Bonobo (Pan paniscus) Conservation Strategy 2012–2022

26

continues to escalate. The development of oil palm plantations is a major cause of rainforest 

destruction in Malaysia and Indonesia, and now global agricultural companies based in the Far 

East have their sights set on the DRC. 

A rush into the biofuel sector would further threaten this fragile ecosystem (Fitzherbert et al. 

2008; Senelwa et al. 2012). As China moves aggressively into the biodiesel industry, their ZTE 

Agribusiness Company Ltd has received approval to develop a large oil palm plantation in DRC. 

The DRC government has identified bioenergy and biofuel production as a priority area for indus-

trialization and has reiterated a determination to uphold cooperative ties with China.

Aerial view showing forest 

clearing for cultivation typically 

within 1 km of roads © Takeshi 

Furuichi

---

27

4.2 Threat Ranking

Four working groups, each focusing on one of the bonobo strongholds, undertook a ranking exer-

cise to assess the scope, severity and reversibility of each of the threats identified as follows:

Spatial scope: Defined as the proportion of the bonobo's range likely to be negatively impacted by 

the direct and indirect threats.

Severity: Defined as the level of impact of the direct and indirect threats. 

Reversibility: Defined as the capacity to recover from the effects of the direct and indirect threats.

The criteria used for ranking spatial scope, severity and reversibility were as follows:

Value  Spatial scope

Level of impact (severity)

Reversibility (capacity to recover)

0

Absent

No impact or minimal

Easily reversible

1

< 25%

Moderately degrades

Reversible if there is enough 

commitment

3

25–75%

Seriously degrades

Reversible but with great difficulty

5

> 75%

Completely destroys or eliminates

Not reversible

Lac Tumba

Threats

Spatial 

scope

Level of 

impact

Score

Reversibility

Direct threats

Poaching

3

3

6

3

Habitat loss

5

3

8

3

Disease

5

3

8

3

Indirect threats

Bushmeat trade

5

3

8

1

Availability of guns and ammunition

5

3

8

3

Agricultural expansion

3

3

6

3

Legal industrial logging 

5

3

8

1

Illegal industrial logging

3

3

6

3

Artisanal forest exploitation (charcoal, timber)

5

3

8

3

Lack of law enforcement

5

1

6

3

Ignorance of the law

5

3

8

1

Non-respect of the law

5

3

8

1

Lack of understanding of conservation issues

5

3

8

1

Lack of commitment by local administrative 

authorities

1

3

4

1

Lack of commitment by stakeholders (local 

communities)

5

3

8

1

Insufficient subsistence alternatives

5

5

10

3

Development of communications infrastructure 

(roads, railways)

1

3

4

3

Human population growth

5

1

6

3

---

28

Salonga

Threats

Spatial 

scope

Level of 

impact

Score

Reversibility

Direct threats

Poaching

5

3

8

3

Habitat loss

1

1

2

0

Disease

1

1

2

0

Indirect threats

Bushmeat trade

5

3

8

3

Availability of guns and ammunition

5

3

8

3

Agricultural expansion

1

3

4

1

Legal industrial logging

3

3

6

3

Illegal industrial logging

1

1

2

1

Artisanal forest exploitation (charcoal, timber)

1

3

3

1

Lack of law enforcement

5

3

8

3

Ignorance of the law

3

3

6

3

Non-respect of the law

3

3

6

3

Lack of understanding of conservation issues

5

3

8

3

Insufficient commitment by local administrative 

authorities

3

3

6

3

Insufficient commitment by stakeholders (local 

communities)

3

1

4

1

Insufficient subsistence alternatives

3

3

6

3

Development of infrastructure networks (roads, 

railways)

1

1

2

3

Human population growth

3

3

6

3

Sankuru-TL2

Threats

Spatial 

scope

Level of 

impact

Score

Reversibility

Direct threats

Poaching

5

3

8

3

Habitat loss

1

3

4

5

Disease

1

1

2

0

Indirect threats

Bushmeat trade

5

5

10

3

Availability of guns and ammunition

5

5

10

3

Agricultural expansion

3

3

6

3

Legal industrial logging

1

1

2

1

Illegal industrial logging

0

0

0

0

Artisanal forest exploitation (charcoal, timber)

0

0

0

0

Lack of law enforcement

3

5

8

1

Ignorance of the law

3

1

4

0

Non-respect of the law

3

3

6

3

Lack of understanding of conservation issues

3

1

4

1

Insufficient commitment by local administrative 

authorities

1

1

2

1

Insufficient commitment by stakeholders (local 

communities)

3

1

4

3

Table, Sankuru-TL2, continued on next page

---