<b>Investigating Sri Lanka’s human-monkey conflict and developing a strategy to mitigate the problem</b>

Abstract

Human-monkey conflicts reached crisis proportions in Sri Lanka over the last 10 years due to extensive deforestation to promote rapid economic growth and agricultural expansion. This resulted in complaints from the public with demands for Sri Lanka’s Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) to solve the problem without delay. Caught between political pressure and public outcry, the DWC’s efforts to deal with the crisis gradually fell into disarray. To overcome this, the SPEARS Foundation--, offered to help the DWC to develop a strategic plan to deal with human-monkey conflicts. This plan was developed through a series of workshops and submitted to the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Wildlife in March 2016 for approval. During and after the development of the strategy, some of its key elements were implemented by the SPEARS Foundation. One of these elements was documenting details of human-monkey conflict from letters of complaint received by DWC. This information was used to initiate a series of field surveys to identify sites suitable for long-term protection of monkeys and other wildlife. When these areas are identified they would be designated as community conservation areas (CCAs), and managed by local stakeholders on a sustainable basis under the supervision of DWC. Establishing CCAs is a new paradigm for Sri Lanka to conserve wildlife while benefitting local communities. Its details were presented in the strategic plan submitted to the government. In this paper, we present the information obtained from the letters of complaint received by DWC and discuss its details. In subsequent reports, we will discuss the results of our field surveys to identify areas suitable for the establishment of CCAs.

Assessing Public Perceptions and Solutions to Human-Monkey Conflict from 50 Years in Sri Lanka

“…1), which has the highest population density of humans, the gray langur is naturally absent, and suitable wild-primate habitats are highly fragmented and have been converted in large part for human use [Parker et al, 2008]. In these areas, the macaques (if not already locally exterminated) are also reported as pests, and the purple-faced langur is notorious for causing damage to roofs and home gardens [Dela, 2007;Rudran, 2007, Nahallage et al, 2008Nekaris et al, 2013;Cabral et al, 2018]. In the dry zone in contrast, sparser human density and greater availability of secondary or primary forest has so far spared the purple-faced langur from extensive conflict with humans, while the macaques are still a common problem there.…”

“…In Sri Lanka, the cited pests are most often the toque macaque (M. sinica) [Nahallage et al 2008], followed by the purple-faced langur (Semnopithecus vetulus) [Dela, 2007;Rudran, 2007;Nekaris et al, 2013] and the gray langur (S. priam) [Cabral et al, 2018]. The geographical ranges of these primates fall into the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot [Myers et al, 2000], which, of the 25 such hotspots recognized globally, has one of the highest human population densities in Asia.…”

Assessment of crop and property damage caused by Semnopithecus vetulus nestor (Bennett, 1833) (Mammalia: Primates: Cercopithecidae) in Gampaha District, Sri Lanka

“…Not only parasitic invertebrates but also vertebrates like birds (Bruggers et al 1998;Maurice et al 2019), rodents (Lathiya et al 2003;Sarwar 2015), Mouse Deer (Linkie et al 2007), porcupine (Linkie et al 2007), Wild Boar (Shafi & Khokhar 1986;Gobosho et al 2015), Elephants (Sukumar 1990;Barnes 1996;Hill 1998;Chiyo et al 2012) and non-human primates (Boulton et al 1996;Pirta et al 1997;Hill 2000;Dittus et al 2019) are considered as crop raiding pests responsible for humanwildlife negative interactions. Non-human primates are often considered to be the most destructive crop raiders in many parts of the world (Naughton-Treves et al 1998;Hill 2000;McLennan 2008;Hill & Wallace 2012;Hockings et al 2012;Cabral et al 2018). Members of the genera Macaca, Papio, and Cercopithecus are amongst the most frequently cited non-human primate pest species (Hill 2005).…”

Sharing Space with Monkeys and Human Tolerance Are Critical Supplements to Primate Conservation, but Not Substitutes for Protected Nature Reserves: A Long-Term View from Sri Lanka, with a Reply to Rudran [2021]

“…Injury from monkey bites were rare. Our survey centered in the Dry Zone whereas the one by Nahallage et al [2008] and that by Cabral et al [2018a] and Rudran et al [2020] were wider ranging but focused mainly on the central montane and southern regions of the island. The reports by Cabral et al [2018a] and Rudran et al [2020] were based on written complaints to the wildlife authorities, supplemented by field surveys [Rudran et al, 2021].…”

“…Conservation and HMC focusing on the toque macaques have been reviewed by Dittus [1977aDittus [ , 2012a and by Nahallage and Huffman [2013]. Comprehensive comparisons of HMC issues involving all diurnal species of Sri Lankan primates at different geographical locations, but particularly in the central and southern regions of the island, have been considered by Nahallage et al [2008], Cabral et al [2018a] and by Rudran et al [2021]. The published ethnoprimatological perspective to the conservation of Sri Lankan primates was introduced by Nekaris et al [2013] but overlooked by Rudran et al [2020Rudran et al [ , 2021.…”