yaoundé,
Cameroon: World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/346811468232166551/pdf/
Integrated0Saf10Sheet1Concept0Stage.pdf.
World Bank (2012a). Cameroon: Lom Pangar Hydropower Project (FY12). Washington DC: World Bank. Available at:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/540341468017355999/Cameroon-Lom-Pangar-Hydropower-
Project-FY12.
World Bank (2012b). Fact Sheet Lom Pangar Hydropower Project, Cameroon. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCAMEROON/Resources/LPHP_Fact_Sheet_Mar2012.pdf.
World Bank (2012c). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the Amount of SDR 85.2 Million (US$132
Million Equivalent) to the Republic of Cameroon for a Lom Pangar Hydropower Project. Washington DC: World
Bank. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCAMEROON/Resources/LPHP-PAD-Mar2012.pdf.
World Bank (2013a). Operational Manual OP 4.01: Environmental Assessment. Revised April 2013. Washington DC:
World Bank. Available at: https://policies.worldbank.org/sites/ppf3/PPFDocuments/090224b0822f7384.pdf.
World Bank (2013b). Operational Manual OP 4.04: Natural Habitats. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at:
https://policies.worldbank.org/sites/ppf3/PPFDocuments/090224b0822f74ac.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2017.
World Bank (2013c). Operational Manual OP 4.36: Forests. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: https://
policies.worldbank.org/sites/ppf3/PPFDocuments/090224b0822f8a50.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2018.
World Bank (2016a). Forest Action Plan FY16-20 Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: documents.worldbank.
org/curated/en/240231467291388831/Forest-action-plan-FY16-20.
World Bank (2016b). Global Tiger Initiative. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: http://www.worldbank.
org/en/topic/environment/brief/the-global-tiger-initiative.
World Bank (2016c). New Environmental and Social Framework. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/08/05/the-new-environmental-and-social-framework.
World Bank (2016d). Projet d’Appui à l’Ouverture et l’Entretien des Routes Hautement Prioritaires (Pro Routes). RDC,
World Bank.
World Bank (2017). The World Bank Environmental and Social Framework. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/383011492423734099/pdf/114278-WP-PUBLIC-13–4-2017–11–23–38-
EnvironmentalandSocialFrameworkWeb.pdf#page=81&zoom=80.
World Bank (n.d.-a). Congo DRC: Pro-Routes Project (Additional Financing). Washington DC: World Bank.
Available at: www.projects.worldbank.org/P120709/congo-drc-pro-routes-project-additional-financing?lang=
en&tab=detail.
World Bank (n.d.-b). Environmental and Social Policies for Projects. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: www.
worldbank.org/en/programs/environmental-and-social-policies-for-projects. Accessed October, 2017.
World Bank (n.d.-c). The Chad-Cameroon Petroleum Development and Pipeline Project: Environmental and Social.
Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01210/WEB/0__
CON-5.HTM.
World Bank (n.d.-d). The Environmental and Social Framework. Washington DC: World Bank. Available at: http://
www.worldbank.org/en/programs/environmental-and-social-policies-for-projects/brief/the-environmental-
and-social-framework-esf.
References
342
Wrangham, R. (2013). Presentation on reintroduction of African apes. Presented at: PASA 2013 Great Ape Reintro
duction Workshop, September 14–18, 2013, Chester, UK.
Wrangham, R.W. (1986). Ecology and social relationships in two species of chimpanzee. In Ecological Aspects of
Social Evolution: Birds and Mammals, ed. D. I. Rubenstein and R. W. Wrangham. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
WRI and MECNT (2010). Atlas Forestier Interactif de la République Démocratique du Congo: Document de Synthèse.
Washington DC: World Resources Institute (WRI) and Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and
Tourism (MECNT) of the Republic of Congo. Available at: https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/pdf/
interactive_forest_atlas_drc_fr.pdf.
Wright, E., Grueter, C.C., Seiler, N., et al. (2015). Energetic responses to variation in food availability in the two
mountain gorilla populations (Gorilla beringei beringei). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 158, 487–500.
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22808.
WSP (2011). Water Supply and Sanitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Turning Finance into Services for
2015 and Beyond. Nairobi, Kenya: Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), Africa Region, World Bank.
Wu, S.-S. (2016). Singapore-Kunming rail link: a ‘belt and road’ case study. The Diplomat, June, 2016. Available at:
http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/singapore-kunming-rail-link-a-belt-and-road-case-study/.
WWF (2006). Free-Flowing Rivers: Economic Luxury or Ecological Necessity? Zeist, the Netherlands: World Wide
Fund for Nature (WWF), Netherlands.
WWF (2014). Driving change in Asia: newly open, Myanmar is a treasure trove of natural assets, cultural diversity
and enthusiasm for the future. World Wildlife Magazine. Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/magazine/
issues/spring-2014.
WWF (2015a). A Global Assessment of Extractive Activity within World Heritage Sites. Gland, Switzerland: World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)-International.
WWF (2015b). The Integrated Resources Corridor Initiative: Scoping Study and Business Plan. Nairobi, Kenya: World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Regional Office for Africa. Available at: http://www.adamsmithinternational.
com/documents/resource-uploads/IRCI_Scoping_Report_Business_Plan.pdf.
WWF (2016). Biodiversity survey, Tanintharyi. Unpublished survey reports. Yangon, Myanmar: World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF).
WWF (n.d.-a). Borneo Mammals. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Available at: wwf.panda.org/what_we_
do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/borneo_animals/borneo_mammals/. Accessed
September 12, 2017.
WWF (n.d.-b). Borneo Wildlife. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Available at: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_
do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/borneo_animals/. Accessed September 12, 2017.
WWF and Dalberg (2012). Fighting Illicit Wildlife Trafficking: A Consultation with Governments. Gland, Switzerland:
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) International. Available at: http://www.dalberg.com/documents/WWF_
Wildlife_Trafficking.pdf.
WWF and TEREA (2014). Evaluation Préliminaire des Appuis à l’ICCN en Matière de Gestion Participative des Aires
Protégées. Kinshasa, DRC: Ministère des infrastructures, travaux publics et reconstruction, Cellule Infra
structures, Projet Pro-Routes.
WWF and TRAFFIC (2015). Strategies for Fighting Corruption in Wildlife Conservation: A Primer. World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF) and TRAFFIC Wildlife Crime Initiative. Available at: http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.
net/downloads/wci_strategies_for_fighting_corruption_wildlife_conservation.pdf.
Wyatt, T. and Ngoc Cao, A. (2015). Corruption and Wildlife Trafficking. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre.
Available at: http://issuu.com/cmi-norway/docs/150603144854–73fa106fbd71418f9a0afa481e93443f/1?e=0.
Yamagiwa, J. and Basabose, A.K. (2009). Fallback foods and dietary partitioning among Pan and Gorilla. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 140, 739–50. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21102.
Yamagiwa, J., Basabose, A.K., Kaleme, K. and Yumoto, T. (2003). Within-group feeding competition and socio
ecological factors influencing social organisation of gorillas in the Kahuzi-Biega National Park, Democratic
Republic of Congo. In Gorilla Biology, ed. A. B. Taylor and M. L. Goldsmith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

