CATHERINE M. HILL

Ethics Forum: Primates or Humans?

Primate Conservation and Local Communities—Ethical Issues and Debates

ABSTRACT Hunting and habitat destruction and alteration threaten the existence of many primate species. However, the conserva-

tion of these primates has significant costs, as well as benefits, for people living alongside them. Conservation policy now recognizes

that people should not suffer impoverishment from wildlife preservation and that, instead, conservation programs should make a sig-

nificant contribution to alleviating rural poverty. Ethical consideration requires that local communities have greater control over natural

resources, and that conservation programs contribute to these people's livelihood security. Nevertheless, this conservation on the basis

of potential economic value may not protect primates adequately and may render them still vulnerable to extinction, given their sensi-

tivity to human activities. This presents an ethical dilemma: primates have intrinsic moral value so should be conserved for their own

sake, yet conservation policies should not cause harm to local human populations. This article explores ethical issues that arise when

primates and people live in close proximity. [Keywords: primate conservation, ethical issues, human-wildlife conflict]

INTRODUCTION

People and nonhuman primates have lived in close asso-ciation in most primate ranges for thousands of years.However, as in any ecological system, there is risk that theneeds of one or more components can change to such anextent that the parts are no longer capable of coexisting.Over the past 50 years, many biologists, ecologists, andconservationists have grown concerned that the changingneeds of humans have endangered their ability to live sideby side with nonhuman primates, leading to the wide-spread implementation of conservation programs to pro-tect endangered primate species.

Conservation policies that clearly benefit wildlife spe-cies can have negative effects on the human societies thatput them into practice. When, then, do we implementthese policies at the expense of human well-being, andwhen do we decide not to aid the survival of wildlife? In-deed, how do we determine the costs and benefits of con-servation policies or the value of a particular species orbiodiversity in general? This article explores these ques-tions, considering the relationship between humans andnonhuman primates; the justifications for and changesthat have recently taken place in the policies people haveimplemented to protect primates; and the costs and bene-fits these practices have for both humans and other primates.

PRIMATE CONSERVATION

To determine what implications primate conservation hasfor people, particularly those living in rural primate-rangecountries, the ecological, economic, scientific, and moralvalues of primates must be considered.

Ecological Value of Primates

Recent research has highlighted the biological and eco-logical value of forest-dwelling primates, by pointing totheir roles as potential pollinators, seed dispersers (Peresand van Roosmalen 2002), and plant and seed predators(Mittermeier and van Roosmalen 1981). Such research hasrevealed the implications of primate survival for foreststructure and continued forest existence. Large-bodied pri-mates are particularly valuable as dispersal agents toplants that have seeds that are too large for other frugivor-ous species to scatter. As a result, their extinction wouldhave far-reaching ecological consequences. Atelines of theNeotropical forests are effective dispersers of such seedsyet, because of their large body size, are especially vulner-able to hunters and consequently are threatened by extinc-tion. The loss of such species from forests may well haveimplications for seedling population in aging forests. Itmay then have significant effects on future forest structure,

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 104(4):1184-1194. COPYRIGHT © 2002, AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Hill • Primate Conservation and Local Communities 1185

and, ultimately, other species within the forest commu-nity (Chapman and Onderdonk 1998). In addition, theloss of seed-dispersing primates from forests could have animportant effect on the genetic variation within treepopulations, which, if changed too drastically, couldthreaten the continuing survival of those species (Pachecoand Simonetti 2000).

Removal of seed dispersal through primate extinc-tions could have serious effects on local human popula-tions and economies as welL In Kibale National Park,Uganda, primates are reported to disperse seeds of 77 dif-ferent tree species, 42 percent of which are utilized by lo-cal people (Lambert 1998). Similarly, Cordia milleni, a for-est tree species reportedly rare in Uganda, but present inthe Budongo Forest Reserve, is frequently used for timber.It is also used locally to make canoes required by the fish-ing industry on nearby Lake Albert. This species is relianton chimpanzees for seed dispersal, so threats to the localchimpanzee population may indirectly threaten the fish-ing industry that is an important source of income for thecommunities living at the lake (Plumptre et al. 1994).

Economic Value of Primates

Primates also have economic value for human popula-tions. For some people, primates are highly prized as food,and so hunters actively seek them as game (Cormier 2002;Tenaza 1987). For example, primates are an importantsource of food in many areas in Central and West Africa(Bowen-Jones and Entwhistle 2002). While there are in-deed many people that do not eat primates, hunting themstill persists, for hunters can trade them to people in otherareas (Anadu et al. 1988). Trading primate meat can pro-vide significant amounts of money to an otherwise cash-poor household economy. The bushmeat trade, whichoften involves the hunting of primates, is highly lucrative,and estimates of income from market hunting indicatethat it can generally provide households with an incomethat exceeds the national minimum wage in many coun-tries (Anadu et al. 1988; Clayton and Milner-Gulland2000; Noss 1998). However, it is not just the hunters whocan earn relatively large sums of money but also the mid-dlemen, such as taxi drivers, who transport meat from ru-ral areas to the urban centers, and the urban market trad-ers who supply customers with bushmeat. In West andCentral Africa, where the hunters are almost invariablymen and the market traders are often women (Anadu et al.1988; Castroviejo 1995, cited in Fa 2000), the bushmeattrade contributes significantly not only to urban but alsoto rural household income.

Scientific Value of Primates

Primates are also considered to have scientific value, stem-ming partly from their physical similarity to humans, andtheir social and cognitive complexity (Cowlishaw andDunbar 2000). The study of comparative primate biologyhas contributed much to our understanding of human bi-

ology, origins, and some aspects of behavior. Furthermore,large, striking, charismatic animals such as primates arethought to make a good "flagship species" for conserva-tion programs to promote conservation awareness andfund raising (Alexander 2000). Because of their extremesensitivity to habitat change (Mace and Balmford 2000),primates act as valuable indicators of the status of the en-vironment.

Moral and Cultural Value of Primates

In order to substantiate the claim that primates ought tobe protected from human competition and utilization(Cavalieri and Singer 1993), many people appeal to thebiological and behavioral similarities between humansand primates (especially the Great Apes). Here, their nearhumanness earns primates the right to be granted thesame moral consideration as humans, and so to be treatedas ends in themselves, rather than merely as humanmeans. The claim that primates deserve human rights maybe persuasive in Western societies, yet it does not haveuniversal appeal and may not be culturally appropriate inprimate host countries where these animals are often re-garded as culturally unappealing, as sinister or threaten-ing, or as agricultural pests (Lee and Priston in press).Some local populations look on particular primates, suchas Aye-aye (Fitter 1974), baboons (Hill 1997), howler mon-keys (Gonzalez-Kirchner and Sainz de la Maza 1998), andchimpanzees (Richards 1993) with unease, fear, or disgust.

Even where primates are revered, however, their ven-erated status does not exempt them from being utilized,thus making their cultural value difficult to assess. In thetraditional hunting practices in the Mentawai Islands, In-donesia, for example, the same primates that are reveredwithin art, music, dance, and folklore (Schefold, cited inMitchell and Tilson 1986) are also an important source ofanimal protein, and primate hunting is a standard practice(although taboos controlling hunting practices are likelyto have regulated hunting in this region) (Mitchell andTilson 1986).

