An assessment of trade in gibbons and orangutans in Sumatra, Indonesia

Full text

AN ASSESSMENT OF
TRADE IN GIBBONS
AND ORANG-UTANS
IN SUMATRA,
INDONESIA
VINCENT NIJMAN
A TRAFFIC SOUTHEAST ASIA REPORT

Published by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia,
Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
© 2009 TRAFFIC Southeast Asia
All rights reserved.
All material appearing in this publication is
copyrighted and may be reproduced with
permission. Any reproduction in full or in
part of this publication must credit TRAFFIC
Southeast Asia as the copyright owner.
The views of the authors expressed in this
publication do not necessarily reflect those
of the TRAFFIC Network, WWF or IUCN.
The designations of geographical entities in
this publication, and the presentation of the
material, do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC
or its supporting organizations concerning
the legal status of any country, territory, or
area, or its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and
Registered Trademark ownership is held by
WWF. TRAFFIC is a joint programme of
WWF and IUCN.
Layout by Noorainie Awang Anak,
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia
Suggested citation: Vincent Nijman
(2009). An
assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans
in Sumatra, Indonesia
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia,
Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
ISBN
Cover: A Sumatran orang-utan, confiscated in Aceh,
stares through the bars of its cage
Photograph credit: Chris R. Shepherd/TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in
Sumatra, Indonesia
Vincent Nijman
Despite being protected by law, Siamang continue to be traded in Sumatra
Cho-fui Yang Martinez

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements vi
Executive summary vii
Introduction 1
Primate trade and aims of the study 1
Objectives of the assessment 3
Background 4
Sumatra and its apes 4
Local protection of gibbons and orang-utans 9
International treaties and agreements 10
Methods 11
Survey of wildlife markets and private owners 11
Public and private zoological gardens 12
Wildlife rescue centres and reintroduction programmes 13
Additional data 14
Analysis 14
Results and discussion 15
General structure and numbers in trade 15
Numbers in rehabilitation centres 19
Zoos 21
Mortality rates 24
Origin 25
National wildlife protection policy 27
Conclusions and recommendations 29
Monitoring and data collection and examine root causes of trade 29
To increase efficiency and transparency of the implementation of wildlife
protection laws 30
Greater inter-agency cooperation and alternative routes to law enforcement 30
To increase integration of land-use planning with wildlife protection 31
Awareness and education and the role of non-government agencies 32
References 33
Appendix 1 Abstracts from Indonesian Action Plans on Orang-utans and Gibbons 40
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
iii

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
iv
“The fate of the orang-utan is a subject that goes to the heart of sustainable
forests … To save the orang-utan, we have to save the forest.”
Dr H. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,
President of Republic of Indonesia,
December 3, 2007
“In order to establish palm oil land companies clear forests, which causes the
death of fauna such as orang-utans and gibbons in Kalimantan, and elephants,
tigers and others, including orang-utans, in Sumatra. [ ] But all development
requires sacrifice — we just have to make it equal to some extent.”
Dr Tonny Soehartono,
Director of Biodiversity Conservation Office
of the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry
as quoted by The Australian,
November 10, 2007

KEY TO ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT
ASEAN-WEN Association of South-East Asian Nations - Wildlife Enforcement Network
BKSDA Balai Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam (Regional Office for the Conservation of
Natural Resources)
BPS Badan Pusat Statistik (Governmental Statistical Body)
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CoP Conference of Parties (to CITES)
FFI Fauna and Flora International
GRASP Great Apes Survival Project
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature (formerly the World Conservation
Union)
KKH-PHKA Konservasi Keanagaraman Hayati - Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam
(Biodiversity Conservation Office of the Directorate General of Forest Protection
and Nature Conservation)
KSBK Konservasi Satwa Bagi Kehidupan (Animal Conservation for Life)
LIPI Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (Indonesian Institute of Sciences LIPI)
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OCSP Orang-utan Conservation Service Programme
OFI Orang-utan Foundation International
PHKA Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (Directorate General of Forest
Protection and Nature Conservation)
PKBSI Perhimpunan Kebun Binatang Seluruh Indonesia (Assembly of Zoos throughout
Indonesia)
SOCP Sumatran Orang-utan Conservation Programme
TRAFFIC The wildlife trade monitoring network, a joint programme of WWF and IUCN
UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The surveys on which this report is based were conducted by the author, Chris R. Shepherd, Nemora and
several co-workers. Thomas Geissmann and Robert Dallmann accompanied the author during the 2001
survey. Cho-fui Yang Martinez, as part of the Undergraduate Research Scholarships from Centre for
Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Oxford Brookes University, helped with data compiling, and
collected data on the housing conditions of gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatran zoos. Anna Nekaris and
Simon Bearder are thanked for help and assistance in Oxford.
This assessment could not have been prepared without the large amount of help received from many
individuals and local NGOs in Sumatra, including Panut Hadisiswoyo, Gabriella Fredriksson, Matt Linkie,
Debbie Martyr, Rudiyanto, Rocky Rutukaha, Ian Singleton, Syafrizal, Graham Usher, Wiwin Winarni, and
Thomas Ziegler. Sandrine Pantel prepared the maps.
The author is also grateful to Serge Wich and Barney Long who as reviewers of this report provided
valuable suggestions for improvement. At the TRAFFIC Southeast Asia office: Julia Ng, Chris R.
Shepherd, Azrina Abdullah and Noorainie Awang Anak were very helpful.
Funding for this report was generously provided by WWF –Netherlands.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an assessment of the trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia,
including the islands off Sumatra’s west coast (most notably, the Mentawai Islands). Until recently
Sumatra and its off-lying islands harboured one of the largest expanses of lowland evergreen rainforest in
Southeast Asia. Most of the lowland forests are gone and the forest that remains is largely in the hills and
mountains, running along the western part of the island, with the largest expanse of forests being in the
Leuser Ecosystem, and adjacent Ulu Masen forest to the north. Commercial timber extraction, small-scale
logging (legal and illegal), conversion of forest to palm oil or wood-pulp plantations, and forest fires –
along with the concurrent increase in access to formerly remote areas – are increasingly threatening the
integrity of the remaining forests, thus putting the survival of its inhabitants at stake.
Sumatra is home to five species of ape i.e. the Sumatran Orang-utan Pongo abelii, and the Lar Gibbon
Hylobates lar in the northernmost part, the Agile Gibbon Hylobates agilis in the central and southern part,
and the Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus occurring sympatrically with the other apes throughout the
island. Kloss’ Gibbon Hylobates klossi is found on the four Mentawai Islands, off Sumatra’s west coast.
Lar Gibbons occur throughout Southeast Asia. The Sumatran Orang-utan is only found in Sumatra, and
although the Agile Gibbon and the Siamang do occur in Peninsular Malaysia, based on the area of
occupancy, over 90 percent of their populations are found in Sumatra. Kloss’ Gibbons are endemic to
Indonesia. Indonesia bears a great responsibility towards safeguarding the future of these five ape species.
All species are classified by the IUCN Red List as Globally Threatened, primarily due to loss of habitat but
also due to illegal hunting and trade.
The Indonesian government has long recognized this responsibility and has pledged to control these
problems and to preserve both individual species and their habitats. These pledges have been formalized
in a range of laws, regulations and membership of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Indonesia is a
Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),
and all gibbons and orang-utans are listed in Appendix I, which prohibits all international commercial trade
of these species among contracting Parties. Indonesia is also a signatory to the Kinshasa Declaration
pledging to improve the protection of great apes and their habitats.
Over the period of November 2006 – July 2008, data were collected regarding trade in gibbons and orang-
utans in Sumatra, and data was compiled from other sources. As such information was available on 351
Sumatran Orang-utans (from the period 1973-2008) and 386 gibbons (2001-2008). Data were collected
from a variety of sources: wildlife markets and private owners; public and private zoos (partially as
facilitators for confiscated and donated gibbons and orang-utans); wildlife rescue centres and rehabilitation
centres (facilitators for confiscated and donated gibbons and orang-utans, as well as monitors of the trade);
individuals and local NGOs (monitors of trade); and the Ministry of Forestry (information on confiscations,
prosecutions, and registered protected wildlife, and wildlife protection policy).
Despite considerable efforts by the government and by NGOs, and substantial financial investment to
conservation of wildlife in Sumatra, there are few indications that the past 15 years have seen a decrease
in trade in gibbons and orang-utans. Although trade appears to be less open than before, the number of
individuals observed in zoos (including newly acquired individuals) and those taken in by various rescue
centres in Sumatra and elsewhere, suggest trade is still very much threatening the survival of these apes.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia vii

In order to curb the trade in orang-utans and gibbons, and improve wildlife conservation policies to
increase the effectiveness of law enforcement, TRAFFIC makes the following recommendations:
Monitor and examine root causes of trade
There is much anecdotal evidence on the lack of prosecutions and judicial law enforcement in relation to
orang-utan confiscations and detailed factual information would support efforts to identify problems and
strengthen enforcement. Wildlife trade in Indonesia is capricious with an ever-changing demand for
species and frequent switches from one species to another. This is partially demand-driven but, at least for
some species, also supply-driven. There is still much to be learned about the economics of the primate
trade in Indonesia, both at the supplier’s end and the demand end of the chain. In certain areas,
especially northern Sumatra and Aceh, the catching of primates appears to be merely a by-product of other
activities (logging, hunting) or is strongly associated with encroachment of people into the primate
habitat. TRAFFIC recommends continuing the monitoring of animal markets in Sumatra and other parts
of Indonesia. In-depth studies are needed, including a more stringent and regular monitoring of the major
ports, with the aim of solving the questions that relate to which persons, institutions, and agencies are the
driving forces behind logging, hunting and trade, and this should not exclude local and national
government agencies, the army and the police. Where appropriate, these latter actions need to be
organised with counterparts in neighbouring ASEAN countries.
Increase efficiency and transparency of the implementation of wildlife protection laws
One of the main reasons why people still trade endangered species is the fact that law enforcement is
generally lacking in both effort and efficiency. Large sums of money can be made in the illegal wildlife
trade, with gibbons and orang-utans fetching prices at the upper end of the spectrum. The chances of
having protected animals confiscated, or of facing legal charges, are extremely remote. Fines and jail terms
handed out are comparatively lenient and even those that have violated the law rarely, if ever, receive the
maximum penalty. An in-depth review is needed of cases where offenders have indeed been brought to
justice, focusing not only on the ‘unsuccessful’ cases (i.e. those instances where the owner did not receive
a sentence) but also on those cases where prosecution was indeed successful, and its possible underlying
reasons (e.g., pressure from government offices, local NGOs, media, or otherwise) need to be unravelled.
Furthermore, the law-enforcement hierarchy needs to be targeted to persuade officials to convict traders,
owners, etc., and attention needs to be given towards devising incentives for law enforcers to carry out their
duties with greater efficiency. The current laissez-faire attitude, where illegal trade in wildlife is not
considered a priority, not even by the authorities that should uphold the wildlife protection laws, can no
longer be tolerated, and subsequent actions needs to be taken.
Greater inter-agency cooperation and alternative routes to law enforcement
At present, the initiatives relating to seizures are largely NGO-driven, with the Balai Konservasi Sumber
Daya Alam (BKSDA) or police only assisting in these actions. TRAFFIC encourages NGOs and all
involved in the monitoring and curbing of illegal wildlife trade to work actively with not only the BKSDA
but also the Police and Customs as to see a greater efficiency and success rate in the number of
prosecutions. Over the last few decades, the Ministry of Forestry has demonstrated poor enforcement
efforts, particularly where it concerns orang-utans and gibbons, and a new approach, with different players
including Police and Customs, is long overdue. Areas within Indonesia with increased levels of autonomy
are urged to develop alternative ways of protection their wildlife and curbing wildlife trade.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
viii

Increase integration of land-use planning with wildlife protection
Trade in orang-utans, Siamangs, gibbons, and a large range of other wildlife largely occurs as a direct
consequence of habitat reduction due to logging, land conversion, encroachment, and forest fires
(including arson). Addressing wildlife trade in isolation from this process is futile. Increasing the
protection of gibbons, Siamangs and orang-utans throughout western Indonesia by reducing trade can only
be achieved when this occurs concurrently with an increase in the protection of the remaining forests. As
such, there should be a drastic increase in active protection of forest areas, be it areas that are legally
gazetted as conservation areas or forest areas that are outside the protected area network which cannot be
used unrestrictedly. Gazettement must be actively implemented and enforced by the respective authorities
and executing bodies of the Indonesian Government in conjunction with the land concession holders.
Active patrolling of protected areas should be made a top priority. Given the intrinsic links between
(illegal) logging of forest areas and the trade in orang-utans and gibbons, it is imperative that illegal
logging in areas either inside or outside the protected area network, is halted. New and bold approaches
are needed, including, but not restricted to the government-backed tree spiking of all commercially
valuable trees in formally protected areas. TRAFFIC urges conservation NGOs and local authorities as
well as the central government seriously to consider exploring the possibilities of forest protection in this
way, including exploring means as how to reduce any adverse effects of the method.
Awareness and education
Orang-utans and gibbons have been legally protected for over 75 years now, and over the years, enough
attention and funding has been given to communicate this message through the sosialisasi (socialisation)
process. The lack of knowledge on the legal status of these species cannot be an excuse for the persistent
illegal trade. Efforts over previous decades to control people from purchasing and keeping wild-caught
gibbons and orang-utans have largely proved to be ineffective. It needs to be communicated clearly that
keeping protected species as pets is not an option, and this should coincide with widely publicising the
cases of offenders who break wildlife laws. The law-enforcement hierarchy needs to persuade officials to
prosecute and convict offenders and attention needs to be given towards devising incentives for law
enforcers to carry out their duties with greater efficiency.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia ix

