Exploring cultural drivers for wildlife trade via an ethnoprimatological approach: a case study of slender and slow lorises (Loris and Nycticebus) in South and Southeast Asia

Abstract

Illegal and unsustainable trade in wildlife is a major conservation challenge. For Asian primates, economic and cultural traditions, and increased forest access mean that trade may have become detrimental for certain species. Slow and slender lorises (Nycticebus and Loris) are primates particularly prevalent in trade, determined until now by focused counts of lorises in regional markets. Here, we use international trade statistics and a participant-observer approach to assess culturally specific drivers for trade in lorises in South and Southeast Asia, to provide a broader context to help mitigate this practice. Analysis of international records for the last 30 years revealed that live animal trade was more prevalent than trade in body parts (slow lorises, 86.4%; slender lorises, 91.4%), with Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand the largest exporters. We then examine drivers of international and domestic trade based on long-term data from 1994-2009 in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Indonesia. We show that slender lorises are important in Sri Lankan folklore, but their use as pets and for traditional medicine is rare. Trade in Bengal slow and pygmy lorises in Cambodia for use in traditional medicines, a practice with deeply historical roots, is widespread. Despite its own set of myths about the magical and curative properties of lorises, trade in Javan, Bornean, and greater slow lorises in Indonesia is largely for pets. Conservation practices in Asia are often generalized and linked with the region's major religions and economies. We show here that, in the case of wildlife trade, culturally specific patterns are evident among different ethnic groups, even within a country. Revealing such patterns is the foundation for developing conservation management plans for each species. We suggest some participatory methods for each country that may aid in this process.

Marine Mammals in Asian Societies; Trends in Consumption, Bait, and Traditional Use

“…The illicit nature of illegal wildlife use has led to the successful adaptation of rapid assessment techniques that maintain the participant's confidentiality while still capturing key information (Conteh et al, 2015). Focused ethnological studies appear useful in both understanding the drivers of wildlife use and also in providing a foundation for future conservation and education activities that aim to establish sustainable use through changes in human practices (Nekaris et al, 2010;Scheffers et al, 2012). Gavin et al (2010) provide a comprehensive review of socioeconomic methodology based on 100 studies.…”

Moolah, misfortune or spinsterhood? The plight of Slender Loris Loris lydekkerianus in southern India

“…Kumara (2007) documented the association of lorises as an omen in protected areas in Karnataka, which resulted in locals killing them when encountered. In Sri Lanka, the species is associated with similar beliefs; however their use for treating a variety of ailments from leprosy to preparing love potions is more prominent (Nekaris et al 2010). The practice of collecting tears from lorises for treating eye ailments, although known to be popular in Tamil Nadu (Singh et al 1999) Image 1.…”

Know Your Monkey: Identifying Primate Conservation Challenges in an Indigenous Kichwa Community Using an Ethnoprimatological Approach

“…To this end, ethnoprimatology is a subdiscipline of primatology which aims to understand the relationships between humans and primates from both perspectives. It takes into account conservation's recent trend towards developing solutions that consider the drivers of behaviour as well as the rights of local and indigenous groups and their dependency on the surrounding environment [Nekaris et al, 2010;Riley, 2010;Riley and Fuentes, 2011;Alexander et al, 2014]. There is evidence that conservation interventions which understand traditional values and beliefs are more successful [Waylen et al, 2010] and avoid worstcase scenarios where insensitive interventions alienate locals from the conservation message [Klein et al, 2007].…”