PRIMATE CONSERVATION IN QUANG NAM PROVINCE, CENTRAL VIETNAM

Minh Hoang1 Tu Van Khanh2

Huynh Van Thuong1 Barney Long1

1 WWF Indochina – Vietnam Programme; MOSAIC Project 2 Quang Nam Forest Protection Department

The opinions expressed in this document represent those of the authors and editors. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of WWF.

The designation of geographical entities in this document and the presentation of the

material do not imply any expression on the part of the authors, editors, or WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area or its authorities, or concerning the

delineation of its frontiers and boundaries.

The authors, editors, and WWF take no responsibility for any misrepresentation of material that may results form the translation of this document into any other language.

Published by WWF Indochina Copyright© 2005 WWF

Publication Licence No: 38/XBNT-VHTT by Department of Culture and Information Quang Nam dated 20/4/2005.

Reproduction of any part of this publication for educations, conservation, and any other non-profit purposes is authorised without prior permission form the copyright holder,

provided that the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder.

Suggested citation: Minh Hoang, Tu Van Khanh, Huynh Van Thuong and Long, B.

2005.Primate Conservation in Quang Nam Province, Central Vietnam. WWF Indochina and Quang Nam Forest Protection Department, Tam Ky, Vietnam.

Printed by In Da Nang Printing and Service Joint-Stock Company

Cover Photographs: Main, back and front, middle inset: Barney Long/WWF; Top inset: Huynh Van Thuong/WWF, Bottom inset: Minh Hoang/WWF.

Copies available from: WWF Indochina

MOSAIC Project

Forest Protection Department 77 Tran Quy Cap

Tam Ky Quang Nam

Vietnam Tel: 0510 810735

E-mail: mosaic@dng.vnn.vn

WWF Indochina C2-3 Horison Offices

40 Cat Linh Dong Da

Hanoi Vietnam

Tel: 04 7366375 E-mail: Hanoi@wwfvn.org.vn

Quang Nam Forest Protection Department 77 Tran Quy Cap

Tam Ky Quang Nam

Vietnam Tel: 0510 852558

1

Acknowledgements

The development and implementation of a provincial primate conservation programme in Quang Nam has been successful due to the interest and motivation of the Quang Nam primate ranger team: Ha Phuoc Phu, Duong Quang Hung, Cao Huu Binh, Le Van Duc, Nguyen Vu, Le The Thanh, Nguyen Truong Kieu, Vu Ngoc Anh, Nguyen Ngoc An and Nguyen Dinh Hoan. Support, direction and logistics were provided by Diep Thanh Phong, Thai Truyen, Dang Dinh Nguyen and Ta Thi Y Van to who we are grateful. Invaluable assistance was provided by Song Thanh Nature Reserve and Phuoc Son and Dong Giang district FPDs through their organisation of training courses. The methods presented in this report were co-developed with Vu Ngoc Thanh, Ha Thang Long and Nguyen Manh Ha. Useful comments on methods were provided by Dr. David Chivers, Dr. Thomas Geissmann and Tilo Nadler. Ranger training has been, and will continue to be, the primary support target of this programme so all those who helped with this component deserve special thanks: Vu Ngoc Thanh, Ha Thang Long, Nguyen Manh Ha, Le Trong Dat and Luong Quang Hao. Valuable comments on various versions of this report were provided by Prof. Ha Dinh Duc, Ha Thang Long, Steven Swan and Scott Roberton. We are grateful to Dr. Thomas Geissmann and Dr. Christian Roos for their assistance with taxonomic analysis and advice on their incorporation into this report. Vu Ngoc Thanh kindly provided his photo for reproduction in this report. Encouragement and support were provided by Tran Minh Hien and Kristin Clay throughout the process. Without financial support this process could not have been started so special thanks go to those who provided assistance: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation, USAID and WWF-US.

Preface This report outlines the first year of what we hope will be a long-term programme for primate conservation in Quang Nam province. This report is therefore not exhaustive, but aims to provide an overview of: i) The status and distribution of primates in Quang Nam ii) How WWF and Quang Nam FPD are supporting their conservation through ranger training iii) In-situ conservation efforts. Data on primates and their monitoring will be continuously collated at the provincial level to inform adaptive management of primates and their habitat. In wanting to present the full suite of approaches adopted by Quang Nam FPD, information on primate status, ranger training and conservation actions are presented in this report. To ease access to specific information, the report is divided into three main sections, each representing one of the afore mentioned aims of the programme.

2

Executive Summary

• This report presents the actions and results of the first year of Quang Nam province’s

Primate Conservation Programme.

• The Quang Nam Primate Conservation Programme is a join initiative between Quang Nam Forest Protection Department (FPD) and the World Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) MOSIAC project.

• This report is intended to act as baseline on which future primate conservation efforts in Quang Nam can be measured.

• The Quang Nam Primate Conservation Programme has three components: ♦ Training ♦ Primate survey and monitoring

♦ In-situ conservation

Training

• Ten district FPD rangers were trained in primate interview, survey and monitoring techniques.

• A primate identification and survey manual for FPD’s within the Central Truong Son landscape was produced.

• Trained rangers successfully conducted primate interviews and field surveys throughout Quang Nam province.

Primate status review

• 863 interviews were conducted over 49 communes to assess primate distribution and threats.

• 30 forest areas were surveyed to assess primate status and taxonomy.

• Two monitoring grids were established in Song Thanh nature Reserve.

• Eight primate taxa were confirmed with two others potentially being present.

• Globally important populations of the Vietnamese endemic and endangered grey-shanked douc (Pygathrix cinerea) were confirmed.

• Regionally important populations of the endangered red-shanked douc (Pygathrix nemaeus) were confirmed.

• Regionally important populations of ‘white-cheeked’ crested gibbons (Nomascus leucogenys siki) were confirmed.

• The major threat to primates is hunting which is primarily driven by the illegal wildlife trade .

• Hunting of primates occurs more among rich households than poor households.

• Song Thanh Nature Reserve was found to hold important populations of grey-shanked and red-shanked doucs as well as ‘white-cheeked’ crested gibbons. These species are under threat from hunting and disturbance from gold mining.

• Eight priority areas for primate conservation were identified with conservation recommendations made per site:

3

Priority areas for primate conservation in Quang Nam province

Priority Name Communes District I Song Thanh; Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Xuan, Tabhing, Ca Dy Phuoc Son, Nam Giang I Song Thanh; Dak Pring Dak Pring Nam Giang II Tien Phuoc Tien Lanh, Tien Ngoc, Thang Phuoc Tien Phuoc, Hiep Duc II Tra Giac Tra Giac, Tra Tap Bac Tra My, Nam Tra My II Phu Ninh Tam My Nui Thanh II Zuoih Zuoih Nam Giang II Macooih Macooih Dong Giang III Western Que Son Que Phuoc, Que Lam Que Son

Conservation

• 2134 households across the priority 115 villages signed pledges not to hunt primates.

• A primate conservation awareness campaign was conducted which included village meetings, poster distribution and the production of a logo for Song Thanh Nature Reserve.

• Two Intensive Protection Zones (IPZ) were established within Song Thanh Nature reserve with full community consensus on their boundary and management regulations.

• Community forest management regulations were established in six villages adjacent to IPZs.

• Community patrol units (Village Protection Teams) were established in six villages adjacent to IPZs.

Recommendations

• Continue investment in ranger training including refresher training, practice and equipping.

• Institutionalise the primate ranger team within work plans of district and provincial FPD.

• Strengthen law enforcement in priority areas for primate conservation including the removal of illegal hunters and gold miners.

• Strengthen enforcement of the illegal wildlife trade.

• Continue status assessments in all eight priority areas.

• Implement primate monitoring through its institutionalisation within Song Thanh Nature Reserve work plans.

• Increase community-based conservation and sustainable forest management in priority areas for primate conservation.

• Field demarcation of primate Intensive Protection Zones within Song Thanh Nature Reserve.

• Strengthen ranger’s capacity to assist, facilitate and train Village Protection Teams.

• Detailed recommendations per priority site are presented.

4

Contents

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................1 Preface ......................................................................................................1 Executive Summary..................................................................................2 Contents ....................................................................................................4 Introduction...............................................................................................6

Vietnamese primates .........................................................................................................6 Primate conservation in Vietnam.......................................................................................6 Introduction to Quang Nam................................................................................................6 Objectives ..........................................................................................................................8

Section 1..................................................................................................10 Capacity Development for Primate Conservation in Quang Nam.........10

1.1 Methods ....................................................................................................................10 1.1.1 Building a training support network ..................................................................... 10 1.1.2 Interview surveys............................................................................................... 10 1.1.3 Field surveys ..................................................................................................... 11 1.1.4 Primate population monitoring ............................................................................ 12 1.1.5 Primate conservation ......................................................................................... 12

1.2 Results ......................................................................................................................13 1.3 Discussion.................................................................................................................13

1.3.1 Constraints........................................................................................................ 14 1.3.2 Successes ........................................................................................................ 14

Section 2..................................................................................................15 Primate Status Review............................................................................15

2.1 Methods ....................................................................................................................15 2.1.1 Literature search................................................................................................ 15 2.1.2 Interview surveys............................................................................................... 15 2.1.3 Field surveys ..................................................................................................... 16 2.1.4 Threat assessment ............................................................................................ 16 2.1.5 Priority area identification ................................................................................... 17 2.1.6 Primate population monitoring ............................................................................ 17

2.2 Results ......................................................................................................................18 2.2.1 Literature search................................................................................................ 18 2.2.2 Interviews .......................................................................................................... 18 2.2.3 Field surveys ..................................................................................................... 19 2.2.4 Priority areas ..................................................................................................... 23 2.2.5 Threat assessment ............................................................................................ 23 2.2.6 Primate population monitoring ............................................................................ 26

2.3 Discussion.................................................................................................................27 2.3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................ 27 2.3.2 Interviews .......................................................................................................... 28 2.3.3 Primate distribution and status ............................................................................ 29 2.3.4 Threat assessment ........................................................................................ 30

2.4 Priority areas for primate conservation in Quang Nam............................................31 Section 3..................................................................................................35 Primate Conservation in Quang Nam.....................................................35

3.1 Methods ....................................................................................................................35 3.2 Results ......................................................................................................................35 3.3 Discussion.................................................................................................................36

3.3.1 Constraints......................................................................................................... 37 3.3.2 Successes ......................................................................................................... 37

5

Recommendations ..................................................................................38 Capacity development .....................................................................................................38 Methods............................................................................................................................38 Survey, research and monitoring.....................................................................................38 Conservation in priority areas ..........................................................................................38

References ..............................................................................................40 Appendix 1. Ranger competency assessment ......................................42 Appendix 2. Area prioritisation...............................................................44 Appendix 3. Gazetteer of Quang Nam primate records (to March 2005)45 Appendix 4. Primate interview datasheet...............................................50 Appendix 5. Field survey datasheets.....................................................54 Appendix 6. Monitoring datasheets .......................................................55 Appendix 6. Monitoring datasheets .......................................................56

Acronyms and Abbreviations

c. Circa MOSAIC Management Of Strategic Areas for Integrated Conservation

DoNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment

sp. Species

EPRC Endangered Primate Rescue Centre

US$ United States Dollar

FFI Fauna & Flora International VN RDB Vietnam Red Data Book FPD Forest Protection

Department VND Vietnam Dong

FZS Frankfurt Zoological Society VPT Village Protection Team IUCN World Conservation Union WWF World Wide Fund for Nature MARD Ministry of Agriculture and

Rural Development ZSPSP Zoological Society for the

Protection of Species and Populations

IUCN global threat categories: Vietnam national threat categories: CR Critically Endangered CR Critically Endangered EN Endangered EN Endangered VU Vulnerable V Vulnerable DD Data Deficient LR Lower Risk LR/nt Lower Risk / near threatened

6

Introduction Vietnamese primates Vietnam has the second highest primate species diversity in Southeast Asia with 21 species and three additional sub-species. Four species are endemic to Vietnam: golden-headed langur (Trachypithecus poliocephalus), Delacour’s langur (T. delacouri), grey-shanked douc (Pygathrix cinerea) and Tonkin snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus avunculus). Primates in Vietnam are facing a range of threats that are putting them on the brink of extinction. 62.5% (n=15) of Vietnam’s primate species are Globally Threatened with four being Data Deficient and two not evaluated and likely to be threatened (IUCN, 2004). Five of the world’s 25 most endangered primates occur in Vietnam (Conservation International, 2000). Unless effective primate protection mechanisms are developed and implemented, Vietnam is likely to loose species within in this flagship group; representing a significant loss of its natural heritage. Primate conservation in Vietnam Despite the recognised importance of primates and the political will and acceptance to implement primate conservation, the protection of primates in Vietnam is, in general, ineffective at present. The Forest Protection Department (FPD) is the official state agency in charge of enforcing national laws on natural resource and biodiversity protection. It is therefore the agency primarily responsible for primate conservation. Despite this responsibility, FPD currently has no institutional capacity to effectively protect primates. The average ranger is not trained in biodiversity conservation theory or practice and has little understanding of why conservation is important. Additionally, FPD rangers have no incentive to protect biodiversity as managers do not monitor performance based on biodiversity conservation targets. Moreover, operational resources for biodiversity conservation activities are not made available by the government or managers. Due to the array of endangered and endemic primates found in Vietnam, conservation organisations have long taken an interest in the country. Many species-focused conservation initiatives have been established, and through the implementation of a range of approaches such as community-based conservation (FFI), enforcement (FZS/ZSPSP) and eco-tourism (FZS/EPRC), are having considerable success. The approach outlined in this report differs slightly from others taken to date in Vietnam in that it focuses primate conservation efforts within a region (the province) rather than on a particular species or site. Additionally, the approach described here is wholly focused on capacity development of rangers to enable them to accurately survey, monitor and protect primates in key areas throughout a province. The majority of work described in this report is based on the work of rangers, facilitating the need to explain training approaches, field methods and result accuracy. Included in this tactic for sustainable uptake of primate conservation within the responsible government agency, assessments of the successes and constraints of activities are provided so that lessons can be learnt from the approach taken by the WWF MOSAIC project in Quang Nam province. Introduction to Quang Nam Geographical position Quang Nam province covers 10,405.14km2 (Department of Land Administration, 2000) and is located in central Vietnam between 14o57’22’’ - 16o04’28’’ north and 107o13’35’’ - 108o42’06’’ east. The province borders Thua Thien-Hue province and Da Nang city to the north, Quang Ngai and Kon Tum province in the south, the East Sea to the east and Lao PDR to the west (map 1). Climate and hydrology Quang Nam’s climate is monsoonal with two primary seasons; the dry season (from January to July) and the wet season (from August to December). The average annual temperature is 25.6oC with an average range from 21.4oC in January to 29.2oC in July (Anon, 2002). Humidity varies

7

throughout the year but averages 84.5% annually (Anon, 2002). The average annual precipitation is 2,876mm, but a greater part of this falls between August and December (Anon, 2002). The majority of the province is comprised of a single watershed, being bordered by mountains on three sides and the coast on the east. The Thu Bon catchment drains into the East Sea through the Dai estuary in Hoi An town. This large river divides in central Quang Nam with the Thu Bon catchment (3,350 km2) draining the southern part of the province, including the Ngoc Linh area. The Vu Gia system (5,500 km2) drains the western and northern districts, through the Cai and Boung rivers respectively, and joins the Thu Bon in Dai Loc district. A small drainage system; the Tam Ky (800 km2), is located in the south-east of the province and drains the costal zone around Thang Binh, Tam Ky and Nui Thanh districts.

Table 1. Primates possibly occurring in Quang Nam province and their status

Status Family/Genus/Species English Name IUCN*1 VN RDB*2

Decree 48 Listing

Loridae Nycticebus bengalensis slow loris DD V IB Nycticebus pygmaeus pygmy loris VU V IB Cercopithecidae Macaca leonina northern pig-tailed macaque VU V IIB Macaca mulatta rhesus macaque LR/nt LR IIB Macaca fascicularis long-tailed macaque LR/nt LR - Macaca arctoides bear macaque VU V IIB Trachypithecus germaini Indochinese silvered langur CR*3 n/e*4 n/e*4 Pygathrix nemaeus red-shanked douc EN EN IB Pygathrix cinerea grey-shanked douc CR*5 CR*5 IB Hylobatidae Nomascus leucogenys white-cheeked crested gibbon DD EN IB Nomascus gabriellae yellow-cheeked crested gibbon VU EN IB Notes: *1IUCN, 2004; *2MARD, 2000; *3After Nadler et al., 2003; *4Taxonomic changes means it is currently not evaluated; *5Not evaluated as previously considered a variation of P. nemaeus so evaluated as EN, here evaluation follows Nadler et al., 2003. Significance of Quang Nam forest The Greater Annamites Mountain range is classified by WWF as one of the ‘Global 200’ highest priority ecoregions for biodiversity conservation (Olson & Dinerstein, 1997). Quang Nam province lies in the middle of the Central Annamites, a landscape identified as one of the highest priority areas within the Greater Annamites during a biological assessment of the Ecoregion (Baltzer et al, 2001). The Central Annamites are important due to the presence of a large proportion of species endemic to the Annamites, the presence of species wholly endemic to the landscape (including the grey-shanked douc P. cinerea), a wide altitudinal gradient stretching from sea level to over 2,500 m, and the persistence of relatively intact floral and faunal communities (Tordoff et al., 2002). Forest covers 440,651 ha (42.3%) of Quang Nam province of which 388,404 ha (37.3%) is natural forest (Decision No. 1281/QD/BNN-KL, MARD, 2004) (map 2). The majority of forest is located in the mountainous west of the province. The topography of Quang Nam is complex with steep slopes, high mountain plateaus and lowland plains. The dominant vegetation formation is tropical moist evergreen rainforest. Specific habitats are distributed based on altitude and precipitation levels (see Long et al., in prep a for more details). Elevation gradients are large, ranging from sea level up to 2,598m at the summit of Ngoc Linh; the highest peak of the Central Annamites. Over 65% of Quang Nam’s forest is classified as important for watershed protection (Bui Huu Manh, 2003) making forest protection a critical component of sustainable development in the province. Recent research has identified 78 mammals occurring in Quang Nam with 32 nationally and 21 globally threatened species (Long et al., in prep a). Over the past decade, five new large mammal species have been discovered in Vietnam, four of which have been confirmed as present in Quang Nam. One of these new species, the grey-shanked douc (P. cinerea), was described in 1997 (Nadler, 1997; Roos and Nadler, 2001). This new taxa has been confirmed from only five provinces in central Vietnam (Nadler et al., 2003). The biodiversity values of Quang Nam are high both

8

nationally and globally, and with increased survey work, clarification of its importance is likely to increase further. WWF MOSAIC project and Quang Nam FPD In recognition of the importance of the province’s forest, Quang Nam People’s Committee commissioned the provincial Forest Protection Department to develop a collaborative provincial conservation strategy in 2001. The project entitled Management Of Strategic Areas for Integrated Conservation (MOSAIC) was established by Instruction 319/CV-KTN of the People’s Committee of Quang Nam province on 28/02/2002 in order to assist the province develop and implement this strategy. The MOSAIC is a partnership between WWF Indochina, the Quang Nam Forest Protection Department and numerous other provincial departments. Project activities focus on participatory planning and capacity development of FPD and a range of other departments. The project, as a result of needs assessments, prioritises activities on biodiversity survey and monitoring training, community-based natural resource management including land allocation, wildlife law enforcement strengthening, protected area development and conservation education. The objectives of MOSAIC project are: • To establish direct conservation activities under a provincial plan for biodiversity conservation

in the important forests of Quang Nam. • To build the capacity of authorities and local communities to plan for and manage natural

resources to benefit conservation and sustainable development. The conservation of key species is important to Quang Nam province. Early in the planning stages of the provincial conservation strategy a species ranking exercise was conducted to identify which species should receive priority during conservation interventions. A weighted ranking exercise based on provincial values was performed, where the level of endemicity was given higher weighting than threat status. Results highlighted four primate taxa as of highest importance (see table 2) along with two other non-primate taxa . All douc and gibbon taxa potentially occurring in Quang Nam were identified as priority 1 species. Consequently a conservation plan for these species was deemed necessary for the conservation of these species. This report presents activities of the first year in developing a primate conservation plan for Quang Nam including survey, monitoring, conservation and action planning. The results presented in this report have been incorporated into the provincial conservation strategy, ensuring a provincial framework for the long-term survival of valuable primate populations in Quang Nam province.