“During the last eighteen years [i.e. 1922-1940] I must have seen several hundreds of orang-
utans in captivity in Singapore where, until recent concerted actions by the Dutch and British
Governments reduced operations to a reasonable limit, the entrepôt trade was very large. [ ]
It always seemed to me, as far as possible to compare things seen at intervals of time and in
different places that, on average, the more cinnamon and less maroon coloured adults came
from Sumatra and the more deeply coloured, almost purple-maroon beasts from Borneo.
Furthermore, it is my belief that I have never seen a Bornean specimen alive that equals in
size any of several old males from Sumatra”.
Frederick Nutter Chasen, Director of the Raffles Museum, Singapore; ‘A
handbook of Malaysian mammals’, 1940 pp 61-62.
“Whatever form the trade takes and whatever motivates it, the overwhelming evidence of the
scale and seriousness of the problem is the number of orang-utans in ‘rescue’ and
‘rehabilitation’ centres. In Kalimantan alone, this is approaching 1,000 animals. It is hard
to think of another CITES Appendix-I species, in any other country, where individuals are
so regularly being confiscated or taken into the care. Indeed, it is hard to view this figure as
anything other than an indictment against the law enforcement efforts of the relevant
agencies in Indonesia.”
CITES/GRASP Orang-utan Technical Mission to Indonesia 2006, p 11
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
x

INTRODUCTION
Primate trade and aims of the study
Wildlife trade is an issue at the very heart of the relationship between biodiversity conservation and
sustainable development, on one hand providing a regular, and often the only, income for people in rural
areas and generating significant revenues, and on the other hand, threatening the very existence of the
animals or plants that are traded. It is recognised as a major threat to biodiversity, and often acts in
concert with habitat loss and hunting. Although, depending on the taxa under discussion, a significant
proportion of wildlife trade is legal, violation of trade regulations and quotas is commonplace (Broad et al.,
2003; Nijman et al. in press). Wildlife trade is a diverse and often secretive business, and in Southeast Asia,
unsustainable and illegal trade in wildlife threatens the conservation of numerous species (Nooren and
Claridge, 2001; Oldfield, 2003; Shepherd et al., 2004; Grieser-Johns and Thomson, 2005; Nijman and
Shepherd, 2007; Shepherd and Nijman, 2007), with Indonesia being one of the region’s major exporters of
(illegal) wildlife (Soehartono and Mardiastuti, 2002).
Among the wildlife that is traded, primates have received a disproportionate amount of attention from
animal welfare groups, conservationists, legislators, international donor agencies and the general public.
Non-human primates, i.e. all primates other than us, have always been of great interest to our own species,
and arguably, the importance of primates to human society has grown over the past decades. Studies of
wild primates in the field, as well as studies in more controlled environments such as laboratories, zoos and
parks taught more about ourselves and our origins, and the use of primates in biomedical research, albeit
not without controversy, continues to contribute to the understanding of own species. This inherent
empathy towards primates, coupled with their presence in many of the most threatened natural
environments, makes it an excellent flagship species for conservation (Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 2000).
There is a high degree of agreement
on what are the most severe threats
to apes. While for most species
habitat loss is often seen as the
number one threat, with many of the
additional threats secondary and
often a direct result of habitat loss
(MacKinnon, 1987; Kavanagh et al.,
1987; Mittermeier, 1987; Eames and
Robson, 1993; Eudey, 1987; Eudy,
1999), increasingly hunting has
become as serious a threat.
Especially for the African Apes
hunting for bushmeat is decimating
populations (Bowen-Jones and
Pendry, 1999; Rose et al. 2004) and
the Ebola-virus has led to the
extinction of apes in substantial
areas (Huijbrechts et al. 2003; Walsh
et al. 2003). For all apes, that is the
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
1
Keeper with orang-utan
Cho-fui Yang Martinez

different species of gibbon, orang-utan, chimpanzee, and gorilla, the forest is the main habitat and habitat
loss is brought about by forest clearing, degradation of the forest due to logging, collection of non-timber
forest products, and forest fragmentation. Increasingly it becomes clear that hunting and capturing of, and
subsequent trade in apes is another serious threat to the survival of these primates (Harrisson, 1962; Rose
et al. 2006; Geissmann et al. 2006; Nijman 2006a,b; Wich et al., 2003; Wich et al., 2008).
Trade in live primates began in earnest about half a century ago with large imports into the western world
of Rhesus macaques Macaca mulatta for the production of polio vaccine (Mack and Mittermeier, 1984).
Primates continue to be used in biomedical research with a continuous shift in species composition,
suppliers, trade hubs, and origins (wild-caught, ranched, captive-bred). In the past, international trade was
largely driven by biomedical research although trade in pets, zoo animals, and circus exhibits also
contributes, as does the trade in primate parts for traditional medicines. Within many range countries the
majority of live primates are traded as pets (Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 2000; Duarte-Quiroga and Estrada
2003). However, data on domestic trade in apes and other primates are often difficult to obtain
(Mittermeier, 1991).
This report focuses on the trade in gibbons and orang-utans from the Indonesian island of Sumatra.
Gibbons and orang-utans must have been traded for centuries, over distances small and large, probably
more so in the present than in the past. Chasen (1940) illustrates both the nature of the primate trade in
Southeast Asia, its magnitude, its brazenness, and its history. Numerous species native to one area, in the
case of Chasen (1940) orang-utans from Sumatra and Borneo, are being transported over large distances to
other areas and wait in transit at docks and warehouses. If the ‘several hundred’ stated by Chasen means
300 to 400, he must have seen over the 18-year period, on average, some 15 to 20 orang-utans each year.
Even at the time of Chasen’s observations, orang-utans were protected in Indonesia and Malaysia but were
openly displayed on the docks, waiting to be re-exported. While the plight of the orang-utan was not
brought to the international attention until the 1960s when both Barbara Harrisson (1962) and George
Schaller (1961) publicized its dire conservation status, Chasen’s observations note that trade was clearly
already a problem in the first half of the 20
th
century.
The report by the CITES/GRASP Orang-utan Technical Mission to Indonesia (Virtue and Sellar 2006)
more than half a century after Chasen’s observations speaks for itself. It is important to note that, as
indicated in two earlier TRAFFIC assessments (Nijman 2005a, 2005b), the 2000 or so orang-utans that
have been ‘confiscated’ in Indonesia in the last three decades have led to not more than a handful of
people being successfully prosecuted.
This is the third TRAFFIC report focusing on the direct factors contributing to the decline in orang-utan
and gibbon populations, including the demand for these primates as pets. The first and second TRAFFIC
reports dealt with Java and Bali, and Kalimantan, respectively. Java, and to a lesser extent Bali, can be
seen as the main centre of trade in Indonesia, whereas Kalimantan, the Indonesian part of the island of
Borneo, as well as Sumatra, are the main source areas. Trade in Indonesian primates is widespread (see
Anon., 1998, 1999, 2002, Malone et al., 2002ab, Smits, 2002, Shepherd et al., 2004) with a focus on trade
hubs in Java, and only to a lesser extent the other islands.
As in the previous assessments, “trade” in this report is not only defined as the buying and selling of goods
– in this case gibbons and orang-utans – in exchange for money and / or other items but also includes those
instances where people claim to have received these species as presents or gifts. The rationale is that
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 2

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
3
firstly, even though many owners claim that they have received their pet gibbon or pet orang-utan as a gift
without any exchange of money or goods, such gifts can be considered payments of a sort. Secondly, it is
not verifiable whether or not animals were purchased or received as gifts. Orang-utans or gibbons that are
kept by the people that caught them in the forests, are included in this assessment as being part of the trade
chain as well. In principle, if someone catches an orang-utan, a gibbon or a Siamang in the forest behind
his house and keeps it as a pet, in the strictest sense, this animal has not entered the trade network. Since
these are rare occurrences, and in order not to unnecessarily complicate the picture, the central premise of
this assessment is that all gibbons and orang-utans encountered in private hands or that have been brought
to wildlife rescue centres, have at one stage or another been part of the wildlife trade chain. Increasingly
wildlife rescue centres in Indonesia actively catch individual primates – mostly if not exclusively orang-
utans at the moment – that are found trapped in tiny pockets of forest or single trees amidst deforested land,
and that are subsequently taken in by the centre. As in a previous assessment (Nijman 2005b) these so-
called rescued individuals, when recognised as such, are excluded from the analysis.
Objectives of the assessment
Information regarding the trade in gibbons and orang-utans on Sumatra is lacking and the available
information has not yet been consolidated. TRAFFIC’s overall goal for this study was to create an
overview on all aspects of the trade and ‘uses’ of these species throughout Sumatra, and trade connections
to other parts of Indonesia, and present it to the relevant authorities as a report with recommendations for
action to improve conservation efforts for these primates. More specifically, the objective of this report is
to:
• Gather, compile and analyse trade dynamics in Sumatra of the Sumatran Orang-utan and
all species of gibbon occurring on Sumatra. This includes data on sources, destinations, availability, and
turnover of these species in the trade.
• Document the number of gibbons and orang-utans that are in zoological gardens and
rescued / confiscated from the trade and placed in rehabilitation or wildlife rescue centres throughout
Sumatra. Special attention is paid to the turn-over in zoos.
• Review the welfare aspects of the gibbons and orang-utans in zoos, given that the
majority of gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatran zoos derive directly from the trade (as confiscations,
donations, or acquired otherwise). Zoos are indicated as facilities where confiscated animals are to be
stored awaiting trial of traders or previous owners,
• Develop practical recommendations based on the findings of the research carried out in
order to support efforts aiming to ensure that trade does not pose a threat on the species’ survival.

BACKGROUND
Sumatra and its apes
Sumatra is the sixth largest island in the world, it is approximately 470,000 km
2
, and is the largest island
entirely in Indonesia. The human population of Sumatra approaches some 45 million, with the highest
number of people living in the provinces of North Sumatra and Lampung. The provinces with the lowest
population densities, such as Riau, Jambi and South Sumatra, have the highest growth rates (Table 1).
Administratively, Sumatra also includes a string of islands to the west and the Lingga and Riau
Archipelagos in the east and a series of islands, including the Mentawai Islands, to the west.
Until recently, Sumatra harboured one of the largest expanses of lowland evergreen rainforest in Southeast
Asia. Most of the forest now remains in the hills and mountains, running along the western part of the
island, with the largest expanse of forest being in the Leuser Ecosystem, and adjacent Ulu Masen forest to
the north. Commercial timber extraction, small-scale logging (legal and illegal), conversion of forest to
palm oil or timber plantation,– along with the concurrent increase in access to formerly remote areas – are
increasingly threatening the integrity of the remaining forest, thus putting the survival of its wildlife at
stake.
Sumatra is rich in both number of primates and those endemic to the island. Levels of endemism on the
Mentawai Islands, off Sumatra’s west coast, is even higher, with each of the four islands having four
endemic species living sympatrically. Sumatra’s main island is home to four species of ape; three species
of gibbon and one species of orang-utan. On the Mentawai Islands an endemic species of gibbon occurs.
Northern Sumatra is the only area in the world where three species of ape live sympatrically.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 4
Table 1.
Human population in Sumatran provinces in the year 2000
Source: Anon. 2008
Province
Population
(x1000)
Population density
(per km2)
Annual growth rate
(%, 1990-2000) %?
Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam 3929 76 1.46
North Sumatra 11642 158 1.32
West Sumatra 4249 99 0.63
Riau 4948 52 4.35
Jambi 2407 45 1.84
South Sumatra 6899 74 2.39
Bengkulu 1564 79 2.97
Lampung 6731 191 1.17

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
5
Table 2.
Primate species on Sumatra’s mainland and the Mentawai Islands, Indonesia. Taxonomy follows Groves (2001)
with updates (see Nijman and Meijaard, 2008); protected status follows Noerjito and Maryanto (2001), Red List
status are from IUCN (2008) and SAMD (2006), CITES Appendix data are from CITES (2008)
Key: Red List Status: LC = Least Concern; LR/nt = Lower Risk, near-threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered;
CR = Critically Endangered.
Species Protected since (listed as) Red List-status CITES Appendix
Greater Slow Loris
Nycticebus coucang
SK Mentan No. 66/Kpts/Um/2/1973 VU A2cd I
Western Tarsier
Tarsius bancanus
Peraturan Perlindungan Binatang Liar 1931 VU A2cd II
Long-tailed Macaque Macaca
fascicularis
Not protected LC II
Pig-tailed Macaque
M. nemistrina
Not protected VU A1cd II
Pagai Pig-tailed Macaque
M. pagensis
SK Mentan No. 90/Kpts/Um/2/1977 CR A2cd I
Siberut Pig-tailed Macaque
M. siberu
SK Mentan No. 90/Kpts/Um/2/1977
(as M. pagensis )
VU A2cd I
Banded Langur
Presbytis femoralis
Not protected DD II
Banded Langur
Presbytis siamensis
Not protected DD II
Thomas’ Langur
Presbytis thomasi
SK Mentan No. 90/Kpts/Um/2/1977 VU A2c II
Banded Langur
Presbytis melalophos
Not protected EN A2cd II
Mentawai Langur
Presbytis potenziani
SK Mentan No. 90/Kpts/Um/2/1977 EN A2cd II
Silvered Langur
Trachypithecus cristatus
Not protected - II
Simakobu
Simias concolor
SK Mentan No. 327/Kpts/Um/7/1972 CR A2cd I
Agile Gibbon
Hylobates agilis
Peraturan Perlindungan Binatang Liar
1931
En A2cd I
Lar Gibbon
Hylobates lar
Peraturan Perlindungan Binatang Liar
1931
LR/nt I
Kloss’ Gibbon
Hylobates klossi
Peraturan Perlindungan Binatang Liar
1931
EN A2cd I
Siamang
Symphalangus syndactylus
Peraturan Perlindungan Binatang Liar
1931
EN A2cd I
Sumatran Orang-utan
Pongo abelii
Peraturan Perlindungan Binatang Liar
1931
CR A2bcd I