Primates also have cultural significance and dietaryvalue for the Guaja Indians of Brazil. Some monkeys maybe kept as pets, and, therefore, those individuals are nevereaten. Guaja women nurse and care for these pets in verymuch the same way they care for their own infants; theseanimals are regarded as children of their caretakers and assuch are included within the kinship system (Cormier2002). Nevertheless, these same monkeys are also an im-portant food resource for the Guaja. The "humanness"and revered position of these monkeys in Guaja society donot necessarily ensure their survival.

Primates may also gain cultural significance by ap-pearing in religious myths or texts. When people think ofsacred monkeys they are, perhaps, most likely to associatethem with the Indian subcontinent and Hinduism, inwhich Hanuman, the monkey god, is an important andprominent figure, representing faithfulness, obedience,

1186 American Anthropologist • Vol. 104, No. 4 • December 2002

and devotion (Nivendita and Coomaraswamy 1985, citedin Wolfe 2002). Cultural and religious attitudes, conse-quently, have traditionally promoted tolerance and pres-ervation of primates in urban and rural areas in this part ofthe world (Pirta et al. 1997). However, attitudes are chang-ing, particularly in rural areas, as people in India have in-creasingly come to view monkeys as crop pests and so arenow much less likely to protect and preserve these mon-keys, regardless of their religious symbolism (Mukherjee etal. 1986; Southwicket al. 1983).

These examples illustrate some important features ofpeople's attitudes and beliefs concerning the value of pri-mates. First, beliefs are never simple or definitive and mayfrequently be at odds with, or outweighed by, economic orbiological needs. Second, they are not culturally fixedpoints, eternal and unchanging, for they change overtime, in association with changing conditions and experi-ences.

The Costs to Local Communities of Living AlongsidePrimates

Despite the various kinds of value primates can have tohumans, the ethical implications of primate conservationcan only be understood once we explore the costs localpeople endure from living alongside primates in the firstplace, as well as the costs they face once conservation poli-cies are implemented.

Primates are often agricultural pests and can pose con-siderable costs to cultivators living in their vicinity (Hill2000; Naughton-Treves 1998). Members of the genera Ma-caca, Papio, and Cercopithecus are among the most fre-quently cited primate pest species (for macaques, see Lee2000; Pirta et al. 1997; Sprague 2002; for baboons, see Hill2000; Naughton-Treves 1998; Strum 1994; for guenonsand Patas monkeys, see Boulton et al. 1996; Naughton-Treves 1998; Saj et al. 2001). Prosimians, colobines, GreatApes, and some New World species also reportedly raidcrops on occasion (Gonzalez-Kirchner and Sainz de laMaza 1998; Madden 1998; Siex and Struhsaker 1999). Ma-caques, baboons, and guenons are particularly problem-atic pests for local people to control (Else 1991) and canimpose considerable losses on farmers by destroying cropsand thereby wasting the time, energy, and finances in-curred in trying to protect fields against their incursions(Hill 1997; Naughton-Treves 1998). Traditional and non-traditional protection strategies, such as creating barriers(electric fences, walls, and ditches) between wildlife andagricultural areas are ineffective against these primates.These animals are able to negotiate their way through orover most forms of fencing, with the exception of certainliving fences made of very dense or thorny plants such asSisal or Mauritius Thorn (Mascarenhas 1971) and are quickto learn how to get through electric fences without beingharmed (Strum 1994).

Humans living in proximity to primate populationsare susceptible to other costs as well. Because of their phy-

logenetic closeness to humans, primates can act as a dis-ease reservoir. With increased contact between people andprimates, there is greater risk of transmitting diseases, es-pecially new ones (Woodford et al. 2002). Practices such aswildlife tourism, hunting, keeping primates as pets, or anyother kind of activity that involves close proximity to, orhandling of, these animals increases the risk of spreadingdiseases (Butynski 2001).

Clearly, if there are costs and dangers associated withliving alongside primates, conservation policies may exac-erbate these problems or create new hardships for commu-nities that must obey conservation laws at the expense oftheir livelihood. Under conservation laws, farmers aremore restricted legally in their choice of protection strat-egy, and their defenses against primate invasion maycome under scrutiny from officials and other outsiders(Hill in press). Local communities may find that their tra-ditional activities of hunting or timber extraction are alsoinvestigated, or even banned. They may experience re-duced or total loss of access to natural resources such asland, fuel, timber, foods (animal and plant), and fodderfor domestic livestock, all in the name of protecting wild-life. These factors can seriously reduce household liveli-hood security in rural communities.

Given these high costs that are generally borne bysome of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people inthe world, should we invest large amounts of time,money, and expertise into conserving primates? Certainlythere are some very good reasons, as outlined above, forpromoting their conservation. Is it possible then to imple-ment effective policies that protect primates without dis-advantaging humans? To answer this question, we mustfirst consider what kinds of threats primate populationsendure, and how humans have attempted to overcomethem in the name of wildlife preservation.

THREATS TO PRIMATE POPULATIONS

The major threats to primate populations are habitat lossand habitat alteration, human predation, and, in some re-gions, live capture for export or sale in the local pet trade.While the relative magnitude of each of these threats var-ies across geographical regions, and among different species,almost every primate species is vulnerable to one or moreof these kinds of dangers (Mittermeier and Cheney 1987).

Deforestation, Fragmentation, and HabitatAlteration

It is in the rain forests in particular where human and pri-mate needs intersect and often compete, for tropical for-ests represent an extremely diverse and valuable set of re-sources for both people and wildlife. Humans have utilizedand managed forests for thousands of years. The land isvaluable for agriculture and plays an important role in thecultural and religious beliefs of the people who inhabit it;forests also supply plant and animal foods, medicines,timber, fuel, fertilizers, browse for livestock, and water

Hill • Primate Conservation and Local Communities 1187

(Hladik et al. 1993). Many people have traditionally de-pended, and still rely, on these forest resources to a greateror lesser extent, depending on such factors as their prox-imity to forested areas, livelihood strategies, and tradi-tions. However, more than 90 percent of primate speciesreside in the tropical rain forests of Africa, Asia, and theNeotropics; any factors that contribute to the change insize and structure of forests will have a significant impacton primate populations. With rapidly increasing humanpopulations and the associated increase in the exploita-tion of forests, human and primate interests are increas-ingly in conflict with one another.

It is mainly human activity and the exploitation offorest resources that cause deforestation and, ultimately,forest fragmentation, the major contributors to primatehabitat disturbance. Agriculture may be a deforestationdemon. Indeed, many researchers cite the conversion offorests to agricultural lands (particularly as a consequenceof shifting cultivation practices) as the main cause of for-est loss and degradation (Groombridge 1992). However,agriculture's effect on rain forests is debatable, for researchinto land-use strategies in the Amazon shows that sub-stantial areas of secondary forest can exist within farm-lands (Smith et al. 1999); agriculture, therefore, may notbe a major cause of deforestation in all countries (Bar-raclough and Ghimire 2000). Nevertheless, in these coun-tries where agriculture allows for some forest preservation,it is not clear whether the remaining habitat areas, oithese secondary forests, are capable of meeting the needsof forest primates for food, sleeping sites, and protectionfrom predators. Logging, on the other hand, almost cer-tainly poses a large threat to primates. In the BrazilianAmazon, for example, the building of an extensive net-work of major roads providing loggers and settlers accessto previously inaccessible regions has contributed greatlyto forest loss (Laurance et al. 2000).