Table 2. Primates listed as priority species for Quang Nam province

Note: Species in square brackets [ ] are not yet confirmed as present in Quang Nam province.

Objectives The objectives of the Quang Nam Primate Conservation Programme that this report presents details on their development and implementation are as follows: Ranger training • To develop a primate ranger team within Quang Nam FPD so that all priority districts have local

capacity to survey, monitor and manage primate populations effectively • To train forest rangers in primate survey and population census techniques • To develop a primate conservation training curricular, materials and guides for rangers • To activate cooperation between all primatologists working in the central Truong Son. Primate status • To establish an accurate picture of sub-population distribution • To locate priority areas for primate conservation in Quang Nam

Priority 1 Species Priority 3 Species grey-shanked douc pygmy loris red-shanked douc northern pig-tailed macaque white-cheeked crested gibbon bear macaque [yellow-cheeked crested gibbon] northern slow loris

9

• To clearly identify generic threats to primates and specific threats in each priority area for primate conservation

• To identify primate conservation priority actions through an assessment of primate status in Quang Nam

• To investigate the taxonomic issues of primates in Quang Nam • To establish monitoring programs and adaptive management systems for key sub-populations

of primates in Quang Nam. Primate conservation • To identify priority conservation actions in priority sites for primate conservation in Quang Nam • To strengthen local management in key sites • To engage communities in co-management of forest resources including primate populations • To raise awareness of the status of Gibbons among local communities and policy makers.

10

Section 1 Capacity Development for Primate Conservation in Quang Nam

1.1 Methods The methods presented here were developed around the underlying philosophy that primate conservation and monitoring is the responsibility of the ranger force of Quang Nam. All methods were therefore developed within current capacity constraints and with implementation focused on increasing and maintaining capacity amongst a team of ten rangers. A primate ranger team was formed, comprising of state employees working in district FPDs throughout Quang Nam. This facilitated capacity development in all important primate areas and ensuring a level of sustainability to the approach. As a pilot initiative for the Central Truong Son Biodiversity Conservation Initiative (Official letter 81/CP-NN and Decision 06.2004/QD-BNN), the WWF/FPD MOSAIC project is not only interested in developing local capacity for primate conservation, but also landscape and national capacity. As such, strategic partnerships were formed with other institutions to develop a standard method for primate survey and monitoring to aid future centralisation of data and area prioritisation work. 1.1.1 Building a training support network In order to build sufficient capacity in the Quang Nam primate ranger team, a range of experience and teaching methods were employed. Rangers started this programme with little to no knowledge of primates and field survey methods, yet it was envisaged that after one year, 10 rangers would understand the need for primate conservation and be able to effectively survey and monitor primate populations. Moreover, as a provincial project within the wider central Truong Son Biodiversity Conservation Initiative, the methods developed in Quang Nam should be applicable throughout this landscape initiative. A framework for primate conservation was therefore required where simple, replicable methods could be implemented by rangers, trained by a network of Vietnamese trainers. To achieve this, all primatologists actively working in the Central Truong Son were contacted and asked to help develop methods that they could both train in, and were willing to use during their own work in the landscape. The following people and institutions assisted in method development and the production of a training manual for rangers (Long et al., 2005): Vu Ngoc Thanh: Vietnam National University, Hanoi Ha Thang long: Frankfurt Zoological Society – Endangered Primate Rescue Centre Nguyen Manh Ha: Centre Natural Resources and Environmental Studies All the above primate experts assisted in ranger training courses in Quang Nam. Additionally, two experienced rangers from Cuc Phuong National Park were employed as trainers. The added value of rangers training rangers built confidence in the Quang Nam ranger team as it demonstrated that rangers can conduct effective primate survey and monitoring work. Both Cuc Phuong rangers; Le Trong Dat and Luong Van Hao have experience in gibbon and leaf monkey surveys in northern Vietnam and were known to the WWF MOSAIC project manager. 1.1.2 Interview surveys Interview training was combined with an introduction to primates in Vietnam, their conservation importance, and conservation needs during a two day course. The primate ranger team were provided classroom training on primate identification concentrating on two issues: 1. The identification of diagnostic features of each genus and species 2. The importance of identification to a level of confidence: family, genus or species. The usefulness of habitat and behavioural information and the requirement to obtain descriptions even when identification is thought clear were stressed. Practice was provided by projecting numerous photos to the class and asking rangers in turn to identify taxa to the level they were confident with through the identification of diagnostic features. Some rangers were familiar with the basics of map reading, but none were proficient. Classroom training was provided, comprising group and individual practice of topographic feature identification, orientation and grid reference location.

11

An interview datasheet (see appendix 4) was introduced to the rangers and instructions on how to complete it were provided on a question by question level. Additionally, the reasons why each question was being asked was explained to reinforce the importance of asking all questions and filling in each section of the datasheet. General interview techniques and conduct were presented and discussed, with the importance of asking non-leading questions stressed. Interviews were used to guide field surveys so presence/absence indicators, while important, were greatly enhanced if the location of priority species could be identified on a map. Rangers were therefore taught how to guide village focus groups in the production of forest sketch maps. These maps have proven very useful in Quang Nam in locating priority areas for saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) conservation (Minh Hoang et al., 2004) and in guiding the provincial forest land allocation programme in defining what forest to allocate to appropriate community groups (DoNRE, in prep). Using sketch maps and local names for mountains and rivers, localities of priority species as perceived by forest edge communities can be transferred to topographic maps, facilitating community discussions and survey efficiency. Moreover, sketch maps provide a useful medium to identify and locate threats to biodiversity. 1.1.3 Field surveys Survey training was conducted throughout the dry season of 2004 and consisted of three stages: 1. Classroom training 2. Field training 3. Reinforcement training when required. Classroom training covered the theoretical background, demonstration and practice of: • Map reading • Map orientation • Compass use • GPS use • Species identification • Field guide use • Datasheet use. The majority of rangers could remember species identification from the previous training, but could not explain their identifications so reinforcement was required and provided. Additionally, gibbon call interpretation training was provided. Songs were played with explanations provided on the number of animals singing and the sex composition. Rangers then practiced interpretations until a basic understanding was obtained. Each ranger was equipped with the following equipment: • GPS (Garmin e-trex©) • Sighting compass • Binoculars (8x40) • 1:50,000 topographical map • Datasheets • Rucksack, hammock, mosquito net, sleeping bag, torch. Datasheets were bound into notebooks to ease the recording of field notes (see appendix 5). Rangers worked in teams of two; each team being equipped with: • Tape recorder (Sony TCM-500DV) and tapes • Unidirectional microphone (Sennheiser MKE 300) • DNA collection tubes with buffer • Camp equipment including cooking utensils, plastic bags, machetes, tarpaulin etc. Two training field surveys of 9 days per trip were conducted (see table 3 and map 3). Sites were chosen because they contained confirmed populations of both doucs and gibbons which could provide sufficient data recording opportunities for effective training. Additionally, Phuoc Xuan was known to hold grey-shanked doucs and Macooih red-shanked doucs enhancing species identification training opportunities. Logistical advantages such as access and trainer experience of the areas were also taken into account in site choice.

12

Table 3. Training course logistical details District Commune Dates (2004) UTM E UTM N Phuoc Son Phuoc Xuan 26/03 – 03/04 0794 - 0800 1723 - 1720 Dong Giang Macooih 06/04 – 14/04 0783 - 0789 1746 - 1751 During field survey training the primate ranger team divided into five sub-groups, each accompanied by a trainer. This ensured daily two/three-on-one training enabling a range of experiences to be transferred by a suite of trainers, each with different training techniques. Moreover, daily reinforcement of messages such as data recording accuracy was permitted. Each day two groups would focus on gibbon call surveys and three groups would concentrate on douc surveys, although data was recorded on all primates observed. Surveys were conducted between 0530 and 1200. In the late afternoon data was written up by rangers and checked by trainers before each group plotted their route and data on enlarged maps. Data was presented back to the whole team along with interesting observations and gibbon recordings. All data was transferred to a central map, from which the team collaboratively decided where surveys should be conducted the next day, which groups would work were, and who would work with which trainer. This acted as survey planning and adaptation training. With a combination of classroom and field training, all rangers were sufficiently competent after the second field training. After some surveys independent of trainers, particular rangers required additional reinforcement training. Trainers therefore accompanied field surveys to provide refresher training and additional supervised practice. 1.1.4 Primate population monitoring A half day classroom training on the reasons why monitoring is important, monitoring theory and various techniques that can be applied to large mammal monitoring was conducted. This was followed by two field trainings (see table 4 and map 4) during which monitoring systems for doucs and gibbons were established in the two highest priority sites for primate conservation. These trainings provided reinforcement of theory lessons, but more importantly, demonstrated how simple, cost effective monitoring systems can be easily implemented to enable adaptive management of forest and important elements of biodiversity.

Table 4. Monitoring training course logistical details

District Commune Training dates UTM E UTM N Phuoc Son Phuoc Xuan 14/09 – 18/09 2004 0791-0799 1722-1727 Nam Giang Dak Pring 07/01 – 11/01 2005 0775-0784 1712-1717

1.1.5 Primate conservation Resources and time for capacity development related to community-based conservation were much more restricted than for the primary first year goal of understanding primate distribution. Three commune rangers from the highest priority communes for primate conservation were trained by in-house WWF MOSAIC project staff based on methods developed in other areas of Quang Nam. Training was initiated with a one day workshop where provincial FPD personnel and WWF staff explained methods and how these were being institutionalised within the job description of commune FPD rangers. The rest of the training was on-the-job with WWF staff accompanying initial village meetings and demonstrating community liaison techniques. Training focused on the understanding of the importance of primates and their conservation, community discussion forum facilitation and awareness raising skills.

13

1.2 Results The true results of the capacity component of primate conservation in Quang Nam province is the data provided in this report. The fact that 10 rangers conducted a series of planning, data gathering, prioritisation and monitoring activities indicate that capacity development of these rangers was adequate. An important issue highlighted by the Quang Nam primate ranger team is that FPD rangers, if provided with appropriate, repetitive training, appropriate equipment and close management and supervision can conduct effective biodiversity surveys, monitoring and conservation. Individual rangers were assessed (see appendix 1) by the trainers at the end of the capacity development process; results are shown in table 5. Capacity was measured against ASEAN competency standards for protected area jobs in South East Asia (Appleton et al., 2003). All rangers improved in competence with some improving substantially both in terms of ability and motivation. Two rangers under-performed, one due to low motivation and weak line management, the other due to bad line management, being absent from some trainings.

Table 5. Ranger training assessment

Post-raining Ranger FPD

Pre-training Field Skill Field Skill Attitude

Overall Improvement

Rating

Ha Phuoc Phu Tay Giang Medium C E C Minimal Duong Quang Hung Dong Giang Medium A C B Medium Cao Huu Binh Nam Giang Very low B C B Good Le Van Duc Song Thanh Low B C B Good Nguyen Vu Phuoc Son Medium A B A Good Le The Thanh Que Son High A+ B A Good Nguyen Truong Kieu Hiep Duc Low A B A Excellent Vu Ngoc Anh Tien phuoc Medium A+ A A+ Good Nguyen Ngoc An Bac Tra My Very low B B B Good Nguyen Dinh Hoan Phu Ninh Low A A A Excellent

1.3 Discussion It is a widely held view in Vietnam that rangers can not undertake useful biological survey or monitoring work. The approach taken in Quang Nam challenges this view and shows that with targeted training, reinforcement training, appropriate provision of equipment, team building and quality monitors, rangers are both capable and sufficiently motivated to conduct biological survey and monitoring work. This said, the Quang Nam primate ranger team is far from fully competent and requires years of follow up work, training and practice. Although a big task, this long-term view to the development of capacity is required if the Forest Protection Department is to successfully implement its remit of biodiversity conservation. The capacity development approach taken here was not perfect, and as the poor results of the monitoring surveys showed (see section 2.2.6), the team was pushed hard under tough conditions, clearly identifying those rangers who were willing to work towards effective biodiversity conservation. In the future, the Quang Nam primate team will adapt to this situation by dropping poor rangers from unimportant districts and replacing rangers from districts requiring a primate ranger. This necessitates the need for further basic training, slowing the capacity development of the more advanced rangers, but on a positive note, provides a platform for further reinforcement training and a more motivated team. The strongest aspect of the capacity development process undertaken was the repetition and reinforcement. This permitted learning, practice, reinforcement, practice and further reinforcement training until the required level competency was reached. During the course of trainings, progression was clearly observed despite regression of skill levels between trainings. It is thought that all primate team rangers do not require further training in map reading, GPS use, navigation and compass use. Further species identification training and reinforcement of survey regulations and data recording protocol will be required and provided as the primate team continues its activities.

14

Methods were detailed in a ranger training manual (Long et al., 2005) that is printed in a small, tough, splash-proof format to enable its use during fieldwork. Species identification pages outline diagnostic characteristics highlighted during training to facilitate identification to a taxonomic level of confidence. This manual took time to develop and so was not available during trainings, but it is hoped that due to its direct links to training, it will act as a useful reinforcement guide during future work by the ranger team. The equipment provided to rangers was well received and well cared for. Binoculars were often left at camp due to their weight; the attitude of rangers in terms of carrying sufficient equipment to conduct effective work in safety must be instilled by FPD line managers. Equipment was deposited in district FPD offices so is available for all conservation work, although priority will be provided for primate activities. In general, it is felt that the approach has been successful to date and its replication in other provinces is recommended. The initial training on interview skills requires improvement, especially in terms of including village-based practice. One key component of the approach is good internal management by the Forest Protection Department to ensure rangers fulfil their tasks to the best of their abilities. 1.3.1 Constraints • Rangers perceived their capacity and knowledge to be higher than reality. A pre-training

capacity assessment would have strengthened the course by highlighting weaknesses in ranger competence and enabling pre-set competence levels to be reached.

• During early stages, the ranger team did not understand the process they were part of, being used to attending short, one-off training courses. Example results to show how scientific monitoring and adaptive management can make their job both more interesting and easier may have helped harbour a more committed attitude.

• Primate identification requires lots of practice including observations of real animals. Practice was provided whenever possible, but few rangers got to see an array of animals in the wild.

• Interview datasheets were too long to hold the attention of rangers, although they did provide a structure to ensure all required questions were asked and recorded.

• Competence in sketch map development requires field training and practice. This could not be provided due to time limitations on the project; interviews needed to be conducted before the start of the dry season when field surveys were a priority.

• Despite team building, some rangers, whilst developing new skills, did not have the motivation or sufficient management to implement these new skills effectively.

1.3.2 Successes • Repetitive training enabled rangers to practice new skills between courses, resulting in skills

eventually being mastered. • The use of a range of trainers permitted close supervision and training as well as allowing a

respect for experience and outside commitment to the process to be enhanced. • Despite the preference for species identification training using live animals, training using

diagnostic features and repetitive practice in front of peers did produce much progress. • The concept of recording identifications to a level of accuracy the ranger is 100% confident with

was taken up well during training. • The design of interview datasheets facilitated the structure of interviews ensuring threat data

and questions on the use of primates were obtained. • Field datasheets permitted species not to be identified but described limiting the amount of

presumed identifications. • The development of a dedicated primate ranger team built motivation and permitted rangers to

have a long-term view of the benefits of training and equipping.

15

Section 2 Primate Status Review

2.1 Methods 2.1.1 Literature search Little biological work had been conducted in Quang Nam province (including the previous Quang Nam – Da Nang province) prior to 2002. For effective planning, and for comprehensive understanding of the primates of the province, an exhaustive review of modern day literature was conducted. Reports with primate records are presented in table 6.