343
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A.E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L. and Tockner, K. (2015). A global boom in hydropower dam
construction. Aquatic Sciences, 77, 161–70. DOI: 10.1007/s00027–014–0377–0.
Zhang, W., Hu, Y., Chen, B., et al. (2007). Evaluation of habitat fragmentation of giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca)
on the north slopes of Daxiangling Mountains, Sichuan province, China. Animal Biology, 57, 485–500. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/157075607782232107.
Zhou, J., Wei, F., Li, M., Pui Lok, C.B. and Wang, D. (2008). Reproductive characters and mating behaviour of wild
Nomascus hainanus. International Journal of Primatology, 29, 1037–46. DOI: 10.1007/s10764–008–9272–7.
References
344
Index Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) 4, 15,

18, 20, 21
awareness raising 37, 140, 156, 162, 170, 186–88, 195,
234, 242, 245, 249–50
B
Bagyeli people 63, 65, 66, 67–69, 70, 71, 73
Baka people 63, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75
A Bakun Dam, Borneo 182, 183, 184–86, 187
Abbott’s gray gibbon (Hylobates abbotti) xv, xix, Bangladesh 215, 231, 234
Bantu people 63, 67, 69, 73
xxii–xxiii, 186, 202, 206, 208, 209, 213, 214, 216–17,
Baram Dam, Borneo 182–88
219, see also gibbons (Hylobatidae)
barriers
Abundance Annex 2, 198, www.stateoftheapes.com
artificial 43, 47, 48–49, 50, 52, 57, 58, 173, 232
Africa
natural 16, 17, 110
deforestation/habitat loss see Global Forest Change
“Belt and Road” initiative 15, 18, 26
2000–14 study
benefits from infrastructure
development corridors 13, 14, 15, 22–26, 108, 110, environmental 28
111, 134 social 2, 24, 27–30, 66, 83, 133, 138
distribution of apes xx–xxi Bili–Mbomu Forest Savanna Mosaic, DRC 158, 159, 163
human population boom 108, 128, 161 Bili–Uélé Protected Area Complex (BUPAC), DRC
hydropower expansion 170, 171, 172, 175, 176 140, 158–60, 162–63
monetary cost of infrastructure 81–82 biodiversity action plans (BAPs) 37, 125, 144–45
offset policies 122, 124 biodiversity impact assessments 161–62, 186
poverty 69–70, 161 Blangkejeren–Kutacane (B–K) road, Sumatra 87–88,
protected areas see protected areas in Africa study 91–94
roads 112–15 bonobo (Pan paniscus)
sanctuaries see sanctuaries captive 236, 240, 258, 259, 260
wildlife trafficking 233, 234, 235 diet xxi, xxvi
see also specific countries distribution xx–xxi
African apes see bonobo (Pan paniscus); chimpanzees distribution factors xviii, 17, 48, 53, 110
(Pan troglodytes); gorillas (Gorilla spp.) forest cover and loss in ranges 204, 208, 209,
agile gibbon (Hylobates agilis) xix, xxii–xxiii, 202, 206, 216, 219
208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 216–17, 219, 235, 236, 244, see habitat xxi
also gibbons (Hylobatidae); Hylobates gibbons home ranges xxvi
agriculture 29, 34, 38, 51, 63, 82, 91, 108, 215, 216, 219, overview xii
222, 231–32, see also oil palm plantations reproduction xxiv–xxv
Angola 215, 231, 232, 234, 237–38 socioecology xvii-xxvi
Ape Populations, Environments and Surveys (A.P.E.S.) threats to 22, 51
Portal 2, 120, 161 travel throughout range xxiv
Bornean gray gibbon (Hylobates funereus) xv, xix,
Asia
xxii–xxiii, 206, 208, 209, 211, 217, 219, 234;
community tenure of land 76
see also gibbons (Hylobatidae)
deforestation/habitat loss see Global Forest Change
Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus)
2000–14 study
captive 235, 236
development corridors 15
diet xxvii
distribution of apes xxii–xxiii distribution xviii, xxii–xxiii
economic growth, rapid 18 outside protected areas 251
hydropower expansion 13, 15, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176 population xiv
infrastructure planned 13, 81 reproduction xxiv
offset policies 122, 123, 124 threats to 26–27, 182, 206, 208, 209, 213, 217, 219, 232
protected areas, forest loss in 205–6 see also orangutans (Pongo spp.)
sanctuaries see sanctuaries Bornean white-bearded gibbon (Hylobates
wildlife trafficking 234 albibarbis) xix, xxii–xxiii, 206, 208, 209, 211, 217,
see also specific countries 219, 236; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae)
Asian apes see gibbons (Hylobatidae); Borneo
orangutans (Pongo spp.) community activism 170, 182–88
Asian Development Bank (ADB) 24, 30, 81, 191 corruption 183

