The conservation impact of commercial wildlife farming of porcupines in Vietnam

Abstract

Commercial farming of wildlife, particularly in Southeast Asia, is currently the subject of much debate and to date, its conservation impact has been largely unexplored. This study used semi-structured interviews to build a detailed understanding of the dynamics of the commercial farming of Southeast Asian porcupine (Hystrix brachyura) in the northwest Vietnamese province of Son La. Although farm owners are obliged by law to propagate stock solely from farm-bred animals, 58% of farm owners admitted purchasing wild founder stock, with at least 19% continuing to buy wild individuals. Despite the number of farms, the primary demand on them is to supply other farms, and wild meat restaurants were still sourcing their meat from wild populations. Lower cost was a major factor driving the trade in wild animals, with wild adult porcupines being bought for half the price of farm-bred adults. With high demand from farms and restaurants, increased targeted hunting may be the cause of a dramatic decline in the wild population of porcupines across the region.

Full text

The conservation impact of commercial wildlife farming of porcupines in Vietnam
Emma G.E. Brooks
a,*
, Scott I. Roberton
b
, Diana J. Bell
a
a
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
b
Wildlife Conservation Society – Vietnam, PO BOX 179, Hanoi GPO, Viet Nam
article info
Article history:
Received 27 January 2010
Received in revised form 23 May 2010
Accepted 25 July 2010
Available online 19 August 2010
Keywords:
Porcupine
Wildlife trade
Commercial farming
Vietnam
abstract
Commercial farming of wildlife, particularly in Southeast Asia, is currently the subject of much debate
and to date, its conservation impact has been largely unexplored. This study used semi-structured inter-
views to build a detailed understanding of the dynamics of the commercial farming of Southeast Asian
porcupine (Hystrix brachyura) in the northwest Vietnamese province of Son La. Although farm owners
are obliged by law to propagate stock solely from farm-bred animals, 58% of farm owners admitted pur-
chasing wild founder stock, with at least 19% continuing to buy wild individuals. Despite the number of
farms, the primary demand on them is to supply other farms, and wild meat restaurants were still sourc-
ing their meat from wild populations. Lower cost was a major factor driving the trade in wild animals,
with wild adult porcupines being bought for half the price of farm-bred adults. With high demand from
farms and restaurants, increased targeted hunting may be the cause of a dramatic decline in the wild pop-
ulation of porcupines across the region.
Ó2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Throughout the world, wildlife products are an essential source
of food and income (Chardonnet et al., 2002). Whilst humans have
been hunting wildlife for more than 100,000 years, today many
species are threatened by the scale of hunting and the situation
has been exacerbated by the increase in human populations
(Bennett and Robinson, 2000; Milner-Gulland and Bennett, 2003).
Unsustainable wildlife trading is one of the most devastating
underlying causes of biodiversity loss (Bennett, 2002; Broad et
al., 2003) and the wild meat trade alone has now surpassed habitat
loss as the greatest threat to wildlife in the humid tropics (Milner-
Gulland and Bennett, 2003; Redmond et al., 2006). To date much of
the research has focused on Africa (Bell et al., 2004; Redmond et al.,
2006; Swift et al., 2007), but the rapid, recent acceleration of hunt-
ing most likely first occurred in Southeast Asia (Milner-Gulland
and Bennett, 2003), and has grown considerably in the last few
decades.
Hunting has expanded into a multi-million dollar commercial
trade where wildlife is exploited for consumption, alleged medici-
nal properties, ornaments, clothing, pets and zoo exhibits (Broad et
al., 2003; Bell et al., 2004). In most regions the levels of biodiversity
loss due to hunting are largely unexplored and can vary consider-
ably (Fa et al., 2002). The highest levels of wildlife hunting are for
meat. Whilst in Africa, meat from wild animals is an important
source of protein for many, across much of Southeast Asia it is con-
sumed as a speciality food (IUCN, 2001; Roberton, 2007), at a scale
that is having a devastating effect on wild populations (Whitfield,
2003).
Commercial wildlife farming has been advocated as a possible
solution to meeting a growing demand for wildlife products, par-
ticularly wild meat (Cooper, 1995). Although it has been proposed
as a means of providing food security since the 1950s, it is not in
widespread use across the tropics (Mockrin et al., 2005). However,
over the past decade, there has been a substantial increase in the
number of wildlife farms appearing across much of Southeast Asia,
including Vietnam (WCS, 2008). Wildlife farms are seen as a way of
providing food security to local communities, as well as a possible
means of poverty alleviation and economic development in rural
areas (Cicogna 1992; Hardouin 1995; Revol 1995). It also has been
suggested that they may promote biodiversity conservation by
reducing hunting pressure on wild populations (Jori et al., 1995;
Parry-Jones, 2001; Lapointe et al., 2007). It has been argued that
wildlife farms provide a cheaper, acceptable alternative to wild
animals (Bulte and Damania, 2005; Lapointe et al., 2007) and as
such, commercial wildlife farming is being actively encouraged
by governments across much of Southeast Asia (Parry-Jones,
2001; WCS and TRAFFIC, 2004).