Gibbons are confined to the tropical forests of Southeast Asia and eastern South Asia, where the 14 or so
different species live largely allopatrically (Chivers, 1992). The only extensive degree of sympatry is
between the Siamang and either the Lar Gibbons (also known as White-handed Gibbon) or the Agile
Gibbon. While at present gibbons are confined to the semi-deciduous monsoon forests of mainland
Southeast Asia and the rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia and the islands on the Sunda Shelf, up until the
10
th
century, gibbons ranged much more into temperate regions as far north as the Yellow River (c 35
ο
N)
(Geissmann, 1995). Gibbons live in small cohesive family groups consisting of an adult male and female
and up to four of their offspring (Gittens and Raemaekers, 1980; Leighton, 1987; Geissmann, 1991;
Chivers 2005). Maturity is reached after 6-8 years (but possibly already as early as 5 years (Geissmann,
1991) or as late as 11 years (Reichard and Barelli 2008)), and a single young is born in intervals of between
2.5-3.5 years. Gibbons are completely arboreal and do not occur outside forest areas; small areas of
deforested land act as effective dispersal barriers.
Three species of gibbon occur on Sumatra, and one other, the Kloss’ Gibbon, occur on the four Mentawai
Islands (Siberut, Sipora, North and South Pagai) off the westcoast of Sumatra. Both the Agile Gibbon and
Siamang occur in Sumatra and the Thai-Malay Peninsula, whereas the Lar Gibbon occurs further north into
mainland Southeast Asia.
Lar Gibbons are found in southern China (Yunnan), through NW Laos, Myanmar, Thailand into the Thai-
Malay Peninsula (with a break in its distribution between the Perak and Muda/Thepa Rivers where the
Agile Gibbon is found) and Sumatra roughly north of Lake Toba. The agile gibbon ranges in the Thai-
Malay Peninsula, inhabiting the parts where the Lar Gibbon does not occur, and on Sumatra. The Lar
Gibbon inhabits semi-deciduous monsoon forest and tropical evergreen forest, preferring the upper canopy
of the forest, whereas the Agile Gibbon is more confined to tropical evergreen forest. Both species can be
found in regenerating secondary and selectively logged forest (e.g. Johns, 1986). Kloss’ Gibbons are
confined to the rainforest of the Mentawai Islands (Whitten, 1982) and are less frugivorous than the other
Hylobates gibbons; it will eat relative large proportions of leaves and insects (Leighton 1987). Siamang is
found in semi-evergreen forest and tropical evergreen forest on Sumatra and the Thai-Malay Peninsula.
Siamangs are primarily folivorous on the Thai-Malay Peninsula (Chivers, 1974; Raemaekers, 1984) and it
is primarily frugivorous on Sumatra (Palombi, 1992), feeding mostly on figs (O’Brien et al., 2003). In a
review of studies on the effects of selective logging on primates, Johns and Skuropa (1987) found that large
body size and degree of frugivory shows a significant negative relation with the ability of a species to
persist in recently logged forest.
The most important factor, however, was not body mass or frugivory per se but the ability to change
relative proportions of different food types in the diet, especially the ability to exploit available new leaves
in the absence of fruit. Thus highly specialized frugivorous species, with limited ability to switch to
alternative food sources, were more at risk than those species that could survive on a largely folivorous
diet, despite being primarily frugivorous (Johns, 1986). In Sumatra, orang-utans are both large and show
little flexibility in altering their diet, whilst the Siamangs are large but are more flexible foragers,
preferring fruits when available but being able to switch to leaves when needed (Palombit, 1992). The
Agile, Lar and Kloss’ Gibbon are the least flexible, although Kloss’ Gibbons – with their relative high
proportion of insects in their diet- may benefit from a possible increase in insects following forest
disturbance.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 6

The main threats to the gibbons and Siamang on Sumatra and the Kloss’ Gibbon on the Mentawai Islands
are deforestation, forest fragmentation, and hunting (Eudey, 1987; Fuentes, 2002; Fuentes and Ray, 1996;
Whittaker, 2003; Geissmann et al,. 2006). All four species have seen a drastic reduction of population
numbers and available habitat. In recent years the area of (especially) lowland forest has seen a dramatic
reduction largely due to illegal logging (Whitten et al., 2000) and forest fires. Vast areas of formerly
forested land are either barren or have been converted into plantations that offer no home to gibbons.
Between 1995 and 2000, almost 40% of the habitat of the Siamang was damaged or destroyed by logging,
road development (plus associated hunting), and conversion to agriculture and plantations (unpublished
data in O’Brien et al. 2004).
Legal logging seems to be accelerating in Sumatra, although this differs greatly between areas (with the
southeastern parts being affected most and the north due to the political unrest in Aceh being affected least).
Extremely fragmented forests and coffee plantations present an increasing risk in the southern part of the
islands (O’Brien and Kinnaird, 2003) whereas elsewhere conversion of forest for oil palm and wood-pulp
plantations poses a serious threat to Sumatra’s apes. O’Brien et al., (2004) stated “while populations of
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
7
An Agile Gibbon for sale in Medan, North Sumatra
Chris R. Shepherd/TRAFFIC Southaest Asia

[the Siamang] appear secure today, its future is uncertain and will depend on vastly improved conservation
efforts, especially in Sumatra’s remaining parks and protected areas”. Apart from habitat loss, hunting has
had a significant impact on the populations of gibbons. Hunting, both for subsistence and the pet trade, has
been identified as the number one threat for Lar Gibbons (SAMD, 2005), having replaced even forest
clearance as the major threat. Hunting pressure varies across the Lar Gibbon’s range though. Construction
of roads may pose an additional threat since it promotes forest clearance and increased access to forest.
Things have not fared better on the Mentawai islands. Whittaker (2003) noted that populations of Kloss’
Gibbons have seen a reduction in numbers of up to 50% between 1980 and 2005, due to a combination of
hunting and logging. Historically and presently, Kloss’ Gibbons faces threats from logging, hunting and
the pet trade although the levels of threat do seem to vary from one location to the other. The population
in Siberut national park is subjected to moderate levels of hunting pressure from local people. In Sipora,
hunting is a threat but logging less so, and the South Pagai forest is selectively logged and the gibbons are
heavily hunted (Whittaker, 2006). Recently, the threat from hunting has risen due to increased access to
remote areas due to the construction of logging roads and tracks as well as the replacement of bow and
arrows with air rifles. Local rituals and taboos that formerly regulated hunting are abandoned (many of the
Mentawaians have adopted Christianity as their main religion). Of all the Mentawai primates, this species
suffers most from the pet trade (D. Whittaker pers. comm. in SAMD, 2005). Apart from the Agile Gibbon,
considered Least Concern, the three Sumatran gibbons all are listed as Endangered (IUCN 2008).
The orang-utans are the only Great Apes that are confined to Asia. At present their distribution is
restricted to the islands of Sumatra and Borneo. In the past only a single species of orang-utan was
recognized, known as Pongo pygmaeus, with two subspecies, P. p. abelii from Sumatra and P. p. pygmaeus
from Borneo. Diagnostic differences between the orang-utans from Borneo and Sumatra in morphology
(e.g., MacKinnon, 1973; Groves, 2001), karyotype (Seuanez et al., 1979), mitochondrial DNA (e.g., Zhi et
al., 1996; Xu and Arneson 1996; Warren et al., 2001), and nuclear DNA (Steiper 2006) led that the two
island taxa are now by most recognised as two distinct species, i.e. P. pygmaeus from Borneo and P. abelii
from Sumatra. Molecular data indicates a prolonged separation between the two island populations, in the
order of 1.1 to 1.5 million years (Warren et al., 2001; Zhi et al., 1996) to over 5 million years (Steiper
2006). Given that in the past the two species were treated as one, when assessing past levels of trade or
assessing threat levels, it is often difficult to differentiate between the two species, and whether or not
reference is made to the Bornean Orang-utan, the Sumatran Orang-utan, or both.
Orang-utans have one of the most prolonged developments of any mammal and sub-adult males, although
sexually mature, may not breed until they are between 15-20 years of age. Likewise, females do not start
reproducing early, and mostly, their first infant is born when they are between 12-15 years old. Birth
intervals are approximately eight years, but depending on environmental and physical conditions and
depending on species and subspecies, may range from 5-10 years (Yeager, 1999; Wich et al. 2004;
Anderson et al. 2008). The main threat to the Sumatran Orang-utan is continuing deforestation. The
species is listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2008).
Population estimates of Sumatran Orang-utans have varied over the years, generally showing a downward
trend. Using data presented in the various action plans (see Appendix 1), it shows that numbers of orang-
utans, as well as the estimated amount of forest inhabited by orang-utans in Sumatra has seen a steady
decline over the last 15 years or so. The decline in numbers started considerably longer ago but has
probably never been more rapid as at present.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 8

Local protection of gibbons and orang-utans
Gibbons and orang-utans are protected under Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No.5 Tahun 1990
tentang Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Hayati dan Ekosistemnya (Act of the Republic of Indonesia No.5
of 1990 concerning Conservation of Living Resources and their Ecosystems) widely known as UU No 5
or Act No 5. However, primates were first protected in Indonesia with the prohibition of hunting and
killing certain species by Ordinance (Dierenbeschermingsordonantie) in 1925. Additions to this
Ordinance came into effect in 1931 and 1932, which made it illegal to catch alive, to disturb, to trade alive
or dead, or to hold certain species of primate in captivity. Included in this limited list were all species of
gibbon and the orang-utan.
Act No 5 prohibits to “Catch, injure, care for, transport, and trade in a protected animal in a live condition;
Keep, possess, care for, transport, and trade in a protected animal in a dead condition; Transfer a
protected animal from one place to another, within or outside Indonesia; Trade, keep or possess skin,
bodies, or other parts of a protected animal or the goods made of parts of the animal, or transfer from one
place in Indonesia to another, within or outside Indonesia”. Penalties that can be imposed when these laws
are broken can total to fines of up to IDR 100 000 000 (USD 9000 at 2008 rate) as well as an
imprisonment for up to five years.
In 1993 the President of the Republic of Indonesia announced 12 species receiving special protection,
including the Orang-utan, Sumatran and Javan Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis and R. sondaicus, the
Asian Elephant Elephas maximus, the Tiger Panthera tigris, the Komodo Dragon Va ra n u s
komodoensis and the Javan Hawk-eagle Spizaetus bartelsi. Besides proper CITES permits, these species
require the specific authority of the President of the Republic of Indonesia before any specimen may be
exported from the country.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
9
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1993 1999 2004 2007
habitat (km2)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
population (individuals)
Figure 1.
Estimates of habitat (bars) and population sizes (line) of Sumatran Orang-utans. Note that although different
methodologies have been used to reach these estimates, the overall trend is clearly downwards

International treaties and agreements
Indonesia is signatory to a number of international conventions and agreements that are relevant for the
protection of orang-utans and, to a lesser extent, gibbons, i.e. CITES, the Kinshasa Declaration and the
ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN).
Indonesia is signatory to the CITES. It acceded to the Convention on 28 December 1978, which entered
into force on 28 March 1979 (Soehartono and Mardiastuti 2002). All species of gibbon and orang-utan are
listed on Appendix I which generally prohibits commercial international trade of these species, their parts
and derivatives, among contracting Parties, except under specific circumstances. It is the responsibility of
the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA), as Indonesia’s
Management Authority for CITES, to ensure that illegal international trade of these species does not occur.
As a Party to CITES, Indonesia is obliged to fully implement and enforce the requirements of the
Convention through national legislation. All Parties to CITES have been categorized under the CITES
National Legislation Project based on the ability of their national legislation to implement and enforce
CITES, and Indonesia is listed in Category 1 (legislation generally meets the requirements for the
implementation of CITES).
In September 2005 Indonesia signed the Kinshasa Declaration, adopted by delegates to the
Intergovernmental Meeting and first GRASP Council meeting that was held in Kinshasa, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. Signatories to the Kinshasa Declaration resolve to improve “the protection of
individual great apes and their habitats everywhere by demonstrably improving where necessary the
quality and the enforcement of relevant laws, as well as the capacity of law enforcement agencies” (CITES-
GRASP, 2006). The Kinshasa Declaration has no legal standing and signatories to the Declaration have no
obligation to implement its provisions.
Indonesia, along with all 10 Member Countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN),
has committed to a Regional Action Plan on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora 2005-2010. This action plan
includes objectives on increased law enforcement networking to prevent illegal trade, which is being
implemented through the ASEAN-WEN. Formed in 2005, this is the world’s largest wildlife enforcement
network, which aims to facilitate better intelligence sharing between national counterparts, increased
collaboration between government agencies, and cross-border co-operation to prevent illegal trade.
In the last 15 years at least 14 action plans (Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA), Species
Action Plans, Conservation Assessment and Management Plans, etc.) specifically addressing orang-utans
and / or gibbons have been published (see Appendix 1). Most of these highlighted trade-related issues.
What becomes apparent is that between the first PHVA report being published in 1993 and now,
progressively more attention is given to the threats trade in especially orang-utans pose to the survival of
the species. In Tilson et al.’s (1993: 17) report, the editors note that the issue of loss due to hunting and /
or pet trade was not addressed at the workshop. In the year following trade gained a more prominent
position in the various reports, noting however, that frequently it was mentioned that more data were
needed on the impact of trade, and that in few factual data were presented. In the most recent reports, i.e.
from 2006 onwards, trade is specifically mentioned, and specific recommendations are made as to curb the
trade. As will become apparent however, despite these recommendations, very little action has been taken
on the ground with respect to tackling problems associated with trade in gibbons and / or orang-utans.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 10