345
deforestation 28, 207, 222 overview 255

electrocutions 46 pets 231, 235, 242, 243, 245, 257, 258
infrastructure development 26–27 range states and surrounding regions 260–62
natural capital and infrastructure planning 130 regulatory landscape 255, 259
rainforest and biodiversity 182–83 in sanctuaries see sanctuaries
Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE) types of captivity 225–26, 256
182–88 United States 255–58, 259
translocations 251 Carpenter’s lar gibbon (Hylobates lar carpenteri)
see also Indonesia; Malaysia 208, 209, 219; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae);
Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation (BOSF) 261 lar gibbon (Hylobates lar)
Brazil 5, 12, 15, 32, 112, 173–74, 255, 265 Cellule Infrastructures (CI) 158–59, 160, 162–63
Brunei 215 Central Africa 17, 24, 109, 110, 195, 204; see also
Bukavu–Kisangani Highway, DRC 132–33 specific countries
Bumbuna dam, Sierra Leone 56 Central African Iron Ore Corridor 24
Bureau d’Études Spécialisés en Gestion Central African Republic (CAR) 37, 158, 215, 216, 231, 237
Environnementale et Sociale (BEGES) central chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) xii,
160, 162, 163 xviii, xx–xxi, 65, 69, 177, 178, 208, 209, 212, 217, 219,
Burkina Faso 215 236, 251, 259, see also chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
Burundi 215, 232, 234, 237 central lar gibbon (Hylobates lar entelloides) 208, 210,
bushmeat see meat, wild 219; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae); lar gibbon
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) (Hylobates lar)
37, 126 central Yunnan black-crested gibbon (Nomascus
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda 44–45, concolor jingdongensis) 207, 208, 210, 213, 214,
52, 116–17 217, 219; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae);
Nomascus gibbons
certification 59
Chad–Cameroon pipeline 63, 65, 66–69, 70, 177, 178, 179
C chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
Calabar deep port, Nigeria 138–39, 141 avoiding habitat of 120
Cam Iron Mine, Cameroon 66, 70, 71, 72 captive 226, 227, 235–36, 237, 244, 255–56, 257, 258,
Cambodia 259, 260–61, 262
deforestation/habitat loss 203, 207, 215, 216, 222 diet xxi, xxvi
infrastructure development 18 habitat xxi, 274
sanctuaries 236, 262 habitat health 269, 270
wildlife laws 234 home ranges xxvi
Cameroon infanticide xxiv
anti-poaching measures 121, 231, 234 intergroup aggression xxvi, 49, 51
Chad–Cameroon pipeline 63, 65, 66–69, 70, 177, memorization of locations xxiii
178, 179 overview xii–xiii
dams 24, 161, 170, 177–81 reintroduction and translocation 240
deforestation/habitat loss 63, 208, 215 reproduction xxiv–xxv
drivers of infrastructure expansion 62–65, 66 road crossing 46, 52
economic growth, plans for 177–78 socioecology xvii-xxvi
governance and corruption issues 63–64
threats to
indigenous peoples 63–64, 65, 66, 67–69, 70–76
disease 52
infrastructure development 24, 66, 76–78
habitat loss 25, 203, 204, 211
Ntam settlement 71–72
human conflicts 232
protected areas 24, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 142, 161, 178–81
human influx and settlement 268
road and railway impacts 69–73
sanctuaries 236, 237, 260 hunting/poaching 17, 46, 121, 180, 231
Campo Ma’an Reserve, Cameroon 24, 68 mining 232
Cao Vit gibbon (Nomascus nasutus) xvi, xxviii, xix, noise pollution 53, 60
xxii–xxiii, 205, 207, 208, 210, 213, 217, 219, see also roads 46, 53, 83, 95–99, 268–70
gibbons (Hylobatidae); Nomascus gibbons trafficking 158, 234, 235–36, 237
capacity building 25, 75, 156, 159, 160, 238 water availability, decreased 53
captive apes see also central chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes
breeding programs 234, 243–44, 259 troglodytes); eastern chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes
Europe 258–59 schweinfurthii); Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee
Japan 257, 258 (Pan troglodytes ellioti); western chimpanzee
key findings 226–27 (Pan troglodytes verus)
Index
346
China impacts on apes

“Belt and Road” initiative 15, 18, 26 assessment 174–76
“build–operate–transfer projects” 18 barriers to dispersal 173–74
deforestation/habitat loss 207, 215 drownings 179
economic growth, rapid 18 electrocutions 179–80
illegal animal parts, import of 150 general impacts 50
impact on infrastructure expansion 12, 17, 18–19 habitat loss 13, 56, 112, 173, 195
mineral exploitation in Africa 13 human influx and settlement 46–47, 180
sanctuaries 236 hunting/poaching 179
social and environmental guidelines 18–19, 38 mitigation strategies 190
strategic environmental planning 129–30 impacts on environment
climate change 129, 145, 232 biodiversity loss 186
communities see local communities deforestation 13, 15, 112, 173, 186
Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée (CBG) 125 ecosystem services loss 195
compensation measures 27–28, 64, 66, 68–69, 75, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 173
119–20, 144, 145, 147, 190 hydrological systems 53–54, 168, 172–73
Congo Basin 13, 22, 24–25, 100, 111, 113, 114, 177; impacts on people 167–69, 173, 178, 184–85
see also Central Africa low-carbon energy 130–31, 168
connectivity number in ape range states 175, 176
awareness raising 139–40 planning, system-scale approach to 195–96
disruption of 43, 51, 52, 111, 134, 137, 173–74 projected development 13, 108, 168
importance 17, 99, 149 protected areas, threats to 24, 111–12, 178–81
planning considerations 154–55, 161 Virunga, DRC 126–27
restoration measures 57, 121, 220 Dawei road link, Myanmar 146–57
conservation action plans (CAPs) 99, 104, 244, decommissioning phase 47
250–51, 278 deforestation along roads
construction phase 44–46, 162 addressing effects of road development 90, 94,
Convention on International Trade in Endangered 99, 102, 103
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) case studies
231, 233, 234 approach 86
corporate social responsibility (CSR) 146 data sets 266–67
corruption 3–4, 27, 63, 91, 141, 146, 248 forest loss alerts and analysis 100–101
“critical habitat” criterion 20–21 Gunung Leuser National Park, Sumatra 91–94
crop raiding 48, 51, 179 Leuser Ecosystem, Sumatra 87–90
Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) xiii, xviii, Western Tanzania 95–99
xx–xxi, 52, 116, 142, 143, 204, 208, 209, 217, 219, mitigation hierarchy 102
236, 240, see also gorillas (Gorilla spp.); western monitoring approaches 83–86, 104–5;
gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) see also Global Forest Watch (GFW) platform
Cross River National Park, Nigeria 116, 135, 141–43, 144 recommendations
Cross River superhighway, Nigeria 138–39, 141–45 road planning in local context 103–4
cumulative impact assessments (CIAs) 20, 124 zoning 86, 102–3
cumulative impacts 25, 33, 56, 124–28, 164 deforestation/habitat loss
for agriculture 215, 216, 219, 222, 231–32
for development corridors 111
Global Forest Change 2000–14 study see Global
D Forest Change 2000–14 study
dams impact by infrastructure type 50
Africa 48–49, 56, 108, 127, 161, 170, 171, 177–81, 189 impacts on apes 28, 43, 46–49, 51–52, 85, 138, 214,
Asia xxvi, 19, 34–35, 168–69, 171, 174, 182–88, 219, 221, 231, 232, 268
191, 195 for infrastructure development 12, 13, 15, 22, 112,
associated infrastructure 15, 173, 174, 176 145, 173, 186; see also deforestation along roads
biodiversity offsets 161–62, 174 monitoring 84–86, 100–101, 114, 115, 200–202;
case study: Cameroon 177–81 see also Global Forest Change 2000–14 study
case study: Malaysian Borneo 182–88 for oil palm plantations 32–33, 34, 38, 84, 87,
community resistance 19, 186–88 89–90, 100, 183, 184, 208, 216, 222
decommissioning 272–73 in protected areas (PAs) 211–13, 219–20, 221, 223
global scale 171 for roads see deforestation along roads
Hydropower by Design 189–91 see also logging
Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Protocol 189 conservation work 126–27