Arguments against wildlife farming include concerns that in-
creased availability may increase consumer demand and pressure
on wild populations for founder stock, and that farms will be used
for laundering illegally-caught animals (Bulte and Damania, 2005;
WCS, 2008; Cooper, 1995; Mockrin et al., 2005). To date, farms have
been poorly monitored and their impacts are largely unknown.
0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.07.030
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 7727 125063.
E-mail addresses: emma.brooks@iucn.org (E.G.E. Brooks), sroberton@wcs.org
(S.I. Roberton), d.bell@uea.ac.uk (D.J. Bell).
Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2808–2814
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

The Vietnamese wildlife trade, including farming, is mainly reg-
ulated by Decree 32/2006/ND-CP and Decree 159/2007/ND-CP. The
task of monitoring and enforcing these laws falls upon the govern-
ment’s Forest Protection Department (FPD). Legislation states that
all wildlife farms should be registered with the relevant provincial
FPD and farms maintain accurate stock records and proof of the le-
gal origin of their stock. Violation of these laws should result in
confiscation of the animals, a fine equivalent to the value of the
animals up to US$1850, and the possibility of having their farm
registration certificate revoked (Decree 159/2007/ND-CP). The
main taxa reported in these Vietnamese wildlife farms are croco-
dile (Crocodylus siamensis), python (Python molurus and Python
reticulates), cobra (Naja naja and Ophiophagus hannah), soft-shelled
turtle (Pelodiscus sinensis), bear (Ursus thibetanus and Ursus malay-
anus), macaque (Macaca fascicularus), deer (Cervus unicolor) and
porcupine (Hystrix brachyura)(WCS, 2008).
The Southeast Asian porcupine (H. brachyura) is one of the 11
species of Old World Porcupines (Family: Hystricidae). It is cur-
rently classified as Least Concern by the IUCN Red List (Lunde et
al., 2008), with overhunting cited as its greatest threat, and a re-
ported decline in total population size of at least 20% in the
1990s (Nowak, 1999). Farming of porcupines in Vietnam is becom-
ing progressively more popular, and there has been a notably rapid
increase in the number of porcupine farms in Son La province since
2000.
In the present study, we set out to conduct an evidence-based
case study quantifying the direct impact of commercial farming
on the local wild population using the Southeast Asian porcupine
as a model species. This was investigated by determining the scale
of porcupine farming in Son La province, the incentives for contin-
ued purchase of wild animals, and the effectiveness of the FPD in
enforcing the wildlife farming regulations. Commercial wildlife
farming can only be advocated if failings in the trade can be iden-
tified and dealt with, to minimise negative impacts on wild popu-
lations of species.
2. Methods
2.1. Study site
Son La province is located within the Hoang Lien Mountains, in
northwest Vietnam, on the Lao PDR border (Fig. 1). Although con-
siderable deforestation has occurred in recent decades to make
way for agriculture, 41% of the province remains forested (Anon,
2006). In 2007, the construction of a section of road linking south-
ern Son La to Lao PDR was completed.
2.2. Household interviews
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 67 porcupine
farm owners in April and May 2008. In this context, anyone breed-
ing porcupines was considered to be a farm owner, and the terms
‘‘farm owner” and ‘‘farmer” are used interchangeably. Interviewees
were identified by snowball sampling, using recommendations
from respondents to establish contact with others (Bryman,
2004). Although this could provide a bias towards older and more
established farms, it would be impossible to select a random sam-
ple of farms in this instance, as despite current laws, not all farms
are registered.
Semi-structured interviews were carried out by a team of two
researchers, one British and one Vietnamese. Questions and re-
ported answers were translated into English by the Vietnamese
member of the team. Trading in wild animals is illegal, and so to
minimise response biases a role-play approach was used, positing
that data were being collected in order to assess porcupine farming
as a means of poverty alleviation for households in the central
highlands of Vietnam. Respondents were found to be very willing
to talk openly in detail about their farms, most probably aided by
the presence and interest of the foreign interviewer.
The interviews followed topics set out in an interview guide,
but remained flexible in nature to allow the respondents to discuss
issues at their own pace, and to allow the interviewer to follow up
on any key topics (Bryman, 2004). Data were collected on the size
and history of the farm, animal husbandry practises, prices of prod-
ucts and basic expenses, the origin and quality of founder stock
(male/female pairs), and perceived views on wild stock. All an-
swers (including uncertain responses) were recorded in a notebook
during the interview.
2.3. Data analysis
Response frequencies are presented as percentages. Due to the
open nature of interviews, the number of respondents varies be-
tween questions, and thus frequencies also are shown as fractions
of the total number of interviewees that were asked that question.
When considering questions that required a numerical response, if
interviewees gave a range, statistics were calculated from the mid-
point of the range.