METHODS
Survey of wildlife markets and private owners
In the periods January 2001 (Lampung and South Sumatra), November 2006, February and April 2007
(North Sumatra and Aceh), and June-July 2008 (North Sumatra, West Sumatra, Riau and Jambi) data were
collected on trade in gibbons and orang-utans (Fig. 2). Several local researchers were appointed to
conduct additional surveys in various parts of the island, covering the entire distribution range of the three
species of interest within Indonesia. No surveys were conducted on the Mentawai Islands, but records of
trade were collected from the literature, and in Padang, the main port on Sumatra for entry to and from the
Mentawai Islands. Given that gibbons and orang-utans do not occur on the islands of Bangka, Belitung,
Bunguran, and the smaller islands of the Lingga and Riau Archipelago, all administratively part of Sumatra,
trade in these species was not specifically assessed.
Wildlife markets (pasar burung / pasar satwa), ranging from just a few shops along some of the main roads
leading out of town to over 25 spread out over two locations in Medan, were visited to access the
availability of primates, and gibbons and orang-utans in particular. Many vendors sell mostly unprotected
species, and often protected species are also openly offered for sale, and there was no need to resort to
undercover techniques to collect the relevant data (the negative side of this was that few prices were
obtained and therefore prices are not presented in this report). Special attention was given to stalls and
traders that specialised in primates or that had primates on offer (mostly the non-protected macaques and
langurs (see Table 2) but also protected species such as Greater Slow Loris Nycticebus coucang) and
protected birds as it was expected that these vendors would most likely be willing to sell gibbons and/or
orang-utans, or would have access to them. The wildlife market in Medan has been monitored
systematically by TRAFFIC in 1997-2001 (monthly spot-checks), and less regularly since 2001 (some ten
spot-checks in total).
In towns and villages visited by TRAFFIC researchers (for locations see Figure 2), attempts were made to
locate private owners that kept gibbons or orang-utans as pets. From the owners, when possible data were
obtained on the history of the animal, where and how it was acquired. During the survey no gibbons or
orang-utans were purchased.
Data on gibbons and orang-utans in trade or in private hands was obtained from various NGOs, students
and researchers that were known to have collected data at wildlife markets or that were otherwise involved
in monitoring wildlife trade. These included, amongst others, Yayasan WWF-Indonesia (Jakarta, Jambi),
Flora and Fauna International (Banda Aceh, Padang, Bogor), Conservation International (Jakarta), and
Sumatran Orang-utan Society (Medan), Kalaweit (Padang), and the Sumatran Orang-utan Conservation
Programme (Medan).
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
11

Public and private zoological gardens
During the survey, all larger zoological gardens in Sumatra were visited, i.e. Medan Zoo, Hairos Indah,
Murah Indah Varia, all near Medan North Sumatra, Kebun Binatang Siantar, North Sumatra, Kasang
Kumbang Zoo Pekanbaru Riau, Palembang, Jambi, and Bukittingi Zoo, West Sumatra. Data on Sumatran
gibbons and orang-utans in Java and Bali were available from the following zoos: Pusat Primata
Schmutzer, Jakarta; Ragunan, Jakarta; Taman Safari Cisarua; Kebun Binatang Bandung; Gembiraloka,
Yogyakarta; Taru Jurug Surakarta; Kebun Binatang Tinjomoyo, Semarang; and Taman Kaloko Widya
Mandhala, Purwokerto; Kebun Binatang Surabaya; Taman Safari Pasaruan and Bali Zoo Park.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 12
Figure 2.
Map of Sumatra with the towns where the survey was conducted; not surveyed but indicated are the Mentawai
Islands
Map prepared by Sandrine Pantel
Pekanbaru
PENINSULAR
MALAYSIA
Brastagi

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
13
The zoo records as well as records from BKSDA show that animals confiscated from trade frequently end
up in zoos. Furthermore, zoos are often willing to accept gibbons and orang-utans that have been kept as
pets and are no longer wanted by their owners. Some zoos, certainly in the past but perhaps also at
present, actively acquire wild animals to put on display, and these may include gibbons and orang-utans.
For instance, Shepherd and Magnus (2004) report on trade in Siamangs, Serow Naemorhedus
sumatraensis, Malayan Tapir Tapirus indicus, Binturong Arctictis binturong, Clouded Leopard Neofelis
nebulosa, and Sumatran Tiger Panthera tigris involving several Sumatran zoos and Anon. (2004) reports
on substantial trade in Malayan Tapir from a zoo in Pekanbaru.
In zoos, data on the occurrence of gibbons and orang-utans was firstly collected by simply purchasing a
ticket to check what kind of animals were on display. When keepers were present these individuals were
informally questioned on the total number of individuals present in their zoo (including those that were not
currently on display), their origin, whether or not breeding had been successful, etc. Only later was a more
formal request made to the zoo to obtain data on the origin of their stock.
In many zoos staff and
managers were sympathetic to
the aims of the survey and as
such were in principle willing
to provide data. However,
detailed information on the
precise origin of each of the
orang-utans or gibbons present
was rarely available.
Information was elicited based
on what the staff recalled, and
in this way information became
available for some of the
individuals.
Special attention was paid on
the conditions under which
gibbons and orang-utans were
kept in zoos, including the
presence of shelter, food,
housing conditions, and
protection from the public.
Wildlife rescue centres and reintroduction programmes
Data were obtained from three rehabilitation centres, one of which is no longer in operation. The
rehabilitation centres or wildlife rescue centres take in gibbons and orang-utans that have been
confiscated (or ‘donated’) from traders and the public. Data from three wildlife rescue centres on West
Java that frequently receive primates from Sumatra were available as a result of earlier surveys (Nijman
2006a).
Gibbons kept in extremely poor conditions at the Medan Zoo, North
Sumatra
Chris R. Shepherd/TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

Additional data
A search was conducted to find newspaper articles that relate to the trade in gibbons and orang-utans in
Sumatra, or that originated from Sumatra. All items that did not explicitly refer to this region were
dismissed. An internet search (www.google.com) was conducted with the key words: gibbons, Hylobates,
orang-utans, Pongo, Sumatra, Indonesia, trade, in various combinations, and the Web of Science
(http://isi4.isiknowledge.com/) and the primate literature database of the Wisconsin Primate Research
Center, the Washington National Primate Research Center and the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Libraries (http://primatelit.library.wisc.edu) was consulted to search for scientific reports on the trade in
gibbons and orang-utans.
In the course of the study any additional information in the form of unpublished reports, unpublished
bachelor’s theses, and unpublished data were solicited from those individuals that were identified as most
likely to have knowledge of the presence of these sources.
Analysis
All the data were entered in a database for this report, with each of the individuals receiving entries on
origin, current location, dates, prices, fate, legal follow-up in case of confiscations, if any, and source of
the information. In zoos, some of the species were misidentified or were identified only to the generic
level. Likewise, sometimes gibbons were not identified to the species level, or were only tentatively
identified pending more study. The most obvious misidentifications were either omitted from the analysis,
or pooled under a more general entry (i.e. Hylobates spp.). Similarly, there is no consistent distinction
made between the two species of orang-utan, especially in older reports. When referring to orang-utans in
Sumatra, it is assumed that this referred to the Sumatran Orang-utan, unless this was indicated otherwise.
Orang-utans traded in Java appear to be mostly from Borneo and these specimens do occasionally show up
in Sumatra, especially in the southernmost provinces closed to Java. Special attention to these instances,
and when in doubt, was not included in the analysis.
All prices were converted to USD at the appropriate exchange rate at the time the data were collected. For
this, the foreign currency exchange website: http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic was used. In addition,
the local currency, Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) is listed next to the converted USD price. Unless otherwise
indicated all prices noted in this report are converted to 2008 USD rates (1 USD = 11000 IDR).
By its very nature, illegal trade is a difficult issue to document particularly when information is being
solicited from secondary sources as it can be hard to evaluate the veracity of the data. Many of the people
interviewed were very open and clearly spoke their mind, but others were more cautious and did not reveal
what they knew. Most of the interviews and discussions were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia, and only a
few in English or the author’s native Dutch. All attempts have been made to present the data collected in
an objective manner. However for some parts of the report, few hard data were available and what is
presented is partially based on the author’s own interpretation of the available information, and this has
been made explicit in the text.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 14

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
General structure and numbers in trade
By and large, trade in gibbons and orang-utans on Sumatra involved live animals. Konservasi Satwa Bagi
Kehidupan (KSBK) (2002) reported of the large-scale killing of macaques to provide meat for specialised
restaurants in southern Sumatra, but no evidence was found for trade in gibbon or orang-utan meat.
In the wildlife markets few gibbons or Siamangs were offered for sale. For instance, over 65 visits to the
Jalan Bintang bird market between April 2005 – July 2008 in Medan, 2 Siamang, 3 Agile Gibbon and 1 Lar
Gibbon were found. The Agile Gibbon is not native to North Sumatra, although it is found further south on
the island which indicates inter-provincial trade. Dealers in the Medan markets stated that the animals were
purchased from other wildlife dealers in the province of Riau, although the Lar Gibbon must have
originated from either North Sumatra or Aceh. The Agile Gibbon is also found in Malaysia, but there was
no evidence that any of the animals recorded during this study came from Malaysia. Observed
individuals were often young, the mother having been shot in order to catch the offspring. No Sumatran
Orang-utans were observed during these visits. Despite the low numbers observed in the markets, dealers
in the markets alleged that they could arrange sales of large mammals such as Orang-utan, Siamang,
Sumatran Tigers, Sun Bear Helarctos malayanus and others upon request. One trader in Pekanbaru
market had an immature Agile Gibbon for sale, but this animal was not kept in his shop at the market but
at his house, nearby.
Siamangs being kept as pets were reported frequently. A single young individual was observed near
Sibolga in November 2006, apparently newly obtained, and kept with a Banded langur Presbytis
melalophos. One young Siamang, with an injured hand was held as a pet by locals in the Kerinci Sungai
Penuh area (M. Linkie pers. comm. 2008) and 1 Siamang in the Kerinci area of western Sumatra (D.
Martyr, pers. comm. 2008), On three occasions, 3 Siamangs, 1 juvenile and 2 infants, were observed in
three villages in South Sumatra and Lampung in January 2001. Siamangs are frequently kept as pets in
this part of Sumatra. For instance, eight Siamangs were confiscated in Lampung in May 2003 and brought
over to the Tegal Alur wildlife rescue centre in Java. ProFauna (2006) reported on high volumes of trade
in Siamangs in Bengkulu, South Sumatra, with 26% of the owners being government civil servants and
22% were either army or police officers.
Siamangs are frequently kept as pets in Java as well, and these all must have been caught at one time or
another in Sumatra, with probably a prevalence of animals originating from the southern part of the island
(i.e. Lampung, Jambi, Bengkulu). In 2003 no less than 52 Siamangs were kept in the seven wildlife
rescue centres on the island of Java, and with 21 records from Javan bird markets, it was among the most
common primate traded on the island.
The next most common gibbon in trade in Sumatra after the Siamang is the Agile Gibbon. One infant was
observed in Muara Dua, a village in southern Sumatra in January 2001. Agile Gibbons are commonly
offered for sale at Javan bird markets. In the period 1994-2003 19 individuals were observed and a further
19 individuals were present in Javan wildlife rescue centres.
Kloss’ Gibbons were rarely reported in trade. In April 2007 3 pet Kloss’ Gibbons were recorded on the
island of Siberut (T. Ziegler, pers. comm. to VN 2008), but according to Thomas Ziegler, Kloss’ Gibbons
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
15

are not frequently kept as pets on the islands. If there was any trade in Kloss’ Gibbons in all likelihood
they were sent to the city of Padang as demand and subsequent prices were higher on the mainland than on
Siberut. The website of the Kalaweit gibbon rehabilitation project (www.kalaweit.org/, accessed 2 August
2008) mentions the presence of 6 individuals in trade, and a single individual was received in June 2008
and taken into the rehabilitation centre. The website further mentions the launch of a programme to
rescue 25 to 30 captive Kloss’ Gibbons; it is unclear if all these individuals have been located as pets or
that this refers to for instance the capacity of the rescue centre.
In summary, TRAFFIC received information pertaining to 53 gibbons and Siamangs observed at markets
or offered for sale by middlemen, and an additional 15 individuals were observed as pets. No definite
observations of Sumatran Orang-utans offered for sale on markets or being kept by private owners were
made. Sumatran Orang-utans nowadays appear to be less openly traded than in the past. Yet, reports
continue to emerge about (Sumatran) orang-utans showing up unaccounted for in Southeast Asian Zoos.
For instance, Chiew (2005) raised concern over the presence of 15 orang-utans kept by two private parks
in West Malaysia, with seven being Sumatran Orang-utans, precluding Bornean Malaysia as their origin.
While the zoos did have a special permit allowing them to keep endangered species, according to Chiew
(2005) proper documentation to keep Sumatran Orang-utans were lacking.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 16
Many orang-utans in zoos are kept in appalling conditions
Cho-fui Yang Martinez

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
17
How many Orang-utans are killed to supply infants to the pet trade?
The most preferred age categories for orang-utans in the pet trade are infants older than a few months and juveniles up to the
age of perhaps six to seven years old. Aveling (1982), for instance, reported that for the period 1973-1979, of the 98 orang-
utans that were received at the Bohorok Orang Utan Rehabilitation Centre, 80% were less than seven years old (and about a
third of these were infants less than 2.5 years young). In the wild these young individuals spent most of their time either
clinging onto their mother or in close proximity to the mother. It is widely appreciated that in order to obtain a young orang-
utan suitable for the pet trade one needs to kill its mother (van Balen 1898; Schluster et al. 2008). Furthermore, when the
mother is shot the infant is often killed in the process as well, falling from the trees, still clinging onto its dying mother. The
conditions under which the young orang-utans are kept during the journey from the forest, to one or more villages, and
thenceforward to the towns where it can be sold are far from optimal, and the welfare of the animal is often compromised.
Undoubtedly many die in the process. Those that do survive and make it to the markets, the process of capture and sale is an
extremely traumatic one and many infants still die from the stress. However, as noted in Nijman (2005a: 35) it is very difficult
to obtain hard data on the mortality rates of gibbons and / or orang-utans during capture, transportation, storage, and when
in illegal captivity.
In a previous report (Nijman 2005a: 16) the term ‘loss rate’ was used as the number of individuals that have died for one
single individual to reach a bird market, rescue centre or zoo (those being the points where orang-utans in trade are often first
detected), including the observed individual. In modelling the impact of trade on the wild populations two scenarios were
followed, one conservative and one perhaps more realistic. Loss rates in the conservative model were set at 2 orang-utans
lost for every individual observed in trade, and in the more realistic model was set at 4. Here the range of numbers of orang-
utans killed as to supply the demand for pet orang-utans, as expressed by orang-utan researchers and conservation
organisations, is explored. When reference is made to Taiwan, this refers to the large number of orang-utans that were
imported to this island in the late 1980s.
In 1962, the Harrissons stated that ‘There is a continuous selective human pressure on females with babies. The normal
procedure is still to kill the female to get a baby. The last zoo collector permitted to operate legally in Sarawak in 1946 removed
14 or more young orang-utans alive. To achieve this, we know for certain that 20 others died as an immediate consequence’
(Harrisson, 1962: 201) [loss rate 2.4]
and
‘As this [obtaining orang-utans from the wild] now has to be done largely at the native smuggling level, it is safe to estimate
that for every one orang-utan brought out and sold to a dealer, three more have been killed: two mothers shot to obtain two
babies—with one of the babies dying before reaching reasonable standards of human care. Harrisson, 1962: 204) [loss rate 4]
“Since the majority of orang-utans in ‘rescue’ and ‘rehabilitation’ centres are juveniles, the overall number of poached animals
can presumably be almost doubled if one attempts to estimate the scale of illegal activities, since a lot of these animals will have
been taken from their mothers (who will have been killed during a poaching or ‘problem animal’ incident)”. CITES-GRASP
(2006) [loss rate 2]
“Hunting for trade, to have one baby they must kill the mother” Supriatna et al. (2001) [loss rate 2]
“…it is worth bearing in mind that each juvenile found in illegal custody reflected at least one dead mother and possibly two
or more other orang-utan casualties which remain undetected” (Rijksen, 1982) – quoted in Rijksen and Meijaard 1999: 118)
[loss rate 2-4]
“It is thought that for each orang-utan reaching Taiwan, as many as three to five additional animals die in the process.”
WWF (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/about_species/species_factsheets/great_apes/orang-utans
/orang-utans_threats/index.cfm, accessed 08-05-08) [loss rate 4-6]