Hunting

Commercial logging is also closely associated with hunt-ing, yet another threat to primate survival. Many of theroads cleared by the timber industry provide a transporta-tion infrastructure that allows easy movement of huntersinto previously unexploited areas (Wilkie et al. 1992), aswell as easy transportation of meat to urban centers. In-deed, logging companies, sometimes unwittingly, carryhunters and meat in their vehicles. A further, and not in-considerable, effect is that incoming logging workers re-quire food themselves. Their higher earnings and in-creased local spending create a big local market forbushmeat and inspire higher rates of hunting (Auzel andWilkie 2000; Wilkie et al. 2000).

Furthermore, primates are not necessarily protected orless vulnerable to extinction in places where religion disal-lows the consumption of primates as food. Even in suchregions as Asia, where the predominant religions of Islam,Hinduism, and Buddhism forbid the consumption of pri-

mate meat (Cowlishaw and Dunbar 2000), primates arestill hunted for a variety of reasons discussed above. Forone, farmers consider hunting and trapping as the mosteffective way of protecting crops against wildlife. Indeed,many primates caught or killed in agricultural regions arenever eaten; they are seen as pests and are killed to protectcrops (Carpaneto and Fusaris 2000). This aside, taboosagainst eating primates are waning in some areas, as areother traditional rules that once aided primate survival. Si-erra Leone provides an example of a place where social,economic, and demographic changes have altered huntingstrategies, thus exposing primates to greater risk. Not onlydo local inhabitants there adhere less strictly to traditionalfood prohibitions than they once did (Leach 1994) butalso Mende hunters, who traditionally avoided huntingpregnant game or females with infants (Leach 1994), havebeen replaced by bushmeat hunters, who are usually out-siders and young men with little regard for traditional pro-hibitions on hunting particular animals, or on hunting interritories without local permission. Studies of huntingand natural resource use at other sites in Africa, Asia, andLatin America have reported similar cultural changes andeffects on hunting practices as previously isolated popula-tions become increasingly part of national, and sometimesinternational, economies (Bodmer and Lozano 2001:438;Eves and Ruggiero 2000:476; Mitchell and Tilson 1986:338).

Technological advances have also compounded theeffect these social changes have had on an increased de-mand for primate game. The shotgun, which has greaterrange (Hames 1979) and spread (Alvard 1995) than otherhunting weapons (blowgun, bow and arrow, net), allowshunters a better return per hunting effort and increasesthe number of potential prey species (Stearman 2000). Thereplacement of traditional snares and traps by strongerand longer-lasting wire cable snares (Almquist 2001) alsoincreases the efficiency of hunters, and the dangers to pri-mates. These snares are unable to discriminate among spe-cies (Noss 1998) and are therefore likely to trap animalsthat hunters did not intend to catch. In the Budongo For-est Reserve, Uganda, for example, wire snares set for forestantelope and pigs often trap or injure chimpanzees (Wal-ler and Reynolds 2001). When hunters do not check traplines with sufficient frequency, carcasses rot and any valuethey might have had is wasted (Muchaal and Ngandjui1999). New hunting technology, combined with increaseddemand for primate meat, changing hunting strategies,and reduction of habitat pose a serious threat to primatesurvival. In many areas hunting has reached an unsustain-able level, where primates are being killed off faster thanthey can reproduce.

CONSERVATION: A CHANGING IDEOLOGY

Similar threats to biodiversity or a species' survival have,of course, been recognized and dealt with before. In thecolonial era, people were already developing ideas aboutthe incompatibility of people and wilderness, and some

1188 American Anthropologist • Vol.104, No. 4 • December 2002

have argued that these notions led to the establishment of"protected areas" (PAs), or plots of land that exclude habi-tation by people or livestock and bar the extraction of re-sources (see Anderson and Grove 1987). For many years,PAs have been a widely accepted approach to wildlife con-servation around the globe. Recent statistics show that Af-rica has the greatest absolute amount of land bound up inPAs, with nearly 91 million hectares (3.1 percent of theland area) given over to national parks, game and wildlifereserves, and other categories of protected lands. Nearlyfour percent of the Americas is within PAs (47.5 millionhectares), though less than 1.5 percent of Madagascar andAsia's land masses have protected status (Institute WorldResources 1996). Yet, while the idea of PAs has beenwidely accepted, and seems like an appropriate responseto the alleged incompatibility of humans and wilderness,it has significant drawbacks. The wide establishment ofPAs has led to an uneven societal distribution of conserva-tion-related costs and benefits. Rural populations, and par-ticularly those living at the edge of the protected area, thatis, on the cultivation interface, bear the brunt of thecosts—such as loss of land, loss of access to resources, andthreat of damage to crops, property, and human life. Theyreceive few of the benefits, which instead go to nationalinstitutions and governments, international researchers,scientific bodies, and tourists (Bell 1987).

Recently, however, traditional ideologies of wildlifeprotection have changed, and support for the old PA sys-tem has declined (Inamdar et al. 1999). The main causesof waning support include such factors as the high eco-nomic cost of effective protection to wildlife in parks(Leader-Williams and Albon 1988; but see Caro et al. 1998),the low economic returns from protected areas comparedwith alternative land-use strategies (Norton-Griffiths andSouthey 1995, cited in Adams and Hulme 2001), and con-cern over the exclusion, and in some cases, eviction, of lo-cal people from parks (Neumann 1998, cited in Adamsand Hulme 2001). Conservation ideology and policy haveundergone significant changes as a result of this response.The mission and justification for conservation programshave shifted from the conservation and protection ofwildlife to focus increasingly on promotion of humanwell-being (IUCN et al. 1991).1 Among the key ideas un-derpinning this new ideology is the belief that as opposedto strict protection of wildlife resources, "sustainable"utilization should characterize conservation policy, andthat local people should gain some of the benefits of con-servation. The new ideology brings into play ethical andhuman rights concerns, as well as arguments based onpragmatism and politics, and demands that conservationpolicies seek to maintain or improve people's well-beingrather than render them more vulnerable to poverty(Blaikie and Jeanrenaud 1997). However, also at the heartof new conservation policies are more prosaic, economicfactors, which have provided further incentive to forgeand reinforce links between conservation and develop-ment as a way of widening opportunities to secure fund-

ing for conservation activities (Oates 1999), as well as po-litical convenience (Holdgate and Munro 1993, cited inOates 1999).

COMMUNITY CONSERVATION—THE NEW PANACEA,OR AN IMPOSSIBLE BALANCING ACT?