A Pearson’s correlation was used to evaluate the price trend of
juvenile founder stock over time. Prices were converted to US Dol-
lars at the currency exchange rate for the relevant year (OANDA,
2008), and adjusted for inflation to the 2008 rate (BLS, 2008). Prof-
its and expenses of farming and trading were calculated using
mean values gathered from the interviews. The prices of wild meat
versus farmed meat equivalent were compared with a one-way
ANOVA, and a Tukey’s post hoc examination. The farmed meat
equivalent was calculated by dividing the mean price of farmed
breeding-age founder stock pairs by the mean reported maximum
weight of an adult porcupine, and then halved to account for only
one individual.
2.4. Forest Protection Department interview
A semi-structured face-to-face interview was conducted with
the Deputy Director of the Son La FPD. Topics covered included
Fig. 1. Districts of Son La Province, Vietnam. 1. Sop Cop, 2. Song Ma. 3. Mai Son, 4.
Thuan Chau, 5. Son La town, 6. Muong La and 7. Quynh Nhai. Districts in darker
shading (1–5) were sampled during study, due to their proximity to the Lao PDR
border.
E.G.E. Brooks et al. / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2808–2814 2809

the laws and regulations governing porcupine farming in Son La,
monitoring effort, punishments and rate of prosecutions, and staff
numbers and training. Data were provided on the number and size
of registered porcupine farms in the province of Son La at a district
level, as well as the number of convictions for possession of porcu-
pines of unknown origin in 2007.
2.5. Restaurant interviews
A small survey was conducted with restaurant owners in the
greater Hanoi region. Of 35 suspected wild meat restaurants ap-
proached, only nine restaurant owners admitted selling porcupine
meat, and were willing to participate. Short semi-structured inter-
views were conducted, with data collected on aspects of the price,
trade and consumer preferences of porcupine meat in restaurants.
3. Results
3.1. Porcupine farming and husbandry practises
In total, 449 porcupine farms were registered with the FPD in
the province of Son La, although the FPD admits that this is an
underestimate of the true number. In mid-2008 Son La provincial
FPD reported a little over 8000 porcupines in successful breeding
programs in farms to National FPD. A total of 67 porcupine farm
owners were interviewed in five districts of Son La province. All
were current farm owners except for one, who had sold all of his
porcupines within the last year, but intended to start farming por-
cupines again as soon as possible.
3.2. Trade dynamics
Fifty-eight per cent (39/67) of farm owners reported that their
original founder stock of porcupines was of wild origin; of these,
31% (12/39) continued to buy porcupines of wild origin on some
scale. Sixty-seven per cent (18/27) claimed that wild porcupines
could no longer be found locally, with another 30% (8/27) saying
there were very few. Only one respondent (1/27) thought that wild
porcupines could still be readily found locally. Fifty-three per cent
(28/53) of respondents reported that wild-caught porcupines orig-
inated from Lao PDR. Although 36% (19/53) of farmers reported
wild-caught porcupines originated from Song Ma or Sop Cop dis-
tricts, nearest the Laotian border, 100% (11/11) of respondents in
these areas reported that there were no, or very few, wild porcu-
pines to be found in the area.
All farm owners reported that they sold porcupines to other
farms for founder stock (67/67). The sale destinations of the foun-
der stock included much of northern Vietnam, with sale to some
provinces further south coinciding with large urban centres. One
farm owner (1/67) also reported selling to China. Only two out of
67 farmers reported also selling porcupines to restaurants for
meat, though both said that this was only occasional, and as a re-
sult of accidental death, or if they had a surplus of old males. Six
farm owners volunteered the information that the supply of porcu-
pines from farms was not large enough to meet the demand for
meat, so porcupines of wild origin supplied restaurants.
3.3. Scale of porcupine trade
3.3.1. Growth of farming
The number of porcupine farms has increased significantly in
the last decade (Fig. 2), with 55% of respondents having established
their farms in the past 3 years. The number of founder stock pur-
chased to start the farm ranged from 2 to 39, with a mean ± SE of
8.77 ± 0.94 (n= 66). There was a slight trend for increased numbers
of founder stock to be purchased in the more recently established
farms (Fig. 3), however this was not found to be statistically signif-
icant (
s
= 0.15, n= 66, p= 0.06). Only 8% (5/61) of respondents had
no wish to expand their farm further.
There has been no significant decline in the proportion of farms
buying wild founder stock over time (r=0.1, n= 13, p> 0.05).
Whilst the majority of farmers who bought porcupines of wild ori-
gin claimed to buy them for founder stock for their own farm, there
was also evidence of farm owners trading in wild porcupines di-
rectly. Six per cent (4/67) of the farm owners were reported as,
or admitted to, trading wild animals directly, accounting for a total
of 910 wild porcupine individuals traded onto other farms from
those four farms alone. One respondent also worked in the border
army on the main road to Lao PDR and claimed that 20 pairs of
wild-caught porcupines were brought across the border every
night. Without verification, reliable conclusions cannot be drawn
here, but if this estimate is accurate it would amount to over
14,000 wild porcupines being brought from Lao PDR per annum,
and pose a serious threat to wild populations in Lao PDR that re-
quires immediate attention.
3.3.2. Economics of farming
The high level of income gained was the reason given for farm-
ing porcupines by 78% (46/59) of respondents, followed by 54%
(32/59) citing low maintenance requirements, and 44% (26/59) of
Fig. 2. Frequency of reported start-up dates of 67 porcupine farms in Son La
province, Vietnam (r= 0.72, n= 12, p< 0.004).
Fig. 3. Number of porcupine founder stock purchased against year of establishment
of 65 farms in Son La province, Vietnam.
2810 E.G.E. Brooks et al. / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2808–2814

respondents stating that they farmed porcupines because unlike
some livestock, porcupines are disease-free. Four farm owners sta-
ted that porcupines brought the highest profit of any animal. There
has been a significant increase in the value of porcupines in the
past seven years (Fig. 4).
Twenty-five per cent (17/67) of farm owners were retired. Of
the remaining 75%, none reported profit from breeding porcupines
as their only source of income, though 73% (41/56) of respondents
reported porcupine farming as their main source of income. The
alternative sectors of employment of the farm owners are govern-
ment, retail and agricultural. Thirteen farmers (13/29) swapped
from farming another species to porcupine farming, with 46% (6/
13) of these citing the increase in profits as the reason for the swap,
23% (3/13) reporting the lack of diseases in porcupines as the rea-
son, 15% (2/13) commenting on the lower maintenance effort of
farming porcupines in relation to other species, and 8% (1/13)
reporting the smaller amount of land required as the reason for
the swap. Many farm owners favourably compared farming porcu-
pines with other species in terms of income and ease of work, with
six stating that porcupine farming brought in at least ten times the
income of pig farming.
Based on mean figures of the main expenses incurred by porcu-
pine farmers, an average profit of US$1000/breeding pair each year
can be made through the sale of juvenile captive-bred offspring.
Assuming a population of ten breeding pairs (the average per farm
found in this study), a farmer could expect to make a profit of
US$10,000 pa. Each of the three farm owners who admitted trading
wild individuals directly, made a profit of $61.19 (1 million VND)
per pair sold. Even excluding any food or maintenance costs that
may be incurred (dependent on how long they held the animals),
a farm owner would have to trade 164 pairs of wild porcupines
to make the same amount of profit as from ten pairs of farmed
stock. None of the four respondents who were trading wild porcu-
pines directly reported porcupines as their main source of income.
3.4. Threats to wild populations
3.4.1. Demand
Ninety-nine per cent (66/67) of farm owners believed that de-
mand for porcupines was increasing, and the remaining farm own-
er had no perception if demand was increasing or not. All (58/58)
of the respondents reported that demand was higher than supply,
with one respondent estimating that current supply was only 10%
of demand. All respondents (47/47) reported that there was no
competition between farmers, and porcupines were easy (5/19)
or very easy (14/19) to sell due to the high demand.
3.4.2. Price
Only 13% (8/63) of farm owners regularly sold their stock at
breeding-age, while 87% (55/63) sold founder stock pairs whilst
still juvenile, with the mean ± SE age of sale being
3.1 ± 0.19 months (n= 55). There was a significant difference be-
tween the price of captive-bred juvenile founder stock pairs, cap-
tive-bred adult founder stock pairs, and founder stock pairs of
wild origin (Fig. 5). A Tukey’s post hoc analysis showed that
farm-bred founder stock pairs sold at juvenile-age were signifi-
cantly cheaper than those sold as adults (p< 0.001). Founder stock
pairs of wild origin were significantly cheaper than farmed adults
(p< 0.001), but not than those sold whilst still juvenile (p= 0.16).
Ninety-three per cent (13/14) also reported that wild origin foun-
der stock was cheaper than farm-bred porcupines.
3.5. Enforcement
Son La FPD reported that regulations governing the monitoring
of porcupine farms in Son La started in 2004 in the districts of Sop
Cop and Song Ma, due to the availability of good quality wild foun-
der stock from Lao PDR. Since 2005, the same regulations have ap-
plied across the entire province. All farms should register with the
FPD, whereupon a certificate and notebook for monitoring the pop-
ulation will be issued. The FPD should be informed of the numbers
of births on the farm, which will be confirmed by a visit from an
FPD ranger. The FPD must also be informed if buying or selling of
stock occurs, when the population numbers will again be checked
and the legal origin of the animals verified. All FPD staff receive ba-
sic training, including identification of characteristics of wild
animals.
Only three respondents (3/67) admitted to not being registered
with the FPD, although it could only be confirmed with the FPD re-
cords that 43% (29/67) of those interviewed were legally regis-
tered. This number is likely to underestimate the number of farm
owners registered because of multiple ownership of properties,
and that a farmer may hold animals at two locations and only reg-
ister one of these. Although 100% of farmers, when asked, reported
that FPD ‘‘did a good job”, or monitored farms closely (29/29), the
FPD only made three convictions for unlawful possession of porcu-
pines in 2007. Whilst farm owners were consistently correct in
describing monitoring procedures of porcupine farms by the FPD,
Fig. 4. Price trend for commercial sales of founder stock pairs of juvenile
porcupines in Son La province, Vietnam (
s
= 0.62, n= 96, p< 0.001). Values adjusted
to 2008 prices to account for inflation rates.