347
dams 111–12, 127, 171 environmental impacts of infrastructure development

deforestation 159, 160, 215, 216 13, 15–17; see also deforestation/habitat loss
GLAD forest loss alerts 100 Equatorial Guinea 215, 231, 234, 237
human conflicts 126 Europe 171, 172, 227, 258–59
human population growth 232–33 European Investment Bank 20, 178, 181
hunting/poaching 231 European Union (EU) and Commission 113, 115, 118,
mining 158, 180, 232 133, 158–59, 193
natural capital and infrastructure planning 130 extractive industries 15, 22–27, 28, 46–47, 53, 60, 63,
Pro-Routes project 138, 140, 158–63, 271–72 64, 65, 66–71, 72, 108, 116, 120, 125, 133, 147, 158, 177, 178,
protected areas 106–7, 126–27, 132–34, 135, 140, 179, 180, 219–20, 232
158–60, 162–63
roads 106–7, 132–33, 140, 158–60, 162–63, 271–72
sanctuaries 235, 236, 237, 260
socioeconomic development 126–27 F
wildlife trafficking 232, 234 fires 12, 94, 231–32, 276
Deng Deng National Park, Cameroon 161, 178–81 food demand, human 29
development banks 4, 20, 54, 73, 104; foraging xxiii, 51
see also multilateral lenders free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) 64, 75, 78,
development corridors 127, 188
Africa 14, 15, 22–26, 108, 110, 111, 134 funding for infrastructure 4–5, 18, 20–21, 103, 104, 191;
Asia 15, 26–27, 182–88 see also development banks; multilateral lenders
scale of development 13
Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA)
118, 161
disease G
reintroduction/translocation risk 240
Gabon
roads and rivers as barriers to 17
dams 48–49, 166–67, 189
transmission to/from humans/domestic
deforestation 215, 216
animals 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52–53, 57, 214, 242
oil exploration 60
distribution of apes xx–xxi, xxii–xxiii
protected areas 60
drivers of infrastructure expansion 12, 18–21, 32, railways 24
62–65, 66, 171–72 roads 44–45, 80–81
drownings 46, 179 sanctuaries 236, 237, 260
TRIDOM landscape 24–25
wildlife trafficking 234
E Gambia 76, 260
Gaoligong hoolock (Hoolock tianxing) xiv, xviii
East Africa 15, 22, 111, 204; see also specific countries gas extraction see extractive industries
eastern chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes geothermal energy 30, 192–95
schweinfurthii) xii, xviii, xx–xxi, 22, 86, 95–99, Ghana 215, 216, 237
116, 132, 158, 208, 209, 216, 218, 219, 236, see also gibbons (Hylobatidae)
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) captive 199, 236, 237, 240, 257–58, 259, 261, 262
eastern gorillas (Gorilla beringei) xiii, xxiv, xxv, 122; dependence on forest xxviii
see also Grauer’s gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri); diet xxviii
mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) dispersal xxviii–xxix
eastern hoolock (Hoolock leuconedys) xiv, xviii, habitat xxvii–xxviii, 274
xxii–xxiii, 201, 205, 208, 209, 219; see also home ranges xxviii
hoolocks (Hoolock spp.) overview xiv–xvi
Eco Activists for Governance and Law Enforcement reproduction xxviii
(EAGLE) Network, 245–46 socioecology xxvii–xxix
ecosystem services 3, 29, 87, 129, 149, 156, 193, 272 threats to
education 128, 227, 229, 242, 245, 249–50; dams 15, 170, 175, 176
see also awareness raising development corridors 26
electrocutions 46, 53, 179, 264–65 electrocution 53
environmental and social impact assessments habitat loss 48, 51, 85, 149, 202–3, 207, 213–15,
(ESIAs) 20, 32–34, 54, 56, 78, 120, 163, 178; 216, 219, 222
see also environmental impact assessments (EIAs) human influx and settlement 16
environmental impact assessments (EIAs) 19, 29, hunting/poaching 150, 231
32–34, 54, 56–57, 60, 102, 140, 141, 142–43, 144–45, roads 87, 150, 232
152–54, 156 trafficking 152, 234
Index
348
wildlife bridges 58–59, 121 Guinea

see also specific genus; specific species Chinese infrastructure projects 19
Global Accessibility Map 115 cumulative impacts case study 125
Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) dams 161
229, 230, 241, 242, 243, 256, 261 deforestation 215
Global Forest Change 2000–14 study 202–223 mining 25–26, 120, 125
Annex VIII: data sets 273 Mount Nimba Biosphere Reserve 116
Annex IX: forest habitat definitions 274 rescued apes 235–36
Annex X: canopy density percentages 275 roads 54–55
Annex XI: GFW tool’s value and limitations sanctuaries 236, 237, 260
276–77 wildlife trafficking 234, 235–36
Annex XII: habitat assessment, Guinea Alumina Corporation (GAC) 125
future refinements of 277–78 Guinea-Bissau 215, 234, 237
Annex XIII: conservation action plans 278 Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP), Sumatra
Global Forest Watch Fires 276 87–94, 192–95, 265
Global Forest Watch (GFW) platform 84, 85–86, 89,
90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 105, 115, 202, 207,
216, 222, 265–68, 276–77
Global Roadless Areas Map 113 H
Google Earth Engine 84, 115 habitat xxi, 274
Google Maps 113 habitat loss see deforestation along roads;
gorillas (Gorilla spp.) deforestation/habitat loss; logging
captive 228–29, 234, 237, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262 habitat protection 47, 240, 241
diet xxiii, xxv Hainan gibbon (Nomascus hainanus) xvi, xxviii, xix,
habitat xxi, xxv, 274 xxii–xxiii, 205, 207, 208, 210, 214, 215, 218, 219,
home ranges xxv see also gibbons (Hylobatidae); Nomascus gibbons
infanticide xxiv home ranges xxiii
intergroup aggression xxv–xxvi Hong Kong University (HKU) 140, 147, 152–54, 156–57
overview xiii hoolocks (Hoolock spp.) xiv–xv, xviii, 123, 211; see also
reproduction xxiv–xxv eastern hoolock (Hoolock leuconedys); gibbons
socioecology xvii–xxvi, 198 (Hylobatidae); western hoolock (Hoolock hoolock)
threats to human conflicts/wars 126, 132–33, 146, 158, 232
development corridors 25 human influx and settlement
disease 52–53 construction camps 44, 46–47, 66, 179
flooding 179 river-enabled 16, 17
habitat loss 211 road-enabled 50–51, 71–72, 82, 91, 94, 95, 111, 158,
hunting/poaching 13, 50–51, 179, 180 173, 268
mining 180 human population growth 2, 32, 95, 108, 232–33, 254
noise pollution 53, 60 human–wildlife conflict 48, 51, 179, 231, 236
roads 52 Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) 245–46
trafficking 234, 237 hunting/poaching
travel throughout range xxiv, xxv anti-poaching measures 60, 121, 162, 231, 234,
see also Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli); 242, 250
Grauer’s gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri); deforestation-enabled 111, 214, 221
mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei); impact by infrastructure type 50
western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) law enforcement issues 231, 233
Grand Inga Hydroelectric Project, DRC 111–12 linked to human conflicts 133
Grand Poubara Dam, Gabon 48–49 linked to infrastructure development 44, 133
Grauer’s gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) in protected areas 215
xviii, xx–xxi, 22, 24, 109, 132–34, 202, 204, 208, road-enabled 12, 13, 15, 50–51, 66, 82, 87, 138, 150,
209, 214, 216, 217, 219, 232, 236, see also gorillas 158, 162, 173
(Gorilla spp.) for wild meat 13, 72, 133, 142, 150, 152, 158, 162,
great apes see bonobo (Pan paniscus); chimpanzees 214, 231
(Pan troglodytes); gorillas (Gorilla spp.); hydrological impacts 50, 53–54, 168, 172–73
orangutans (Pongo spp.) hydropower see dams
green energy 12, 30–31 Hydropower by Design 189–91
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 173 Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol 189, 191
gROADS (Global Roads Open Access Data Set) Hylobates gibbons xv, xix, 123, 211, 213, 235;
112, 118 see also gibbons (Hylobatidae); specific species