Conservationists recognized that if conservation initia-tives were to succeed in the long term, they needed thesupport and cooperation of those people living alongsidewildlife (World Conservation Union 1980, cited in Hackel1999). This recognition spawned the concept of "commu-nity conservation" (or community-based conservation),which is founded on the following idea:

conservation must be "participatory," must treat pro-tected area neighbours as "partners," and preferably mustbe organized so that protected areas and species yield aneconomic return for local people and the wider economy,and contribute to sustainable livelihoods. [Adams andHulme 2001:193]

The main objective of community conservation is tomake rural people a central part of conservation practices(Western 1994). Integrated Conservation and Develop-ment Projects (ICDPs), which serve as one example ofcommunity conservation, aim to compensate local peoplefor restrictions on natural resource use, provide them withalternatives to using resources, and enhance the value ofparticular natural resources by means of development in-itiatives. This provides locals with economic incentives tomanage and protect the resource base by using it in a sus-tainable manner (Abbot et al. 2001). It is easy to justify themove toward community conservation: the costs to localpeople of living alongside wildlife/protected areas shouldbe offset by some of the benefits, whether they includelong-term access to valued natural resources, or cash re-turns from the presence of tourists, researchers, or devel-opment initiatives. If local people do not at least "breakeven" from conservation, why should they tolerate the en-forcement of policies that blatantly deny them resourcesand the right to protect their property?

Is community conservation the new panacea, thecure-all to the problems of conservation? There is consid-erable debate within the literature on conservation aboutwhether or not wildlife protection can be successfullywedded to development (Alpert 1996; Colchester 1998;Ghimire and Pimbert 1997; Inamdar et al. 1999; Spinage1998). We should be wary of the hastiness of some schol-ars and proponents of community conservation to assumethat conservation and development are invariably com-patible, and that conservation is likely to come about as adirect result of development (Robinson 1993). Often,these writers give little thought to how various initiativesmight promote effective conservation of biodiversity, oreven natural resources; they simply assume that localcommunities gaining or retaining access to natural re-sources will use them in a sustainable manner through tra-ditional or indigenous resource management. In recentyears, however, this assumption has proven inaccurate

Hill • Primate Conservation and Local Communities 1189

(Alvard 1993; Fitzgibbon et al. 1995; Redfoid and Robin-son 1985).

Some systems have long operated in a sustainablemanner, but in many cases this sustainability is not a re-sult of active resource management but, rather, of coinci-dental conditions that naturally allow for sustainable op-eration: low population densities, no contact to externalmarket forces and cash-based economies, the presence ofnomadic communities who do not overexploit resources,or population by people who use traditional technologies(Ghimire and Pimbert 1997; Stearman 2000). The condi-tions under which many rural populations operate todayare very different as a consequence of increasing humanpopulation density, inclusion within a cash economy (re-quiring extraction rates that simply fulfill more than sub-sistence needs), and increasing poverty. The notion thatwe can achieve sustainability simply by letting local popu-lations control resources has been called into question asthe conditions under which these communities live havechanged dramatically.

A further hasty and, perhaps, unjustified assumptionthat many community conservation proponents make isthat as a consequence of development processes and in-itiatives, rural people will automatically change their atti-tudes and behavior toward wildlife so that they reduce orregulate their use of natural resources (Abbot et al. 2001).However, would we not reasonably expect people to makethe most of new opportunities and maintain or even in-crease their exploitation levels? Oates reported that agri-cultural development initiatives designed to reduce hu-man impact on the Okomu Forest Reserve, Nigeria, haveyielded higher levels of deforestation. Rates of forest clear-ance increased because the increased economic opportuni-ties provided by development encouraged migration intothe area, thus raising the demand for agricultural lands lo-cally (Oates 1995). Of course, we should not automaticallyassume that linking conservation and development willalways have a negative outcome, but the Nigerian exam-ple suggests caution in assuming an automatic link be-tween development and sustainable resource use.

The key concern, therefore, is the degree to whichcommunity conservation, and particularly ICDPs, are ableto address both conservation and development needs ade-quately. Even where excellent integration of informationand multidisciplinary expertise are available, it is verylikely that there will be a stronger emphasis on one com-ponent of the community conservation mandate than theother; that is, new conservation techniques are likely to fa-vor local communities and their particular developmentneeds over biodiversity conservation priorities, or viceversa, without achieving a suitable balance between thetwo objectives. This raises interesting questions about howto measure the "success" of community conservation. Forexample, is a policy of conservation intervention "success-ful" if it implements development initiatives that do notdestroy many resources that are useful to humans? Tothose interested in protecting current patterns of biodiver-

sity, this is not necessarily a good measure of success.These critics recognize the key point that protecting natu-ral resources does not necessarily mean protecting biodi-versity as a whole, and that this measurement of successfocuses on reducing human impact on specific natural re-sources, not biodiversity in general. In this way, it tends tocome down more on the side of protecting local commu-nities; underlying this measurement system is the assump-tion that some resources or species are expendable, whilethose that more directly or obviously serve human needsought to be sustained. If we are to measure the success ofconservation policies, we must be careful not to empha-size how they benefit humans over wildlife, or vice versa.

Community Conservation, People, and Primates—Possible Costs and Benefits

It is certainly desirable, assuming it is possible, that pro-tection of wildlife and the welfare of local communities bedelivered together as part of a single package deal. Com-munity conservation approaches have room for flexibilityin how they tackle their dual aims. With very careful plan-ning, design, and management, they may be able to over-come the difficulty of favoring one side of their mandateover the other and be effective and sustainable methods ofsimultaneously protecting primates and promoting thewelfare of local communities. Nevertheless, while someapproaches to community conservation—even those thatstrike the difficult balance between protecting humansand protecting wildlife—may work in theory, there areoften considerable obstacles to overcome when put intopractice. Providing incentives to cut back on hunting orhabitat clearance and disturbance, for example, is notenough to protect primates adequately; more specific anddetailed changes to hunting and natural resource extrac-tion practices must be considered if conservation policiesare to succeed.

Extractive Utilization of Primates

Where primate hunting is a source of food or cash income,community conservation policies may manage to enhancethe value of primate populations and, therefore, give localcommunities an incentive to cut back on the hunting ofprimates. However, simple quantitative limitations on thenumber of primates that hunters kill will not necessarilylead to sustainable off-take rates. There are certain meth-odological problems of determining the exact effects ofhunting pressure, but it seems fairly clear that hunting notonly decreases primate population through the mere killingof animals (Fitzgibbon et al. 1995; Muchaal and Ngandjui1999; Peres 1997) but also disrupts age and sex structuresof populations, affecting reproduction rates and, thus,pushing primates ever closer to extinction (Peres 1991).Therefore, qualitative limits on primate hunting are neededas well. Management of primate populations will need totake into account natural population fluctuations, and the

1190 American Anthropologist • Vol. 104, No. 4 • December 2002

impact of removing different age/sex classes from thepopulation.

Habitat Modification

The problems faced in controlling hunting in order to pro-tect primate populations are analogous to the problemsexperienced in managing habitat alteration. In some sce-narios, primate protection will not arise by simply placingquantitative limits on extraction rates of natural resources,particularly when they are of value to both people and pri-mates. Consider, for example, the case of the forest palm,Phoenix reclinata, in the Tana River forests of Tanzania.People utilize all parts of the palm for food, building andhandicraft materials, tools, and medicines. Mangabeys relyon the palm fruits during periods of food scarcity. Peopleprefer large palms, and harvesting of particular parts of thepalms causes long-term damage or removal of plants;therefore, larger palms have become scarce in areas of in-tensive harvesting. Because the larger palms are also themature, fruit-bearing plants, overharvesting has a negativeimpact on the recruitment of further young palms to thehabitat as well as a more immediate impact on the sur-vival of mangabey populations at present levels (Kinnaird1992). Sustainable natural resource extraction policies,therefore, have to take into account complex ecological,economic, and social factors associated with use of par-ticular resources by people and primates, placing qualita-tive as well as quantitative limits on harvesting practices.

