The Plight of Primates and Sanctuaries

Excerpts from THE PLIGHT OF PRIMATES AND SANCTUARIES
by Rosalind Hanson-Alp
September 2001 newsletter

In 1966, 17 wild captured chimpanzees, all of whom had spent varying lengths of time in European zoos, travelled back to Africa and were released on Rubondo Island National Park in Lake Victoria, Tanzania (Borner 1986). This was one of the first exciting projects to offer a small group of captive chimpanzees the chance to return home and live out their lives in the style nature had expected, as a community of free ranging chimpanzees, physically and psychologically independent of humans.

Forward time 35 years on to the present and there are currently 14 sanctuaries, scattered across 11 African countries, offering a home and rehabilitation to over 500 wild born, orphaned chimpanzees and one caring for 11 bonobos. Three of these sanctuaries were created before 1990; the remaining 12 have only been in existence since 1991. Eight of these sanctuaries have either exceeded their facilities' capacity to accommodate orphaned chimpanzees, or are close to being forced into the dilemma of either turning away new arrivals or compromising their facilities by increasing the number of chimpanzees ideally acceptable for their area. Combined, these sanctuaries could only adequately accommodate another 160 chimpanzees. The startling reality, however, is that even conservative estimates count over 1,500 chimpanzees who are in need of safe haven in the countries where sanctuaries are located (Cox et al, 2000, personal communication from African sanctuaries). If the whole of the African continent were considered, this estimate may be dwarfed in comparison.

In the global picture, there are over 57 sanctuaries caring for non-human primates in 30 countries: 18 in Africa, 7 in South America, 17 in North and Central America, 5 in Europe and 10 in Asia (these may underestimate the total number of sanctuaries world-wide). Additionally, there are 7 new primate sanctuaries currently in the initial stages of construction. Approximately 3,500 captive primates are living in sanctuaries or have been released through captive release programmes into protected habitats around the world (species largely endangered, lower risk or vulnerable to extinction). In short, the initial concept of rehabilitating captive primates has turned from the humble population of 17 chimpanzees on Rubondo Island in 1966, to over 3,500 primates in active rehabilitation programmes and more than double that estimate in dire need of direct care and rehabilitation worldwide.

So where are they coming from and what is their fate?

All of the 3,500 primates living in sanctuaries or released within rehabilitation and release programmes are victims of humanity, be it the desire to keep these human-like beings as personal pets, as instruments to entertain us (film, circuses, zoos etc.), as subjects in laboratory experiments to find ways to alleviate or even eliminate our suffering endured from diseases, or as food.

The majority of primates in sanctuaries in the Western hemisphere (North and Central America and Europe), have come from private ownership, laboratories, zoos, circuses, the entertainment industry or confiscated along their journey to one of the above destinations. Since primates are not indigenous to this area, the overall objectives of these sanctuaries are strongly inspired by the ideology of increasing the welfare of abused individuals. Facilities are likely to be limited in the availability of space as the high land and construction costs, stringent rules for planning permission and protocols for housing virus-infected primates mean that smaller indoor and/or outdoor cages/enclosures are more commonly built. These sanctuaries do not have the option to release their primates on site; hence, these primates are likely to remain in sanctuaries or other captive environments (e.g. zoos).

Primates cared for in sanctuaries located in Africa, Asia and South America are mainly confiscated pets or products of the bush-meat and illegal export trade. Many of these primates are indigenous to these countries and although their initial activities may have been spurred by improving the welfare of individuals, their intrinsic value to the conservation of species has forced them to address the wider issues of wildlife protection. Differences in their facilities are determined by their objectives and financial status. Some of the older sanctuaries and those with a captive-release programme (nearly all of the Asian and South American sanctuaries) may tend to have larger cages/enclosures or access to protected habitats for release. Sanctuaries spontaneously created in response to rescuing primates, may tend to construct less adequate temporary cages and then explore funding options to build more suitable enclosures and more constructive management protocols. However, they may find that the temporary housing facilities become more permanent as funding options are often limited.

Only 4 of the 18 African sanctuaries have released primates into habitats as self sufficient, free-ranging groups. The low number of release programmes could be because 11 of these sanctuaries exist solely as a rehabilitation centre for chimpanzees, a species who require specific habitats - that are fast being destroyed - for release. Creating facilities to permanently house primates (as in most cases in Africa), is not a long-term solution to the overwhelming crisis of orphan primates, but all too often there are few alternatives. Extensive research is needed to assess a habitat's holding capacity, impact on the local flora and fauna, as well as possible threats to both the captive and wild primates before embarking on any re-introduction programmes.

Health Care

Some sanctuaries follow explicit veterinary guidelines that include strict policies on quarantine, hygiene, disease prevention and birth control, maintaining detailed individual medical records. Others rely on basic personal knowledge of health care and lack funding or expertise for veterinary programmes.

Without appropriate care, the potential of disease transmission in such a close captive setting could result in unnecessary deaths within a primate group or colony. Some sanctuaries may allow blood and serum samples to be used in bio-medical research in exchange for using the laboratory's facilities (tests necessary during initial quarantining are a high cost for struggling sanctuaries). However, it is important to note that medical records can be potentially detrimental to the primates and goals of the sanctuary. Under the auspices of protecting a colony, permanent isolation for those carrying virus' (as was the case in one gibbon sanctuary in Thailand), could be advised by medical researchers, even though it is not always necessary. The primates' psychological and physical welfare should never be compromised. When researchers suggested that AIDS originated from West African chimpanzees (Gao et al, 1999), the quest for sampling blood, serum or feces from wild born chimpanzees increased. The Fauna Foundation suffered the back lash of this theory when local residents campaigned to have their HIV infected chimpanzees removed, fearing this virus might somehow be transmitted to the human population living in the town (Allan, 1999).

Birth control

Birth control remains a controversial issue, both between sanctuaries and conservationists. The majority of sanctuaries have either a no breeding policy or a captive breeding programme with the intention of releasing them into wild habitats to supplement diminishing wild populations.

The controversy of allowing primates, not critically endangered, to breed in sanctuaries works on the assumption that as wild primate populations near extinction, it is important to maintain diverse groups of genetically pure primate species should it be necessary to revive wild populations in the future. Some sanctuaries allow primates to breed for ethical reasons, believing that the rearing of infants would enhance their welfare. While these views are understandable, they should be considered with caution. The majority of sanctuaries do not have the capacity to fund or accommodate a breeding community (since it limits their capacity to offer home to existing orphans), nor access to sufficient habitats to release captive populations. Additionally, it brings in to question the ethics of knowingly allowing future generations to be born in to a captive environment.

Communication and sanctuary personnel

There are few guidelines for the establishment, standards of care, veterinary protocols, management structures or sustainability of sanctuaries. Recently, a few regional organizations have developed as a means of prompting communication between sanctuaries. The distinct lack of collaboration between sanctuaries worldwide is due in part to limitations of time and access but some also choose to learn through their own experiences. It is all too easy to work in isolation and criticize the efforts and policies of other sanctuaries, but this is a dangerous and potentially debilitating route to follow as mistakes and failures may be repeated, at the expense of the primates.

Sanctuaries are run by people from a variety of backgrounds and expertise, from individuals with no prior experience of working with primates to experienced primatologists (academically trained or otherwise). There is no evidence to suggest that qualifications are the criteria to successful management, providing limitations are accepted and advice is sought from others when necessary.

Many sanctuaries rely on the support of international volunteers whose contribution can be valuable but whose presence can, in some cases, limit the availability of higher positions and/or hinder the training of local staff (particularly in Africa).

Sanctuary constraints

Political instability can have severe restraints on a sanctuary. In the worst scenario the outbreak of war may endanger the lives of both the primates and sanctuary personnel, yet even where there is political security, sanctuaries struggle to be heard amidst a lack of political will and apathy towards animal welfare issues.