349
I intergroup aggression xxvi, 49, 51

International Finance Corporation (IFC) 20, 21, 37,
Ilagala–Rukoma–Kashagulu (I–R–K) road, 120, 162
Tanzania 95–99 International Union for Conservation of Nature
impact assessments 32–37; see also environmental (IUCN) xvii, 109, 141, 158, 201, 273, 274
and social impact assessments (ESIAs); invasive species 44, 57, 121
environmental impact assessments (EIAs); InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services
strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) and Tradeoffs) Scenario Generator 153
impacts on apes, infrastructure investment in infrastructure
and ape adaptability 50 foreign 4–5, 12, 13, 15, 18–22, 27, 108
barriers to dispersal 43, 47, 48–49, 50, 52, 57, 58, incentives and disincentives 3
173, 232 risks 28
connectivity loss 43, 51, 52, 111, 134, 137, 173–74 UN Sustainable Development Goals 129
disease transmission see disease World Bank safeguard policy framework
drownings 46, 179 162, 271–72
electrocutions 46, 53, 179, 264–65 Italian–Thai Development Company
food availability 46, 48, 49, 51, 232 (ITALTHAI) 147, 156
general impacts 47–50 Ivory Coast 215, 216, 231, 234, 237, 260
habitat loss see deforestation/habitat loss
human–wildlife conflict 48, 51, 179, 231, 236
hunting/poaching see hunting/poaching
hydrological impacts 53–54 J
by infrastructure phase Japan 257, 258
construction 44–46, 53
decommissioning 47
utilization/production 46–47
movement away from human disturbance 44–45 K
noise pollution 42, 44–45, 50, 53, 60, 180, 193 Kahuzi-Biega National Park (KBNP), DRC 132–34, 135
overview 41–42, 43–44 Kappi geothermal project, Sumatra 192–95
steps to reduce Karen National Union (KNU) 146, 147
environmental impact assessments (EIAs) Kenya 22, 260, 265
54, 56 key findings
knowledge gaps, reducing 59–60 captive apes and sanctuaries 226–27
mitigation strategies 56–57, 58 dams 170
vehicle/equipment collisions 46, 50, 52, 53, 149–50 deforestation along roads 82–83
wildlife–human impact links 60–62 Global Forest Change 2000–14 study 202–3, 207
wildlife trafficking 150, 231, 234, 237–39, 245–50 infrastructure impacts 42–43
impacts on local people, infrastructure 43, 60–64, protected areas in Africa 108
66–74, 142, 145, 146, 147, 167–69, 173, 183, 184, road planning 140
187, 188 sustainability 12
India 53, 85, 215, 231, 232–33, 234, 236 Kloss’ gibbon (Hylobates klossii) xix, xxii–xxiii,
Indonesia 206, 208, 210, 219, 234, 236; see also gibbons
deforestation 28, 84, 199, 202, 203, 215, 216, 220–21, (Hylobatidae)
222, 231–32 knowledge gaps, reducing 59–60
development corridors 26 Kribi deepwater port, Cameroon 65, 66, 70
geothermal energy projects 192–95
GLAD forest loss alerts 100
human population growth 232–33, 254
hunting/poaching 231 L
natural capital and infrastructure planning 130 Ladia Galaska Road Network, Sumatra 87, 94
offset policies 122, 123 Lamu Port, South Sudan, Ethiopia Transport
oil palm plantations 84, 216, 220–21 (LAPSSET) corridor 15, 22
rainforests 207 land use planning, strategic 34, 38, 56–57, 90, 104, 124,
sanctuaries 235, 236, 261, 262 128, 130, 140
wildlife trafficking 234, 235 Landsat satellite 85–86, 100, 115, 266, 267
see also Borneo; Sumatra Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR)
infrastructure, defining 2 34–35, 168–69, 171, 207, 215, 231, 234, 236
Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature Laotian black-crested gibbon (Nomascus concolor lu)
(ICCN) 126–27, 133, 158, 160, 162, 163 208, 210, 219; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae);
Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) 161 Nomascus gibbons
Index
350
lar gibbon (Hylobates lar) xv, xix, xxii–xxiii, 149, 205, Mali 215, 234, 237
206, 234, 235, 236, see also gibbons (Hylobatidae); Maputo Development Corridor, Mozambique 24, 25
specific subspecies Mbalam–Kribi proposed railway 24, 66
law enforcement Mbe Mountains, Nigeria 141, 142, 143
improving 233, 234, 242–43, 245–46, 248–49, meat, wild 13, 72, 133, 150, 152, 158, 162, 214, 231
250, 254 minimization measures 82, 102, 121, 189, 190
lack of 94, 158, 177, 213–14, 231, 245 mining see extractive industries
working with sanctuaries 231, 239, 245–46, 249, mitigation hierarchy 36, 82, 102, 119–28, 189–90
250, 254–55 mitigation strategies 12, 36–37, 56–57, 58, 78, 140, 156,
Leuser Ecosystem, Sumatra 16, 87–94, 103, 170, 192–95 164, 264–65; see also mitigation hierarchy
Liberia 76, 215, 231, 234, 236, 237, 260–61 modeling 140, 152–57
light pollution 50, 53, 150 moloch gibbon (Hylobates moloch) xv, xix, xxii–xxiii,
Loango National Park, Gabon 60 202, 206, 208, 210, 219, 235, 236, see also gibbons
local communities (Hylobatidae)
advocacy 75, 164 mortality, infrastructure-linked 46–47, 48, 49, 51
awareness raising see awareness raising mosaic landscapes 251–53
broken promises to 66, 73, 184 Mount Nimba Biosphere Reserve, Guinea 116
capacity building 25, 75, 156, 160 mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) xiii,
community-managed forests 62, 84–85, 188 xviii, xx–xxi, xxiv–xxv, 24, 44–45, 116–17, 126, 204,
community tenure of land 74, 75–76 208, 209, 212, 214, 217, 219, 232, see also gorillas
compensation see compensation measures (Gorilla spp.)
dependence on forest 66, 67–68, 73, 161 Mozal aluminum smelter, Mozambique 25
distrust of NGOs/institutions 147, 156 Müller’s gibbon (Hylobates muelleri) xv, xix, xxii–xxiii,
engagement/participation 25, 37, 67, 74–75, 78, 206, 208, 210, 217, 219, 234, 235, 236, see also
162, 164, 170 gibbons (Hylobatidae)
impact mitigation strategies 74–76 multilateral lenders 4, 12, 18, 20–21, 33, 191
impacts of infrastructure see impacts on local Murum Dam, Borneo 182, 183, 184, 186
people, infrastructure Myanmar
land rights, protection of 75–76 dams 19
representative structures 75 Dawei road link 146–57
resistance/opposition 4, 75, 182–88 deforestation 149–52, 215
rights of 62–64, 69, 73, 74–75, 76, 142, 147, 183, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) 156
187, 188 human conflicts 146, 147
logging 56, 63–64, 66, 68, 82, 83–84, 87, 91, 94, 102, land policies 147
108, 113, 114, 115, 147, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 187 logging 146
Lom Pangar Hydropower Project, Cameroon natural capital 130
161, 170, 177–81 oil/gas extraction 146
protected areas 146, 147
Western Forest Complex 149
M Myinmoletkat Nature Reserve, Myanmar 147
Mae Guang Udom Tara dam, Thailand 191
Mahale Mountains National Park (MMNP), Tanzania
95–99, 104
Mahmud, Abdul Taib 183 N
Maiombe National Park, Angola 237–38 Nam Ou Cascade Hydropower Project, Lao PDR
Malaysia 34–35, 168–69
Central Forest Spine 26 natural capital 12, 129–31, 153, 156, 164
dams xxvi natural gas extraction see extractive industries
deforestation 84, 202, 203, 215, 216, 220–21, 222, 231 natural resource exploitation see extractive industries
development corridors 26, 182 Nepal 84–85
electrocutions 46, 53 nests xxiii, 48, 51, 54, 212
offset policies 122, 123 Nigeria
sanctuaries 236, 262 corruption 141
wildlife trafficking 234 Cross River National Park 116, 135, 141–42, 143
zoos 234, 235 Cross River superhighway 52, 116, 138–39, 141–45
see also Borneo deforestation 208, 215
Malaysian lar gibbon (Hylobates lar lar) 202, 208, 210, human population 141
213, 214, 216, 217, 219; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae); oil reserves 141
lar gibbon (Hylobates lar) rainforest 141–42