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 18
“Based on these estimates, it could be concluded that in order to catch one orang-utan, at least three to five will be the
victims of animal-slaughter, the spokeswoman [Samboja Orang-utan Reintroduction and Rehabilitation Center’s Jean Mandala]
asserted” Antara News Agency, 7 August 2002 - Some 910 Orang-utans Killed in Indonesia Every Year. [loss rate 4-6]
“It is estimated that 4-5 orang-utans die for every baby reaching the market.” Borneo Orang-utan Survival UK
(http://www.savetheorang-utan.co.uk/?page_id=31, accessed 09-05-08) [loss rate 5-6]
“A very conservative estimate suggests that probably only one out of every three infants captured ever survives the
experience. With the death of their mothers this means that for every one orang-utan that arrives at someone’s home as a
so-called pet, at least five others will have died in the process.” Sumatran Orang-utan Survival Programme (http://www.
sumatranorang-utan.org/site_mawas/UK_GE/ALL/pag/page.php?language=ukandniv1=2andniv2=2, accessed 08-05-08) [loss
rate 6]
“It is believed that five or six orang-utans die for every one that is traded.” WWF-UK (http://www.wwf-uk.org/researcher/
issues /rarespecies/0000000153.asp, accessed 09-05-08) [loss rate 6-7]
“Do you know that for every one orang-utan that becomes a pet it is estimated that six other orang utans are killed?” Gunung
Palung Orang Utan Conservation Project, as cited by Sowards (2006) [loss rate 7]
“It has been estimated that for every infant that survives the process of capture and transport, at least four adult females and
three other infants will have died.” Friends of the Earth, The Ape Alliance, The Borneo Orang-utan Survival Foundation, The
Orang-utan Foundation (UK), The Sumatran Orang-utan Society, based on a personal communication with Lone Droscher-
Nielsen (Buckland 2005: 21). [loss rate 8]
“It has been estimated that for every infant that survives the process of capture and transport, at least 3 others will have been
lost, and each of these infants also represents the death of an adult female orang-utan.” Sumatran Orang-utan Society
(http://www.orang-utans-sos.org/orang-utans/crisis/, accessed 09-05-08) [loss rate 8]
“Although hard data are lacking various estimates have been made about the number of orang-utans that have died for each
baby obtained, and these range from one up to eight.” WWF Indonesia / International (Fouad et al. 2004) [loss rate 2-9]
“For every orang-utan put up for sale, at least eight or nine die. To capture an infant orang-utan, one must kill the mother. But
captured infants rarely survive for long. A single survivor, like Sugito, represents three to four other infants who died in
captivity, as well as four or five mothers who were murdered during their capture” (Galdikas, 1999) [loss rate 8-10]
“Trappers usually kill the mothers - and sometimes other adults and babies - to obtain one young orang-utan. Taking into
account the high mortality rate suffered by captured animals, animal rights advocates estimate that certainly two or three, and
perhaps as many as ten, animals die for each one who survives the long journey to a zoo or other destination.” (Cantor, 1993)
[loss rate 3-11]
“In order for a baby or juvenile orang-utan to be captured the mother must be killed first. Field experts say that on average,
2 adults are killed in order to successfully secure 1 baby. Typically, up to 5 babies are shipped together in a single box, in hopes
that one will survive the arduous journey.” Honolulu Zoo (http://www.honoluluzoo.org/orang-utan.htm, accessed 09-05-08)
[loss rate 15]

Numbers in rehabilitation centres
Leighton and Whitten (1984) argued that the greatest accomplishment of orang-utan rehabilitation has been
its impact on the illegal trade of orang-utans. As the rate of confiscations increased, trade in orang-utans
is believed to have declined (Leighton and Whitten, 1984), presumably since there have been more efforts
by the Indonesian government officials to confiscate orang-utan since places to send captive orang-utans
have become available.
However, in the intervening 25 years after between Leighton and Whitten’s report and TRAFFIC
conducting this survey, the numbers of confiscated or donated orang-utans has increased to a level higher
than or equal to what it has been before. Initially, the number of Sumatran Orang-utans taken in by the
rehabilitation centres has showed a steady decline, but this changed after the closure of Bohorok as a
rehabilitation centre and the subsequent opening of the new Sibolangit rehabilitation centre. Some of the
peaks in Fig. 3 are possibly associated with the arrival of new staff (resulting on perhaps a more active
pursuit of receiving orang-utans), or
the opening of a new facility or a
policy of accepting orang-utans from
other areas (both inside and outside
Indonesia)
Acomparison of the data from
rehabilitation centres in Sumatra from
the periods 1973-2000 and 2002-2008
reveals that while these take in
largely young or very young
individuals, in recent years
proportionally more individuals with
an estimated age of >7 years were
received (Table 3). Estimating ages
of orang-utans is difficult and prone
to errors, with possibly consistent
biases towards estimating too young
an age. Added to this is the problem
that different observers in different
time periods estimate ages differently.
Despite this the general pattern of the
centres receiving mostly young or
very young individuals holds.
Although it is not known precisely
how long all these individuals have
been kept by their previous owners, it
is clear that when these orang-utans
were taken from the wild they were
(considerably) younger than when
they first were recorded by the
rehabilitation centres.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
19
In all likelihood, it can be assumed that for each orang-utan less than
seven years of age, its mother must have been killed
Chris R. Shepherd/TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

In Sumatran Orang-utans, by the age of three the young have largely reached locomotor independence and
have well-developed nest skills. Immatures share their mother’s nest until weaned at around age seven
(Van Noordwijk and van Schaik 2005). It can therefore be assumed that for each orang-utan of less than
seven years of age, its mother must have been killed. Virtue and Sellars (2006: 8) report that “one highly-
experienced researcher told the team that orang-utans older than 7-8 months have, by that age, acquired
their teeth and will consequently bite, or try to bite, any human that seeks to handle them. This person was
therefore of the view that poachers seeking to capture young orang-utans sought out animals below that
age”. TRAFFIC did not find support for this assertion, not in Sumatra nor in Kalimantan, but there is a
clear preference for individuals younger than seven years of age.
Furthermore, compared to data from two rehabilitation centres from Borneo (1999-2003) it shows that in
Sumatra, proportionally more older individuals (>7 years of age) are taken in.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 20
Figure 3.
Number of orang-utans arriving in the Bohorok, Bukit Lawang rehabilitation centre (July 1973-2000) and the
Sibolangit quarantine of the Sumatran Orang-utan Society (2002-April 2008)
Table 3.
Estimated age of 1021 Sumatran and Bornean Orang-utans arriving at three rehabilitation centres, showing that
almost half of the individuals are less than four years of age and the vast majority are not yet adolescent. Data
from Bohorok from Aveling 1982, and Nyarumenteng and Wanariset from Nijman 2005b
Sumatran Orang-utan Sumatran Orang-utan Bornean Orang-utan
1973-2000 2002-2008 1999-2003
0-4 years 103 59 203 365
0-7 years 165 100 311 576
>7 years 25 35 20 80
Estimated age
Combined

Combining the data from the different rescue centres on Java and Sumatra from the period 2001-2008, it
shows that 170 Sumatran gibbons and Siamangs are present in rescue centres. A further 325 Sumatran
Orang-utans derived from trade have been taken in by rescue and rehabilitation centres in the period 1973-
2008.
Zoos
Combining the data from the various Indonesian zoos on Sumatra, Java and Bali, it shows that they
maintain 75 Siamangs in their collections. Few, if any of these individuals have been born in captivity and
originating from the wild the vast majority must have been in trade at one time or another as no cases of
‘rescuing’ Siamangs from forest areas by the Indonesian authorities is known to TRAFFIC. A total of 46
Agile Gibbons individuals were present in Indonesian zoos. Most of these individuals were taken from the
wild in Sumatra, although a small proportion of them may be Bornean Agile Gibbon H. albibarbis
(currently these two taxa are considered to represent separate species differing morphologically and
genetically (Groves, 2001; Hirai et al., 2005) but in many zoos and databases they are still listed as one).
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
21
Table 4.
Estimated age of 99 Agile Gibbons and Siamangs when arrived at a rescue centre in West Sumatra, showing that
the majority of them are not yet sexually mature. Data from Kalaweit (www.kalaweitfm.com, accessed 30 July
2008)
Agile Gibbon Siamang
2003-2008 2003-2008
0-4 years 6 21 27
0-7 years 19 55 74
>7 years 6 19 25
Estimated age
Combined
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Number
Agile gibbon
Siamang
Figure 4.
Numbers of Agile Gibbons and Siamangs arriving at the Kalaweit rehabilitation centre in Padang, Sumatra; note
that many of the individuals received in the first two years after opening were received from Javan wildlife
rescue centres

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 22
In 2003, two Kloss’ Gibbons were observed in two zoos on Java, but the ISIS lists 5 individuals as being
present in two zoos (both in Jakarta) as of 2008 (Table 7). None are known from zoos outside Indonesia.
Table 5.
Gibbons and orang-utans present in Sumatran zoos (for a list of full names of the zoos, see methods) in June-July
2008
Species
Agile Gibbon
H. agilis
Lar Gibbon
H. lar
Siamang
S. syndactylus
Sumatran Orang-utan
P. abelii
Medan 2 1 8 2
Hairos Indah 1 1
Murah Indah Varia 2 1
Siantar 2 1 4 2
Pekanbaru 1 2
Bukittingi 4 3
Palembang 2 1
Jambi 4
Total 10 4 20 10
Table 6.
Sumatran gibbons and orang-utans in international and Indonesian registered zoological gardens. For list of zoos
see methods. (source international: ISIS, 2008, source Java, Bali: Nijman 2005a, source Sumatra: this survey 2008;
note that the collections of many of the smaller international zoos, and most Indonesian zoos, do not have their
data included in the ISIS database)
Species International Indonesia Total
Agile Gibbon Hylobates agilis
(incl. some albibarbis)
26 46 72
Lar Gibbon Hylobates lar 407 4 411
Kloss’ Gibbon Hylobates k lossi 055
Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus 299 75 374
Sumatran Orang-utan Pongo abelii 220 22 242
Table 7.
Gibbons and Sumatran Orang-utans in international zoos (those in brackets are in Indonesian zoos) as listed by
the International Species Information System (ISIS, http://app.isis.org/abstracts/abs.asp, accessed 23 June 2008)
Species Males Females Unknown
Agile Gibbon Hylobates agilis
(incl. albibarbis )
24 (11) 20 (8) 1 (0)
Lar Gibbon Hylobates lar 191 (0) 185 (0) 31 (0)
Kloss’ Gibbon Hylobates klossi 2 (2) 3 (3) 0 (0)
Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus 164 (10) 139 (8) 15 (1)
Sumatran Orang-utan Pongo abelii 90 (4) 135 (3) 1 (0)

Combining all the data from Indonesian zoos, TRAFFIC documented a total of 148 Sumatran gibbons and
Siamangs, the vast majority, if not all, being derived from trade. Similarly, 26 Sumatran Orang-utans were
observed in Indonesian zoos. These figures include gibbons, Siamangs and Sumatran Orang-utans that
died in Medan Zoo (see Table 9).
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
23
Table 8.
Housing conditions of gibbons and orang-utans in seven Sumatran zoos, showing many having small cages with
often no access to water or having shelter from the elements. Orang-utans that are housed on open paddocks
during the day but caged during the night are excluded
Species Age class Zoo Volume (m3) water Shelter
Hylobates lar infant Medan Zoo 1 no no
adult Medan Zoo 100 no no
infant Hairos Indah 4 yes yes
juvenile Hairos Indah 14 yes yes
Hylobates agilis adult Muriah Indah Varia 8 no yes
infant Medan Zoo 12 no yes
juvenile Medan Zoo 6 no no
juvenile Pekanbaru Zoo 3 yes yes
juvenile Jambi Zoo 40 no yes
adult Jambi Zoo 2 no yes
juvenile Jambi Zoo 3 no no
adult Siantar Zoo 30 no yes
adult Siantar Zoo 30 no yes
Symphalangus syndactylus adult Muriah Indah Varia 11 no yes
juvenile Medan Zoo 6 no no
adult Medan Zoo 100 no no
adult Medan Zoo 100 no no
adult Medan Zoo 100 no no
infant Hairos Indah 4 yes yes
adult Siantar Zoo 27 no yes
adult Bukittingi 80 no yes
adult Palembang 12 no no
adult Siantar Zoo 30 no yes
Pongo abelii adult Pekanbaru Zoo 3 no no
adult Pekanbaru Zoo 3 no no
adult Bukittingi 80 no yes
adult Bukittingi 80 no yes
immature Palembang 40 no yes