Table 6. Literature with primate records from Quang Nam province

Report Location Notes Anon, 1993 Nui Thanh district Mammal species list inaccurate Wikramanayake, 1997 Western Quang Nam Location data unspecific

Data accuracy questionable Vu Ngoc Thanh, 1999 Tien Phuoc district Douc survey Ha Thang Long, 2000 Hien district Primate interviews Ngo Van Tri, 2000 Nam Giang and Phuoc Son

districts Elephant focused interview surveys; includes data on other mammals

Tordoff et al., 2000 Ngoc Linh Mountain Nature Reserve feasibility study Vu Ngoc Thanh, 2001 Song Thanh Nature Reserve Loris survey Ha Thang Long, 2004 Throughout Quang Nam Douc interviews; compilation report 2.1.2 Interview surveys Quang Nam has large areas of natural forest covering parts of 12 districts and 87 communes. Despite having conducted the literature review and discussing the known areas of primate distribution with some local communities and ranger forces, the area remained too large to cover with field surveys. Areas with the highest likelihood of holding important primate populations had to be located to enable effective field surveys to assess the importance of each area. Interviews were an initial activity to identify areas for further study. Interviews were conducted at the village level with one to five villagers per commune being surveyed. Commune selection was made by rangers based on their local knowledge, information obtained from the literature search and advice from the trainer who provided both province-wide and local-level knowledge. Areas were the WWF MOSAIC project had previously surveyed (11 communes) were not visited again. Rangers worked independently, each working in the district of their duty station. Rangers first visited the commune centre to report activities to the relevant authorities and discuss which villages would be most appropriate to interview. In each village a focus group meeting was held consisting of both men and women, but with a minimum of five experienced hunters present. Interviews followed a set pattern following the datasheet (see appendix 4): 1. Descriptions of locally known primates (using observable objects to clarify colour definitions) 2. Diagnostic features described 3. Date of last record (this prevented extirpated populations being recorded as present) 4. Population data; common/rare/extinct and increasing/decreasing/stable 5. Clarification (or not) of identification using the provided field guide (FFI, 2000) 6. Sketch mapping to locate populations (for detailed method see Long et al., In prep b) 7. Location of priority species within commune forest 8. Threat discussion. Focus group meetings ended with a discussion on the importance of primates to Quang Nam and an explanation of why and how conservation can be assisted by the community. Datasheets were returned to a central location for analysis. Each ranger presented the results of their district to the whole primate team. Areas with doucs and gibbons were highlighted and group discussions were held on which areas were the most important for field survey.

16

2.1.3 Field surveys Survey areas were identified by the ranger primate team during discussions with trainers over the results of the interview surveys. Field surveys were conducted by teams of two rangers, accompanied by local guides that were identified during the interview surveys. Surveys were conducted between 0530 and 1200; the primary activity period of primates. Afternoons were not worked to ensure fitness and health remained throughout a 10 day survey. Slow walking surveys were conducted covering all areas believed by local guides to hold doucs and/or gibbons and adjacent areas of suitable habitat. Douc presence was usually recorded through observations, although secondary sign such as faeces or feeding debris was occasionally used to identify possible douc presence, increasing search effort in the area. Faecal samples for genetic analysis were obtained where possible. (see Long et al., 2005 for more detail on survey methods). Gibbon surveys were conducted in the early morning using a ‘listening post’ approach based on the methods of Brockelman and Ali (1987), which has been successfully implemented elsewhere in Vietnam (Long et al., 2000). Prominent locations overlooking wide areas of forest are frequented to maximise the chance of hearing many gibbon groups. On hearing a call the time, direction and group composition is recorded. With two simultaneous surveys or compass bearings on a single group from different locations on different days, a gibbon group’s calling location can be determined by triangulation of the bearings (see Long et al., 2005 for more detail). Gibbon calls were recorded for taxonomic analysis and also to allow double checking of data quality. 2.1.4 Threat assessment A threat analysis of primates was conducted from a range of data collected by the WWF MOSAIC project between March 2002 and December 2004. The largest threat assessment was carried out as a component of primate interviews conducted by the primate ranger team, discussions on threats to each species were held (see interview methods section 2.1.2) and data recorded on datasheets (appendix 4). A socio-economic survey was conducted throughout Quang Nam in 2002 covering 82 villages in 19 communes. This Participatory Rural Appraisal (Hardcastle et al., 2002) was designed to investigate options for sustainable community forest management and included sections on hunting pressure and methods. Data was collected during village focus group discussions and activities, with five men and five women from each village participating (Hardcastle, 2002 and Long et al. in prep b provide more information on methods and analysis). Data on hunting of primates was analysed against socio-economic factors using the Chi squared statistic. Hunting effort was analysed against socio-economic factors using ANOVA. More focused interviews focusing on species presence, threats and hunting were conducted during WWF MOSAIC project biological surveys in 19 villages. Each interview was conducted with between 5 and 12 experienced hunters simultaneously and incorporated forest sketch mapping. Data was cross-referenced and verified during consecutive village and forest work with the community. A wildlife trade survey was conducted in 2004 (Roberton et al., 2004) which provided an indication of the threats to primates from this illegal trade. A survey of hunting pressure across 21 communes was conducted as part of the primate surveys carried out by the primate ranger team. This consisted of an data sheet on which all sign of hunting during a day’s survey was recorded (appendix 5). The length of survey route for the day was recorded by measuring the distance on a 1:50,000 topographic map. This distance does not take terrain into account, but provides an index that is comparable between sites on the amount of hunting per survey effort. An analysis on the distribution of doucs and gibbons was conducted using a GIS. All available distribution points for each taxa were plotted on a GIS and their attributes obtained. Attributes were analysed using logistic regression to assess if any were significant in contributing to a taxa’s extant distribution. Attributes obtained were: • Distance to roads • Distance to trails

17

• Distance to rivers • Distance to settlements • Altitude • Slope angle • Soil type • Commune ethnicity • Commune population density • Commune poverty at the 50% level • Commune poverty at the 33% level. 2.1.5 Priority area identification Once all field surveys were completed the primate ranger team was re-convened to discuss the results. All douc and gibbon records were plotted onto the Quang Nam FPD ‘forest status map’ and each team member discussed their impressions of the primate populations, threats and opportunities in the sites they surveyed. Priority areas were assessed on a range of criteria including number of doucs/gibbons recorded, presumed relative abundance, size of forest (for long-term viability), forest protection status, forest quality and the possibility of sub-population mixing in the future (see appendix 2). 2.1.6 Primate population monitoring Two monitoring areas were established, one in each of the areas of highest priority for primate conservation in Quang Nam. Each area covered 49km2 and had both a douc and a gibbon monitoring system implemented: Douc transects Transects were created along areas with a high likelihood of douc presence. Ten 2km transects were established at a distance of over 500m from adjacent transects. This ensures (it is presumed) all groups of doucs can be located by the method, as transects are sufficiently close not to hold a group of doucs that can not be detected, but sufficiently spaced to ensure monitoring of many groups. Each transect was assigned a letter (A, B...J) and were divided into 100m length sections marked by numbered metal plates (A0, A1…A20) nailed to tree-trunks. Each section marker was located with a GPS waypoint and downloaded into a GIS. This system was established to obtain an index of douc presence to enable identification of population changes over time. Although possible to establish population densities with transects, it was felt that the extra steps required were beyond the capacity of rangers at present. Additionally, population density calculation is unnecessary in monitoring population change for adaptive management, for which the monitoring programme was established. The method was designed to be able to accommodate population density counts if required in the future. Transects were walked by a pair of rangers between 0600 – 1000 or 1330 – 1730. Walking was at a constant, slow pace of 1 to 2 km/h so transects were completed in 4 hours (each 100m section would take 10 minutes). Datasheets were provided (see appendix 6) on which all primate records could be easily recorded. Presence/absence of doucs in each 100m section was recorded to enable the calculation of an index of abundance for each site at any given time. Gibbon listening posts Each monitoring area had 10 listening posts established and marked in the field with a metal plate nailed to an adjacent tree. Listening posts were strategically located as high as possible and with the largest hearing arc possible to ensure optimal conditions for hearing calls. Posts were placed a minimum of 500m apart from each other where possible and arranged so that triangulation of calls between posts was optimal. Each listening post was assigned a code (e.g. LP1, LP2…LP10), which was painted on the identification plate. Listening posts were marked with a GPS and the waypoint downloaded onto a GIS. Listening posts were manned by a single ranger, were reached before light so that the post was active from 0530 to 1200 and surveyed for a minimum of three calling days. To ensure a significant number of groups in hearing distance of a post are recorded, a minimum of three days of suitable conditions are required as not all gibbon groups call each morning (Haimoff et al., 1986; Brockelman and Srikosamatara, 1993). Where possible, at least two listening posts were surveyed each day to facilitate effective triangulations. Datasheets were provided (see appendix 6) to offer a comprehensive data collection framework. In addition to the information on the datasheet, calls

18

were recorded where possible. Calls were recorded continuously from start to finish including rest phases to ensure the quality required for sonographic analysis. 2.2 Results 2.2.1 Literature search Previous surveys in Quang Nam have confirmed the presence of many species expected to be present, but specific taxonomic identification in Quang Nam appears problematic. The genera Nomascus, Pygathrix and Macaca all appear to have intergrade zones in central Vietnam. These integrade zones are currently poorly understood and so have led to many species being recorded without sufficient descriptions to permit confident recording of species here. For example Fooden (1996) describes the integrade zone between M. mulatta and M. fascicularis between circa 12oN and 17oN with ‘specimens collected at intermediate latitudes, relative tail length tends to be clinally intermediate between that typical in M. mulatta and M. fasicularis’. Published records of this group in Quang Nam includes two captive M. mulatta in Thanh My town and in the same report an observed a group of M. fascicularis no more from 40km south of the capture location of one of the M. mullata (Ngo Van Tri, 2000). M. mulatta was also recorded from Ngoc Linh with no description (Tordoff et al., 2000); this is south of the M. fascicularis record of Ngo Van Tri (2000). Gibbon records are usually ascribed to N. gabriellae (or even N. concolor) based on traditional wisdom that this species is distributed south of Hue. A zone of unknown taxonomic affiliation was described by (Giessmann et al., 2000) that entirely covers Quang Nam. The majority of douc records originate either from interview data, from which species identification is difficult, or from confiscated animals with unclear capture locality (see Nadler et al., 2003 for details). The occurrence of the Indochinese silvered langur Trachypithecus germanini in Quang Nam is an enigma. The furthest north this species has been reliably recorded is Dac Glei district which abuts the southern border of Quang Nam in Kon Tum province. Records from Quang Tri and Quang Binh provinces are disputed (see Nadler et al., 2003). Interview records of the species were recorded from Nam Giang district in 1997 (Wikramanayake et al., 1997). Very few confirmed, reliable, primate field records therefore existed before the current survey. 2.2.2 Interviews Quang Nam province comprises 222 communes and towns, 87 of which contain natural forest. Interview surveys were conducted in 95 villages throughout 49 (56.3%) communes (see map 5) during which 863 villagers were interviewed by rangers. Datasheets were not always accurately filled in by rangers so some data was lost or has been removed from analysis. A major omission of data was not recording species absence. During analysis, sheets with no presence or absence data had to be excluded because it was not known whether the question was not asked, or whether the species was not present. Table 7 summarises the data obtained on species distribution, although it should be noted that the last column is the result of poor data recording and does not necessarily indicate absence of a species from a commune.

Table 7. Synthesis of interview data by commune

Species Presence Absence Extinction Presumed absence gibbon 15 9 0 25 red-shanked douc 19 3 1 26 grey-shanked douc 29 4 1 15 Indochinese silvered langur 5 9 0 35 bear macaque 32 0 0 17 pig-tailed macaque 30 0 0 19 rhesus/long tail macaque 19 1 0 29 loris sp.* 19 3 0 27 Note: *Datasheets were completed for separate loris species, but no descriptions were provided so all data has been lumped to genus level.

19

Only 25% of interviewed communes (n=13) identified four of the five genera as present (gibbon, douc, macaque and loris). Macaques were the most commonly recorded genera with bear and pig-tailed being recorded most frequently (n=32 and 30 respectively). Data and notes on datasheets highlighted the fact that both villagers and rangers faced problems with macaque description and identification. Interviews revealed that a crested, all grey primate occurred in five communes, four of them in Bac and Nam Tra My districts. This was recorded as and could refer to Trachypithecus germaini as these localities are close to the northern-most record of the species, however, these data represent results from a single ranger so could indicate confusion with grey-shanked douc or rhesus/long tail macaque records; field confirmation is required. In general, all species of primate were perceived to have declined in number over the previous five years (see table 8). All locations where gibbons and Indochinese silvered langur were reported, and an average of 81.5% of locations with reported douc presence, highlighted a perceived population decline in these taxa. Species decline is discussed further in the threat analysis section 2.2.5.

Table 8. Perceived population trend of taxa by commune

Species Negative Population Trend

IUCN 2004*1

VN RDB 2000*2

Decree 48

gibbon sp. 100% (n=15) VU E IB Indochinese silvered langur 100% (n=5) CR*3 n/e*4 n/e*4 red-shanked douc 84% (n=16) EN E IB grey-shanked douc 79% (n=23) CR*5 CR*5 IB bear macaque 75% (n=24) VU V IIB southern pig-tailed macaque 67% (n=20) VU V IIB rhesus/long tail macaque 74% (n=14) LR/nt LR IIB / - loris sp. 79% (n=15) VU V IB

Notes: *1IUCN, 2004; *2MARD, 2000; *3After Nadler et al., 2003; *4Taxonomic changes means it is currently not evaluated; *5Not evaluated as previously considered a variation of P. nemaeus so evaluated as EN, here evaluation follows Nadler et al., 2003. 2.2.3 Field surveys Excluding training locations, 28 areas were surveyed for a total of 256 days or 512 man days. Each ranger conducted 50 survey days, usually over five 10 day surveys between May and August 2004 (table 9, map 6). Primate presence was confirmed through field records in 16 communes, four of which yielded confirmation of both gibbon and douc populations. Taxonomic accounts Accounts here summarise data on each of the genera obtained from published literature, WWF MOSAIC project biological surveys including camera-trapping and data obtained from the field surveys outlined in this report. A full gazetteer is presented in appendix 3. Lorises Seven confirmed records have been obtained from Quang Nam; 6 of N. pygmaeus and 1 of N. bengalensis. Interviews recorded lorises in only 19 out of 49 communes, but only three communes stated the genus absent. Being the last taxonomic group on the datasheets, it is possible that lorises got omitted from some interviews. Lorises are nocturnal so unless surveyed for at night will not be recorded. Few night surveys have been conducted in Quang Nam, which may account for the scarcity of records. (map 13) Macaques Recorded as common during many interviews and the most frequently recorded genus on camera-traps throughout Quang Nam, macaques have been observed in the field on remarkably few occasions. Field records originate from eight communes, five of which are camera-trap records. M. arctoides was the most frequently recorded on camera-trap although photos of M. Leonine have also been obtained.

20

M. mulatta/fascicularis has not been caught on camera-trap to date, but has been observed in three locations, usually in association with water bodies. A captive animal of this group is held at Phu Ninh Reservoir tourist area being confiscated from hunters who claimed its capture location was within the Phu Ninh Watershed Protection Forest. This animal shows a distinctive colour difference between fore and hind quarters, the later being more chestnut/ginger than the greyer fore quarters. The tail, however, is somewhat intermediate in length between typical M. mulatta and M. fascicularis. Hairs of this animal have been collected and await genetic analysis. This taxa is reportedly common on Cu Lao Cham Island, with two large groups present. Both M. mulatta and M. fascicularis have been recorded during surveys, but here all are considered as one taxa with notes presented in the gazetteer. Species appear to exhibit some degree of altitudinal separation, with M. mulatta/fascicularis only being recorded in lowland areas, M. Leonine not being recorded above 900m and M. arctoides found at all altitudes. (map 14)

Table 9. Field survey location, dates and personnel

Survey location Commune

UTM E UTM N Dates (2004) Rangers

Phuoc Hiep 0806-0820 1713-1720 25/05 – 03/06 0817-0828 1693-1697 08/06 – 17/06 Tra Bui 0818-0827 1697-1703 25/06 – 04/07

Tra Leng 0814-0823 1685-1689 11/07 – 20/07 Que Lam 0810-0816 1725-1729 27/07 – 05/08

Le The Thanh Nguyen Ngoc An

0771-0783 1743-1749 26/05 – 04/06 Zuoih 0777-0783 1737-1743 14/07 – 23/07

Dang 0775-0781 1743-1749 09/06 – 19/07 Thanh My 0784-0795 1739-1749 26/06 – 06/07 Macooih 0770-0784 1750-1760 02/08 – 11/08

Cao Huu Binh Ha Phuoc Phu

0755-0764 1712-1725 25/05 – 04/06 La Dee 0768-0771 1711-1722 25/06 – 04/07

Dak Pring 0778-0790 1704-1725 08/07 – 18/07 Phuoc My 0778-0790 1704-1725 13/07 – 20/07

Le Van Duc Duong Quang Hung

Tabhing* 0789-0794 1722-1728 27/07 – 04/08 Le Van Duc Nguyen Vu

Dak Pring* 0771-0778 1711-1714 07/08 – 14/08 Le Van Duc Phuoc Xuan / Phuoc Duc 0791-0799 1710-1715 25/05 – 02/06 Phuoc Nang 0788-0792 1703-1709 08/06 – 16/06 Phuoc My 0789-0796 1696-1701 11/07 – 20/07 Ca Dy 0797-0802 1725-1733 25/06 – 05/07

Nguyen Vu Nguyen Truong Kieu

Tra Doc / Phuoc Gia 0188-0195 1705-1711 31/07 – 07/08 Nguyen Truong Kieu Duong Quang Hung

0844 – 0850 1687 – 1691 25/05 – 02/06 Tra Giac 0834 – 0841 1685 – 1691 25/06 – 03/07

Tien Lanh / Tien Ngoc / Tien Hiep

0838-0860 1702-1717 08/06 – 17/06

Tra Mai 0836 – 0847 1677 – 1685 11/07 – 19/07 Tra Tap 0829 – 0834 1685 – 1689 27/07 – 04/08 Tam Tra / Tam My 0236 – 0243 1700 – 1706 06/08 – 09/08

Vu Ngoc Anh Nguyen Dinh Hoan

Note: * Rangers accompanied by the trainer Le Trong Dat

Doucs Doucs have been confirmed by observation in 14 communes to date. Not all observations have been assigned to specific taxa although P. nemaeus has been confirmed from two communes and P. cinerea from six communes. The distribution of the two taxa appears separate in all districts other than Nam Giang where the taxonomic situation remains unclear. P. nemaeus is distributed in the north of the province in Tay Giang and Dong Giang districts, north of the Song Boung River. P. cinerea (or ‘P. cinerea like’ animals) appear to be distributed east of the Song Thanh River and south of the Cai River. DNA analysis of Faecal samples from Phuoc Xuan commune confirms these animals to be pure P. cinerea. The animals in Nam Giang district north and west of the Song

21

Thanh River could comprise both species, just P. nemaeus, or a hybrid/integrade zone. This is an initial assessment of the situation and further research may require its modification.