351
REDD+ project 145 removal from home territory 251

sanctuaries 236, 237, 260 trafficking 234
underdevelopment 141 travel throughout range xxvii
wildlife trafficking 234 wildlife bridges 58, 121
Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes
ellioti) xii, xviii, xx–xxi, 142, 208, 209, 217, 219, 236;
see also chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
noise pollution 42, 44–45, 50, 53, 60, 180, 193 P
Nomascus gibbons xv–xvi, xix, 123, 211, 235; see also Palangka Raya Declaration on Deforestation and the
gibbons (Hylobatidae); specific species Rights of Forest Peoples 62–63
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 4, 36, 74, palm plantations see oil palm plantations
75, 94, 139, 142–45, 147, 187, 194, 227, 246, 249, 251 Pan African Sanctuary Alliance (PASA) 227, 229, 230,
northeast Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio) 244, 259
206, 208, 209, 219; see also Bornean orangutan “Pan-Borneo Highway” 26
(Pongo pygmaeus); orangutans (Pongo spp.) Paris climate accord 129, 130, 145
northern white-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus pathogens see disease
leucogenys) xvi, xix, xxii–xxiii, 205, 208, 210, Peru 83, 86, 100, 101
219, 236; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae); pileated gibbon (Hylobates pileatus) xix, xxii–xxiii,
Nomascus gibbons 205, 207, 208, 210, 214, 217, 219, 235, 236, see also
northern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus gibbons (Hylobatidae)
annamensis) xvi, xix, xxii–xxiii, 205, 236; see also pipelines
gibbons (Hylobatidae); Nomascus gibbons Chad–Cameroon pipeline 63, 65, 66–69, 70, 177,
northwest Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus 178, 179
pygmaeus) xviii, 206, 208, 209, 213, 219; see also impacts on apes 66
Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus); Yadana pipeline 147
orangutans (Pongo spp.) planning, infrastructure
Ntakata Forest, Tanzania 95, 96, 99 connectivity considerations 154–55, 161
Ntam settlement, Cameroon 71–72 conservation action planning (CAP) 99
costs and benefits, optimizing 28–30
green energy, promoting 30–31
integrated land use planning 140
O local community participation/engagement
Oban Hills, Nigeria 141–42 25, 37, 67, 74–75, 78, 162, 164, 170
offsetting 37, 102, 120, 121–24, 156, 174, 189, 190 Natural Capital Protocol 129–31
oil/gas extraction see extractive industries regional planning 12
oil palm plantations 32–33, 34, 38, 66, 84, 87, 89–90, road planning see road planning
183, 216, 222, 251 stakeholder engagement 21, 124, 195
OpenStreetMap (OSM) initiative 113, 115 strategic land use planning 30–31, 34, 38, 56–57,
Orangutan Veterinary Advisory Group (OVAG) 90, 104, 124, 128, 130, 140
229–30 for sustainability 28–31, 34, 38
orangutans (Pongo spp.) system-scale approach 195–96
aggression between males xxvii wildlife and ecosystem services, including 149
captive 234, 235, 258, 259, 261, 262 poaching see hunting/poaching
diet xxi, xxiii, xxvii ports 15, 50, 66, 70, 125, 139
dispersal xxvi–xxvii poverty 66, 68, 69–70, 78, 126, 158, 161
habitat xxi, 274 power lines 40–41, 46, 50, 53, 112, 264–65
home ranges xxvi–xxvii Pro-Routes project, DRC 138, 140, 158–63, 271–72
overview xiv production phase 46–47
reintroduction and translocation 240 protected areas in Africa study 107–35
reproduction xxiv–xxv protected areas (PAs)
sanctuaries 229–30, 231, 232, 261, 262 avoidance measures 190
socioecology xviii–xxvii buffer zones 213
threats to deforestation 62, 203–6, 208, 211–13, 219–20, 221,
development corridors 26 223, 265, 266
disease 52–53 Digital Observatory for Protected Areas
electrocution 46, 53 (DOPA) 118
habitat loss 42, 202–3, 208, 211, 214, 216, 222, impacts on local people 62–63, 68
232, 240, 251 importance 199, 202, 222–23
hunting/poaching 231 infrastructure development within 22, 24–25, 64,
noise pollution 53 87, 219–20
Index
352
as offset policy 68, 99, 190 roads