Mortality rates
Over the period 1973 – 2000 of the 226 orang-utans that were received by the Bohorok orang-utan
rehabilitation centre, 49 died in the centre. This translates to a crude mortality rate of 1.74 orang-utans
year-1, with 22% of the animals dying in the centre. In the Sibolangit centre, over the period 2002-2008,
a total of 142 orang-utans were received of which 17 died, translating to a crude mortality rate of 2.83
orang-utans year-1, with 12% of the animals dying in the centre. Many of the animals arriving at the
centres are already ill, may die shortly after arrival, or carry diseases with them. The mortality rates in the
rehabilitation centres are raised as many of the individuals arriving are young or very young, and have been
deprived from essential care from their mothers.
Rehabilitation centres in Sumatra have undoubtedly better access to veterinary care, and have considerably
more expertise than owners keeping orang-utans as pets. High mortality rates of gibbons taken into a
rehabilitation centre and subsequent release in a nearby forest were reported by Bennett (1992) from
Sarawak. The mortality rate of orang-utans kept as pets is expected to be higher than those reported by the
rehabilitation centres, with expected higher rates still in the period when the animal is being traded.
Data on turnover and mortality rates over a 4-year period in the Medan Zoo provide additional insight in
the amount of animals that die while in captivity. Of the six orang-utans that were present in 2006, only
two remain in 2008. All four were adult orang-utans. The number of Siamangs that died in the zoo was
even larger than that for orang-utans. Fourteen animals died in the last four years, including at least three
newborn babies. Four out of six Agile Gibbons present in the zoo in the period 2007-2008 died,
including one newborn infant.
Part of the reason why mortality rates in Sumatran zoos, or certainly in Medan Zoo, are so high, is that the
conditions under which the animals are being kept are appalling. Most gibbons have no continuous access
to drinking water, cages are rarely, if ever, cleaned, the public has access to most of the animals allowing
them to harass them freely and frequently, or to feed them all kinds of foods. More often than not,
hawkers are actively selling food to the public to be fed to the animals, including peanuts, sugarcane and
sweets, often positioning themselves near primate cages, despite some zoos displaying signs ‘do not feed
the animals’. However, a Medan Zoo has a sign on the gibbon cages telling visitors to ‘please do feed the
animals’, and the author was informed that this is not a translation error. Cage sizes are often extremely
small, and totally inadequate. Combining data from seven zoos shows that Agile Gibbons on average have
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 24
Table 9.
Turnover of gibbons and orang-utans in Medan Zoo in the period 2005-2008, with number of individuals present
during each survey, and the number of individuals that have died between the current and the previous survey
shown in brackets
Species 2005 2006 2007 2008
Percentage of
individuals dead
Annual death rate
(individuals per year)
Agile Gibbon Hylobates agilis 4 - 4 2 (4) 67 1
Lar Gibbon Hylobates lar 0-01 0 0
Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus 13 10 (3) 6 (8) 8 (3) 64 3.5
Sumatran Orang-utan Pongo abelii 5 6 3 (3) 2 (1) 67 0.75

15 m
3
(range 1-100 m
3
) of cage space at their disposal, Lar Gibbons 30 m
3
(range 2-30 m
3
), Siamangs 50
m
3
(range 4-100 m
3
) and Sumatran Orang-utans 40 m
3
(range 3-80m
3
). Mortality rates probably are
influenced by the small cage sizes, aided by often inadequate food and lack of medical care. Successful
breeding, where the offspring survives for more than a few weeks is rare, if not virtually nil in these zoos.
The high mortality rate thus will create a need to acquire new animals, reaffirming the direct link between
inadequate care for primates in zoos and the primate trade.
Origin
Table 10 presents the reported origin of 224 (out of a total of 326) Sumatran Orang-utans that were received
by the two rehabilitation centres in Sumatra over the period 1973-2008. It clearly shows that many of the
orang-utans were confiscated from or donated by people from the two provincial capitals, Banda Aceh in
Aceh (30 orang-utans) and Medan in North Sumatra (47 orang-utans). The southern part of Aceh is the
reported origin of 83 orang-utans, with most of them coming from the Aceh Tenggara Regency. North
Sumatra is another area where many orang-utans have been confiscated, followed by North Sumatra’s
mountain region and Aceh’s northern region. In this respect it is interesting to note that for instance no
orang-utans were reported from
regencies such as Bireuen, Nagan
Raya, Gayo Lues (southern Aceh),
Asahan, Tapanuli Utara or Labuan
Batu (North Sumatra). If the situation
of the confiscation of orang-utans in
Sumatra is similar to that of orang-
utans and gibbons on Java (Nijman
2005a) then this in all likelihood is a
reflection of the activities of the
forestry department as opposed to
where orang-utans are being traded.
Orang-utans were additionally
received from some of the other
provinces in Sumatra, i.e. Riau (7
individuals), Jambi (8 individuals),
Bengkulu and Lampung (1 individual
each). Few were received from any of
the other islands in Indonesia, and if
so, it was not always clear if this
referred to Sumatran or Bornean
Orang-utans. During a survey in Java
it was found that only 1 out of 30
orang-utans recorded on the island
were Sumatran Orang-utans,
suggesting that relatively few orang-
utans are transported from Sumatra to
Java.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
25
Ten Agile Gibbons were observed in Sumatran Zoos in June-July
2008
Chris R. Shepherd/TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 26
Table 10.
Origin of Sumatran Orang-utans in two provinces (Aceh, North Sumatra), listed by Regency (Kabupaten) and
decade, received by two rehabilitation centres in Sumatra in the period 1973-2008, excluding orang-utans
received from elsewhere in Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan or abroad
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Total
ACEH
Northern region:
Banda Aceh 1 2 1 26
30
Pidie 1 1
2
Aceh Utara 1 1 0 1
3
Aceh Barat 2 4
6
Aceh Barat Daya 1
1
Aceh Jaya 5
5
Southern region:
Aceh Selatan 6 3 7 8
24
Aceh Singkil 5 1
6
Aceh Tamiang 3
3
Aceh Tengah 3
3
Aceh Tenggara 4 7 5 23
39
Aceh Timur 4 2 1 1
8
NORTH SUMATRA
West coast region:
Tapanuli Selatan 1
1
Tapanuli Tengah 2 1
3
Mountain region:
Karo 3 2 2 1
8
Dairi 2
2
Simalungun 1 1
2
East coast region:
Langkat 12622
22
Deli Serdang 3 1 3
7
Serdang Bedagai 1 2
3
Medan 17 6 14 10
47

As of 2008, a total of 99 gibbons have been received by the Kalaweit rescue centre in West Sumatra. This
includes 73 Siamangs, 9 Agile Gibbons, 2 Kloss’ Gibbons and 1 Lar Gibbon. Large numbers of Siamangs,
i.e. 41, were received from the Tegal Alur rescue centre near Jakarta. In part, these were the result of
targeted operations in Lampung province in 2003. At the time, no rescue centre for gibbons was
operational in Sumatra, and the Kalaweit rescue centre was not yet established in Sumatra. Of the ones
that were received directly from Sumatra, 10 originated from Bengkulu (6 Siamangs, 4 Agile Gibbons), 4
from Jambi (1 Siamang, 3 Agile Gibbons), 3 from West Sumatra (1 Siamang, 1 Agile Gibbon and 1 Lar
Gibbon), and 1 Siamang from Lampung. However, many of the Siamangs said to have come from Jakarta
were confiscated in Lampung as well.
National wildlife protection policy
Orang-utans and gibbons have been legally protected in Indonesia since the beginning of the 20
th
century,
and, over recent decades, especially with respect to orang-utans, high ranking officials, including ministers
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
27
Figure 5.
Graphic representation of the locations where orang-utans received by Sumatran rescue centres in the period
1973-2008. The size of the circles are proportional to the number of orang-utans
Map prepared by Sandrine Pantel
Brastagi

and presidents have expressed the importance and need for an increase of protection. Despite this, forest
areas with significant populations of orang-utans (and gibbons) continue to be converted to other land-uses,
including oil palm plantations, under permits endorsed by either the national government or, increasingly,
by regional governments. Given that large areas of ‘wasteland’ are found in Sumatra (and in Kalimantan),
if the Indonesian government is serious about its pledges to preserve biodiversity there should be no
reason to convert prime orang-utan and prime gibbon habitat to any from of plantation (Hutan Tanaman
Industri or Perkebunan) until all those areas have been used to their fullest extent. In 2001, the central
government through the Ministry of Forestry launched a policy to stop conversion of natural forests
(Samedi, in litt. 2005), but implementation at the local level is clearly in need of improvement.
There is no policy on what needs to be done with large number of animals in the forest that is to be
converted. By law, the animals cannot be harmed, but in the absence of integrated planning this will
simply mean that in the forest the animals will be killed either by loggers, by outside hunters or by
starvation. When the animals are displaced out of the forest, at best they are being ‘rescued’ and taken to
one of the rehabilitation centres, but in many instances they will end up being killed. For example, when
oil palm plantations are established, and there are still orang-utans present in the surrounding forest, the
orang-utans will frequently enter these plantations, bringing them in close contact with humans. In these
plantations orang-utans are perceived as pests, with the adults being killed and the young taken as to make
an easy profit. These factors create easy opportunities for people to obtain a gibbon or baby orang-utan to
be sold for profit. As such, there is a steady supply of orang-utans and gibbons entering the trade chain
and the ‘problem’ of the trade in orang-utans and gibbons thus needs to be addressed at a multiple levels
rather than simply the points of trade.
There have been efforts by Indonesian authorities to curb the illegal trade in wildlife, often helped by
NGOs, through Action Plans, policies and programmes to reintroduce confiscated animals into forest areas
without resident populations. However, the same authorities are also indirectly ensuring a steady supply
of these primates through permits which are handed out, allowing habitat destruction which affects some
of the largest remaining primate populations.
In conclusion, by adding up the total numbers of individuals that have been taken in by the rescue centres,
zoos and that have been observed at markers, TRAFFIC compiled data pertaining to 351 Sumatran Orang-
utans from 1973-2008 (inclusive) and 386 gibbons from 2001-2008 (inclusive) in trade in Sumatra. The
present reports confirms the findings from the previous two TRAFFIC assessments into the trade of
gibbons and orang-utans in Indonesia that the illegal trade in these species continues.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 28

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
29
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are a reiteration of those made following the two previous assessments,
updated and with a focus on Sumatra. These practical recommendations will hopefully lead to a decrease
of the level of threat that trade poses on the survival of gibbons and orang-utans.
Monitoring and data collection and examine root causes of trade
As indicated by Rosen and Byers (2002), there is much anecdotal evidence on the lack of prosecutions and
judicial law enforcement in relation to orang-utan confiscations and detailed factual information would
support efforts to identify problems and strengthen enforcement. In the last five years TRAFFIC’s
assessments have revealed that a significant number of gibbons and orang-utans have been traded, and are
still traded at bird markets, along roadsides, and in rural and forested areas throughout western Indonesia.
Orang-utans appear to be most significant, with the Siamang and the gibbons appearing to be less openly
displayed than a few years ago. It also appears that a large proportion of the trade has gone underground.
Wildlife trade in Indonesia is capricious with an ever-changing demand for species and frequent switches
from one species to another. This is partially demand-driven but, at least for some species, also supply-
driven. When previously inaccessible areas are opened up due to indiscriminate land-use changes species
that were rarely traded might see an increase in numbers traded simply because there is access to markets.
There is still much to be learned about the economics of the primate trade in Indonesia, both at the
supplier’s end and the demand side of the chain. In certain areas, especially northern Sumatra and Aceh,
and also in many parts of Kalimantan the catching of primates is either merely a by-product of other
activities (logging, hunting) or is strongly associated with the encroachment of people into the primate
habitat.
TRAFFIC recommends to continue, or to reinvigorate, the monitoring of bird and mammal markets on
Sumatra, Java and Bali. Wildlife trade is less concentrated on such markets in Kalimantan. In-depth
studies need to be conducted including undercover operations to further unravel the trade network. To
anticipate any changes in the volume or species composition, this ideally should not just be restricted to
gibbons and/or orang-utans, but a variety of species. Personnel involved in monitoring need to have
adequate skills in identifying the species of interest. Current levels of monitoring have been sufficient to
obtain the general pattern of what species were traded and in what volumes, but many questions remain to
be answered. The availability and consistency of data needs to be improved and a regular and well-
designed monitoring scheme may reveal temporal changes far better than has been currently possible and
allow for subsequent actions to be taken.
Besides the animal markets, a more stringent monitoring of the major ports is recommended. Again, it
needs to be assessed whether or not primate traders operate independently or if they are fully embedded in
other businesses (e.g., timber trade). It would be worthwhile to further assess in detail the relationship
between logging and collection of non-timber forest products, with the poaching and trade of orang-utans
and gibbons. Central to this is solving the questions that relate to which persons, institutions, and agencies
are the driving forces behind legal and illegal logging and trade, and this should not exclude local and
national government agencies, the army and the police.