Fig. 5. Mean (±SE) sale price of founder stock porcupine pair (US$) sold in Son La
province, Vietnam, as juveniles or breeding-age of farmed stock, or of wild origin
(F
2,79
= 136.05, p< 0.001).
E.G.E. Brooks et al. / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2808–2814 2811

65% (11/17) failed to mention that a fine (as well as confiscation of
porcupines) was part of the punishment for unregistered porcu-
pines. Although registering porcupines with the FPD is free of
charge, 89% (8/9) of farm owners reported some sort of fee associ-
ated with registering or selling porcupines.
3.6. Further threats to wild populations
Six farm owners volunteered the information that porcupine
meat was supplied exclusively from the wild. Fourteen farm own-
ers declared that wild founder stock often carry injuries, from
which the porcupines often do not recover. Eleven also said that
as a result of the high mortality rate when capturing wild animals,
there is a constant supply of injured and/or deceased porcupines
for the meat market. When asked if there was a difference in the
quality of the meat, 37% (17/46) responded that wild meat was
preferable to farm-bred meat and only 2% (1/46) responded that
farmed meat was of higher quality. Fifty per cent (23/46) thought
that there was no difference between meats of different origins,
though many added that there was a perceived difference by
consumers.
In a sample of wild meat restaurants, all nine that admitted sell-
ing porcupine meat reported that the animals were sourced from
the wild, with 2/9 saying they had also tried selling farm-bred
meat. All (9/9) reported that there was a perceived difference be-
tween wild and farm-bred meat, and that customers preferred wild
meat. Fifty-seven per cent (4/7) added that despite this, they did
not believe that customers would be able to tell the difference be-
tween the two sources of meat.
The two most common reasons given for sourcing porcupine
meat from wild rather than farmed populations were availability
and price (both given by 50% (3/6) of restaurant owners). Thirty-
three per cent (2/6) sourced wild porcupine meat because of cus-
tomer preference, and 17% (1/6) because of the assumed higher
quality of wild meat. There was a significant difference between
the price of: (a) wild meat reported by the farm owners in Son
La province, (b) wild meat reported by the restaurant owners,
and (c) the price of farmed meat (Fig. 6). A Tukey’s post hoc anal-
ysis found no significant difference between the wild meat prices
reported by the farm owners and the restaurant owners
(p= 0.22), but farmed meat was significantly more expensive than
the wild meat prices reported by both farm owners (p< 0.001) and
restaurant owners (p< 0.001).
4. Discussion
This study provides valuable data to help understand the con-
servation impact of commercial farming. At least 58% of the 67
farms in this study had purchased wild founder stock, and at least
19% are continuing to buy wild animals. The scale of commercial
porcupine farming has increased dramatically in recent years
alongside an increase in selling price of porcupines from farms.
The results here highlight that under current management, com-
mercial farming could potentially cause local extirpations of even
relatively common and fast-breeding species like porcupines.
4.1. A large and rapidly growing industry
Whilst there are 449 porcupine farms registered with the FPD in
Son La province, the department admits that this is an underesti-
mation of the true number. Indeed, only half of those interviewed
were verified as registered farms. Accounts volunteered from inter-
viewed farm owners suggest there may be as many as 600 farms in
Son La and Song Ma towns alone, with many more unregistered
farms across the province where FPD reports there are none (e.g.
in the districts of Muong La and Quynh Nhai, shown in Fig. 1).
We recorded a rapid growth in porcupine farming in recent years,
with more than half of farm owners interviewed stating they
started in the last three years. The snowball sampling method used
to identify farms would be expected to result in a right-skewed
bias towards older and more established farms (i.e. better known
to people than newer ones) so it is unlikely that this increase is
due to sampling bias.
The vast majority of farms were household enterprises, and fre-
quently enclosures were simply adaptations of existing enclosures
for other domestic livestock (e.g. pigs). Resource constraints, or
lack of economic viability, are often cited as reasons that wildlife
farming is often unsuccessful (e.g. Mockrin et al., 2005) but the
minimal husbandry requirements and the reported ease with
which porcupines are bred indicate that these are not limiting fac-
tors for this species.
Large profits are available from the breeding of porcupines, with
the sale of just two pairs of porcupines far exceeding the GNI per
capita of Vietnam of US$890 (World Bank, 2008a), hence the
increasing interest in porcupine farming, and high demand for
founder stock. The accelerated growth in the number of farms
starting up each year is likely to continue, with the increased price
and demand encouraging a greater level of hunting of wild popula-
tions (Redmond et al., 2006).
The current porcupine trade dynamics are encouraging growth
of trading by recruiting more porcupine farmers, whilst not passing
on the porcupine product of meat to the consumers. This trade
structure is akin to a pyramid scheme, and is an unsustainable
model.
4.2. Direct threats to wild porcupine populations
This study found however that the greatest threat to the wild
populations is not from demand for founder stock, but from farms
laundering wild animals, and selling them across the country. Four
farms which were willing to talk openly, reported trading almost
1000 wild porcupines each year, predominantly to other farms as
founder stock. At least two further farms were suspected of laun-
dering animals, based on interview reports yet this could not be
verified. Due to the illegal nature of this activity, it is more likely
that farm owners would hide this information, so figures reported
Fig. 6. Mean (±SE) price (US$) of meat per kg (F
2,33
= 53.12, p< 0.001). Reported
wild meat prices were collected from farm owners in Son La province, and
restaurant owners in Hanoi. Equivalent farmed meat prices are from porcupine
farms in Son La.
2812 E.G.E. Brooks et al. / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2808–2814

should be considered a conservative estimate of the true scale of
the illegal trade of porcupines through the farms.
Most farm owners are very aware their trade was resulting in
the decline of wild populations. However, they were either uncon-
cerned or ignorant of the implications of this. Several interviewees
reported that porcupines used to be found locally in Son La prov-
ince, but have been largely or entirely wiped out in the past
20 years through hunting. Without preventative measures, the
wild porcupine populations sourcing the farms in Son La could also
be facing extirpation.
4.3. Economics of porcupine trade
The viability of wildlife farming as an alternative to illegal hunt-
ing relies upon the farm producing a cheaper, acceptable product
to the consumer (Brown and Layton 2001; Bulte and Damania,
2005). This model does not apply in this study where we found
wild individuals to be sold for half the price of farmed individuals.
In addition, the simple economic models often used to justify wild-
life farming fail to incorporate the strategic responses of illegal
traders, who take advantage of weak management of wildlife farms
to make additional profit from illegal sales.
Although profit can be made from direct trading of wild ani-
mals, rather than breeding them, farm owners can receive a
greater income through closed-cycle breeding due to the higher
sale price of farm stock. Nonetheless, despite having facilities
and capital for breeding, a number of farm owners still chose
to trade wild porcupines. It appears that legalisation of the trade
and government support relaxes law enforcement efforts, provid-
ing opportunity for illegal traders to make additional profit from
wild porcupine sales. This is facilitated through continued
demand for wild porcupines from restaurant owners who favour
wild porcupines due to lower price and consumer preference for
wild over farm-raised.
The price of porcupines has increased sharply, with the cost of
juvenile founder stock doubling between 2005 and 2008, and this
was regularly cited as a limitation to more people starting farms.
Demand for porcupines as founder stock will likely decrease over
coming years as the market is saturated and prices will ultimately
fall. Whether farmed porcupines can substitute the demand for
wild porcupines from restaurants is likely to decide the fate of
the farms from that point onwards but results from this study indi-
cate that is unlikely. The trade may be continued through the ex-
port of porcupines to Chinese markets rather than for sale in
Vietnam. One farm owner has already exported at least once to
China and received 800,000 VND (US$49) per kg, far greater than
estimates for sale prices in Vietnam.
4.4. Porcupine farms are poorly managed and monitored
The monitoring and control of the wildlife trade in Vietnam
(including wildlife farms) is under-resourced, weak and ineffectual
(Vu, 1999; Nguyen, 2003; WCS and TRAFFIC, 2004; WCS, 2008).
Current management of the porcupine farms is inadequate to pre-
vent wild animals entering the trade. Many farms are established
with porcupines of wild origin and then being registered by the
FPD; whilst others bring in wild stock and register them as births.
In other Vietnamese provinces farm owners reported replacing
sick/injured animals or any lost with those from the wild, knowing
that the authorities cannot distinguish individuals. Eighty-nine per
cent of farmers reported paying FPD a fee for processing their farm
registration, which given the fact this is a free process, strongly
suggests corruption may play a large part in facilitating this illegal
trade.
4.5. Do the porcupine farms provide a substitute for illegally-sourced
wild porcupine meat?
Large amounts of porcupine meat are consumed in restaurants.
In a study in the central provinces of Vietnam, Roberton (2007)
found that porcupine was the second most frequently reported
wild meat to be sold in restaurants after wild pig, at an average
of 47.6 kg per week per restaurant.
This study found that due to the high price of farmed porcu-
pines, restaurants source almost all their porcupine meat from ille-
gal wild sources. Therefore, the farms are yet to address the
potential positive conservation impact they hold. However, since
there is a preference for wild meat, should prices of farmed animals
fall, restaurant owners may continue to source meat from the wild
to fulfil consumer demand, even if there is a locally-available, legal
and cheaper alternative (Roberton, 2007). In addition to this, the
high mortality rate of trapped animals provides a steady source
of meat to restaurants.
4.6. Are porcupine farms driving the decline of porcupines in Lao PDR?
Whilst there has been a suggested link between wildlife farms
and local extirpations of species populations, there have been no
direct studies of farms having a resultant impact on wild popula-
tions. WCS (2008) discusses a possible connection between porcu-
pine farms in the province of Son La, and the decline in wild
populations in Nam Et-Phou Louey National Protected Area (NEPL
NPA) directly across the border from Son La in Lao PDR. Prelimin-
ary analysis of camera-trap data collected in the NPA showed a sig-
nificant decline in the number of sites recording the presence of
Southeast Asian porcupines (H. brachyura) between 2003 and 2007.
Although overexploitation has caused the decline in a range of
taxa in NEPL NPA in neighbouring Lao PDR (Johnson et al., 2006),
the Southeast Asian porcupine has shown a greater rate of decline
compared to similar species also part of the wildlife trade, such as
muntjacs, Muntiacus sp (A. Johnson, unpublished data). As well as
reports by residents and officials in the local area of NEPL NPA that
live porcupines are hunted for sale to farms in Son La province (A.
Johnson, pers. comm.), the confiscation from offenders of male/fe-
male pairs of porcupines provides evidence that the species is
being targeted to meet the demand for founder stock. Fifty-three
per cent of Son La farm owners confirmed that wild porcupines
originated from populations in Lao PDR. A further 36% thought that
wild porcupines were captured in the districts of Song Ma or Sop
Cop, but since all respondents in these districts reported there
were no, or very few, wild porcupines to be found locally, it is likely
that these animals actually originated from Lao PDR, despite being
sold by hunters or traders in Song Ma and Sop Cop.
Illegal wildlife trade increases as access for hunters and traders
improves (Milner-Gulland and Bennett, 2003; Redmond et al.,
2006). The completion of the new road joining NEPL directly with
Son La will have facilitated the transfer of hunted animals.
Thousands of porcupines are being removed from the NPA to sup-
ply the demand from the farms in Son La alone, and there may be a
similar situation developing in the neighbouring province of Dien
Bien, also joined to NEPL by road. With the increase in demand
for founder stock, there is an expanding market for hunters to
profit from, and with such high prices, even at source level, the
incentives to continue the illegal trade are considerable. Hunters
trapping porcupines in NEPL NPA were selling these to traders at
US$250 per pair in 2007 (A. Johnson, pers. comm.). Whilst this is
lower than the mean sale price to Son La farmers of US$657, it is
still a significant source of income, and the sale of just two pairs
of porcupines by hunters would meet the equivalent of the GNI
per capita of Lao PDR of US$500 (World Bank, 2008b). Punishment
for hunters and illegally operating farm owners alike is confisca-
E.G.E. Brooks et al. / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2808–2814 2813

tion of the animals and a fine equivalent to their retail value. For
large-scale offenders, this is an inadequate disincentive when pros-
ecution rates are so low, and the sale of just two more pairs of por-
cupines would cover their losses.
5. Conclusions
Advantages and disadvantages of wildlife farming cannot be ap-
plied universally. For instance, whereas in Africa wildlife farming is
argued to be an alternative to wild meat, providing food security
(see Mockrin et al. (2005)), this is not the case for species farmed
in Vietnam. Wild meat in Vietnam supplies a luxury, urban market
and as such commands a high value. It is likely that these species
will continue to be hunted from the wild as long as populations
do not diminish so much as to become unprofitable to the hunters
(Mockrin et al., 2005).
Currently, commercial porcupine farming is driving hunting
and is thought to be, at least in part, responsible for the decline
of wild porcupines in NEPL NPA in adjacent Lao PDR. However well
the farms are managed, as long as there is consumer demand for
porcupine products, without serious disincentives for the hunters,
hunting of the wild populations will continue. Contrary to the
claims of proponents of wildlife farmers, the porcupine farms in
Son La province are not providing a cheaper alternative, nor are
they providing an adequate substitute since meat is still sourced
from the wild. Monitoring and enforcement of these farms and
the restaurants is inadequate and needs to be addressed to ensure
the protection of wild porcupine populations.
Farming wildlife is a growing enterprise in Vietnam and across
much of Southeast Asia (WCS, 2008). Wildlife farms have been
linked to the decline and extirpation of once-common species such
as sika deer (Cervus nippon) and Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus sia-
menis) in Vietnam (Polet, 2004). Southeast Asian porcupines are a
relatively common species within their distribution range, yet this
study highlights that commercial farming could be responsible for
a rapid decline in Northern Vietnam. The gaps in current regula-
tions and management found here and in other studies indicate
the significant risks to populations of threatened species.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Nguyen Thi Oanh for her assistance in
conducting the interviews. Thanks to Dr. Arlyne Johnson for access
to her data and discussion on the status of porcupines in Lao PDR.
E. Brooks was supported by a NERC studentship.
References
Anon, 2006. Land Use by Province (As of 1 January 2006). General Statistics Office of
Vietnam. <http://www.gso.gov.vn> (accessed June 2008).
Bell, D., Roberton, S., Hunter, P.R., 2004. Animal origins of SARS coronavirus:
possible links with the international trade in small carnivores. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences. 359,
1107–1114.
Bennett, E.L., 2002. Is there a link between wild meat and food security?