Another subtle factor for consideration is the frag-mentation effect of deforestation and how it influencesprimate populations and the interaction between primatesand humans. Logging, as well as land clearance for agricul-ture or ranching, can create gaps between forest regions,and only animals that are able to cross these gaps will beable to survive the effects of forest fragmentation (Dale etal. 1994). What is more, forest fragmentation often leadsto greater contact between primates and cultivators. Thiswill exacerbate the conflicts that arise from primate/hu-man interaction, such as disease transmission, crop raid-ing, and hunting as a form of pest control. Again, conser-vation policy will have to consider more than quantitativelimits when it comes to control of habitat modification.Even if local communities are inspired by community con-servation to reduce the number of acres they clear, theymay still fragment primate habitat, endangering speciesand increasing the likelihood that human/primate con-flicts will arise.

One last factor that must be given due considerationis that while primates can usually cope with some degreeof habitat disturbance, the combination of habitat modifi-cation and hunting is often much more problematic andmakes animals vulnerable to local extinctions (Oates1996). Small-scale shifting cultivation is not necessarilyharmful to primate populations, for some species are ableto utilize regenerating farm bush and may actually preferit in particular seasons (Fimbel 1994). Indeed, some spe-

cies even appear to tolerate low levels of timber extractionwithin their habitats (Chapman et al. 2000; Grieser Johnsand Grieser Johns 1995; Oates 1996; Plumptte andReynolds 1994). When hunting is added to the mix, habi-tat alteration becomes a much more serious threat. Con-servation policies, therefore, must pay close attention tothe types of human natural resource use proposed and theintensity of use to make sure that they are not detrimentalto local primate populations.

When we consider subtle factors and regional idiosyn-crasies such as these, we may be able to establish effectiveand sustainable methods of economic development thatharmonize with the conservation of primate populations.Maintaining tree corridors between habitat patches, pro-tecting specific primate food species during small-scale ag-ricultural clearance, and closely monitoring the com-pounded effects of hunting and forest clearing are usefulways of helping to sustain primate populations in areas ofhuman land use.

Nonextractive Utilization of Primates—The Case ofWildlife Tourism

Wildlife tourism is an increasingly common componentof community conservation initiatives and can be com-mercially very successful, particularly at sites with largecharismatic game animals and Great Apes (Butynski 2001).Wildlife tourism programs would seem an excellent wayof promoting forest and primate conservation while pro-viding local populations with significant benefits that off-set the costs of having restricted access to natural re-sources. However, in recent years some have argued thattourism can harm primates. Tourism increases the chancesof disease transmission (Adams et al. 2001; Wallis and Lee1999; Woodford et al. 2002),2 causes the animals human-induced stress from the constant presence of touristgroups (Butynski 2001), and causes problems associatedwith the overhabituation of animals for tourist viewing(Madden 1998). Primate habitat suffers, too, since touriststrample the ground, and forests must be cleared in orderto make room for tourist facilities such as hotels and res-taurants (Brandon and Wells 1992; Wrangham 2001).

Wildlife tourism carries costs for the people involvedas well. Humans, of course, also face the threat of diseasetransmission, and any decline in primate population thatresults from tourism will influence the economic develop-ment of local communities if they rely on primates as anatural resource for other activities. What is more, tourismprojects provide local communities with sizeable and tan-gible benefits by garnering revenue; but this revenue is ex-tremely vulnerable to the impact of external factors suchas transport and logistical problems, civil unrest, eco-nomic instability, and international currency fluctuations(Butynski 2001). Thus, the fates of tourism projects aresubject to circumstances that are beyond anyone's con-trol. This does not render wildlife tourism useless to com-munity conservation projects, but it should encourage

Hill • Primate Conservation and Local Communities 1191

project developers to explore fully, and in advance, thecosts and benefits to all stakeholders—local people, pri-mates, and tourists—and to develop management proto-col accordingly.

Some Implications for Local People

When community conservation policies take into accountspecific local details, they are more likely to succeed inpreserving primates in the face of human economic devel-opment. However, we have yet to determine whether ornot this limited form of development is adequate to sup-port local livelihoods, and whether this finely tuned formof community conservation serves the human end of itsmandate. Important issues for consideration here includethe following:

1. Whether sustainable off-take rates of primates andother natural resources are able to make an ade-quate contribution to household income,

2. Whether the sustainable level of resource exploita-tion can continue to be adequate even as the localhuman population grows,

3. Who is responsible for monitoring and regulatingresource extraction, and determining and enforcingoff-take rates, and

4. How economic returns from these resources shouldbe distributed within or across communities.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonhuman primates have intrinsic moral value and con-sequently there are strong arguments for them being con-served simply for their own sake. Their protection andconservation can also be justified on the grounds thatthey are of value to local human populations as potentialsources of revenue, food, medicine, and their role in forestecology. Within conservation ideology, there is now in-creasing reliance on economic arguments to justify invest-ment in primate conservation. This is certainly very un-derstandable given that there has been a substantial moveaway from a "top-down" style of intervention to a grass-roots-driven "bottom-up" strategy. This strategy raisesquestions about unequal distribution of conservation costsand benefits across and within societies. It also stimulatesdiscussion of ethical issues about the external impositionof potentially harmful policies on resource-poor commu-nities by those who do not necessarily understand the fullimplications of losing access to particular resources or ex-periencing crop damage by wild animals. Linked with therecent emphasis on conservation programs contributingto human well-being, it is not surprising that there hasbeen this move to justify primate conservation on the ba-sis of their potential as an exploitable resource.

As demonstrated in this article, viewing primatesmerely as potentially exploitable resources presents a di-lemma. Given primates' extreme sensitivity to varioustypes of exploitation by humans, to view these animalspurely as economic commodities, and promote their con-

servation on that basis, as many ICDPs do, is likely tojeopardize the long-term future of many primate popula-tions. Because these animals reproduce themselves slowly,most populations are unlikely to be able to sustain evenrelatively low off-take rates over an extensive period andcertainly would not be able to do so should there also beother types of habitat disturbance occurring simultane-ously. Such animals, therefore, are unlikely to be able toprovide increasing local human populations with ade-quate return rates particularly where a growing populationdensity requires increasing amounts of land put to agricul-tural use. If alternative management or development op-portunities arise whereby local communities can get a bet-ter return by opting not to conserve primates then, giventhe likely demands and pressures on these people, whyshould they be expected not to opt for the more produc-tive option, irrespective of its impact on local primates,particularly given that the arguments promoting protec-tion of those animals have an economic focus? Thus, theethical dilemma outlined here is that recent changes inconservation policy and ideology may actually tend torender primates more rather than less vulnerable to ex-tinction in the longer term. Yet from an ethical standpointit is entirely appropriate to argue for local people to havemore control over natural resources, particularly thosethat have traditionally been viewed as common propertyresources, and for them to access benefits from conserva-tion to alleviate local poverty.