Increase efficiency and transparency of the implementation of wildlife protection laws
The main conclusion of this and the previous two assessments is that one of the main reasons why people
still trade endangered species is the fact that law enforcement concerning protected species is generally
lacking in both effort and efficiency. Large sums of money can be made in the illegal wildlife trade, with
gibbons and orang-utans fetching prices at the upper end of the spectrum. The chances of having
protected animals confiscated, or of facing legal charges, are extremely remote. Fines and jail terms
handed out are comparatively lenient and even those that have violated the law, for instance, those that have
substantial private zoos in their backyard, or those traders that regularly buy and sell protected species,
rarely, if ever, receive the maximum penalty. It would be worthwhile to make an in-depth review of cases
where offenders have indeed brought to justice, focusing not only on the ‘unsuccessful’ cases but also on
those cases where prosecution was indeed successful, and its possible underlying reasons such as pressure
from government offices, local NGOs, media, or otherwise. By analysing ‘successful’ with ‘unsuccessful’
court cases, more can be learned about how to effectively curb the trade.
As recommended in the Nijman (2005a) and reported in some detail by Robertson and van Schaik (2001),
conservation agencies, with the aid of NGOs specializing in environmental law, need to consider the
options of setting up a test trial where a ‘gross offender’ is either sued or, with the aid of the prosecutor,
brought to court. TRAFFIC, as part of the ASEAN-WEN initiative has spearheaded several judiciary
workshops aimed at enforcement officials (police, customs, forestry wardens), CITES authorities, judges
and prosecutors, empowering them to contribute to stopping the decline of wildlife throughout Indonesia.
Furthermore, the law-enforcement hierarchy needs to be targeted to persuade officials to convict traders,
owners, etc., and attention needs to be given towards devising incentives for law enforcers to carry out their
duties with greater efficiency.
It almost goes without saying that wildlife protection laws, protecting both species and their habitats, need
to be enforced more effectively. This cannot be achieved without recognising that protection of wildlife is
intrinsically important. This recognition largely needs to come from the general public, with various
government agencies, including the police, the forestry department and the courts recognising that the laws
provide a reference point for their inter-agency responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the national
offices up to the ministerial level to direct their subordinates to enforce wildlife protection laws as
intended. The current laissez-faire attitude, where trade in wildlife is not considered a problem, not even
by the authorities that should uphold the wildlife protection laws, can no longer be tolerated.
Greater inter-agency cooperation and alternative routes to law enforcement
In Sumatra and Kalimantan, with a few notable exceptions, the BKSDA is not co-operating sufficiently
with other regional government bodies to tackle illegal wildlife trade and uphold wildlife protection laws.
This included insufficient co-operation with the authorities at ports (including customs), the different
branches of the forestry department, local government agencies, the police, and also NGOs as well as
logging concessions and plantation owners. The provincial branches of the BKSDA need to take the
initiative for a greater and more efficient co-operation and to initiate collaborative actions. Agencies need
to meet more regularly to discuss actions to be taken, and this is best achieved through communication
focal points. In the major towns on Java and Sumatra, and to a lesser extend Bali and Kalimantan, this
should include more active monitoring of wildlife trade by the BKSDA, or any other government body that
is responsible for upholding wildlife protection laws. Hitherto this is not routinely and systematically done.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 30

More stringent monitoring of the major ports and known localities where wildlife or wildlife products are
traded (pet shops, souvenir shops, animal markets, etc.) by the BKSDA is recommended.
At present the initiatives relating to ‘confiscation’ are largely NGO-driven, with the BKSDA or police only
assisting in these actions. Although in a previous assessment TRAFFIC concluded that if effective actions
are to be taken a proper working relationship between the BKSDA, NGOs and other relevant enforcement
agencies is essential for a greater efficiency and success rate in the number of prosecutions. Over the last
few decades, the Ministry of Forestry has demonstrated that it is incapable of enforcing wildlife protection
laws, certainly when it concerns orang-utans and gibbons, and in the interest of protecting our closest
relatives a new approach, with different players including Police and Customs, may be needed. Areas
within Indonesia with increased levels of autonomy such as Aceh Province and West Papua are urged to
develop additional ways of protection their wildlife and curbing wildlife trade, if not independent from
Jakarta then at least with a greater level of autonomy.
Increase integration of land-use planning with wildlife protection
Trade in orang-utans, Siamangs, gibbons indeed a large range of other wildlife largely occurs as a direct
consequence of habitat reduction due to logging, land conversion, encroachment, and forest fires
(including arson). Addressing wildlife trade in isolation from this process is futile. Increasing the
protection of gibbons and orang-utans throughout western Indonesia by reducing trade can only be
achieved when this occurs concurrently with an increase in the protection of the remaining forest. As such,
there should be a drastic increase in active protection of forest areas, be it areas that are legally gazetted as
conservation areas or forest areas that are outside the protected area network. Gazettement must be
actively enforced by the respective authorities and executing bodies of the Indonesian Government in
conjunction with the land concession holders. Active patrolling of protected areas should be made a top
priority.
Forest areas with significant populations of orang-utans and gibbons continue to be converted to other
land-uses, including oil palm plantations, under permits endorsed by either the national government or,
increasingly, by regional governments. Given that large areas of ‘wasteland’ are found in Kalimantan and
Sumatra, there is no reason to convert prime orang-utan and gibbon habitat to any form of plantation
(Hutan Tanaman Industri or Perkebunan). As such, TRAFFIC recommends the Indonesian government to
follow up on its pledges to preserve biodiversity, and subsequently introduce a moratorium on the
conversion of primary forest to any other land-uses (as indeed has been introduced in Aceh and that has
been agreed upon at the provincial level in Sumatra at the provincial level). Plantations of any kind should
only be allowed to be established in non-forested areas. As indicated by President Susilo Bambang
Yodhoyono (see first page of this report) at the launch of the Indonesian Orang-utan Conservation Action
Plan and Strategy for 2007-2017 (Soehartono et al., 2007), for the conservation of orang-utans (and by
extension other forest-dependent species such as gibbons) it is vital that the forest it lives in is saved.
Given the intrinsic links between logging of forest areas and the trade in orang-utans and gibbons it is
imperative that, especially illegal logging, be it inside or outside the protected area network, is halted. As
discussed in some detail in Rosen et al. (2001) and Rosen and Byers (2002) tree spiking may be an
effective tool in curbing illegal logging. Illegal logging inside protected areas can be tackled by either an
increase in the number of patrols and an increase in effectiveness of patrols, and a subsequent increase in
effectiveness in the prosecution of offenders, or by more physical protection of the forest itself. As the law
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
31

already prohibits logging in these areas, and provided that it is condoned by the authorities, the
insertion of metal, concrete or ceramic spikes into commercially valuable trees might be an effective means
to protect the forest. If implemented only in formally protected areas (National Parks, Strict Nature
Reserves, and other types of protected areas), and backed by the authorities, tree spiking has the potential
to be one of the most effective methods of combating illegal logging on a local scale. Experiences from
the Sungai Wain Protection Forest in East Kalimantan (where a small population of reintroduced orang-
utans can be found), and where the local government has issued a decree that all commercially valuable
trees in the outer part of the reserve needed to be spiked, are very promising. Combined with an intensive
campaign explaining the need for tree-spiking, sign-posting the fact that trees were indeed spiked, within
a matter of a few months, logging came to a complete halt. With respect to the conservation of orang-utans,
Siamangs and gibbons in the Leuser Ecosystem (including the Gunung Leuser National Park), if the
construction of the Ladia Galaska road system that will dissect the reserve is indeed implemented, tree
spiking of all trees within easy reach of loggers in the forest bordering the road may greatly reduce the
impact the road will have on the populations of the threatened apes. It needs to be understood that tree-
spiking in this context has a complete different meaning than it has in North America and Australia, where
is it primarily a means to prevent logging of trees in concessions where it is legal to log. TRAFFIC urges
conservation NGOs and local authorities as well as the central government to seriously consider
exploring the possibilities of forest protection in this way, including exploring means as how to reduce any
adverse effects of the method.
Awareness and education and the role of non-government agencies
Orang-utans and gibbons have been legally protected for over 75 years, and over the years, enough
attention has been given to communicating this message, and lack of knowledge on whether or not these
species are indeed protected cannot be an excuse for the persistent trade in species such as gibbons or
orang-utans. Significant reductions in the incidence of hunting and capture of orang-utans and gibbons
from the wild populations in western Indonesia can be assisted by recognised education programs to make
people (especially those living around gibbon and orang-utan habitat) aware of the protected status of the
wildlife in their immediate surroundings. Efforts over previous decades to control people from purchasing
and keeping wild-caught gibbons and orang-utans have largely proved to be ineffective. It needs to be
communicated clearly that keeping protected species as pets is not an option, and this is best achieved by
a bold and innovative approach. Offenders who break wildlife laws, and especially those that violate these
laws with respect to orang-utans or gibbons, should be brought to justice, and whether or not this is
successful or not, needs to be publicised. The law-enforcement hierarchy needs to persuade officials to
prosecute and convict offenders. Due attention needs to be given towards devising incentives for law
enforcers to carry out their duties with greater efficiency.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 32

REFERENCES
Anderson, H. B., Tompson, M. E., Knott, C. D. and Perlins, L. (2008). Fertility and mortality patterns of
captive Bornean and Sumatran orangutans: Is there a species difference in life history? Journal of
Human Evolution 54: 34-42.
Anon. (1998). Monitoring of primate trade at supermarkets and bird markets in East Java / Monitoring
perdagangan primata di supermarket dan pasar burung di Jawa Timur. KSBK, Malang.
Anon. (1999). Monitoring of primate trade in Java Bali. Orang utan and gibbons still in business. KSBK,
Malang.
Anon. (2002). Perdagangan satwa liar dilundungi. Pantau, Bogor.
Anon. (2004). Draft 2004 IUCN Red List [for tapirs]. Available at www.tapirs.org/downloads/action-
plan/iucn-docs/2004-red-list.doc, accessed 20 July 2008
Anon (2008). Population statistics. Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta [http://www.bps.go.id/sector/population,
accessed 11 May 2008]
Anon (2004) Wildlife poaching rampant in Lampung. Jakarta Post 4 June 2004.
Aveling, R. J. (1982). Orang utan conservation in Sumatra, by habitat protection and conservation
education. Pp. 299-315 in de Boer L. E. M. (Ed.) The orang utan: Its biology and conservation.
The Hague: Dr. W. Junk Publishers.
Bennett, J. (1992). A glut of gibbons in Sarawak - is rehabilitation the answer? Oryx 26: 157-164.
Bowen-Jones, E. and Pendry, S. (1999). The threat to primates and other mammals from the bushmeat trade
in Africa, and how this threat could be diminished. Oryx 33: 233-246.
Broad, S., Mulliken, T. and Roe, D. (2003). The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade in wildlife. Pp
3-22 in Oldfield, S. (ed.) The trade in wildlife. Regulation for conservation. Flora and Fauna
International, Resource Africa and TRAFFIC International, London.
Campbell, C., Andayani, N., Cheyne, S., Pamungkas, J., Manullang, B., Usman, F., Wedana, M. and
Traylor-Holzer, K. (2008). Indonesian gibbon conservation and management workshop -Final
report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN.
Cantor, D. (1993). Items of property. Pp 280-290 in Cavalieri A, Singer P (eds) The Great Ape Project New
York: St. Martin’s Griffin
Chasen, F.N. (1940). A handbook of Malaysian mammals. A systematic list of the mammals of the Malay
Peninsula, Sumatra, Borneo, Java, including the small adjacent islands. Bulletin of the Raffles
Museum (Singapore), 15: 1-209.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
33

Chiew, H. (2005) Wildlife endangered. The Star, 22 Nov 2005
Chivers, D.J. (1974). The Siamang in Malaysia: a field study of a primate in tropical rain forest.
Contributions to Primatology 4. Karger, Basel.
Chivers, D.J. (1992). Socio-ecology and conservation of gibbons in Southeast Asia with special reference
to Borneo. Pp 230-244 in Ismail G., Mohamed M. and Omar S. (eds). Forest biology and
conservation in Borneo. Centre for Borneo Studies Publication No. 2. Yayasan Sabah, Kota
Kinabalu.
Cowlishaw, G.. and Dunbar, R.I.M. (2000). Primate conservation biology. University of Chicago Press,
London and Chicago.
Duarte-Quiroga, A. and Estrada, A. (2003). Primates as pets in Mexico City: an assessment of the species
involved, source of origin, and general aspects of treatment. American Journal of Primatology 61:
53-60.
Eudey A.A. (1987). Action plan for Asian primate conservation: 1987-1991. IUCN/SSC Primate
Specialist Group, Gland.
Eudey, A.A. (1999). Asian primate conservation - my perspective. Pp 151-158 in Dolhinow, P. and
Fuentes, A. (Eds). The nonhuman primates. Mayfield, Mountain View.
Foead N, Elliott W, Ziegler S and Nijman V (2005). WWF’s Species Action Plan for the conservation of
orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii) in the wild. WWF, UK.
Fuentes A (2002). Monkeys, humans and politics in the Mentawai Islands: no simple solutions in a
complex world. Pp 187-207 in Fuentes A and Wolfe LD (eds). Primates face to face: conservation
implications of human-nonhuman primate interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fuentes A and Ray E. (1996). Humans, habitat loss and hunting: the status of the Mentawai Islands
primates on Sipora and Pagai Islands. Asian Primates 5: 5-9.
Galdikas B. (1999) Orang-utan Odyssey. Harry N. Abrams, New York
Geissmann T (1991). Reassessment of age of sexual maturity in gibbons (Hylobates spp.). American
Journal of Primatology 23: 11-22.
Geissmann T. (1995). Gibbon systematics and species identification. International Zoo News 42:467-501.
Geissmann T, Nijman V, Dallmann R (2006). The fate of diurnal primates in southern Sumatra. Gibbon
Journal 2: 18-24.
Gittens S.P. and Raemaekers J.J. (1980). Siamang, lar and agile gibbons. Pp 63-105 in Chivers, D.J. (ed)
Malayan forest primates, ten years’ study in tropical rain forest. Plenum Press, New York and
London.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 34

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
35
Grieser-Johns A., Thomson J. (2005): Going, going, gone: The illegal trade in wildlife in East and
Southeast Asia. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Groves, C.P. (2001). Primate taxonomy. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
Harrisson B (1962, reprint 1986) Orang-utan. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hirai H., Wijayanto H., Tanaka H., Mootnick A. R., Hayano A., Perwitasari-Farajallah D., Iskandriati D.
and Sajuthi D. (2005) A whole-arm translocation (WAT8/9) separating Sumatran and Bornean
agile gibbons, and its evolutionary features. Chromosome Research 13: 123-133.
Huijbregts, B., De Wachter, P., Obiang, L. S. N. and Akou, M. E. (2003). Ebola and the decline of gorilla
Gorilla gorilla and chimpanzee Pan troglodytis in Minkebe Forest, north-eastern Gabon. Oryx 37:
437-443.
IUCN (2008) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.redlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 November
2008
Johns AD (1986). Effects of selective logging on the behavioural ecology of West Malaysian Primates.
Ecology 67: 684-694.
Johns AD and Skuropa JP (1987). Responses of rainforest primates to habitat disturbance: a review.
International Journal of Primatology 8: 157-191.
Kavanagh, M., Eudey, A.A., and Mack, D. (1987). The effect of live trapping and trade on primate
populations. Pp 147-177 in Marsh, C.W. and Mittermeier, R.A. (eds) Primate conservation in the
tropical rain forests. Alan Liss, New York.
KSBK (2002). Dibalik perdagangan dagin primata di Lampung Sumatra. KSBK, Malang.
Kuze N, Sipangkui S, Malim TP, Bernard H, Ambu LN, Ohshima S. (2008) Reproductive parameters over
a 37-year period of free-ranging female Borneo orang-utans at Sepilok Orang-utan Rehabilitation
Centre. Primates 49:126–134
Leighton D. R. (1987). Gibbons: territoriality and monogamy. Pp 135-145 in Smuts B.B., Cheney D.L.,
Seyfarth R.M., Wrangham R.W. and Struhsaker T.T (eds) Primate societies. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London.
Leighton, D. R. and Whitten, A.J. (1984). Management of free-ranging gibbons. Pp 32-43 in Preuschoft
H, Chivers, DJ, Brockelman, WY, Creel, N, eds, The Lesser Apes: evolutionary and behavioural
biology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Leiman A. And Ghaffa N (1996) Exploitation as a threat or the only real salvation? In Taylor V, Dunstone
N. (eds). The exploitation of mammal populations, Chapman and Hall, London.
MacKinnon K. (1987). Conservation status of primates in Malasia with special reference to Indonesia.
Primate Conservation 8: 175-183.