Conservation Biology 16, 590–592.
Bennett, E.L., Robinson, J.G., 2000. Hunting of Wildlife in Tropical Forests:
Implications for Biodiversity and Forest Peoples. The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
BLS, 2008. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI Inflation Calculator. <http://
data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl> (accessed June 2008).
Broad, S., Mulliken, T., Roe, D., 2003. The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade
in wildlife. In: Oldfield, S. (Ed.), The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for
Conservation, 3–22. Earthscan Publications Ltd., UK.
Brown, G., Layton, D., 2001. A market solution for preserving biodiversity: the black
rhino. In: Shogren, J., Tschirhart, T. (Eds.), Protecting Endangered Species in the
United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 32–50.
Bryman, A., 2004. Social Research Methods, second ed. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Bulte, E.H., Damania, R., 2005. An economic assessment of wildlife farming and
conservation. Conservation Biology 19, 1222–1233.
Chardonnet, P., des Clers, B., Fischer, J., Gerhold, R., Jori, F., Lamarque, F., 2002. The
value of wildlife. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’Office International des
Epizooties 21, 15–51.
Cicogna, M., 1992. The first international seminar on farming of invertebrates and
other minilivestock. Tropicultura 10, 155–159.
Cooper, J.E., 1995. Wildlife species for sustainable food production. Biodiversity and
Conservation 4, 215–219.
Fa, J.E., Peres, C.A., Meeuwig, J., 2002. Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an
intercontinental comparison. Conservation Biology 16, 232–237.
Hardouin, J., 1995. Minilivestock – from gathering to controlled production.
Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 220–232.
IUCN, 2001. Commercial Captive Propagation and Wild Species Conservation.
Workshop Report. IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme. Florida, USA.
Johnson, A., Vongkhamheng, C., Hedemark, M., Saithongdam, T., 2006. Effects of
human-carnivore conflict on tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey populations in Lao
PDR. Animal Conservation 9, 421–430.
Jori, F., Mensah, G.A., Adjanohoun, E., 1995. Grasscutter production – an example of
rational exploitation of wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 257–265.
Lapointe, E., Conrad, K., Mitra, B., Jenkins, H., 2007. Tiger Conservation: It’s Time to
Think Outside the Box. IWMC World Conservation Trust. Lausanne, Switzerland.
Lunde, D., Aplin, K., Molur, S., 2008. Hystrix brachyura. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1. <www.iucnredlist.org> (accessed
September 2009).
Milner-Gulland, E.J., Bennett, E.L., 2003. Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 18, 351–357.
Mockrin, M. H., Bennett, E. L., LaBruna, D.T., 2005. Wildlife Farming: A Viable
Alternative to Hunting in Tropical Forests? WCS Working Paper No. 23, New
York.
Nguyen Van Song, 2003. Wildlife Trading in Vietnam: Why It Flourishes. Hanoi
Agricultural University # I, Vietnam. Hanoi.
Nowak, R.M., 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World, sixth ed. The John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore & London.
Parry-Jones, R., 2001. Captive Breeding and Traditional Medicine. In Commercial
Captive Propagation and Wild Species Conservation. IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade
Programme. Florida, USA.
Polet, G., 2004. Re-establishment of Crocodylus siamenis in Cat Tien National Park,
Vietnam. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Australia, pp. 12–16.
Redmond, I., Aldred, T., Jedamzik, K., Westwood, M., 2006. Recipes for Survival:
Controlling the Bushmeat Trade. Report for WSPA, London.
Revol, B., 1995. Crocodile farming and conservation, the example of Zimbabwe.
Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 299–305.
Roberton, S., 2007. The Status and Conservation of Small Carnivores in Vietnam.
PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia.
OANDA. 2008. FXHistory
Ò
: Historical Currency Exchange Rates. <http://
www.oanda.com> (accessed June 2008).
Swift, L., Hunter, P.R., Lees, A.C., Bell, D.J., 2007. Wildlife trade and the emergence of
infectious diseases. Ecohealth 4, 25–30.
Vu Ngoc Thanh. 1999. Biodiversity Loss – Lessons Learned in Vietnam. Regional
Project: RAS/93/102 Subregional Biodiversity Conservation Component. UNDP
Vietnam.
Wildlife Conservation Society, 2008. Commercial Wildlife Farms in Vietnam: A
problem or Solution for Conservation? WCS, Hanoi, Vietnam.
WCS & TRAFFIC. 2004. Hunting and Wildlife Trade In Asia: Proceedings of a
Strategic Planning Meeting of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and
TRAFFIC, Bali, Indonesia, August 2004.
Whitfield, J., 2003. Bushmeat – the law of the jungle. Nature 421, 8–9.
World Bank, 2008a Vietnam Data & Statistics. <http://go.worldbank.org/
KPB5TK9CF0> (accessed March 2010).
World Bank. 2008b. Lao PDR Data & Statistics. <http://go.worldbank.org/
NNAO5U9G90> (accessed March 2010).
2814 E.G.E. Brooks et al. / Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 2808–2814