We need to consider how to change human behaviorand practices such that the needs of humans and primatescan be seen as harmonious and compatible, instead of inconflict. More specifically, we need to recognize that hu-man needs may often be better served when primate needsare served as well. Blind and thoughtless overexploitationof any resource eventually leads to depletion or extinc-tion, and if there are immediate gains to exploiting a re-source to depletion, we must weigh these against the long-term losses that would be suffered if the ecological,economic, scientific, or cultural value associated with thatresource were lost forever.

Often, the long-term loss of value from depleting a re-source is great, but simple avoidance of exploiting that re-source has great consequences as well. Our goal in conser-vation, then, is to achieve "sustainable development" andfind a way to exploit resources in such a way that we reapthe benefits of having that resource there, while we also,at the same time, prolong its existence. This study of pri-mates and local communities provides an example of asituation in which sustainable development is necessaryand even points us in the direction of knowing how toachieve it. Primates provide adequate justification for in-vesting in their conservation but are also frequently incompetition with local people for resources or are costly totheir human neighbors. Community conservation tech-niques may very well be the way to achieve sustainable de-velopment in the case of primates. As community conser-vation grows in importance and becomes more widely

1192 American Anthropologist • Vol.104, No. 4 • December 2002

accepted, as it is likely to (Adams and Hulme 2001), wemust recognize its potential strengths and weaknesses.Particularly, we must note the situations where commu-nity conservation allows either too much protection ofprimates, such that local communities cannot adequatelysustain even themselves, or too much freedom to humans,such that primates end up being killed at slower, thoughstill, unsustainable rates.

Loss of biodiversity should be avoided wherever possi-ble, but when especially complex issues arise, develop-ment and conservation experts should be in constant dia-logue to make sure they are understood properly.

Even with the best intentions, how can an average biolo-gist, botanist or ecologist comprehend complex local cul-tural norms, gender issues, social differentiation processesand so forth, which very often determine who will makegains and who will lose? [Ghimire and Pimbert 1997:35]

Likewise, how can an average social scientist fully under-stand complex local ecological systems, conservation ge-netics, plant and animal ecology, animal behavior, and re-productive ecologies and strategies, all of which haveimportant implications for understanding the effects ofhuman activity? These two perspectives have differentknowledge bases and distinct agendas but both are impor-tant if the needs of both stakeholders, human and pri-mate, are to be met. However, hard as it may be for someto accept, there are likely to be situations in which conser-vation has to give way to development, and in which peo-ple's needs take precedence over those of nonhuman pri-mates and biodiversity conservation.

CATHERINE M. HILL Department of Anthropology, OxfordBrookes University, Oxford OX3 OHP United Kingdom

NOTESAcknowledgments. I wish to thank John Oates and Nick Owen fortheir help with this article.1. IUCN is the International Union for Conservation of Nature.2. It should be pointed out that where primate populations aresubject to research and contact with research personnel, these fac-tors are also likely to be of concern to conservationists and localcommunities.

REFERENCES CITEDAbbot, Joanne 1. O., David H. L. Thomas, Anne A. Gardner, SamaE. Neba, and Mbony W. Khen

2001 Understanding the Links between Conservation and Devel-opment in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Develop-ment 29(7):1115-1136.

Adams, Hayley R., Jonathan M. Sleeman, Innocent Rwego, andJohn G. New

2001 Self-Reported Medical History Survey of Humans as a Meas-ure of Health Risk to the Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfur-thii) of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35(4):308-312.

Adams, W. M., and D. Hulme2001 If Community Conservation Is the Answer in Africa, What Is

the Question? Oryx 35(3):193-200.Alexander, Sara E.

2000 Resident Attitudes towards Conservation and Black HowlerMonkeys in Belize: The Community Baboon Sanctuary. Environ-mental Conservation 27(4):341-350.

Almquist, Alden2001 Horticulture and Hunting in the Congo Basin. In African

Rain Forest Ecology and Conservation. A. Weber, L. White, A.Vedder, and L. Naughton-Treves, eds. Pp. 334-343. Newflaven,CT: Yale University Press.

Alpert, Peter1996 Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. BioS-

cience46(ll):845-855.Alvard, Michael S.

1993 Testing the "Ecologically Noble Savage" Hypothesis: Inter-specific Prey Choice by Piro Hunters of Amazonian Peru. HumanEcology 21:355-387.

1995 Intraspecific Prey Choice by Amazonian Hunters. CurrentAnthropology 36:789-818.

Anadu, P. A., P. O. Elamah, andj. F. Oates1988 The Bushmeat Trade in Southwestern Nigeria: A Case Study.

Human Ecology 16(2): 199-208.Anderson, David, and Richard Grove

1987 The Scramble for Eden: Past, Present and Future in AfricanConservation. In Conservation in Africa: People, Policies andPractice. D. Anderson and R. Grove, eds. Pp. 1-12. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Auzel, Philippe, and David S. Wilkie2000 Wildlife Use in Northern Congo: Hunting in a Commercial

Logging Concession. In Hunting for Sustainability in TropicalForests. J. Robinson and E. Bennett, eds. Pp. 413-454. New York:Columbia University Press.

Barraclough, Solon L., and Krishna B. Ghimire2000 Agricultural Expansion and Tropical Deforestation. London:

Earthscan Publications.Bell, Richard H. V.

1987 Conservation with a Human Face: Conflict and Reconcili-ation in African Land Use Planning. In Conservation in Africa:People, Policies and Practice. D. Anderson and R. Grove, eds. Pp.79-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blaikie, Piers, and Sally Jeanrenaud1997 Biodiversity and Human Welfare. In Social Change and Con-

servation. K. Ghimire and M. Pimbert, eds. Pp. 46-70. London:Earthscan Publications.

Bodmer, Richard E., and Etersit P. Loranzo2001 Rural Development and Sustainable Wildlife Use in Peru.

Conservation Biology 15 (4): 1163-1170.Boulton, A. M., Julia A. Horrocks, and Jean Baulu

1996 The Barbados Vervet Monkey (Cercopithecus aethiopssabaeus): Changes in Population Size and Crop Damage1980-1994. International Journal of Primatology 17(5):831-844.

Bowen-Jones, Evan, and Abigail Entwhistle2002 Identifying Appropriate Flagship Species: The Importance of

Culture and Local Contexts. Oryx 36(2): 189-195.Brandon, Katrina E., and Michael Wells

1992 Planning for People and Parks: Design Dilemmas. World De-velopment 20:55 7-5 70.

Butynski, Thomas M.2001 Africa's Great Apes. In Great Apes and Humans. The Ethics of

Coexistence. B. Beck, T. Stoinski, M. Hutchins, T. Maple, B. Nor-ton, A. Rowan, E. Stevens, and A. Arluke, eds. Pp. 3-56. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Caro, T. M., N. Pelkey, M. Borner, K. L. I. Campbell, B. L.Woodworth, B. P. Farm, J. Ole Kuwai, S. A. Huish, and E. L. M.Severre

1998 Consequences of Different Forms of Conservation for LargeMammals in Tanzania: Preliminary Analyses. African Journal ofEcology 36:303-320.

Carpaneto, G. M., and A. Fusaris2000 Subsistence Hunting and Bushmeat Exploitation in Central-

Western Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation9(11):1571-1585.