Table 10. Abundance of primate populations by field reports

No. of Communes

No. of Records

Minimum No. of Groups Recorded

gibbon 14 43 34 red-shanked douc 2 9 3 grey-shanked douc 5 11 8 douc sp. 6 10 6 pig-tailed macaque 6 8 8 bear macaque 6 28 26 rhesus/long tailed macaque 1 2 1 macaque sp. 2 1 2 slow loris 1 1 1 pygmy loris 4 7 6

Table 11. Communes with significant douc records

District Commune Taxa No. of groups recorded

Notes

Phuoc Son – Nam Giang

Phuoc Xuan – Tabhing

grey-shanked 4 Sign suggesting other groups present Adjacent to Ca Dy commune with additional groups reported there

Nui Thanh Tam My grey-shanked 1 1 group of c. 50 animals observed

Tien Phuoc – Hiep Duc

Tien Lanh – Tien Ngoc – Thang Phuoc

grey-shanked 2 1 group of 7-8 animals observed 1 group of 14 seen, but reportedly 70-80 animals are present

Bac Tra My Tra Giac grey-shanked 2-3 2 groups observed with 12 and 4 animals plus another group reported.

Dong Giang Macooilh red-shanked 3 3 small groups, possibly part of one larger group

Nam Giang Dak Pring red-shanked 1 Adjacent forest reported to hold many groups

Nam Giang Zuoih undetermined 1 Recorded as grey-shanks but with no description 1 group of 5 animals observed

One juvenile animal hunted in Nam Giang district (exact location unclear) was confiscated from a house in Dai Nghia commune, Dai Loc district in March 2004. This animal was transferred to the ERPC where genetic analysis showed it to be a P. nemaeus. This animal exhibited only partially white lower arms and very light grey shoulders (figure 1). A locally caught adult douc being kept as a pet was discovered during a survey in Zuoih commune, Nam Giang district in July 2004. This animal exhibited dark shoulder patches but white only on the lower parts of the fore arms and only a line of red down the ventral edge of the otherwise black legs (figure 2). Unfortunately rangers did not collect hair samples of this animal and it was confiscated and released to the forest before it could be studied or provided appropriate veterinarian checks. Grey-shanked doucs observed throughout Quang Nam appear to have a similar, uniform pelage, suggesting they are a stable taxonomic form. Genetic results from animals in Phuoc Xuan commune, Phuoc Son district and an animal (figure 3) confiscated from Tam Lanh commune, Tam Ky district (hunted locally) confirm them as pure P. cinerea. All have been recorded with light grey crown, back, belly and arms, black feet and hands and a yellow-orange face as expected according

22

to the description in Nadler et al. (2003), however, the upper and lower legs appear blackish in contradiction to this description (figure 4). Some individuals observed in Tam My commune, Nui Thanh district exhibited hints of brown on the legs according to ranger descriptions. In this report ‘grey-shanked douc’ records outside of Phuoc Xuan commune may be more accurately recorded as ‘grey-shanked douc type’ until genetic analysis on each group confirms taxonomic identification. Although confirmed from 13 communes, the status of doucs in Quang Nam is not secure. In the majority of locations, only single groups have been recorded through interviews or field surveys. Few sites have been shown to hold more than one group or very large single groups (table 11) raising doubts on the viability of some areas for douc conservation. (map 15) Crested gibbons Gibbons have been recorded in 13 communes based on call, with observations occurring in four of these. 30 groups were located by call, but only four areas have recorded more than two groups (see table 12). The four areas with multiple groups recorded are all likely to hold more groups as adjacent, more remote forest was not surveyed and/or the areas lie adjacent to other areas with confirmed groups. (map 16)

Table 12. Communes with most gibbon records

District Commune Minimum number of groups recorded

Phuoc Son Phuoc Xuan 8 Nam Giang Tabhing 9-10 Nam Giang Dak Pring 6 Dong Giang Macooilh 8

Box 1. Gibbon taxonomic analysis By Thomas Geissmann

Analysis of gibbon call sonograms can be used for taxonomic identification. 22 gibbon calls from four communes (see map 7) were recorded for such analysis. Calls were relatively uniform in characteristics and resemble calls from Bach Ma National Park in adjacent Thua-Thien Hue province. The type locality of the type specimen of N. leucogenys siki was collected by Delacour from Thua Luu, Thua-Thien Hue province which is situated between Bach Ma and Quang Nam province. It can be assumed, therefore, that the Quang Nam gibbons should be closely related to, or identical with, N. l siki, and different from N. gabriellae. Song characteristics include: Male phrases: • Note 1 with long, prominent downslide • Maximum number of rolls in note 2 is 1 or 2 (one possible exception recording 4A2) • Maximum number of rolls in note 3 is 0 (mostly) or 1 • No boom notes and no staccato notes audible. However, no boom notes and no staccato notes were audible in the male songs. Either booms are absent and staccatos are very soft, in which case this would count as a N. gabriellae characteristic, or else, these note types are present (as in zoo N. l. siki) but not audible on the recordings because of the long distance from recorder to animal or other field conditions. Female great calls: • Estimated average of about 12 great call notes including first trill note (range 9-15 notes,

only once 17 notes and once maybe 18 notes). Gibbons in Quang Nam can therefore be tentatively be assigned to N. l. siki.

23

Indochinese silvered langur Not recorded from field surveys to date in Quang Nam, but interview data suggests it may be present in Bac and Nam Tra My districts (see interview survey results; 2.2.2). 2.2.4 Priority areas Results showed eight areas held populations of primates that may be important (table 13). Priority area assessments were conducted on these eight areas (see appendix 2), however data was too preliminary to enable a meaningful comparison after minimal survey effort in each location and the use of multiple surveyors. Two areas did stand out as being important due to their confirmed presence of both doucs and gibbons at each site and both douc taxa between the sites, the forest quality, forest size and the fact that both were within a Special-Use Forest and were adjacent to each other.

Table 13. Priority areas for primate conservation in Quang Nam province

Priority Name Communes District I Song Thanh; Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Xuan, Tabhing, Ca Dy Phuoc Son, Nam Giang I Song Thanh; Dak Pring Dak Pring Nam Giang II Tien Phuoc Tien Lanh, Tien Ngoc, Thang Phuoc Tien Phuoc, Hiep Duc II Tra Giac Tra Giac, Tra Tap Bac Tra My, Nam Tra My II Phu Ninh Tam My Nui Thanh II Zuoih Zuoih Nam Giang II Macooih Macooih Dong Giang III Western Que Son Que Phuoc, Que Lam Que Son These two highest priority areas (Song Thanh; Phuoc Xuan and Song Thanh; Dak Pring) were therefore chosen to establish monitoring systems for primates, as resources currently prevent action in all sites. An additional benefit of further work in these two areas is that they cover part of the zone of unclear taxonomic affiliation of the doucs enabling further data collection. The priority level of current priority II and III areas may be upgraded with further field assessments. If this occurs, their inclusion within the Special-Use Forest system of the province should be considered. 2.2.5 Threat assessment Primate interviews were conducted in 95 villages throughout 49 communes with hunting and use questions asked by species. The quality of threat data obtained during interviews varied between rangers, but in general was adequately collected to enable interpretation for useful conservation interventions. Hunting pressure was divided into pressure by outsiders and local communities. In Tay Giang and Dong Giang districts both were reportedly decreasing, but this is probably due to recent extirpation of doucs and gibbons from the majority of sites in these districts. In contrast, in Phuoc Son, Bac Tra My and Nam Tra My districts, hunting by outsiders was almost unanimously perceived to be increasing within village forests with varied results on pressure by local communities on primate populations. Especially worrying is the fact that 37 of 66 villages (56.1%) reported increased pressure on doucs in the last five years. The districts where these increases were reported are in Phuoc Son, Bac Tra My, Nam Giang and Hiep Duc; all priority areas for douc conservation. During socio-economic surveys in 82 villages 22.0% (n=18) of villages admitted that primates were in the top seven animal groups hunted. Three villages specifically mentioned hunting doucs and one village, gibbons within their list of target species for hunting. 195 responses were obtained on hunting methods, of which 95 stated that guns were still in use and posed a threat to primate populations, especially in Phuoc Son, Nam Giang and Bac Tra My districts. Government gun control programmes appear to have had partial success with 66 responses suggesting the use of guns was an issue in the past only. A recently spent AK-47 shell was found during forest surveys within metres of a sighting of grey-shanked doucs in Phuoc Xuan commune, Phuoc Son district.

24

Hunting of primates occurs for many reasons (see table 14), the primary reasons being for food and medicine. This confers closely with the different uses of primates recorded as shown in table 15).

Table 14. Reasons for hunting primates recorded by village

Gibbons Doucs Macaques Loris Langur Total n % n % n % n % n % n %

Food 23 67.6 37 56.1 22 26.5 23 46.9 15 100 120 48.6 Medicine 16 47.1 17 25.8 42 50.6 20 40.8 14 93.3 109 44.1 Pet 7 20.6 20 30.3 31 37.3 9 18.4 9 60.0 76 30.8 Cultural hunting 1 2.9 11 16.7 12 14.5 12 24.5 0 0.0 36 14.6 Crop protection 7 20.6 4 6.1 17 20.5 0 0.0 2 13.3 30 12.1 Decoration 1 2.9 3 4.5 2 2.4 6 22.2 0 0.0 12 4.9

Table 15. Use of primates recorded by village

Gibbons Doucs Macaques Loris Langur Total n % n % n % n % n % n %

Food 17 50.0 28 42.4 41 49.4 37 75.5 15 100 138 55.9 Medicine 16 47.1 19 28.8 54 65.1 20 40.8 15 100 124 50.2 Pet 10 29.4 20 30.3 33 39.8 7 14.3 8 53.3 78 31.6 Cultural hunting 0 0.0 3 4.5 3 3.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 2.4 Decoration 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 1 2.0 0 0.0 2 0.8 Both outsiders and local communities hunt primates primarily for food and medicine (see table 16). The hunting and use of primates for food is of similar importance in both groups. Outsiders put more emphasis on hunting for medicine, although local communities appear to place more emphasis on the use of primates in medicine. Both groups hunt for collecting primates as pets, although the use of primates as pets appears solely to be by outsiders. These results suggest that some proportion of hunting by local communities and outsiders is driven by the illegal trade in primates. These differences will assist in developing appropriate conservation interventions targeting both groups.

Table 16. Reasons for hunting by local communities and outsiders as a percentage of responses

Reason for Hunting Use Locals Outsiders Locals Outsiders

Food 31.1 33.2 39.3 33.1 Medicine 28.6 40.6 57.6 37.5 Pet 19.2 24.0 0.0 28.7 Decoration 2.8 2.2 0.0 0.7 Cultural hunting 10.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 Crop protection 8.3 0.0 - -

Other interesting facts obtained from primate interviews include: • Gibbon hunting was primarily reported in Ka Tu and Ca Dong villages. • The Ka Tu and Ta Rieng hunt doucs as part of their cultural traditions. • The majority of loris hunting was reported in Ka Tu villages (all food and cultural hunting

records) although the Ka Tu also believe that observing or eating a loris during pregnancy or crop harvest is an unlucky omen.

• The Ka Tu hunt macaques as part of their cultural traditions. • Doucs appear heavily hunted for food (see wildlife trade results below). • Macaques appear primarily hunted for medicine (see wildlife trade results below). Analysis showed that hunting of primates is related to the ethnicity (?2 = 92.146, d.f. = 6, p = 0.000) of forest edge households with Kat Tu and Xe Dang hunting primates more than other ethnic groups. Primate hunting pressure was also significantly related to the wealth of a household (?2=

25

25.867, d.f. = 3, p = 0.000), with richer households exerting more pressure than poor households. Primate hunting pressure was not found to be significantly related to the location of a household by commune (?2= 15.205, d.f. = 18, p = 0.648). Village hunting effort for all species was significantly related to village wealth (F = 4.728, d.f. = 51, p = 0.006) however richer villages were shown to have larger hunting effort. There was no difference (F = 2.224, d.f. = 54, p = 0.057) between hunting effort for all species and ethnicity in different villages. However, there was a difference (F= 3.540, d.f. = 80, p = 0.004) in the percentage of villagers who hunt and village ethnicity. Village wealth was not correlated to ethnicity (F = 1.932, d.f. = 102, p = 0.083) showing this to be a real relationship. In summary poorer villages have more hunters than rich villages, but they have lower hunting effort than richer villages. It must be noted that the above analysis relates only to local, forest edge communities and does not include hunting pressure exerted by outsiders hunting within community forest, which comprises a large proportion of hunting in Quang Nam. During in depth interviews, forest edge communities said that crop raiding was a serious livelihood issue. Detailed interviews with 19 village focus groups showed the following animals (in descending order of perceived threat) contributed to crop damage: • wild pig • muntjac • macaque • porcupine • sambar • rat. A study in Kerinci Seblat National Park (Linkie, 2004) showed wild pig conducted most crop raiding forays (76.4%) but only caused 25.9% of the damage compared with macaques which were responsible for only 12.6% of forays but 73.1% of the damage. The persecution of macaques, therefore may have some livelihood justification in Quang Nam. Unfortunately, no data on the effect crop-raiding has on the proportion of household income lost exists for Quang Nam. Saj et al. (2001) showed US$ 30-80 per month was lost to vervet monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops) damage in Uganda. Studies show that crop raiding by primates decreases with distance from the forest edge (Sekhar, 1998; Saj et al., 2001; Kagoro-Rugunda, 2004). The pet trade may have a significant effect in Quang Nam. Four locally caught doucs have been confiscated by FPD in the last 2 years; three have been transferred to the Endangered Primate Rescue Centre and one was released. A pet gibbon is known to be kept in Bho Hon village, Dong Giang district by a retired senior district officer. Phu Ninh Tourist Company currently holds three bear macaques and one rhesus/long-tailed macaque at its premises in Phu Ninh and Tam Ky. Captive macaques are commonly seen in villages with owners expressing no fear of prosecution. Douc meat used to be openly for sale in Sau Binh restaurant in Kham Duc town, Phuoc Son district, and was also available as dried meat in the market. Both these have been reportedly stopped by recent FPD action in the district. The survey of hunting pressure recorded a trap encounter rate of 2.8 per km, with the majority of violations being snare traps. One commune had a violation encounter rate of 13.2 traps per km. Socio-economic surveys showed that an average of 83.75 traps will be set during a trapping trip by forest edge communities, resulting in a harvest of 6.1 animals per trip. This total includes small species such as rats and squirrels, as well as larger mammals and birds. Such high trapping pressure will be having an effect on the more terrestrial species including macaques. It should be noted here that a significant proportion of traps are set by outsiders to fuel the illegal wildlife trade so these figures represent only a proportion of hunting pressure. GIS analysis to identify the characteristics of douc and gibbon distribution and therefore determine reasons why the species have been removed from other areas was inconclusive. All factors analysed showed no significant association to primate distribution.

26

2.2.6 Primate population monitoring The two highest priority areas were chosen to establish monitoring systems for both doucs and gibbons (see table 17).

Table 17. Locations of primate monitoring areas

Monitoring Dates Coordinates Planned Conducted

Commune UTM E UTM N

17/09 – 23/09 2004 17/09 – 18/09 2004 Phuoc Xuan 0791-0799 1722-1727 10/01 – 16/01 2005 10/01 – 14/09 2005 Dak Pring 0775-0784 1712-1717

The first area to be established was Song Thanh; Phuoc Xuan (map 8). A twelve day field trip was planned where transects and listening posts would be established with help from trainers, followed by rangers conducting the baseline surveys. Eight days were spent establishing eight transects and five listening posts in one small section of the area identified for monitoring (map 9). Work was severely hampered by some rangers attitude enhanced by a lack of leadership in the team during the work. This caused transects to be established in inappropriate locations. Moreover, bad weather both slowed work and eventually caused a premature end to the field work. This monitoring area will require re-establishment; an activity planned for mid 2005. The second area established was Song Thanh; Dak Pring (map 8). Adapting to the problems faced on the first monitoring survey a team of seven primate rangers and a team leader from provincial FPD accompanied two trainers. A 14 day trip was planned during which all transects and listening posts would be established and an initial round of monitoring would occur. During the first monitoring survey the poor sighting of base camp was singled out as the main reason for not being able to place transects in appropriate locations. Like the first survey, a base camp location was identified prior to survey initiation. Despite the problems this caused during the first survey, the addition of a team leader with detailed instructions and extensive pre-trip preparation, the base camp of the second site was located in a poor position on the edge of the monitoring area. Weak leadership, the inability of rangers to follow instructions and the laziness of rangers not to walk an extra two hours to get the correct camp location therefore caused identical problems in the second monitoring area.

Box 2. Primates in the illegal wildlife trade of Quang Nam province Adapted from Roberton et al., 2004

Hunting and trapping within the province provides the largest proportion of wildlife to the trade in Quang Nam. Hunting by forest edge communities occurs all year round yet with increased intensity during periods between crop harvests. Hunting with guns still occurs despite people’s awareness of its illegality. Home-made guns were reported in most districts and air rifles which are used for hunting small animals were also reported. Two professional hunters are known in Phuoc Son district and use military and sport guns to hunt. 55 illegal wildlife traders were identified operating at different levels: International (2 traders), inter-provincial (31 traders), provincial (14 traders) and at an unknown level (8 traders). Most of the inter-provincial traders were selling wildlife to Da Nang, with only six selling to destinations outside of the province excluding Da Nang (Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phong). Little data was collected on traditional medicine production in Quang Nam province with bone balm being the most commonly reported product. Of eight medicine dealers identified, seven were found to be selling bone balm, of which five had macaque balm for sale. The head of a recently hunted douc was seen in Bac Tra My, although it cannot be determined whether this was for a specific use or a by-product.