protecting 31, 37 deforestation see deforestation along roads
species confined to 142, 143, 202, 218 global map for prioritizing building 30–31
World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) 273 impacts on apes
see also protected areas in Africa study; specific behavioral changes 133
areas; specific countries; specific protected areas general impacts 12, 50–51, 66, 82, 137–38,
PT Hitay Panas Energy 193–95 149–50, 152, 158, 161, 170, 173
habitat loss see deforestation along roads
human influx and settlement 51, 91, 94, 95, 111
hunting/poaching, increased 13, 50–51, 87, 232
R trafficking 232
Rabi oil field, Gabon 60 vehicle collisions 46, 50, 52, 53
railways knowledge gaps 59
Africa 24, 65, 66, 69–72, 121, 125, 177 length, global 41
Asia 26 length in ape ranges 176
impacts on apes 50, 51–52, 71 links with other infrastructure development
impacts on local people 66 15, 18, 112
inequitable social impacts 69–70 mapping 112–15
REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation monitoring approaches 83–86, 104–5; see also
Global Forest Watch (GFW) platform
and Forest Degradation) agreement (UN)
planning see road planning
62, 142, 145
rivers, lessons from 15–17
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory
scale of development 2–3, 11, 13, 81–82
(RAEL), California 183–84, 186, 188
size and use factors 47, 52
renewable energy 30–31, 170, 192–95, see also dams;
social benefits, inequitable 69–70
geothermal energy; solar power
spreading 31–32
Republic of Congo
see also development corridors; specific project;
awareness raising 245
specific road
chimpanzee releases 240
Rwanda 22, 126, 130, 215, 235, 237, 260
deforestation 22, 215, 265
development corridors 22–23, 24–25, 111
hunting/poaching 13, 231
railways 24 S
sanctuaries 236, 237, 260
sanctuaries
TRIDOM landscape 24–25
ape confiscation factors 237–39
benefits to ape conservation and welfare
restoration/rehabilitation, habitat 36–37, 47, 59, 102,
241–42
121, 129, 189
breeding apes 243–44
rivers, lessons from 15–17
capacity 236, 243–45
road planning
collaborations 230, 251
case studies
corruption issues 248–49
Democratic Republic of Congo 138, 140, demand 261
158–63, 271–72 education and awareness 242, 245, 249
key findings 140 euthanasia policies 244
Myanmar 146–57 funding 246–48, 252–54
Nigeria 138–39, 141–45 habitat protection and conservation
overall conclusion 164 planning 250–52
overview 138–40 history/scope of range state sanctuaries
external environmental experts, value of 163, 164 227, 229
local context application 103–4 intake factors 231–33, 235–36
local people, inclusion/engagement of 164 intake policies 245–47
mitigation strategies overcrowding 237
avoiding critical habitat 31–32, 57, 134, 149, 161 overview 225–26, 254–55
minimum width, keeping to 57 photos of ape–human contact 243
wildlife crossings/bridges 57, 58–59 regulations and law enforcement 246–50
pre-planning assessments 29, 161, 164 reintroduction and translocation 238–41, 251, 261
strategic 29–30, 30–31, 54, 57 roles outside sanctuary 242
zoning 86, 102 social media use 243, 244
RoadFree initiative 113 standards 228–31, 242–43
Roadless Forest initiative 113 state responsibilities 244–45, 246–48

353
status and outlook 236–39, 262

sustainability 252–54
T
Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE), Tamiang Hulu–Lokop (TH–L) road, Sumatra
Borneo 182–88 87–90
satellite imagery 82, 83, 84–86, 95, 100, 104–5, 112–16; Tana River Primate Reserve 22
see also Global Forest Change 2000–14 study; Tanintharyi region, Myanmar 146–57
Global Forest Watch (GFW) platform Tanzania
Save Rivers, Borneo 186–88 conservation action plans (CAPs) 278
scenario modeling 152–54 deforestation 95–99, 215
Senegal 215, 234, 236, 237 goldfields 22
siamang (Symphlangus syndactylus) xvi, xix, xxii– human population growth 232–33
xxiii, 86, 87, 202, 206, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 217, land rights, protection of 76
219, 234, 235, 236, 258, 261, see also gibbons National Chimpanzee Management Plan 268–70
(Hylobatidae) roads 83, 95–99, 103–4, 268–70
Sierra Leone 56, 215, 216, 234, 236, 237, 260 wildlife trafficking 234
Simandou iron ore project, Guinea 25–26, 120 Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) xiv, xviii, 195
SINOPEC (China Petroleum & Chemical temporary infrastructure, dismantling 57, 59
Corporation) 60 Thailand
social groups, ape xvii, xxviii, 48–49 dams 174, 191
socioecology, deforestation 215
gibbons xxii–xxiii, xxvii–xxix forest complexes 149
great apes xvii–xxvii roads 146–57
socioeconomic development 18, 27, 126–27 sanctuaries 236, 262
solar power 30, 171, 178 vehicle collisions 149–50
South America 15, 171, 258; see also Brazil; Peru wildlife trafficking 150, 234
South Sudan 15, 22, 158, 215, 216, 237 zoos 235
southern white-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus tiger habitat study 84–85
siki) xvi, xix, xxii–xxiii, 205, 208, 210, 219, 236; see Tonkin black-crested gibbon (Nomascus concolor
also gibbons (Hylobatidae); Nomascus gibbons concolor) 208, 210, 217, 219; see also gibbons
southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus (Hylobatidae); Nomascus gibbons
gabriellae) xvi, xix, xxii–xxiii, 205, 208, 210, 214, tourism 116, 117, 134, 161, 180
219, 234, 236; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae); trafficking, wildlife 17, 150, 158, 179, 227, 231, 234, 235,
Nomascus gibbons 237–39, 245–50
southwest Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus TRIDOM landscape and development corridor 24–25
wurmbii) xviii, 206, 208, 209, 217, 219; see also
Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus);
orangutans (Pongo spp.)
stakeholder engagement 21, 124, 195 U
standards, ecological and social 59 Uganda
strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) 20, 21, Bwindi Impenetrable National Park 44–45, 52,
32–34, 36–37, 129 116–17
Sumatra dams 171
deforestation 84, 87–94, 222 deforestation 215
development corridors 26 development corridors 22
geothermal energy plants 30, 170, 192–95 human population growth 232–33
human settlement, illegal 16–17 roads 113, 116–17
natural capital 130 sanctuaries 236, 237, 260
oil palm plantations 32–33 wildlife trafficking 234
protected areas 91–94 United Nations (UN)
roads 87–94, 103 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 64
see also Indonesia Environmental Program (UNEP) 138
Sumatran lar gibbon (Hylobates lar vestitus) 86, 87, 90, forest-protection agreements 62
208, 210, 217, 219; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae); REDD+ project, Nigeria 142, 145
lar gibbon (Hylobates lar) Sustainable Development Goals 75, 129
Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) xiv, xviii, xxii– UNESCO sites 111, 116–17, 126, 132–33, 141, 192, 193
xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, 16, 26–27, 86, 87–94, 206, 208, 209, World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) 273
213, 219, 235, 236, see also orangutans (Pongo spp.) United States 226, 227, 245–46, 255–58, 259, 272
sustainability of global infrastructure expansion unsustainability of global infrastructure expansion
12, 28-38 see also unsustainability of global 13-28, 32, see also sustainability of global
infrastructure expansion infrastructure expansion
Index
354
V Y
vehicle/equipment collisions 46, 50, 52, 53, 149–50 Yadana pipeline, Myanmar 147
vibration pollution 50, 53 Yunnan lar gibbon (Hylobates lar yunnanensis) 207,
Viet Nam 207, 215, 231, 234, 236, 262 208, 210, 219; see also gibbons (Hylobatidae);
Virunga Alliance 127 lar gibbon (Hylobates lar)
Virunga National Park, DRC 60, 126–27
Z
W Zambia 116, 260, 261
Walvis Bay Development Corridor, Africa 24 zoos 226, 230, 234, 235, 237, 256, 258–59, 261–62
water availability 53–54
West Africa 25–26, 31, 110, 195, 203, 216;
see also specific countries
west Yunnan black-crested gibbon (Nomascus
concolor furvogaster) 208, 210, 214, 217, 219; see
also gibbons (Hylobatidae); Nomascus gibbons
western black-crested gibbon (Nomascus
concolor) xvi, xix, xxii–xxiii, xxviii, 202, 205; see
also gibbons (Hylobatidae); Nomascus gibbons;
specific subspecies
western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) xii, xviii,
xx–xxi, 26, 125, 161, 207, 208, 209, 216, 219, 236, 259,
see also chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
western gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) xiii, xxv, 17, 122; see
also Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli);
gorillas (Gorilla spp.); western lowland gorilla
(Gorilla gorilla gorilla )
western hoolock (Hoolock hoolock) xiv, xviii, xxii–
xxiii, 205, 208, 209, 219, 236; see also hoolocks
(Hoolock spp.)
western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla )
xiii, xviii, xx–xxi, 13, 25, 37, 65, 69, 162, 177, 178–80,
181, 204, 208, 209, 212, 214, 217, 219, 235, 236, 251,
see also gorillas (Gorilla spp.); western gorillas
(Gorilla gorilla)
Wild Animal Rescue Network (WARN) 229, 230
Wild meat see meat, wild
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 142, 144–45,
147, 178
wildlife crossing sites and bridges 57, 58–59, 121, 149,
154–55
wind power 30
World Bank
Africa, infrastructure development for 161–62
Deng Deng National Park, Cameroon 178, 180–81
environmental safeguard policies 4, 20, 21, 68,
162, 191, 271–72
Global Accessibility Map 115
indigenous people, failure towards 67
Lom Pangar Hydropower Project, Cameroon
178, 180–81
mitigation hierarchy 82, 120
Pro-Routes project, DRC 158–60, 271–72
smart green infrastructure 82
World Indigenous Summit on Environment and
Rivers (WISER) 188
World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) 140, 141, 144, 147, 152–54, 156–57, 162–63