Cavalieri, Paola, and Peter Singer1993 A Declaration of Great Apes. In The Great Ape Project: Equal-

ity beyond Humanity. P. Cavalieri and P. Singer, eds. Pp. 4-7.Guildford, UK: Biddies.

Chapman, Colin A., Sophia R. Balcomb, Thomas R. Gillespie,Joseph P. Skorupa, and Thomas T. Stuhsaker

2000 Long-Term Effects of Logging on African Primate Communi-ties: A 28-Year Comparison from Kibale National Park, Uganda.Conservation Biology 14(l):207-217.

Hill • Primate Conservation and Local Communities 1193

Chapman, Colin A., and Daphne A. Onderdonk1998 Forests without Primates: Primate/Plant Codependency.

Americanjournal of Primatology 45:127-141.Clayton, Lynn, and E. J. Milner-Gulland

2000 The Trade in Wildlife in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. In Hunt-ing for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. J. Robinson and E. Ben-nett, eds. Pp. 473-495. New York: Columbia University Press.

Colchester, Marcus1998 Who Will Garrison the Fortress? A Reply to Spinage. Oryx

32(4):245-248.Cormier, Loretta A.

2002 Monkey as Food, Monkey as Child: Guaja Symbolic Canni-balism. In Primates Face to Face. A. Fuentes and L. Wolfe, eds. Pp.63-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cowlishaw, Guy, and Robin Dunbar2000 Primate Conservation Biology. Chicago: University of Chi-

cago Press.Dale, Virginia H., Scott M. Pearson, Holly L. Offerman, and RobertV. O'Neill

1994 Relating Patterns of Land-Use Change to Faunal Biodiversityin the Central Amazon. Conservation Biology 8(4):1027-1036.

Else, James G.1991 Nonhuman Primates as Pests. In Primate Responses to Envi-

ronmental Change. H. O. Box, ed. Pp. 115-165. London: Chap-man and Hall.

Eves, Heather E., and Richard G. Ruggerio2000 Socieconomics and the Sustainabiliry of Hunting in the For-

ests of Northern Congo (Brazzaville). In Hunting for Sustainabil-ity in Tropical Forests. J. Robinson and E. Bennett, eds. Pp.427-454. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fa, John E.2000 Hunted Animals in Bioko Island, West Africa: Sustainability

and Future. In Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. J. Ro-binson and E. Bennett, eds. Pp. 168-198. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Fimbel, Cheryl1994 The Relative Use of Abandoned Farm Clearings and Old For-

est Habitats by Primates and a Forest Antelope at Tiwai, SierraLeone, West Africa. Biological Conservation 70:277-286.

Fitter, Richard1974 Most Endangered Animals: An Action Programme. Oryx

12:436.Fitzgibbon, Claire D., Hezron Mogaka, and John H. Fanshawe

1995 Subsistence Hunting in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya andIts Effects on Mammal Populations. Conservation Biology

Ghimire, Krishna B., and Michael P. Pimbert1997 Social Change and Conservation: An Overview of Issues and

Concepts. In Social Change and Conservation. K. Ghimire andM. Pimbert, eds. Pp. 1-45. London: Earthscan Publications.

Gonzalez-Kirchner, J. P., and M. Sainz de la Maza1998 Primate Hunting by Guaymi Amerindians in Costa Rica. Hu-

man Evolution 13(1):15-19.Grieser Johns, Andrew, and Bettina Grieser Johns

1995 Tropical Forest Primates and Logging: Long-Term Coexis-tence. Oryx 29(3):205-211.

Groombridge, Brian1992 Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources.

London: Chapman and Hall.Hackel, Jeffrey D.

1999 Community Conservation and the Future of Africa's Wild-life. Conservation Biology 13(4):726-734.

Hames, Raymond B.19 79 A Comparison of the Efficiencies of the Shotgun and the

Bowin Neotropical Forest Hunting. Human Ecology 7:219-252.Hill, Catherine M.

1997 Crop-Raiding by Wild Vertebrates: The Farmers' Perspectivein an Agricultural Community in Western Uganda. InternationalJournal of Pest Management 43(1): 77-84.

2000 A Conflict of Interest between People and Baboons: CropRaiding in Uganda. International Journal of Primatology21(2):299-315.

In press People, Crops and Primates: A Conflict of Interests. In Pri-mate Commensalism and Conflict. J. D. Paterson, ed.

Hladik, Charles M., Olga F. Linares, Annette Hladik, HelenePagezy, and Alison Semple

1993 Tropical Forests, People and Food: An Overview. In TropicalForests, People and Food. Bioculrural Interactions and Applica-tions to Development. C. Hladik, O. Linares, A. Hladik, H. Pagezy,A. Semple, and M. Hadley, eds. Pp. 3-14. Man and Biosphere Se-ries. New York: UNESCO and Parthenon.

Inamdar, Amar, Helen de Jode, Keith Lindsey, and Stephen Cobb1999 Capitalising on Nature: Protected Area Management. Sci-

ence 283:1856-1857.Institute World Resources

1996 World Resources 1996-97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.IUCN, UNEP, and WWF

1991 Caring for the Earth. Gland: IUCN/UNEP/WWF.Kinnaird, Margaret

1992 Competition for a Forest Palm: Use of Phoenix redinata by Hu-man and Nonhuman Primates. Conservation Biology 6:101-107.

Lambert, Joanna E.1998 Primate Frugivory in Kibale National Park, Uganda, and Its

Implications for Human Use of Forest Resources. African Journalof Ecology 36:234-240.

Laurance, William F., Heraldo L. Vasconcelos, and Thomas E.Love joy

2000 Forest Loss and Fragmentation in the Amazon: Implicationsfor Wildlife Conservation. Oryx 34(1):39^5.

Leach, Melissa1994 Rainforest Relations, Gender and Resource Use among the

Mende of Gola, Sierra Leone, vol. 13. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-versity Press.

Leader-Williams, N., and S. Albon1988 Allocation of Resources for Conservation. Nature 336:353.

Lee, Phyllis C, and Nancy E. C. PristonIn press Perceptions of Pests: Human Attitudes to Primates, Con-

flict and Consequences for Conservation. In Primate commensal-ism and conflict. J. D. Paterson, ed.

Lee, Rob L.2000 Impact of Subsistence Hunting in North Sulawesi, Indonesia,

and Conservation Options. In Hunting for Sustainability in Tropi-cal Forests. J. Robinson and E. Bennett, eds. Pp. 455-472. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Mace, Georgina M., and Andrew Balmford2000 Patterns and Processes in Contemporary Mammalian Extinc-

tion. In Future Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Di-versity. A. Entwhistle and N. Dunstone, eds. Pp. 27-52.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Madden, Francine1998 The Management of Human-Mountain Gorilla (Gorillago-

rilla beringei) Conflict in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. Pp.1-9. Washington, DC: International Gorilla Conservation Pro-gram.

Mascarenhas, Adolpho1971 Agricultural Vermin in Tanzania. In Studies in East African

Geography and Development. S. H. Ominde, ed. Pp. 259-267.London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Mitchell, A. H., and R. L. Tilson1986 Restoring the Balance: Tradition Hunting and Primate Con-

servation in the Mentawai Islands, Indonesia. In Primate Ecologyand Conservation. J. Else and P, Lee, eds. Pp. 249-260. Cam.bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mittermeier, Russell A., and Dorothy L. Cheney1987 Conservation of Primates and Their Habitats. In Primate So-

cieties. B. Smuts, D. Cheney, R. Seyfarth, R. Wrangham, and T.Struhsaker, eds. Pp. 477-496. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Mittermeier, Russell A., and M. G. M. van Roosmalen1981 Preliminary Observations on Habitat Utilization and Diet in

Eight Surinam Monkeys. Folia Primatologica 36:1-39.Muchaal, Pia K., and Germain Ngandjui

1999 Impact of Village Hunting on Wildlife Populations in theWestern Dja Reserve, Cameroon. Conservation Biology13(2):385-396.

Mukherjee, R. P., G. D. Mukherjee, and S. Bhuinya1986 Population Trends of Hanuman Langur in Agricultural Areas

of Midnapur District, West Bengal, India. Primate Conservation7:53-54.

1194 American Anthropologist • Vol. 104, No. 4 • December 2002

Naughton-Treves, Lisa1998 Predicting Patterns of Crop Damage by Wildlife around

Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology12(1):156-168.

Noss, Andrew J.1998 Cable Snares and Bushmeat Markets in a Central African For-

est. Environmental Conservation25(3):228-233.OatesJohnF.

1995 The Dangers of Conservation by Rural Development—ACase-Study from the Forests of Nigeria. Oryx 29(2): 115-122.

1996 Habitat Alteration, Hunting and the Conservation of Folivor-ous Primates in African Forests. Australian Journal of Ecology21:1-9.

1999 Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Pacheco, Luis F., and Javier A. Simonetti2000 Genetic Structure of a Mimosoid Tree Deprived of Its Seed

Disperser, the Spider Monkey. Conservation Biology14(6): 1766-1775.

Peres, Carlos A.1991 Huinboldt's Woolly Monkeys Decimated by Hunting in

Amazonia. Oryx25(2):89-95.199 7 Effects of Habitat Quality and Hunting Pressure on Arboreal

Folivore Densities in Neotropical Forests: A Case Study of HowlerMonkeys. Folia Primatologica 68:199-222.

Peres, Carlos A., and Marc van Roosmalen2002 Primate Frugivory in Two Species-Rich Neotropical Forests:

Implications for the Demography of Large-Seeded Plants inOverhunted Areas. In Seed Dispersal and Frugivory: Ecology, Evo-lution and Conservation. D. Levey, W. Silva, and M. Galetti, eds.Pp. 407-421. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Pirta, Raghubir S., Madhav Gadgil, and A. V. Kharshikar1997 Management of the Rhesus Monkey Macaca mulatto and

Hanuman Langur Presbytis entellus in Himachal Pradesh, India.Biological Conservation 79:97-106.

Plumptre, Andrew J., and Vernon Reynolds1994 The Effect of Selective Logging on the Primate Populations in

the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Journal of Applied Ecology31:631-641.

Plumptre, Andrew J., Vernon Reynolds, and ChristopherBakuneeta

1994 The Contribution of Fruit Eating Primates to Seed Dispersaland Natural Regeneration after Selective Logging. Overseas De-velopment Agency.

Redford, Kent H., and John C. Robinson1985 Hunting by Indigenous Peoples and the Conservation of

Their Game Species. Cultural Survival Quarterly 9:41-44.Richards, Paul

1993 Natural Symbols and Natural History: Chimpanzees, Ele-phants and Experiments in Mende Thought. In Environmental-ism: The View from Anthropology. K. Milton, ed. Pp. 144-159.London: Routledge.

Robinson, John G.1993 The Limits to Caring: Sustainable Living and the Loss of Bio-

diversity. Conservation Biology 7:20-28.Saj, Tania L., Pascale Sicotte, and James D. Paterson

2001 The Conflict between Vervet Monkeys and Farmers at theForest Edge in Entebbe, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology39:195-199.

Siex, Karen S., and Thomas T. Struhsaker1999 Colobus Monkeys and Coconuts: A Study of Perceived Hu-

man-Wildlife Conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology36:1009-1020.

Smith, Joyotee, Petra van de Kop, Keneth Reategui, IgnacioLombardi, Cesar Sabogal, and Armando Diaz

1999 Dynamics of Secondary Forests in Slash-and-Burn Farming:Interactions among Land Use Types in the Peruvian Amazon:Ecosystems and Environment 76:85-98.

Southwick, Charles H., M. Farooq Siddiqi, and John R.Oppenheimer

1983 Twenty-Year Changes in Rhesus Monkey Populations in Ag-ricultural Areas of Northern India. Ecology 64:434-439.

Spinage, Clive1998 Social Change and Conservation Misrepresentation in Af-

rica. Oryx 32(4):265-276.Sprague, David S.

2002 Monkeys in the Backyard: Encroaching Wildlife and RuralCommunities in Japan. In Primates Face to Face. A. Fuentes and L.Wolfe, eds. Pp. 254-272. Cambridge Series in Biological and Evo-lutionary Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Stearman, Allyn M.2000 A Pound of Flesh: Social Change and Modernization As Fac-

tors in Hunting Sustainability among Neotropical Indigenous So-cieties. In Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. J.Robinson and E. Bennett, eds. Pp. 233-250. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Strum, Shirley C.1994 Prospects for Management of Primate Pests. Revue Ecologie

(Terre Vie) 49:295-306.Tenaza, Richard

1987 The Status of Primates and Their Habitats in the Pagai Is-lands, Indonesia. Primate Conservation 8:104-110.

Waller, John C, and Vernon Reynolds2001 Limb Injuries Resulting from Snares and Traps in Chimpan-

zees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) of the Budongo Forest,Uganda. Primates 42:135-139.

Wallis, Janette, and D. R. Lee1999 Primate Conservation: The Prevention of Disease Transmis-

sion. International Journal of Primatology 20:803-826.Western, David

1994 Ecosystem Conservation and Rural Development: The Caseof Amboseli. In Natural Connections: Perspective in Community-Based Conservation. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. A.Strum, eds. Pp. 15-52. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wilkie, David S., Ellen Shaw, Fiona Rotberg, Gilda Morelii, andPhilippe Auzel

2000 Roads, Development, and Conservation in the Congo Basin.Conservation Biology 14(6): 1614-1622.

Wilkie, David S., John G. Sidle, and Georges C. Boundzanga1992 Mechanized Logging, Market Hunting and a Bank Loan in

Congo. Conservation Biology 6(4):5 70-580.Wolfe, Linda D.

2002 Rhesus Macaques: A Comparative Study of Two Sites, Jaipur,India and Silver Springs, Florida. In Primates Face to Face. A. Fuen-tes and L. Wolfe, eds. Pp. 310-330. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Woodford, Michael H., Thomas M. Butynski, and William B. Karesh2002 Habituating the Great Apes: The Disease Risks. Oryx

36(2):153-160.Wrangham, Richard W.

2001 Moral Decisions about Wild Chimpanzees. In Great Apesand Humans: The Ethics of Coexistence. B. Beck, T. Stoinski, M.Hutchins, T. Maple, B. Norton, A. Rowan, E. Stevens, and A. Ar-luke, eds. Pp. 230-244. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institu-tion Press.