With the exception of a lucky few, the most debilitating factor for virtually all sanctuaries are financial constraints, which can mean minimizing their activities and compromising future goals. In a growing commercially orientated conservation sector, sanctuaries have to compete hard for attention and funds.

What lies ahead?

Sanctuaries are not based on philosophies of neo-zooism but have immanently evolved on an ad-hoc basis as a result of attempting to alleviate the long neglected crisis of orphaned primates. Their mere existence is a valuable tool for increasing worldwide attention to the dangers facing primates today. The international conservation community, however, does not always recognize their status, as those without captive release programmes have previously been stigmatised as being purely welfare based, offering little contribution to the overall preservation of species. Releasing captive primates may support population figures, but education and lobbying can ultimately address causes. Education programmes vary among sanctuaries from explicit outreach conservation education to informal, spontaneous discussion with local residents. Managing a sanctuary demands an almost inhuman amount of energy and dedication, but it is in their own interests to be more actively involved in conservation education if they are to lessen the burden of accommodating a flow of illegally captured primates.

If international conservation organizations do not fully accept the role of sanctuaries and they in turn do not give due attention to conservation issues, we may watch the rapid destruction of rich habitats and the depletion of wild primate populations, while sanctuaries, working in isolation, spill over with the survivors.

It should be equally recognized that the frightening rate of habitat destruction, too complex to detail here, could be greatly attributed to the pressure on developing countries to increase the status of their national economies, while enriching elite corporations from the industrialized world. Our rather primitive, short term vision of the earth is only beginning to show its ugly effects of intense habitat depletion leading inevitably to the extinction of many species and increased poverty and deprivation among the majority peoples. In order to understand the root causes threatening primates and their habitats, we must acknowledge the greater issues of globalization and failing economies if we are to find an effective means of prevention and cure for the environmental genocide. Sanctuaries have a role to play in this too.

Sanctuaries and conservationists have a responsibility to join in voice and action. It is an often-repeated rather desperate cry "We are all working for the same cause, so why can't we work together?" It is discomforting to see that if we don't, future generations may experience a Brave New World setting where primates live in manipulated, semi-wild conditions and observation is restricted to standing on platforms erected around electrified enclosures.

Rosalind Hanson-Alp
Foundation Step By Step
"Helping to safeguard Sierra Leone's environment"
Bergweg 6
9462 RK Gasselte
The Netherlands
Hanson-Alp@amazed.nl

© 2001 Rosalind Hanson-Alp - reprinted with permission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROSALIND ALP is founder and Director of Step By Step. The organization was established to support the efforts to conserve chimpanzees in Sierra Leone where there are a significant number of orphaned chimpanzees in need of care and wild populations in need of protection.

In 1989, Rosalind travelled to Sierra Leone and initiated an independent pilot survey of wild chimpanzees in the Tambara Hills, Outamba-Kilimi National Park. With the support of Dr. Jane Goodall and others, she went on to study the behavioural-ecology of another community of wild chimpanzees in Tenkere, Sierra Leone and subsequently, met with Mr. Bala Amarasekaran and became involved in helping to set up the Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary.

Ending her research in 1994, Rosalind moved to The Netherlands and founded Step By Step. The name is derived from "stepping-stick" tools, which a group of wild chimpanzees were found to use like primitive footwear to avoid the painful thorns that line the Kapok tree, the fruits of which they love to eat. This new type of tool-use, observed by Rosalind Alp, is unique to the Tenkere community in the Outmaba-Kilimi National Park, Sierra Leone. The Tenkere chimpanzees are the only known wild community to invent this type of "comfort" tool, which offers yet another illustration of the rich diversity and individuality of chimpanzee cultures.

Rosalind currently lives in Gasselte, in the north of Holland together with her husband, Peter Hanson and their two children Louis and Aïsha.