2017
Infrastructure development in Africa and Asia is expanding at breakneck

speed, largely in biodiversity-rich developing nations. The trend reflects
governments’ efforts to promote economic growth in response to increas-
State of the Apes 3. 9781108436410 Cover. C M Y K
ing populations, rising consumption rates and persistent inequalities.

Large-scale infrastructure development is regularly touted as a way to
State of the Apes

meet the growing demand for energy, transport and food—and as a
key to poverty alleviation. In practice, however, road networks, hydro-
power dams and “development corridors” tend to have adverse effects
on local populations, natural habitats and biodiversity. Such projects
typically weaken the capacity of ecosystems to maintain ecological
functions on which wildlife and human communities depend, particu- Infrastructure Development and
larly in the face of climate change.
This volume—State of the Apes: Infrastructure Development and Ape
Conservation—presents original research and analysis, topical case
Ape Conservation
studies and emerging tools and methods to inform debate, practice
and policy with the aim of preventing and mitigating the harmful impacts
of infrastructure projects on biodiversity. Using apes as a proxy for wild-
life and ecosystems themselves, it identifies opportunities for reconcil-
ing economic and social development with environmental stewardship.
This title is available as an open access eBook via Cambridge Core
and at www.stateoftheapes.com.
“ State of the Apes is one of those rarely seen, truly groundbreak-

ing publications. Through keen analysis and vivid research, the series
considers the survival of the world’s ape species in light of both long-
standing and newly emerging threats, such as mineral extraction,
energy exploration, agricultural expansion and land conversion—
forces that will continue to shape not only the future of wild apes,
but also of all remaining blocks of wild habitat and the extraordinary
biodiversity they contain. By examining the complexity of develop-
ment forces across range states, State of the Apes offers an informed
and realistic assessment of the prospects for ape conservation, as
well as outlining the potential of policies that may spell the difference
”
between destruction and survival of these extraordinary beings.
Matthew V. Cassetta
Facilitator, Congo Basin Forest Partnership
U.S. Department of State

SotA3 Composite WEB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SotA3 Composite WEB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SotA3 Composite WEB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017

Infrastructure development in Africa and Asia is expanding at breakneck

State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

ing populations, rising consumption rates and persistent inequalities.

State of the Apes

“ State of the Apes is one of those rarely seen, truly groundbreak-

Infrastructure development in Africa and Asia is expanding at breakneck speed, largely in

Other Titles in this Series

Other Language Editions

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, Editors

© Cambridge University Press 2018

An online version of this work is published at http://

All versions of this work may contain content repro-

First published 2018

Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc,

A catalogue record for this publication is available from Cover photographs:

State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

Foreword dramatically increase the amount of CO2 in

environment. It’s up to all of us to ensure

State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

The Arcus Foundation ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ix

2. Impacts of Infrastructure on Apes, Indigenous Peoples and

3. Deforestation Along Roads: Monitoring Threats to Ape Habitat ..................................................... 81

4. Apes, Protected Areas and Infrastructure in Africa ....................................................................................... 107

5. Roads, Apes and Biodiversity Conservation: Case Studies from the

8. The Status of Captive Apes ................................................................................................................................................................ 225

Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 264

State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

The Arcus Foundation Notes to Readers

The Arcus Foundation is a private grant- Acronyms and abbreviations

Great Apes Program Glossary

State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)

State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

Gorilla (Gorilla species (spp.))

Orangutan (Pongo spp.)

Gibbons (Hoolock spp.; Hylobates spp.; Nomascus spp.; Symphalangus spp.)

State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

State of the Apes Infrastructure Development and Ape Conservation

Ape Socioecology Chimpanzees and bonobos form dynamic

BOX AO1 Table AO1

Appendices I, II and III to the Convention on International Trade

Bonobo Pan paniscus Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Central chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes Angola Cameroon

Eastern chimpanzee Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii Burundi Central African Republic

Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee Pan troglodytes ellioti Cameroon Nigeria

Western chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau

Cross River gorilla Gorilla gorilla diehli Cameroon Nigeria

Grauer’s gorilla Gorilla beringei graueri DRC

Mountain gorilla Gorilla beringei beringei DRC Rwanda Uganda

Western lowland gorilla Gorilla gorilla gorilla Angola Cameroon

Northeast Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus morio Indonesia Malaysia

Northwest Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus Indonesia Malaysia

Southwest Bornean orangutan Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii Indonesia

Sumatran orangutan Pongo abelii Indonesia

Tapanuli orangutan7 Pongo tapanuliensis Indonesia

GIBBONS (excluding subspecies)

Eastern hoolock Hoolock leuconedys China India Myanmar

Gaoligong hoolock Hoolock tianxing China Myanmar

Western hoolock Hoolock hoolock Bangladesh India Myanmar