27

Table 18. Summary of douc monitoring results

Transect Monitoring ranger Date Duration of transect

No. of douc

No. of gibbon No. of macaque

No. of wildlife

A Le Van Duc 12/01/2005 0800 – 1400 - - - - B Nguyen Vu 12/01/2005 0700 – 1500 - - - -

C Nguyen Dinh Hoan Vu Ngoc Anh

13/01/2005 0600 - 1400 - - - -

D Nguyen Ngoc An 14/01/2005 ? - - - -

E Nguyen Dinh Hoan 10/01/2005 0700 – 1400 - 1 ind observed

1020 E4-E5

- -

F Vu Ngoc Anh 11/01/2005 0700 - 1500 - - - - G Cao Huu Binh 13/01/2005 0800 - 1400 - - - -

K Nguyen Dinh Hoan Nguyen Ngoc An

11/01/2005 0720 – 1230 - - - -

L Vu Ngoc Anh Nguyen Ngoc An

12/01/2005 0710 – 1315 - - - -

M Vu Ngoc Anh 10/01/2005 0735 – 1245 - - - - Weak leadership and line management of rangers also resulted in one ranger from Dong Giang district FPD not joining the survey and the team leaving the forest before completing the work without any reason provided. As such, only eight days instead of 14 were conducted leading to an incomplete set of data being obtained. Ten transects and 10 listening posts were established (map 10) and although they do not cover the whole monitoring area and three will require moving, they were established competently. Douc monitoring was conducted on nine of the 10 transects (table 18) and gibbon monitoring occurred at nine of the 10 listening posts (table 19), but for only one of the three required days. Why the work was ended early is unclear and such management issues require strengthening before monitoring can become a normal part of adaptive forest management systems in Quang Nam province. Monitoring work was conducted competently, although some rangers did not fill in datasheets accurately. Bad weather including rain and mist hampered data collection; an expected constraint, but one that had to be endured due to time constraints. As a training though, the full suite of work required completion so that a working example of a monitoring system could be explained and proper indexes calculated.

Table 19. Summary of gibbon monitoring results

Gibbon song Listening post

Monitoring ranger

Date Duration of monitoring Start-time End-time

Bearing Distance

LP1 Cao Huu Binh 12/01/2005 ? - - - - LP2 Nguyen Dinh Hoan 13/01/2005 0630 – 1400 - - - - LP3 Nguyen Ngoc An 10/01/2005 0530 – 1100 - - - - LP4 Nguyen Ngoc An 12/01/2005 0600 – 1200 - - - - LP5 Nguyen Dinh Hoan 12/01/2005 0630 – 1130 - - - - LP6 Nguyen Dinh Hoan 14/01/2005 0640 – 1100 - - - - LP7 Cao Huu Binh 13/01/2005 ? LP8 Nguyen Ngoc An 11/01/2005 0720 – 1230 - - - - LP9 Vu Ngoc Anh 14/01/2005 0630 – 1040 - - - -

Nguyen Vu 12/01/2005 0800 – 1500 - - - - LP10 Nguyen Vu 13/01/2005 0830 – 1345 - - - -

2.3 Discussion 2.3.1 Methods Interviewing for species presence/absence is a very difficult skill to conduct even when species identification features are confidently known. This was understood and the methods used were developed to aid with interview structure and provide freedom to provide for taxonomic descriptions if species could not be clearly identified. Data on doucs and gibbons were collected in a satisfactory manner, but other taxa clearly received less effort. Threat data were inconsistently recorded, although useful information was obtained. The standard of interviews could have been

28

better and it is likely that a combination of the following factors were the cause: i) training time was insufficient, ii) the method too complicated, iii) the activity was too early in the process of capacity building and iv) a lack of team management. It should be stressed, however, that some rangers collected excellent data on all species and threats and all groups collected useful data on doucs and gibbons, showing the method can and did work. If replicated, the datasheets require improvement in format, wording and translation. Despite the imperfection of this activity, the data collected was an invaluable part of the primate conservation process in Quang Nam. Moreover, it is believed by the authors that rangers can conduct focused interviews to a standard where useful data as part of a larger process can be collected if trained appropriately over time. Survey methods worked well with data, in general, being collected accurately and recorded correctly. Datasheets were not popular amongst rangers at first and ensuring rangers recorded data both on the sheets and at the time of collection was the hardest task faced by trainers. Rangers wanted to keep datasheets at camp so they both did not have to carry them and to ensure they were kept clean and dry. The concept of field note taking and data transcription during all aspects of ranger work requires much attention if accurate and complete datasets are to be gathered. Species identification is always an issue of contention among scientists, especially when inexperienced people are surveying. One ranger team recorded the presence of Assamese macaque M. assamensis during surveys, despite training detailing its distribution does not reach south to Quang Nam. In recognition of this scepticism and the prior level of capacity of rangers, datasheets included space to record species names as well as species identification features. Records presented in this report represent only records where the species name and the description match. Where names have been provided with no identification features presented, data has been omitted or recorded to genus level. Such careful quality controls enable the authors to be confident that all data in this report are accurate. Monitoring methods were kept as simple as possible, but can be easily expanded to include population density work if and when required. At the current level of competence and species density, an index of abundance is believed to be sufficient. The analysis training required to expand this into density calculations was not perceived to be economically beneficial at present. Monitoring grids were established in Song Thanh Nature Reserve, which has recently established a science and monitoring unit under its new management plan. These grids will require external funding to be worked each year for the immediate future, but they will be combined with tiger and prey monitoring work so will become critical areas in adaptive management of the reserve. 2.3.2 Interviews Constraints • The literature review provided few insights into primate distribution as most reports provided no

location data and poor identification qualifiers. • A few problems arose due to miss-translation of datasheets from English to Vietnamese. • Some rangers did not provide species identification features obtained during interviews making

it impossible to judge whether the identification was correct or not. • Only one ranger made forest sketch maps preventing location of key species prior to forest

surveys. • The training manual was not produced in time to assist training. • The time of last observation was often omitted during interview surveys preventing an

assessment of whether a species was present or not. • Rangers were not closely line managed and so did not always restrain from smoking or talking

during surveys. • Field note taking was minimal despite repetitive instruction by trainers. • Both monitoring surveys were effected due to pre-identified base camps not being reached.

This was due to laziness and weak management. The majority of problems encountered were due to incomplete data collection and deliberate reductions in effort, both of which are issues related to weak line management; something that must addressed prior to and during future activities. Successes • Interviews permitted focused surveys, during which interview data was often backed up with

field evidence. • Field surveys covered a large proportion of the forest of Quang Nam.

29

• Field surveys identified a manageable number of priority areas. • Data collected during field surveys, in general, was of good quality and facilitated the process

of primate conservation. • Some rangers became very motivated and skilled over the course of the work. • The distribution and status of primates in Quang Nam is significantly clearer than prior to the

work enabling efficient distribution of conservation resources. • In general, work was conducted competently and shows that rangers can conduct effective

biological surveys if trained appropriately. 2.3.3 Primate distribution and status Constraints • Survey time in each location was limited to a thorough assessment of status and conservation

needs was not obtained. • Field data was not always correctly collected and recorded by rangers. • Many primate observations did not result in a positive identification hindering effective

prioritisation work. • Many threats are caused and driven by outside influences and rangers found it difficult to

separate these from internal, community-level threats. • Weak line management meant that primate monitoring grids were not properly established. Successes • The methods and training were sufficient to enable rangers to conduct competent surveys. • Survey coverage of the province was extensive. • Data was recoded in an adequate fashion to facilitate conservation planning for primates. • Taxonomic issues of gibbons and doucs were further clarified. • Rangers were successfully trained in primate monitoring. Our knowledge on the status of primates in Quang Nam remains limited as many species are present across a large forest landscape. Eight taxa of primate have been confirmed from Quang Nam although others may be present. Data on loris distribution and status is minimal due to the limited survey effort on this nocturnal genus. Both species are likely to be found in most forest areas and, despite being hunted, they do not appear to be under any specific significant threat. Survey effort should focus on the distribution of the two species to identify any factors that may lead to an increased threat status in Quang Nam. N. pygmaeus is recorded in Song Thanh Nature Reserve and so its population here is likely to be both protected and viable due to the management actions and large size of the reserve. No conclusions can currently be made on N. bengalensis. Macaques appear to be under heavy hunting pressure for medicine, food, pets and as crop raiders. Despite this, two species M. arctoides and M. leonina appear relatively common. Despite being rarely observed during field surveys, both species are regularly recorded by camera-traps. Both these species are located in Song Thanh Nature Reserve in relative abundance and with increased effort on reducing hunting should survive there. M. leonina appears restricted to forest under 900m making it more vulnerable to habitat loss, but its survival in Quang Nam is not under immediate threat. The M. mulatta/fascicularis group remains little understood. Groups have been recorded or reported from lowland forest throughout the province. Both these species are adaptable to degraded forest, shown by the fact that animals from this group inhabit Cu Lao Cham Island and appear to flourish there. Lowland forest in Quang Nam is the most vulnerable habitat and the suite of dams on large rivers planned across the province may prove the largest threat to this taxa in Quang Nam. More information, including clarification on the taxonomy of animals throughout the province is required before its status can be accurately assessed. T. germaini has not been confirmed from Quang Nam, but interview records suggest it may be present in Bac Tra My and Nam Tra My districts. Interview data also suggest this species is under high levels of threat so field surveys should be conducted to confirm its presence or absence and appropriate, targeted conservation activities implemented. Doucs are distributed throughout the province although no area appears to hold many groups. The distribution of the two taxa has been more clearly identified than previously with only animals in Nam Giang district requiring taxonomic clarification to identify whether animals there represent

30

separate species or an intergrade zone. Grey-shanked like animals in Que Son and Nui Thanh districts require genetic analysis and further field observations to clarify their taxonomic status. The status of both douc taxa is critical in Quang Nam. No areas discovered hold large populations and all areas still face high levels of threat. Perversely, the best areas for douc density may be those with the highest levels of threats. Both taxa have been recorded in good numbers in Song Thanh Nature Reserve and this area should be the regarded as the priority location for douc conservation in Quang Nam. Other areas require further investigation to assess whether douc specific conservation resources should be deployed there. All eight priority areas should be afforded increased levels of forest protection due to the presence of doucs. Gibbons have been extirpated from most forest areas in Quang Nam. Although recorded in 13 communes, the majority of these represent remnant groups and are not important for gibbon conservation. Four areas were identified with possibly viable gibbon populations. The areas overlapping with the priority areas for douc conservation within Song Thanh Nature Reserve should take priority for conservation resources focused on gibbons, but all areas deserve increased forest protection effort. The traditional view of gibbon taxonomy would presume N. gabriellae was distributed in Quang Nam. Taxonomic analysis under this project has shown gibbons throughout Quang Nam are more likely to represent N. leucogenys siki. This is the more threatened taxa making surviving viable populations of national importance. 2.3.4 Threat assessment Constraints • Obtaining threat data from communities when representing an enforcement agency proved

problematic. • Threat data was not always comprehensively recorded. • Field-based assessments of threats received much opposition from rangers as it required

constant field note taking. Data from some communes were not obtained. • Few confirmed field localities of doucs and gibbons were obtained making statistical analysis

difficult. Successes • Sufficient information was obtained to identify key threats to primates. • The Forest Protection Department are much more receptive to threat identification when data

is collected by their own rangers. • Data showed different pressures are exerted between outsiders and forest edge communities,

permitting the development of targeted conservation actions on each group. • Areas of higher threat were able to be compared with importance for primates, facilitating

resource effective distribution of conservation resources. All primates are under threat in Quang Nam as hunting by both forest edge communities and outsiders is ubiquitous, intense and uncontrolled. Hunting by gun was openly reported to FPD rangers during interviews and field and trade surveys confirmed the use of automatic ‘army’ guns are still used in Quang Nam. Such guns are used by professional hunters and are generally hid in the forest so are hard to remove, but increased field patrols would act as a deterrent to their use as they are easily heard and tracked down when used. Snares and traps are ubiquitous throughout the forests of Quang Nam and pose a serious threat to macaques, but also doucs, which occasionally descend to the ground. Habitat loss is less of an issue to primates as the majority of populations live in the remotest forest. Forest clearance in Tien Phuoc and Nui Thanh may be an issue for douc conservation in these areas. Forest disturbance and clearance has become a serious threat to the douc and gibbon populations of Macooih commune since the A’Vuong dam construction began. Dam construction throughout the province may cause the largest threat to M. mulatta/fascicularis. Road construction appears to be an issue in a few locations, especially Macooih commune, but of more worry is the migration, both forced and voluntary, to areas along these roads leading to increased threat levels on forest resources and primates. Gold mining is a serious in-direct threat to primates across the province. Gold miners hunt during their time in the forest to supply their protein needs; this applies to legal and illegal miners. The priority area for primate conservation in Phuoc Xuan commune is close to, and may include, part of Song Thanh Nature Reserve that is due to removal from the reserve as a gold mining company has

31

been granted a concession in the area. By removing the area from the core zone of a nature reserve direct protection and habitat protection for the doucs and gibbons in this commune are seriously compromised. Primates are part of the illegal trade in wildlife that is rampant across Quang Nam. Douc meat is a local speciality in Phuoc Son and until recently was openly sold in restaurants and the market. All primates are targeted for their perceived medicinal properties, but macaques appear to be most seriously effected by this trade, possibly because they can be caught in snares; the preferred hunting method of most trade-driven hunters. All primates are prized pets, but doucs appear especially vulnerable to this trade as their populations are so low any off take would be detrimental to their viability. The major threat to primates in Quang Nam is hunting. Quang Nam province is starting to develop and implement community-based sustainable forest management systems which should provide the framework for sustainable hunting for cultural reasons and permit crop protection mechanisms. A large proportion of hunting in Quang Nam is outside of these community systems, however, being conducted by non-local people and being driven by the illegal trade in wildlife. In order to stop this threat enforcement effort in the province must be increased and made more effective. Enforcement effort should be focused on the eight priority areas for primate conservation and especially in the IPZs if primate populations are to survive the next five years in Quang Nam. Moreover, the traders that are financing this commercial hunting should be targeted and prevented from taking part in this illegal business. 2.4 Priority areas for primate conservation in Quang Nam Song Thanh; Phuoc Xuan Priority I Situated on the eastern periphery of Song Thanh Nature Reserve, this area is bisected by the reserve boundary. Forest outside of the reserve boundary were logging concessions and lowland forest is very heavily degraded resulting in non-continuous closed canopy forest. Higher altitude forest, and that within the reserve, is of excellent quality however and so primates within remnant blocks outside the reserve have ridge top connections to larger populations. Four groups of grey-shanked doucs have been recorded in the area and 17-18 groups of gibbon. The forests in southern Tabhing and Ca Dy communes have yet to be fully surveyed and probably contain further groups as forest is more remote and in better condition. Hunting, logging and gold mining are common in the area with many people, mostly outsiders, in the forest at all times. The priority activity for the area is the removal of these threats through increased enforcement effort. A dialogue with the gold mining company which has successfully lobbied for the removal of part of this area from the core zone of Song Thanh Nature Reserve requires establishing to ensure the company protects the critical population of primates here. The area is sparsely populated, but all adjacent communities have agreed to the formation of a primate ‘Intensive Protection Zone’ (IPZ) in the area (see conservation results; 3.2). Adjacent villages in Phuoc Xuan and Tabhing communes have signed Quy Uoc forest management agreements and have established, active ‘Village Protection Teams’ (VPTs) (see conservation results; 3.2). The replication of these in Ca Dy commune is a priority activity and is planned for completion in early 2005. The non-protected forest in Phuoc Xuan and Ca Dy communes are under the management of State Forest Enterprises. These state entities are currently undergoing reform and it is likely that these areas will be taken out of production. It is imperative to bring all natural forest west of the Nuoc My River in these communes into Song Thanh Nature Reserve to ensure forest protection and regeneration. So as not to disenfranchise local communities from their forest resources, legal co-management agreements should be designed and signed for these forests. Song Thanh; Dak Pring Priority I Comprising the most remote forest in Quang Nam in the core of Song Thanh Nature Reserve, this area probably holds the largest population of primates in Quang Nam. Red-shanked doucs have been confirmed as have a population of gibbons. The most serious threat to the area is hunting by the large number of illegal gold miners that enter along the Dak Pring River. Professional hunters are also known to work the area.