Malone, N., Purnama, A.R. Wedana, M. and Fuentes, A. (2002a). Assessment of the sale of primates at
Indonesian bird markets. Asian Primates 8: 7-11.
Malone, N.M, Fuentes, A., Purnama, A.R. and Wedana, I.M.W.A. (2002b). Displaced hylobatids:
biological, cultural, and economic aspects of the primate trade in Jawa and Bali, Indonesia.
Tropical Biodiversity 8: 41-50.
Mittermeier, R.A. (1987). Effect of hunting on rain forest primates. Pp 305-320 in Marsh, C.W. and
Mittermeier, R.A. (eds) Primate conservation in the tropical rain forests. Alan Liss, New York.
Nekaris K.A.I. and Nijman V. (2007). CITES proposal highlights rarity of Asian nocturnal primates
(Lorisidae: Nycticebus). Folia Primatologica 78(3): 211-214.
Nijman, V. (2005a) In Full Swing. An assessment of trade in orang-utans and gibbons on Java and Bali,
Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya.
Nijman, V. (2005b) Hanging in the balance. An assessment of trade in orang-utans and gibbons on
Kalimantan, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya.
Nijman V. (2006a). In-situ and ex-situ status of the Javan gibbon and the role of zoos in conservation of
the species. Contributions to Zoology 75(3-4): 161-168
Nijman V. (2006b). Trade in Bornean gibbons. Gibbon Journal 2: 33-36.
Nijman, V. and Shepherd, C.R. (2007): Trade in non-native, CITES-listed, wildlife in Asia, as exemplified
by the trade in freshwater turtles and tortoises (Chelonidae) in Thailand. Contributions to Zoology
76: 207-211.
Nijman, V. and Meijaard, E. (2008). Zoogeography of primates in insular Southeast Asia: species-area
relationships and the effects of taxonomy. Contributions to Zoology (in press).
Nijman, V., Shepherd CR, van Balen, S. (2009). Declaration of the Javan Hawk-eagle as Indonesia’s
National Rare Animal impedes conservation of the species. Oryx 43(1), in press.
Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R., Mumpuni and Sanders, K. (in press) Over-exploitation and illegal trade of
reptiles in Indonesia. Journal of Applied Herpetology.
van Noordwijk, M. A. and van Schaik, C. P. (2005). Development of ecological competence in Sumatran
orangutans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 127: 79-94.
Nooren, H. and Claridge, G. (2001): Wildlife trade in Laos: the end of the game. NC-IUCN, Amsterdam.
O’Brien, T.G., Kinnaird, M.F., Nurcahyo A., Iqbal, M., and Rusmanto, M. (2004). Abundance and
distribution of sympatric gibbons in a threatened Sumatran rain forest. International Journal of
Primatology 25: 267-284.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 36

O’Brien, T.G., Kinnaird, M.F., Nurcahyo, A., Iqbal, M., Rusmanto, M. (2003). Fire, demography and the
persistence of siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus: Hylobatidae) in a Sumatran rainforest. Animal
Conservation 6: 115-121.
Oldfield, S. (2003). The trade in wildlife. Regulation for conservation. Flora and Fauna International,
Resource Africa and TRAFFIC International, London.
Palombi, A.R. (1992). Pair bond and monogamy in wild siamang (Hylobates syndactylus) and white-
handed gibbon (Hylobates lar) in Nother Sumatra. PHD dissertation, University of California,
Davis.
ProFauna (2006) Each month 40 slow lorises and 20 leopard cats are being illegally traded in Palembang,
Sumatra. ProFauna International, http://www.profauna.org/profaunanews/2006news/slow-lories-
May06.html, accessed 28 January 2008
Raemaekers, J. (1984). Large versus small gibbons: relative roles of bioenergetics and competition in their
ecological separation in sympatry. Pp 209-221 in Chivers DJ, Brockelman WY, Creel N (eds) The
Lesser Apes: evolutionary and behavioral biology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Reichard, U. H. and Barelli, C. (2008). Life history and reproductive strategies of Khao Yai Hylobates
lar: implications for social evolution in apes. International Journal of Primatology 29: 823-844.
Rijksen H.D. and Meijaard E. (1999). Our vanishing relative. The status of wild orang-utans at the close
of the twentieth century. Kluwer, Dordecht.
Robertson, J.M.Y. and van Schaik, C.P. (2001) Causal factors underlying the dramatic decline of the
Sumatran orang-utan. Oryx 35:26-38.
Rose, A.L., Mittermeier, R.A., Langrand, O., Ampadu-Agyei, O., Butynski, T. M. (2004) Consuming
Nature; a photo essay on African rain forest exploitation. Altisima Press, Palos Verdes Peninsula,
California
SAMD (2006). Southeast Asian Mammal Databank (http://www.ieaitaly.org/samd/. Downloaded on 6
July 2008)
van Schaik, C.P., Monk, K.A. and Robertson. J.M.Y. (2001). Dramatic decline in orang-utan numbers in
the Leuser Ecosystem, Northern Sumatra. Oryx 35:14-25.
van Schaik, C.P., Husson, S., Meijaard, E., Singleton, I. and Wich, S. (2004). The status of orang-utans
in Indonesia, 2003. Pp. 144-167 in Lacy, R., Stephens, S., Leighton, M., Taylor-Holzer, K. Rosen,
N and Byers, O. (eds). 2004. Orang-utan population and habitat viability assessment: Draft
report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Apple Valley, MN.
Schaller, G (1961) The Orang-utan in Sarawak. Zoologica 4: 73-82.
Schuster G., Smits W. and Ullal J. (2008). Thinkers of the Jungle. h.f.ullmann
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
37

An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 38
Seuanez, H., Evans, HJ, Martin, DE, and Fletcher, J. (1979) An inversion in chromosome 2 that
distinguishes between Bornean and Sumatran orang-utans. Cytogenetics and Cell
Genetics. 23: 137-140.
Shepherd, C.R. and Nijman, V. (2007). An overview of the regulation of the freshwater turtle and tortoise
pet trade in Jakarta, Indonesia / Tinjauan terhadap peraturan perdagangan kura-kura air tawar
sebagai satwa peliharaan di Jakarta, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur (46
pp).
Shepherd, C. R. and Magnus N. (2004). Nowhere to hide: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger. TRAFFIC
Southeast Asia.
Shepherd, C.R., Sukumaran, J. and Wich, S.A. (2004): Open season: An analysis of the pet trade in Medan,
Sumatra 1997 – 2001. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya.
Singleton, I., Wich, S., Husson, S., Stephens, S., Utami Atmoko, S., Leightonne, M., Rosen, N., Traylor-
Holzer, K., Lacy, R. and Byers, O. (2004). Orang-utan population and habitat viability
assessment: Final report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN.
Smits, W. (2002). Prosiding seminar perling satwa liar Indonesia and KSBK members meeting. KSBK,
Malang.
Soehartono, T. and Mardiastuti, A. (2002). Cites implementation in Indonesia. Nagao Natural
Environment Foundation, Jakarta.
Soehartono, T.R., Mangkudisastra, C., Nifinluri T, Pribadi R, and Febriani D. (2006). The Strategic Plan
of the Ministry of Forestry 2005-2009 (revised). Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia, Jakarta.
Soehartono, T., Susilo, H.D., Andayani, N., Atmoko, S.S.U., Sihite, J., Saleh, C., and Sutrisno, A. (2007).
Strategi dan rencana aksi konservasi Orang-utan Indonesia 2007-2017. Directorat Jenderal
Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam, Departemen Kuhutanan, Jakarta.
Sowards, S.K. (2006). Rhetoric of the perpetual potential: a case study of the environmentalist movement
to protect orang-utans. Environmental Communication Yearbook 3: 115-135.
Steiper, M. E. (2006). Population history, biogeography, and taxonomy of orangutans (Genus: Pongo)
based on a population genetic meta-analysis of multiple loci. Journal of Human Evolution 50:
509-522.
Walsh, P. D., Abernethy, K. A., Bermejo, M., Beyersk, R., De Wachter, P., Akou, M. E., Huijbregts, B.,
Mambounga, D. I., Toham, A. K., Kilbourn, A. M., Lahr, S. A., Latour, S., Maisels, F., Mbina, C.,
Mihindou, Y., Obiang, S.N., Effa, E. N., Starkey, M. P., Telfer, P., Thibault, M., Tutin, C. E. G.,
White, L. J. T. and Wilkie, D. S. (2003). Catastrophic ape decline in western equatorial Africa.
Nature 422: 611-614.
Warren, K.S., Verschoor, E.J., Langenhuijzen, S., Heriyanto, Swan, R.A., Vigilant, L., Heeney, J.L. (2001)
Speciation and intra-subspecific variation of Bornean orang-utans, Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus.

Molecular Biology and Evolution 18: 472–480.
Wich, S.A., Singleton, I., Utami-Atmoko, S.S., Geurts, M.L., Rijksen, H.D., van Schaik, C.P. (2003) The
status of the Sumatran Orang-utan Pongo abelii: an update. Oryx 1:49-54.
Wich, S.A., Utami-Atmoko, S.S., Setia, T. M., Rijksen, H.D., Schurmann, C. and van Schaik, C.P. (2004).
Life history of wild Sumatran Orangutans (Pongo abelii). Journal of Human Evolution 47: 385-
398.
Wich, S. A., Meijaard, E, Marshall, A J., Husson, S., Ancrenaz, M., Lacy, R.C., van Schaik, C. P.,
Sugardjito, J., Simorangkir, T., Traylor-Holzer, K., Doughty, M., Supriatna, J., Dennis, R., Gumal,
M., Knott, C. D. and Singleton, I. (2008) Distribution and conservation status of the orang-utan
(Pongo spp.) on Borneo and Sumatra: how many remain? Oryx 42: 329-339.
Whittaker, D.J. (2005). New population estimates for the endemic Kloss’s gibbon Hylobates klossii on the
Mentawai Islands, Indonesia. Oryx 39: 458-461.
Whittaker, D.J. (2006). A Conservation Action Plan for the Mentawai primates. Primate Conservation 20:
95-105.
Whitten, A.J. (1982). The gibbons of Siberut. J.M. Dent, London.
Whitten, T., Damanik, S.J., Anwar, J. and Hisyam, N. (2000). The ecology of Sumatra, 2nd ed. Periplus,
Singapore.
Xu, X.F. and Arnason, U. (1996). The mitochondrial DNA molecule of Sumatran orang-utan and a
molecular proposal for two (Bornean and Sumatran) species of orang-utan. Journal of Molecular
Evolution 43: 431–437.
Yeager, C.P. (ed.) (1999). Orang-utan action plan. PHPA, WWF and CERC, Jakarta.
Zhi, L., Karesh, W.B., Janczewski, D.N., Frazier Taylor, H., Sajuthi, D., Gombek, F., Andau, M.,
Martenson, J.S. and O’Brien S.J.. (1996) Genomic differentiation among natural populations of
orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus). Current Biology 6 (10): 1326-1336.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
39

Appendix 1 – Abstracts from Indonesian Action Plans for Orang-utans and Gibbons
Tilson, R., Seal, U. S., Soemara, K., Ramono, W., Sumardja, E., Ponirin, S., van Schaik, C. P., Leighton,
M., Rijksen, H. D. and Eudey, A. (1993). Orang-utan population and habitat viability analysis
report. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Apple Valley, MN.
In the analysis trade was not considered separate from other threats, and few details pertaining to trade were
mentioned: “Loss due to hunting and/or pet trade was not addressed at the workshop, but the fact that there
are several hundred confiscated orang-utans in Indonesia, and several hundred more living in Taiwan,
suggests that wild orang-utans have been captured for the pet trade at some time in the past. [ ] Although
past levels of removal are unknown, it is believed that it has greatly diminished in recent years.” With
reference to Sumatran Orang-utans, Tilson et al. (1993) state: “Although poaching of orang-utans is
considered limited in Sumatra, it is recommended that regular monitoring should be performed to identify
and confiscate illegal captive animals.”
*********
Yeager, C.P. (ed.) (1999). Orang-utan action plan. PHPA, WWF and CERC, Jakarta.
Results for Sumatra and Borneo were not presented separately; statements on trade specifically were
sparse and could refer either to the situation in Sumatra and / or Borneo: “Illegal hunting for food, sport,
or to obtain infants for the wild animal trade, are contribute to increased risk for adult females. Adult
females are found at higher densities than adult males, and thus are more likely targets for hunters. In
addition, adult females are typically killed if the infant is captured for trade. