Version classiqueVersion mobile

What Works in Conservation 2018

 | 
William J. Sutherland
, 
Lynn V. Dicks
, 
Nancy Ockendon
, 
et al.

7. Primate conservation

7.5. Threat: Biological resource use

Texte intégral

7.5.1 Hunting

Likely to be beneficial

● Conduct regular anti-poaching patrols

1Two of three studies found that gorilla populations increased after regular anti-poaching patrols were conducted, alongside other interventions. One study in Ghana found a decline in gorilla populations. One review on gorillas in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed after an increase in anti-poaching patrols. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).

2https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1471

● Regularly de-activate/remove ground snares

3One of two studies found that the number of gorillas increased in an area patrolled for removing snares, alongside other interventions. One study in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda found that gorilla populations declined despite snare removal. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).

4https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1475

● Provide better equipment (e.g. guns) to anti-poaching ranger patrols

5Two studies in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda found that gorilla populations increased after providing anti-poaching guards with better equipment, alongside other interventions. One study in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed after providing game guards with better equipment. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).

6https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1476

● Implement local no-hunting community policies/traditional hunting ban

7Four studies, one of which had multiple interventions, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Belize, Cameroon and Nigeria found that primate populations increased in areas where there were bans on hunting or where hunting was reduced due to local taboos. One study found that very few primates were killed in a sacred site in China where it is forbidden to kill wildlife. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).

8https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1478

● Implement community control of patrolling, banning hunting and removing snares

9Two site comparison studies found that there were more gorillas and chimpanzees in an area managed by a community conservation organisation than in areas not managed by local communities and community control was more effective at reducing illegal primate hunting compared to the nearby national park. A before-and-after study in Cameroon found that no incidents of gorilla poaching occurred over three years after implementation of community control and monitoring of illegal activities. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).

10https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1482

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

● Strengthen/support/re-install traditions/taboos that forbid the killing of primates

11One site comparison study in Laos found that Laotian black crested gibbons occurred at higher densities in areas where they were protected by a local hunting taboo compared to sites were there was no taboo. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).

12https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1479

Implement monitoring surveillance strategies (e.g. SMART) or use monitoring data to improve effectiveness of wildlife law enforcement patrols

13One before-and-after study in Nigeria found that more gorillas and chimpanzees were observed after the implementation of law enforcement and a monitoring system. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).

14https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1481

● Provide training to anti-poaching ranger patrols

15Two before-and-after studies in Rwanda and India found that primate populations increased in areas where anti-poaching staff received training, alongside other interventions. Two studies in Uganda and Cameroon found that no poaching occurred following training of anti-poaching rangers, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 70%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).

16https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1477

No evidence found (no assessment)

17We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

  • Implement no-hunting seasons for primates
  • Implement sustainable harvesting of primates (e.g. with permits, resource access agreements)
  • Encourage use of traditional hunting methods rather than using guns
  • Implement road blocks to inspect cars for illegal primate bushmeat
  • Provide medicine to local communities to control killing of primates for medicinal purposes
  • Introduce ammunition tax
  • Inspect bushmeat markets for illegal primate species
  • Inform hunters of the dangers (e.g., disease transmission) of wild primate meat.

7.5.2 Substitution

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

● Use selective logging instead of clear-cutting

18One of two site comparison studies in Africa found that primate abundance was higher in forests that had been logged at low intensity compared to forest logged at high intensity. One study in Uganda found that primate abundances were similar in lightly and heavily logged forests. One study in Madagascar found that the number of lemurs increased following selective logging. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 35%; harms 30%).

19https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1485

● Avoid/minimize logging of important food tree species for primates

20One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased over a 13 year period after trees important for food for the species were preserved, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).

21https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​1494

No evidence found (no assessment)

22We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

  • Use patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting
  • Implement small and dispersed logging compartments
  • Use shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting
  • Leave hollow trees in areas of selective logging for sleeping sites
  • Clear open patches in the forest
  • Thin trees within forests
  • Coppice trees
  • Manually control or remove secondary mid-storey and ground-level vegetation.
  • Avoid slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation
  • Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into logged areas
  • Close non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete
  • Use ‘set-asides’ for primate protection within logging area
  • Work inward from barriers or boundaries (e.g. river) to avoid pushing primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat
  • Reduce the size of forestry teams to include employees only (not family members)
  • Certify forest concessions and market their products as ‘primate friendly’
  • Provide domestic meat to workers of the logging company to reduce hunting.

Table des illustrations

URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/6626/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 475k
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/6626/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 402k

Lire

Open access

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search