32

The area is remote and has only four villages on its periphery. These Ta Rieng villages are within the core zone of Song Thanh and currently have no legal co-management agreement yet are partially dependent on the forest for their livelihood. All villages have signed Quy Uoc forest management agreements, have established ‘Village Protection Teams’ and have agreed not to hunt primates within the Song Thanh primate IPZ (see conservation results; 3.2). To secure primate populations in the area as well as the livelihoods of this community, the reserve boundary requires reassessment and legal community co-management agreements developed. Enforcement operations are currently being strengthened in Song Thanh Nature Reserve and this area should be a priority location for patrols, gold mining removal and track sits along the Dak Pring River. It is essential that professional hunters and illegal miners are removed from this area if primate populations are to survive. Cooperation with the border army would strengthen enforcement operations and increase effort. Tien Phuoc Priority II A small isolated area of heavily degraded forest on the border of Tien Phuoc and Hiep Duc districts. Despite the condition of the forest, grey-shanked doucs survive with two groups being observed. Local communities report a large group of 70-80 animals is present; although this may be an exaggeration, it is likely that more animals exist than have been observed to date by researchers. The area is fragmented, but it is reported that doucs travel through scrub areas to reach isolated forest patches. The area is under heavy pressure for forest conversion. Being degraded, open canopy forest adjacent to agricultural land is more vulnerable to forest fire than other priority areas for primate conservation. Hunting in the area appears relatively low, but doucs have been caught here for the pet trade. Tien Phuoc requires study to assess the ability of the area to act as a safe haven for this population of doucs. It could act as a small douc sanctuary if sufficiently large to hold a viable population and forest regeneration is permitted. If land conversion threats are too high, or the area too small, the douc population possibly could be safely translocated due to the recorded behaviour of descending to the ground to cross between patches of forest. Tra Giac Priority II An area of good quality forest with low human population density, this area is known to hold two groups of grey-shanked doucs with another group reported. Doucs observations here were brief and on both occasions more animals were present than were counted. Local reports suggest large groups are present. The area is home to Ca Dong and Xe Dang peoples who still practice shifting cultivation. The forest is therefore a patchwork of good forest and re-growth forest. The three groups of doucs are widely spaced and it is currently not clear whether they are connected by forest or not. If they are connected and group size is large, this area would become high priority, but further study is required. The area has not been well studied and the specific threats to the area are currently little understood. Phu Ninh Priority II Currently under the management of Phu Ninh Watershed Protection Management Board this area forms the watershed of the Phu Ninh Reservoir. Whilst proposed for re-alignment to nature reserve status, the biodiversity values of the area are not clearly documented. The natural forest of the area is small and not connected to the main Quang Nam forest landscape. One group of grey-shanked doucs is reported from the area and was observed during ranger surveys. It is claimed that about 50 animals were seen, although no actual count was conducted. If 50 animals were present it would be of importance, but with the social system of doucs, a single group would represent very few breeding males putting the viability of this population into doubt. Another group is reported in a separate, unconnected area of forest, but this group was not confirmed and its existence is doubtful. Specific threats to the area are not clearly known, but hunting is known to be present and doucs are known to have been caught here for the pet trade. A full assessment of population size and

33

threats is required along with clarification of the area’s status before the importance of this area can be clearly assessed. Zuoih Priority II A large area of forest adjacent and connected to Song Thanh Nature Reserve. The area is known to hold both doucs and gibbons although an assessment of their population is currently difficult despite two surveys in the area. Doucs were observed and recoded as grey-shanked, but without description, moreover a captive animal from the area has characteristics closer to red-shanked than grey-shanked doucs (see figure 9). It is possible that both species of douc occur here or even that the area is a hybrid or intergrade zone, it is therefore important for further study. The area is adjacent to Dang commune, Dong Giang district where doucs have been reported. A single group of gibbons was recorded in an area of Zuoih commune, but it appears unlikely to be part of an important population. The status of doucs and gibbons in the area is hard to assess as little feedback or perceptions were provided by the rangers who surveyed the area. With the size of the forest area, its location and its remoteness, it potentially is important, but further studies are required. The area is remote, but currently faces high pressure from illegal logging as it can be accessed via the Cai and Boung River system. Hunting pressure is undoubtedly high also. A hydropower dam is planned for construction on the Boung River; this will flood part of the forest although it is currently not known if this will effect any important primate populations. Dam, access road, power plant and cable line construction will undoubtedly have large impacts on the forest and also bring large numbers of construction workers to the area leading to increased hunting and habitat pressures. Until decisions on the dam and the primate population’s status are clarified the priority level of this area cannot be assessed. Macooih Priority II Previously a potentially important area where red-shanked doucs could easily be seen and gibbons heard. Three small groups of doucs were regularly seen during a survey in 2002, believed to be part of one or two larger groups and eight groups of gibbons were recorded. A ranger training in 2004 recorded the gibbons, but no doucs. The area covers a hill at the bottom of which, the A’Vuong dam is being constructed. Between 2002 and 2004 the area, which is comprised of steep mountains, has been heavily impacted by the construction new roads to assess slope stability for the dam construction project. The area is managed by a State Forest Enterprise who responsibly stopped road construction and logging short of the steeper areas of forest in the past. Whether this disturbance or hunting has led to the disappearance of the doucs is hard to assess. The different seasons of the surveys could also be a factor in the lack of records in 2004. The area has been impacted on one side by the construction of the Ho Chi Minh Highway, on another by the dam construction, on a third by the hydropower plant construction and a road to the later has bisected the forest block removing most hope of finding further groups in the once more remote areas. If dam and all associated construction, village relocations and increased demand for forest meat by construction workers does not result in the extirpation of local primate populations, the area may be a useful small sanctuary, but only time will tell if this is a possibility. Dialogue should be opened with the electricity company regarding payment to local communities and forest protection authorities on payments for watershed and primate protection. Western Que Son Priority III Western Que Son is critically important in Quang Nam due to the large expanse of lowland forest remaining there. This lowland forest is heavily degraded due to excessive logging operations in the past, war damage and current intensive illegal logging. Forest on the hills, however, remains good and although doucs and gibbons have been extirpated from most areas, pockets of doucs survive along the border between Que Lam and Que Phuoc communes and Que Lam and Phuoc Hiep communes. Gibbons have been recorded on the slopes of Nui Ben Mountain and a larger population may exist on the more remote and steeper areas, but it is unlikely to be of importance. Gibbons have also been reported and recorded on the Que Lam – Phuoc Hiep border although their status can not currently be assessed. The area is not currently thought to be of highest importance for primate conservation, but doucs of unclear taxonomic affiliation (Timmins, 2004)

34

have been observed here and the area is proposed for protection status and action so could in future be of higher importance. The area is heavily exploited for non-timber forest products and despite its importance for turtle conservation is also a focal area for turtle collectors. Hunting is not as rife as in other areas although it does exist and is the only place where sport hunting has been reported in Quang Nam. Illegal logging and hunting are the primary threats to the area and need controlling. The area is the focus of conservation action due its importance as lowland forest and because of a remnant population of elephants. All five surrounding communes have signed Quy Uoc forest management agreements and have established ‘Village Protection teams’. Regular FPD patrols are being undertaken in parts of the area, but focus on elephant protection and do not cover the areas important for doucs. The wider landscape is being investigated for the establishment of an ‘Elephant Conservation Landscape’ with an option of developing a Species/Habitat Conservation Area around the elephant’s distribution. The western Que Son landscape is currently developing a management plan that will incorporate douc conservation. It is recommended that the douc areas be included in any feasibility study for a Species/Habitat Conservation Area.

35

Section 3 Primate Conservation in Quang Nam

3.1 Methods Various methods were used and deployed at different scales according to priority and resources. Awareness raising activities were implemented over the largest area with all communes within priority primate areas being targeted. Two simple methods were employed, the first being a poster of pro-conservation messages accompanying attractive photos of doucs and gibbons. Messages were tailored to the local audience and focused heavily on trying to prevent hunting of the target species and not the unattainable message of ‘don’t use the forest’. This unobtrusive approach was coupled with legal household agreements on the cessation of hunting primates. Agreements clearly outlined the laws surrounding hunting and the penalties faced if caught and prosecuted. Although forest edge communities are aware of laws and prohibited activities, it is rare that they actually know the punishment for violations. Both posters and agreements were delivered by the commune ranger responsible for each commune and were delivered during a village meeting which first explained the conservation importance of doucs and gibbons. Another small awareness activity was a public competition to design a new logo for Song Thanh Nature Reserve. Competition notices were distributed throughout Nam Giang and Phuoc Son districts by the Youth Union and school visits were made to encourage students to enter. Song Thanh has numerous important species and values and the most charismatic of these where illustrated on the competition notice to facilitate their uptake in the logo; doucs were one such species. The two highest priority locations for primate conservation happened to be situated within Song Thanh Nature Reserve. The new management plan for Song Thanh has a set of activities on the creation of ‘Intensive Protection Zones’ (IPZ) within the core area to enable focused protection and monitoring of priority values. Two primate zones, one for each douc taxa, were established surrounding the monitoring grids. These areas were zoned with full community participation with work conducted by the appropriate commune FPD rangers. The method used to identify IPZ boundaries was forest sketch mapping using a focus group of experienced forest users. Sketch maps detailed local names of mountains and rivers and were readily transferred onto 1:50,000 topographic maps. In this way both communities and authorities could understand boundary locations. Sketch maps were introduced to the whole community to discuss management options and possible IPZ boundaries. Community forest management methods have been developed by the WWF MOSAIC project (see Long et al., in prep b) and were replicated in the highest priority communes. A series of four village meetings were held to discuss community forest management regulations and their policing. Community consensus on management regulations and punishments were compiled into village ‘Huong Uoc’ or ‘Quy Uoc’ community forest management agreements which were approved by district authorities. In priority primate areas, specific primate conservation articles were included in village Huong Uocs/Quy Uocs. ‘Village Protection Teams’ were also established, each comprised of five vi llage members voted into position by the community. These teams have the power to hold Huong Uoc/Quy Uoc violators for up to 12 hours to enable their transportation to commune officials for prosecution. Each VPT member spends a minimum of two days per month on patrol and works with commune authorities and the commune FPD ranger for additional support. VPT members get paid a stipend of 100,000 VND (US$6.4) per month which is paid from a commune forest protection fund initially invested in by the project (amounting to 3 months worth of stipends), but after, that replenished by fines and the sale of confiscated items. VPTs are administered by the commune People’s Committee and monitored and supported by local FPD. 3.2 Results Basic awareness raising activities were conducted in 115 villages (table 20) covering all priority areas identified from survey work. 1000 posters were distributed and 2134 no hunting agreements signed by households heads.

36

Table 20. Location and quantity of no-hunting agreements signed

Commune No. of village No. of household MaCooih 2 90 Zuoih 4 90 La Dee 4 90 Dak Pring 3 98 Dakpre 2 70 Tabhing 6 95 Ca Dy 5 90 Thanh My town 6 87 Que Ninh 4 93 Que Phuoc 4 82 Que Lam 6 73 Phuoc Nang 5 103 Phuoc My 5 106 Phuoc Duc 5 68 Phuoc Xuan 2 54 Kham Duc town 7 81 Tien Hiep 5 100 Tien Ngoc 6 100 Tien Lanh 2 100 Tam Tra 3 103 Tam My 14 97 Tam Hiep 10 73 Tra Tap 3 100 Tra Giac 2 91 Total 115 2134

The final Song Thanh Nature Reserve Logo (figure 6) included the grey-shanked douc leading to wide ranging awareness of the importance of this species throughout Nam Giang and Phuoc Son districts.

The two highest priority areas covered parts of four adjacent communes of Song Thanh Nature Reserve. 11 villages surrounding the area were visited for IPZ boundary delineation. Community consensus was obtained on the boundary of an area covering 334.4 km2 (map 11). Community forest management agreements were facilitated in six villages in two communes, with other relevant villages already having developed them. In all agreements, primate conservation was specifically mentioned. Village Protection Teams were established by community consensus in the six villages of Phuoc Xuan and Dak Pring communes, comprising a total of 30 village rangers. Adjacent communes of Tabhing and Ca Dy already had, or were in the process of establishing these community institutions through other work of FPD and the WWF MOSAIC project. 3.3 Discussion Primate conservation activities only began once priority areas had been identified so conclusions on the effectiveness of the approach being taken are impossible at present. Awareness activities are an adaptation of that successfully employed in FFI’s Mu Cang Chai western black crested gibbon work. The message of sustainable forest management with no hunting of critically important species is a short-term trade-off that communities can understand and agree to at little cost to themselves. Sustainable community-based forest co-management is the long-term goal of the Quang Nam Forest Protection Department. The development of community forest management regulations and the establishment of community teams to monitor and police these regulations is the first step in a long process to reach this goal. Similar community-based forest management activities have been operational in Tabhing commune for over a year and have led to a decrease in outsiders harvesting

37

local forest resources. Additionally, it has led to increased awareness amongst community members on the concepts of sustainability and rights over natural resources (see Long et al., in prep b. for more details). It is expected that similar results will be obtained in priority primate areas. This approach will only work in the long-term if legal rights to forest resources and land tenure are afforded the communities. This is starting to occur through the provincial land allocation project. Allocation of Special-Use Forest land to communities can not occur under Vietnamese law so it is important that boundaries of such areas receive the consensus of communities and that co-management agreements of less important areas within core zones are legalised and delineated. Community-based conservation of primates has therefore made a useful start in Quang Nam, but many more stages are required to ensure the long-term persistence of biodiversity, forest resources and primates. However good community-based forest management systems are, there will always be people willing to violate laws. A significant proportion of hunting in Quang Nam is conducted by people from outside forest edge communities with their activities fuelled by the illegal wildlife trade. Enforcement operations are urgently required to reduce hunting pressure. From a primate perspective, enforcement effort should concentrate on the priority areas identified within this report to remove immediate and direct threats to key primate populations. An eventual province wide decline in hunting, however, will only occur with the removal of wildlife traders and restaurants as it is these that are driving the majority of hunting in the province. These issues are being addressed through a provincial wildlife law enforcement action plan. Conservation resources are limited and with insufficient manpower and operational costs, the Forest Protection Department and other departments have to prioritise actions and ensure work is conducted in the most efficient and effective manner. For these reasons, and to make operational linkages between awareness, community-based conservation, enforcement and primate monitoring, priority areas require detailed, target-driven management plans. Song Thanh Nature Reserve has been implementing its new management plan since December 2004. A new management structure and clear terms of reference for each ranger in tandem with prioritised actions and clear work plans are already showing improved performance and staff motivation levels. Primates have been specifically prioritised within the plan and the formation of the two IPZs should increase focus on these critical areas for primate conservation. Under this management plan, boundary re-design, community-based co-management, primate monitoring and increased enforcement effort will all be implemented. Based on the provincial species prioritisation exercise, primates have been incorporated within the provincial biodiversity and natural resource strategy. This will ensure cooperation and awareness of all departments within the province in primate conservation. A raised profile for primate conservation at the provincial level will enable greater leverage in policy dialogue. 3.3.1 Constraints • Little time or resources were available for capacity development at this stage of the process

during the first year of implementation. • Rangers outside of the primate team had to be used for this work and so were less

knowledgeable on primate conservation. • Some rangers currently lack the skill to facilitate effective community consultations; further

capacity development is required. • Awareness materials were distributed without the support of a full education programme so

their effectiveness is likely to be limited. This programme is currently being developed. 3.3.2 Successes • The framework for community based sustainable forest management was established in two

priority areas for primate conservation. • Commune FPD rangers have forged closer relationships with communities. • District authorities legalised community forest management agreements. • Priority areas for primate conservation are receiving better protection through community

patrols. • Awareness of the importance of primate conservation has been raised in priority areas.

38

Recommendations Capacity development 1. Primate ranger team:

• Drop Tay Giang district from the team • Either change the ranger or provide strong line management to the rangers of Dong Giang

and Bac Tra My districts • Include a ranger from Nam Tra My district and ensure strong line management is provided.

2. Provide basic training for new rangers in navigation, primate identification, survey and monitoring methods.

3. Continue periodic reinforcement trainings for all primate team members. 4. Ensure rangers have time to practice skills in the field as regularly as possible. 5. Provide rangers with the recognition they deserve for good work through use of the media and

internal evaluation systems. 6. Incorporate primate conservation and monitoring responsibilities within primate ranger team

terms of references and monthly work plans. 7. Develop, implement and train for a system for primate records to be logged and collated at a

central location. 8. Capacity development of the Song Thanh Management Board especially the science and

monitoring unit so they can effectively monitor primate populations. Methods 1. Reformat interview datasheets to simplify their use. 2. Check translations of datasheets to ensure accurate data collection. Survey, research and monitoring 1. Conduct annual monitoring activities in the two Song Thanh priority areas. 2. Conduct further status assessments in the two Song Thanh priority areas to identify all groups

of doucs and gibbons. 3. Taxonomic assessments:

• DNA collection of doucs in Zuoih, Dak Pring, Tabhing, Thanh My, Que Phuoc, Que Lam, Tien Phuoc, Nui Thanh and Tra Giac communes

• Gibbons sonographic analysis from Tra Tap • Gibbon DNA collection and analysis from all areas • Taxonomic clarification of the M. mulatta/fascicularis through DNA analysis.

4. Conduct further status assessments to clarify area priority in: • Tien Phuoc • Tra Giac • Phu Ninh • Zuoih • Macooih • Western Que Son.

5. Establish monitoring systems in the highest priority area for each taxa of douc and gibbon outside of Song Thanh Nature Reserve once priority status has been clarified.

6. Loris surveys in Song Thanh Nature Reserve to assess their status and the presence of both taxa to enable appropriate conservation action for the species.

Conservation in priority areas 1. Song Thanh; Phuoc Xuan

• Increased enforcement operation effort with the aim of removing all hunters from the IPZ • Removal of illegal gold miners • Reserve boundary redesign to include primate populations currently outside of the reserve • Field demarcation of IPZ • Legal co-management agreements developed with local communities • Strengthening of VPTs and sustainable forest management mechanisms • Engage with the mining company to ensure primate protection in areas excised from Song

Thanh Nature Reserve. 2. Song Thanh; Dak Pring

• Increased enforcement operation effort with the aim of removing all hunters from the IPZ • Removal of illegal gold miners

39

• Field demarcation of IPZ • Reserve boundary redesign • Legal co-management agreements developed with local communities • Strengthening of VPTs and sustainable forest management mechanisms.

3. Tien Phuoc • Assessment of habitat threat level and douc population status to enable more specific

recommendations • Legal clarification of forest tenure and status • Forest fire prevention system strengthening.

4. Tra Giac

• Assessment of habitat connectivity between douc groups and douc group size to enable more specific recommendations

• Strengthening of VPTs and sustainable forest management mechanisms • Development of a forest protection and development management plan by district FPD

with full community participation.

5. Phu Ninh • Douc population clarification to assess the area’s importance • Strengthened management effectiveness of the Phu Ninh Watershed Protection Forest,

including the development of an appropriate management plan with all stakeholders • Increased enforcement effort to reduce hunting pressure.

6. Zuoih

• Primate status assessment • Increased enforcement effort to reduce hunting and logging pressure • Open dialogue with Electricity Vietnam about forest and biodiversity protection during

construction of the Song Boung 4 dam and payment for environmental services to communities and the Forest Protection Department.

7. Macooih

• Assessment of the effect of dam construction on primate populations • Open dialogue with Electricity Vietnam about forest and biodiversity protection during

construction of the A’Vuong dam and payment for environmental services to communities, the Forest Protection Department and Prao State Forest Enterprise

• Pro-primate conservation management planning and training for Prao State Forest Enterprise.

8. Western Que Son

• Inclusion of douc conservation within management planning actions • Assessment of important primate areas within the planned feasibility study for protected

forest status • Increased enforcement operation effort with the aim of removing all hunters and loggers • Strengthening of VPTs and sustainable forest management mechanisms.

40

References Anonymous. 2002. Quang Nam Statistical Yearbook 2002. Quang Nam Statistical Publishing

House. Hanoi, Vietnam. Anonymous. 2003. Guidelines on the Development of Socio-economic Conditions around Phu

Ninh Lake, Tam Ky, Quang Nam – Da Nang. Unpublished report. Institute for Ecology and Biological Resources. Hanoi, Vietnam. [in Vietnamese]

Appleton, M.R., Texon, G.I. and Uriarte, M.T. 2003. Competence Standards for Protected Area Jobs in South East Asia. ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Los Baños, Philippines.

Baltzer, M.C., Nguyen Thi Dao and Shore, R. (eds). 2001. Towards a vision for biodiversity conservation in the Forests of the Lower Mekong Ecoregion Complex - technical annex. WWF Indochina/WWF US, Hanoi, Vietnam and Washington D.C., U.S.A.

Brockelman, W.Y. and Ali, R. 1987. Methods of surveying and sampling forest primate populations. In Primate Conservation in the Tropical Rainforest. Marsh, C.W. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds) 23-62. Alan R. Liss. New York, USA.

Brockelman, W.Y. and Srikosamatra, S. 1993. Estimation of density of gibbon groups by use of loud songs. American Journal of Primatology 29: 93-108.

Bui Huu Manh. 2004. Building the Watershed Categorization Map for Quang Nam Province using MapInfo. Unpublished report. WWF Indochina and Quang Nam Forest Protection Department. Tam Ky, Vietnam. [In Vietnamese].

Conservation International and IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. 2000. The World’s Top 25 Most Endangered Primates. Conservation International, Washington D.C., USA.

Department of Land Administration. 2000. Quang Nam Land Census. Printing House of Quang Nam Newspaper, Tam Ky, Vietnam. [In Vetnamese].

Department of Natural Resources and Environment. In prep. Forest Land Allocation Procedure. Tam Ky, Vietnam. [In Vietnamese].

FFI, 2000. Primate Field Guide, Fauna & Flora International - Indochina Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Fooden, J. 1996. Zoogeography of Vietnamese Primates. International Journal of Primatology 17 (5): 845-899.

Geissmann, T., Nguyen Xuan Dang, Lormée, N. and Momberg, F. 2000. Vietnam Primate Conservation Status Review 2000 Part 1: Gibbons. Fauna & Flora International, Indochina Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Ha Thang Long, 2000. Preliminary results of surveys on grey-shanked douc (Pygathrix cinerea) in Nam Dong district, Thua Thien-Hue province and Hien district, Quang Nam province. Unpublished report, Endangered Primate Rescue Center and Cuc Phuong National Park, Nho Quan, Vietnam. [In Vietnamese].

Ha Thang Long. 2004. Distribution and Status of the grey-Shanked Douc Langur (Pygathrix cinerea) in Vietnam. In: Conservation of Primates in Vietnam. 2004. Nadler, T., Streicher, U. and Ha Thanh Long (eds). Frankfurt Zoological Society and Endangered Primate Rescue Centre. Cuc Phuoc National Park, Vietnam.

Haimoff, E.H., Xiao-Jun Yang, Swing-Jing He and Nan Chen. 1986. Census and survey of wild black-crested gibbons (Hylobates concolor concolor) in Yunnan Province, People’s Republic of China. Folia Primatologica 46: 205-214.

Hardcastle, J.E. 2002. Opportunities for Indigenous Community Management of Forest Resources in the Central Truong Son Uplands, Quang Nam. Unpublished report. WWF Indochina and Quang Nam Forest Protection Department. Tam Ky, Vietnam.

Hardcastle, J.E. Nguyen Quoc Dung, Thai Truyen and Long, B. 2002. PRA Study of Socio-economic Conditions and Local Management Practices of Natural Forest. WWF Indochina and Quang Nam Forest Protection Department. Tam Ky, Vietnam. [In Vietnamese].

IUCN 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.redlist.org>. Downloaded on 29 December 2004.

Kagoro-Rugunda, G. 2004. Crop raiding around lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 42: 32-41.

Linkie, M. 2004. Tigers, Prey Loss and Deforestation Patterns in Sumatra. Ph.D. Thesis. 246pp. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, U.K.

Long, B. 2001. Tiger Conservation and Survey Training for the Central Vietnam Tiger Corridor. Unpublished report, WWF Indochina Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Long, B. Tallents, L.A. and Tran Dinh Nghia. 2000. The Biodiversity of Che Tao Commune, Yen Bai Province, Vietnam. Fauna & Flora International, Indochina Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.

41

Long, B., Vu Ngoc Thanh., Ha Thang Long and Nguyen Manh Ha, 2005. Primates of the Central Truong Son Landscape; Identification, Survey and Monitoring Methods. WWF Vietnam Programme, Tam Ky, Vietnam. [In Vietnamese].

Long, B., Minh Hoang and Thai Truyen. In prep. a. A Conservation Assessment of Quang Nam Province, Central Vietnam. WWF Vietnam Programme, Tam Ky, Vietnam.

Long, B. Luong Quang Hung, Huynh Van Thuong, Ha Thi Minh Thu, Ngo Dinh Khoi, Nguyen Tan Sinh, Tran Van Thu, Thai Truyen and Hardcastle, J.E. In prep. b. Community-based Conservation in Quang Nam Province. WWF Vietnam Programme, Tam Ky, Vietnam.

Minh Hoang, Long, B. and Hardcastle, J.E. 2004. Saola Conservation in Quang Nam Province. In: ‘Rediscovering the saola’; workshop proceedings, Annon. 2004. SFNC/WWF Vietnam Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment. 2000. Red Data Book of Vietnam. Volume1. Animals. Science and Technics Publishing House. Hanoi, Vietnam.

Nadler, T. 1997. A new subspecies of douc langur, Pygathrix nemaeus cinereus ssp. nov.Der Zoologische Garten 67: 165-176.

Nadler, T., Momberg, F., Nguyen Xuan Dang & Lormee, N. 2003. Vietnam Primate Conservation Status Review 2002 - Part 2: Leaf Monkeys. Fauna & Flora International-Vietnam Program and Frankfurt Zoology Society, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Ngo Van Tri. 2000. Status of Elephants and Large Mammals in Song Thanh Nature Reserve and Western Quang Nam Province, Vietnam. Unpublished report. Fauna & Flora International – Indochina Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Olson, D.M. and Dinerstein, E. 1997. The global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving Earth’s Distinctive Ecoregions. World Wildlife Fund. Washington D.C. USA.

Roberton, S., Huyen Van Thuong, Nguyen Ngoc Nguyen, Ho Loi, Le Hoang Son, Nguyen Quyen, Vu Ngoc Anh, Le Van Di, Hoang Xuan Thuy, Vu Ngoc Thanh and Long, B. 2004. The Illegal Wildlife Trade in Quang Nam Province; Covert Investigations by Specially Trained Forest Rangers. Unpublished report. WWF Vietnam Programme and Quang Nam Forest Protection Department. Tam Ky, Vietnam.

Roos, C. and Nadler, T. 1997. Molecular evolution of the douc langurs. Der Zoologische Garten 71: 1-6.

Saj, T.L., Sicotte, P. and Paterson, J.D. 2001. The conflict between vervet monkeys and farmers at the forest edge in Entebbe, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 39: 195-199.

Sekhar, N.U. 1998. Crop livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Conservation 25 (2): 160-171.

Timmins, R.J. 2004. Notes on Wildlife Conservation in the Central Annamites, Particularly Quang Nam and Thua Thien Hue Provinces, Vietnam. Unpublished manuscript.

Tordoff, A. W., Tran Hieu Minh and Tran Quang Ngoc. 2000. A feasibility study for the establishment of Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve, Quang Nam province, Vietnam. BirdLife International Vietnam Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Tordoff, A.W., Timmins, R.J., Smith R.J. and Mai Ky Vinh 2002. Central Annamites Biological Assessment . WWF Indochina/WWF US, Hanoi and Washington D.C., U.S.A.

Vu Ngoc Thanh. 1999. Initial report of grey-shanked douc survey in Tien Phuoc district, Quang Nam province. Unpublished report. National University, Hanoi. [In Vietnamese].

Vu Ngoc Thanh. 2001. Initial report of loris survey in Song Thanh Nature Reserve, Quang Nam province. Unpublished report. National University, Hanoi. [In Vietnamese].

Wikramanayake, E.D., Vu Van Dung and Pham Mong Giao. 1997. A Biological and Socio-economic Survey of West Quang Nam Province with Recommendations for a Nature Reserve. WWF Indochina Programme/Forest Protection Department/Forest Inventory and Planning Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam.

42

Appendix 1. Ranger competency assessment Competencies follow Appleton et al. (2003)

1.1. Overall competency levels for primate survey and monitoring

GEN FLD NAT Ranger

1 2 3 4 5 1.1 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.3 2.4 Total %

Ha Phuoc Phu 4 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 6 8 2 9 7 9 5 6 7 4 8 97 51.1 Duong Quang Hung 5 6 5 4 5 4 3 7 6 9 7 9 8 9 5 6 8 8 7 121 63.7 Cao Huu Binh 5 5 7 5 6 2 4 3 6 10 3 9 8 9 5 7 9 7 7 117 61.6 Le Van Duc 7 8 6 5 6 2 5 3 5 8 3 9 9 7 6 8 9 8 7 121 63.7 Nguyen Vu 7 8 6 6 8 4 7 7 7 7 7 8 9 7 6 8 8 8 8 136 71.6 Le The Thanh 6 6 9 5 7 4 4 8 7 10 8 10 8 9 7 7 9 9 9 142 74.7 Nguyen Truong Kieu 6 8 8 7 8 4 5 6 6 8 6 8 8 7 8 7 8 8 7 133 70.0 Vu Ngoc Anh 9 9 9 7 8 4 7 7 7 10 7 10 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 156 82.1 Nguyen Ngoc An 5 5 7 8 6 4 3 6 4 7 6 9 7 8 7 7 8 7 7 121 63.7 Nguyen Dinh Hoan 8 9 8 7 6 4 6 6 5 8 6 9 9 8 8 8 8 9 9 141 74.2

1. 2. Attitude levels by competencies for primate survey and monitoring

GEN FLD NAT Ranger

1 2 3 4 5 1.1 2.1 2.4 1.2 1.3 2.3 Total %

Ha Phuoc Phu 4 4 4 2 4 3 2 2 5 6 4 40 36.4 Duong Quang Hung 5 6 5 4 5 4 7 7 5 6 8 62 56.4 Cao Huu Binh 5 5 7 5 6 2 3 3 5 7 7 55 50.0 Le Van Duc 7 8 6 5 6 2 3 3 6 8 8 62 56.4 Nguyen Vu 7 8 6 6 8 4 7 7 6 8 8 75 68.2 Le The Thanh 6 6 9 5 7 4 8 8 7 7 9 76 69.1 Nguyen Truong Kieu 6 8 8 7 8 4 6 6 8 7 8 76 69.1 Vu Ngoc Anh 9 9 9 7 8 4 7 7 8 9 9 86 78.2 Nguyen Ngoc An 5 5 7 8 6 4 6 6 7 7 7 68 61.8 Nguyen Dinh Hoan 8 9 8 7 6 4 6 6 8 8 9 79 71.8

43

1.2. Field skill competencies for primate survey and monitoring

FLD NAT Ranger

1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.3 Total %

Ha Phuoc Phu 3 2 6 8 2 9 7 9 5 6 7 4 76 58.5 Duong Quang Hung 3 7 6 9 7 9 8 9 5 6 8 8 92 70.8 Cao Huu Binh 4 3 6 10 3 9 8 9 5 7 9 7 87 66.9 Le Van Duc 5 3 5 8 3 9 9 7 6 8 9 8 87 66.9 Nguyen Vu 7 7 7 7 7 8 9 7 6 8 8 8 97 74.6 Le The Thanh 4 8 7 10 8 10 8 9 7 7 9 9 105 80.8 Nguyen Truong Kieu 5 6 6 8 6 8 8 7 8 7 8 8 92 70.8 Vu Ngoc Anh 7 7 7 10 7 10 9 9 8 9 9 9 110 84.6 Nguyen Ngoc An 3 6 4 7 6 9 7 8 7 7 8 7 86 66.2 Nguyen Dinh Hoan 6 6 5 8 6 9 9 8 8 8 8 9 99 76.2 Notes: GEN: General Personal and Work Skills

FLD: Field Craft Level NAT: Natural Resources Assessment Level

44

Appendix 2. Area prioritisation

Area Species Recorded

population

Size of forest

(ranked) Protected

Forest quality

Links to other

populations Priority

red-shanked douc ? grey-shanked douc 4 gps + Phuoc Xuan - Tabhing

gibbon sp. 17-18 gps + 1 Y G Y 1

Tam My grey-shanked douc 1gps (50) 6 N M N 2 Tien Lanh – Tien Phuoc – Thang Phuoc grey-shanked douc 2 gps (7-8; 14+) 7 N P N 2

Tra Giac grey-shanked douc 2-3 gps (12; 4; ?) 5 N G N 2 red-shanked douc 3 gps (?; ?; ?) Macooilh

gibbon sp. 8 gps ++ 4 N M N 2

red-shanked douc 1 gp (?) ++ grey-shanked douc ? Dak Pring

gibbon sp. 6 gps ++ 1 Y G Y 1

red-shanked douc ? grey-shanked douc ? Zuoih

gibbon sp. 1 gp+ 3 N M N 2

grey-shanked douc 2 gp (?) + Western Que Son gibbon sp. 2 gps

2 Proposed N 3

Notes: Y: Yes; N: No. G: Good; M: Medium; P: Poor.

45

Appendix 3. Gazetteer of Quang Nam primate records (to March 2005)

Nycticebus bengalensis slow loris culi l?n

UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Report Notes 0811739 1740671 Que Phuoc Que Son 17/04/2002 240 This report

Nycticebus pygmaeus pygmy loris culi nh?

UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Report Notes 0776052

- 0781280

1732027 -

1732297 Cha Val Nam Giang 05/11/2001 Vu Ngoc Thanh et al, 2001 2 observed

0776052 -

0781280

1732027 -

1732297 Cha Val Nam Giang 05/11/2001 Vu Ngoc Thanh et al, 2001 2 observed

0776800 -

0776052

1732224 -

1732027 Cha Val Nam Giang 05/11/2001 Vu Ngoc Thanh et al, 2001

1 observed

0791140 -

0790609

1733660 -

1734453 Tabhing Nam Giang 09/11/2001 Vu Ngoc Thanh et al, 2001

1 observed

0802953 1721967 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son Vu Ngoc Thanh et al., 2001 0811712 1740722 Que Phuoc Que Son 17/04/2002 240 This report

Macaca leonina northern pig-tailed macaque kh? duôi l?n

UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Report Notes 0783562 1730878 Tabhing Nam Giang 06/04/2002 675 This report 0771208 1722475 Dak Pre Nam Giang 10/08/2004 590 This report Camera-trap record 0779700 1743690 Zuoih Nam Giang 16/07/2004 521 This report 60 observed 0783635 1725036 Tabhing Nam Giang 07-09/2002 710 This report Camera-trap record 0795887 1718490 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 07-08/2003 810 This report 3 camera-trap records 0795218 1718093 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 07/09/2003 625 This report 2 camera-trap records 0812455 1720114 Phuoc Hiep Phuoc Son 16/08/2003 508 This report 12 observed 0794992 1718370 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 12/05/2003 575 This report Camera-trap record

46

Macaca arctoides bear macaque kh? m?t d?

UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Report Notes

0783822 1725318 Tabhing Nam Giang 07-09/2002 600 This report Camera-trap record 0783635 1725036 Tabhing Nam Giang 07-09/2002 710 This report 2 camera-trap records 0794558 1729320 Tabhing Nam Giang 02/08/2004 684 This report 0774350 1770369 A’Vuong Tay Giang 25/09/2002 1015 This report Camera-trap record 0774350 1770369 A’Vuong Tay Giang 21/02/2003 1015 This report 2 camera-trap records 0795902 1718304 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 17/06/2003 785 This report Camera-trap record 0795887 1718490 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 15/06/2003 810 This report Camera-trap record 0795218 1718093 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 13/05/2003 625 This report 2 camera-trap records 0754886 1726026 La Ee Nam Giang 25/05/2004 720 This report 4 camera-trap records 0754886 1726026 La Ee Nam Giang 06/06/2004 720 This report 2 camera-trap records 0754886 1726026 La Ee Nam Giang 17/07/2004 720 This report Camera-trap record 0754886 1726026 La Ee Nam Giang 29/07/2004 720 This report Camera-trap record 0755690 1726724 La Ee Nam Giang 01/04/2004 994 This report Camera-trap record 0755690 1726724 La Ee Nam Giang 01/04/2004 994 This report Camera-trap record 0755690 1726724 La Ee Nam Giang 03-05/2004 994 This report 2 camera-trap records 0755690 1726724 La Ee Nam Giang 20/07/2004 994 This report 2 camera-trap records 0755356 1725993 La Ee Nam Giang 15/04/2004 1015 This report 6 camera-trap records 0755356 1725993 La Ee Nam Giang 05/2004 1015 This report Camera-trap record 0755356 1725993 La Ee Nam Giang 25/08/2004 1015 This report 5 camera-trap records 0754589 1725946 La Ee Nam Giang 01/03/2004 1006 This report Camera-trap record 0754589 1725946 La Ee Nam Giang 02/03/2004 1006 This report Camera-trap record 0754208 1726465 La Ee Nam Giang 13/07/2004 1034 This report Camera-trap record 0754208 1726465 La Ee Nam Giang 14/07/2004 1034 This report 3 camera-trap records 0754208 1726465 La Ee Nam Giang 28/10/2004 1034 This report 3 camera-trap records 0771581 1721583 Dak Pre Nam Giang 05/08/2004 845 This report 2 camera-trap records 0771581 1721583 Dak Pre Nam Giang 11/08/2004 845 This report 2 camera-trap records 0771581 1721583 Dak Pre Nam Giang 16/08/2004 845 This report 4 camera-trap records 0785910 1749483 Macooih Dong Giang 26/09/2002 730 This report

Macaca mulatta/fascicularis rhesus/long-tailed macaque kh? vàng/duôi dài

UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Report Notes

Nam Giang 30/09/2000 Ngo Van Tri, 2000 Bank of the Cai river. Reported as M. fascicularis

Nam Tra My 1999 Tordoff et al., 2000 Observed in wild. Reported as M. mulatta

Cu Lao Cham Hoi An 2004 This report 2 groups observed; Dang Dinh Nguyen pers com.

47

Pygathrix nemaeus red-shanked douc vo?c chà vá chân nâu

UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Report Notes

0786583 1749836 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 20/09/2002 760 This report 15 observed, recorded as P. nemaeus type animals

0785604 1749273 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 20/09/2002 890 This report 11 observed, recorded as P. nemaeus type animals

0785202 1749032 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 22/09/2002 800 This report 12 observed, recorded as P. nemaeus type animals

0786583 1749836 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 26/09/2002 760 This report 6 observed and 2 another occasions in various time during the same day, recorded as P. nemaeus type animals

0776910 1715920 Dak Pring Nam Giang 10/08/2004 800 This report 15 observed, recorded as P. nemaeus type animals

0776522 1716064 Dak Pring Nam Giang 11/08/2004 859 This report 15 observed, recorded as P. nemaeus type animals

Pygathrix cinerea grey-shanked douc vo?c chà vá chân xám

UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Report Notes 0206700 1708700 Tien Hiep Tien Phuoc 29/03/1999 500 Vu Ngoc Thanh, 1999 20 observed and recorded as P. cinerea 0206700 1708700 Tien Hiep Tien Phuoc 28/03/1999 500 Vu Ngoc Thanh, 1999 10 observed and , recorded as P. cinerea 0196860 1715418 Tien Lanh Tien Phuoc 10/04/1999 450 Vu Ngoc Thanh, 1999 20 observed and recorded as P. cinerea

0197280 1715735 Tien Lanh Tien Phuoc 11/06/2004 382 This report 14 observed, recorded as P. cinerea type animals

0204580 1690236 Tra Giac Bac Tra My 28/05/2004 698 This report 4 observed, recorded as P. cinerea type animals

0195381 1688729 Tra Giac Bac Tra My 30/06/2004 634 This report 12 observed, recorded as P. cinerea type animals

0190058 1683233 Tra Mai Bac Tra My 16/07/2004 824 This report 5 observed, recorded as P. cinerea type animals

0769071 1740344 Zuoih Nam Giang 07/2004 194 This report one female adult P. cinerea kept in local family

0770560 1742600 Zuoih Nam Giang 03/06/2004 632 This report 5 observed, recorded as P. cinerea type animals

0798143 1720910 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 30/03/2004 495 This report 3 observed, recorded as P. cinerea type animals

0797036 1722439 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 19/09/2004 708 This report 17 plus some juveniles observed, recorded as P. cinerea type animals

48

Pygathrix sp Douc sp. Vo?c chà vá sp. UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Report Notes

0186457 1694857 Tra Bui Bac Tra My 29/10/2004 638 This report 7 observed, recorded as unidentified 0181849 1697507 Tra Bui Bac Tra My 07/2004 340 This report 5 observed, recorded as unidentified

Nam Tra My 1999 Tordoff et al., 2000 Observed in wild. Reported as P. namaeus ssp.

0791700 1727050 Tabhing Nam Giang 19/10/2001 500 This report recorded as unidentified

0810623 172756 Que Phuoc Que Son 10/04/2004 711 Timmins, 2004 P. cinerea type animals and recorded as unidentified. 10+ observed

0809706 1732353 Que Phuoc Que Son 10/04/2004 924 Timmins, 2004 P. cinerea type animals and recorded as unidentified. 5+ observed

0239604 1703132 Tam My Nui Thanh 08/08/2004 324 This report 40 observed and recorded as unidentified 0794869 1729078 Tabhing Nam Giang 02/08/2004 422 This report 7 observed, recorded as unidentified 0812286 1720318 Phuoc Hiep Phuoc Son 16/08/2003 603 This report 3 observed and recorded as unidentified 0196520 1714833 Tien Lanh Tien Phuoc 09/06/2004 450 This report 5 observed, recorded as unidentified

0809559 1720902 Que Lam Que Son 16/03/2005 240 This report 3 observed, recorded as unidentified; grey upper arms observed and face seen – tentatively assigned to P. cinerea

Nomascus gabriellae/leucogenys yellow-/white-cheeked crested gibbon vu?n mào má hung/tr?ng

UTM E UTM N Commune District Date Altitude Bearing (0)

Distance (m) Report Notes

0771200 1743600 Zuoih Nam Giang 02/06/2004 620 320 150 This report 3 observed in wild, recording song 0770560 1742600 Zuoih Nam Giang 03/06/2004 564 25 800 This report 1 group heard 0789210 1744150 Thanh My town Nam Giang 29/06/2004 386 310 500 This report 1 group heard 0777798 1715209 Dak Pring Nam Giang 08/08/2004 1000 140 This report recording song 0776522 1716064 Dak Pring Nam Giang 11/08/2004 859 210 2800 This report 3 groups heard 0776522 1716064 Dak Pring Nam Giang 11/08/2004 859 110 3500 This report 0776522 1716064 Dak Pring Nam Giang 11/08/2004 859 145 3000 This report 0774015 1713902 Dak Pring Nam Giang 12/08/2004 900 240 This report 2 groups heard 0774015 1713902 Dak Pring Nam Giang 12/08/2004 900 200 This report 0773520 1713721 Dak Pring Nam Giang 13/08/2004 1010 260 This report 2 groups heard 0773520 1713721 Dak Pring Nam Giang 13/08/2004 1010 105 This report 0777798 1715209 Dak Pring Nam Giang 14/08/2004 1000 130 This report 1 group heard 0778025 1715708 Dak Pring Nam Giang 15/08/2004 860 135 This report 1 group heard 0778247 1714432 Dak Pring Nam Giang 10/01/2005 937 This report 1 observed in wild 0791412 1727386 Tabhing Nam Giang 31/07/2004 320 210 2000 This report recording song 0792213 1727121 Tabhing Nam Giang 01/08/2004 350 220 This report 1 group heard 0794869 1729078 Tabhing Nam Giang 02/08/2004 422 230 This report 1 group heard 0794869 1729078 Tabhing Nam Giang 03/08/2004 422 170 1800 This report recording song 0794869 1729078 Tabhing Nam Giang 03/08/2004 422 230 3000 This report recording song 0794869 1729078 Tabhing Nam Giang 03/08/2004 422 245 2000 This report recording song

49

0794869 1729078 Tabhing Nam Giang 03/08/2004 422 90 2500 This report recording song 0755028 1724639 La Dee Nam Giang 27/05/2004 650 290 2000 This report recording song 0755421 1723492 La Dee Nam Giang 04/06/2004 1023 240 This report 1 group heard 0799991 1727553 Ca Dy Nam Giang 30/06/2004 863 70 This report 1 group heard 0779900 1755570 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 10/08/2004 765 This report recording song 0785678 1748067 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 08/04/2004 884 230 1500 This report recording song 0785707 1746160 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 09/04/2004 1013 230 1000 This report recording song 0786685 1749740 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 10/04/2004 533 230 1500 This report recording song 0787234 1749731 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 08/04/2004 758 20 1000 This report recording song 0785418 1748224 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 09/04/2004 927 183 1500 This report 2 recording songs 0785418 1748224 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 09/04/2004 927 224 1500 This report 1 group heard 0785682 1748236 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 10/04/2004 903 20 50 This report recording song 0785619 1748192 Ma Cooih Dong Giang 12/04/2004 876 229 1500 This report recording song 0791046 1700298 Phuoc My Phuoc Son 17/07/2004 758 2 2000 This report recording song 0791092 1700383 Phuoc My Phuoc Son 18/07/2004 759 50 This report 1 group heard 0790221 1703521 Phuoc My Phuoc Son 19/07/2004 853 5 700 This report recording song 0791824 1698545 Phuoc My Phuoc Son 12/07/2004 742 290 This report 1 group heard 0789883 1705298 Phuoc Nang Phuoc Son 10/06/2004 1205 70 This report 1 group heard

0812455 1720114 Phuoc Hiep Phuoc Son 16/08/2003 508 This report 1 individual observed. Cheeks recorded as yellowish

0812787 1719880 Phuoc Hiep Phuoc Son 18/08/2003 520 324 This report 1 group heard 0797231 1722704 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 10/06/2003 684 40 This report 1 group heard 0797231 1722704 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 10/06/2003 684 320 This report 1 group heard 0797999 1712479 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 28/03/2004 691 104 1200 This report 1 group heard 0797166 1723290 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 01/04/2004 810 320 1000 This report 1 group heard 0795696 1723549 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 02/04/2004 831 280 150 This report 1 group heard 0795894 1722910 Phuoc Xuan Phuoc Son 16/09/2004 796 15 200 This report 1 group heard 0813136 1740422 Que Ninh Que Son 26/04/2002 315 140 5000 This report 1 group heard 0812617 1739512 Que Ninh Que Son 26/04/2002 282 83 2000 This report 1 group heard 0808674 1727726 Que Lam Que Son 17/03/2003 545 20 1500 This report 1 group heard 0808674 1727726 Que Lam Que Son 19/03/2003 545 25 800 This report 1 group heard

50

Appendix 4. Primate interview datasheet

Name of ranger...................... Date …….…………… No. of interviewees.................... District.................................... Commune ............................. Village...................................... Ethnic composition.....................

Gibbon sp. Features identified by: black or yellow no tail song small groups never comes to ground Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Year last observed: ………………. Location: name …………………….…. grid reference …………………….. approximate area …….…………….. … Distance from village: hours …………………. Km ……………… Threats now: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Threats in the past: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Traditional uses: cultural ……………………………. medicine …………………………… consumption other……………. Trade uses: food decoration pet medicine other……………………………. Reason locals hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet crop protection other…………… Community hunting pressure: increase decrease Reason outsiders hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet other…………………………… Outsiders hunting pressure: increase decrease Cultural beliefs: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Silvered langur

Features identified by: all grey crest long grey tail near water never seen on ground black face Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Year last observed: ………………. Location: name …………………….…. grid reference …………………….. approximate area …….…………….. … Distance from village: hours …………………. Km ……………… Threats now: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Threats in the past: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Traditional uses: cultural ……………………………. medicine …………………………… consumption other……………. Trade uses: food decoration pet medicine other……………………………. Reason locals hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet crop protection other…………… Community hunting pressure: increase decrease Reason outsiders hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet other…………………………… Outsiders hunting pressure: increase decrease Cultural beliefs: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

51

Name of ranger............................... Village …….……………

Red-shanked douc

Features identified by: long white tail red legs white arms red face white whiskers Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Year last observed: ………………. Location: name …………………….…. grid reference …………………….. approximate area …….…………….. .. Distance from village: hours …………………. Km ……………… Grey-shanked douc

Features identified by: long white tail, grey legs grey arms red face white whiskers Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Year last observed: ………………. Location: name …………………….…. grid reference …………………….. approximate area …….…………….. .. Distance from village: hours …………………. Km ……………… Douc sp. Features identified by: long white tail leg colour……………arm colour………….. red face white whiskers Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Year last observed: ………………. Location: name …………………….…. grid reference …………………….. approximate area …….…………….. … Distance from village: hours …………………. Km ……………… Threats now: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Threats in the past: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Traditional uses: cultural ……………………………. medicine …………………………… consumption other……………. Trade uses: food decoration pet medicine other……………………………. Reason locals hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet crop protection other…………… Community hunting pressure: increase decrease Reason outsiders hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decorat ion pet other…………………………… Outsiders hunting pressure: increase decrease Cultural beliefs: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

52

Name of ranger.................................... Village …….…………… Stump-tailed macaque Features identified by: red face short/no tail black/dark brown escapes to ground Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Pig-tailed macaque Features identified by: pink face tail 50% of body ‘yellow’ escapes to ground hair parted on crown Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Rhesus/long-tailed macaque Features identified by: pink face tail >50% body grey/yellow escapes to tree hair back-swept Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Macaque sp. Features identified by: face colour ………… tail length…………… body colour………………… escape mechanism……………… Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Macaques Threats now: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Threats in the past: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Traditional uses: cultural ……………………………. medicine …………………………… consumption other……………. Trade uses: food decoration pet medicine other……………………………. Reason locals hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet crop protection other…………… Community hunting pressure: increase decrease Reason outsiders hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet other…………………………… Outsiders hunting pressure: increase decrease Cultural beliefs: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

53

Name of ranger................................ Village …….……………

Slow loris Features identified by: 1kg ‘yellow’ large back stripe black eye rings Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Pygmy loris Features identified by: 0.5kg ‘red’ thin/no back stripe brown eye rings Population: common present rare extinct Population change in last 5 years: increase decrease no change Loris Threats now: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Threats in the past: snares guns traps loss of forest other……………………………. Traditional uses: cultural ……………………………. medicine …………………………… consumption other……………. Trade uses: food decoration pet medicine other……………………………. Reason locals hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet crop protection other…………… Community hunting pressure: increase decrease Reason outsiders hunt now: cultural medicine consumption decoration pet other…………………………… Outsiders hunting pressure: increase decrease Cultural beliefs: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Distance travelled to furthest forest work: Hours:……………………… Km:………………………….

54

Appendix 5. Field survey datasheets

Gibbon Recording Sheet General information

Name: …………………………….. Date: ………………………………. Commune: …………………………

Altitude: ………………………...… Weather: …………………………..... Time: ……………………………….

UTM location: ……………………..E ………………………………..N

Call

Start Time (H:M:S): …………………………………… End Time (H:M:S): …………………………………….

Great call times (H:M:S):

Males: ………………… Females: ………………... Sub-adults: ……………... Unknown: ……………….

Compass bearing (o): …………………………………... Distance (km): ………………………………………….

Recording: Y / N Tape number: …………... Start number: …………… End number: …………….

Sighting Males: …………………... Females: ……………… Sub-adults: ……………... Juveniles: ………………

Infants: …………………. Unidentified: …………. Others not seen?: Y / N

Douc Recording Sheet General information Name: …………………………….. Date: ………………………………. Commune: …………………………

Altitude: ………………………...… Time: ……………………………….

UTM location: ……………………..E …………………………………….N Distance travelled in day: ………….

Sighting

Species: ………………………………………………………………….......

Body colour: …………………….... Face colour: ………………………. Upper arm colour: …………………

Lower arm colour: ………………... Wrist colour: ……………………… Upper leg colour: ………………….

Lower leg colour: …………………. Tail colour: ………………………...

Other features: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Group size: …………...… Males: …………………... Females: ………………... Juveniles: ……………….

Infants: …………………. Unidentified: ………….... Others not seen?: Y / N

Observation start time: ……………………………….... Observation end time: …………………………………..

55

Human Sign Recording Sheet General information

Name: …………………………….. Date: ………………………………. Commune: …………………………

Survey UTM location: ………………....E ………………………………..N Distance travelled in day: ………….

Survey start time: …………………. Survey end time: …………………

Human sign encountered Total Total

Hunters Snare traps - small

Loggers Snare traps - large

NTFP collectors Net traps

Hunting dogs Jaw traps

Gold miners Log-fall traps

Buffalo Pit-fall traps

Fishermen Guns

Spike traps

Other Mammal Recording Sheet General information Name: …………………………….. Date: ………………………………. Commune: …………………………

Altitude: ………………………...… Time: ….……………………………

UTM location: ………………………E ……………………………………..N Distance travelled in day: ………….

Sighting Species: ………………………………………………………………….......

Description: …….……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Track

Species: …………………………………………………. Sign: ……………………………………………………

Justification: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

56

Appendix 6. Monitoring datasheets

Gibbon Listening Post Monitoring Sheet

Listening Post: ………………. Coordinates: …………………E ……………………N Day: 1 2 3 Date: Ranger name: ………………………………. Start time: ………………… Weather - during survey:……………………. End time:: ………………… Weather – previous night:…………………… Call 1 Call 4 Start time Start time Compass bearing Compass bearing Distance Distance Time of great call Time of great call Group composition Group composition End time End time Tape code Tape code Tape counter Tape counter

Call 2 Call 5 Start time Start time Compass bearing Compass bearing Distance Distance Time of great call Time of great call Group composition Group composition End time End time Tape code Tape code Tape counter Tape counter

Call 3 Call 6 Start time Start time Compass bearing Compass bearing Distance Distance Time of great call Time of great call Group composition Group composition End time End time Tape code Tape code Tape counter Tape counter

57

Douc Transect Monitoring Sheet Transect: ……………...…. Date: …..………….… Ranger 1: ………………………………… Start time: ………………… End time: ………………… Ranger 2: ……………………………….. Weather: Sunny Cloudy Light rain

0-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 800-900 900-1000 Time

Species

Number observed

1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 1300-1400 1400-1500 1500-1600 1600-1700 1700-1800 1800-1900 1900-2000

Time

Species

Number observed

Observation 1 Coordinates: E………………… N…………………… Other animals present, but not observed: …………………. Group composition: Males …….. Females …….. Juveniles …….. Infants …….. Species of tree sitting in or feeding on: ………………………………………. Behaviour: sleepingresting feeding travelling Observation 2 Coordinates: E………………… N…………………… Other animals present, but not observed: …………………. Group composition: Males …….. Females …….. Juveniles …….. Infants …….. Species of tree sitting in or feeding on: ………………………………………. Behaviour: sleepingresting feeding travelling Observation 3 Coordinates: E………………… N…………………… Other animals present, but not observed: …………………. Group composition: Males …….. Females …….. Juveniles …….. Infants …….. Species of tree sitting in or feeding on: ………………………………………. Behaviour: sleepingresting feeding travelling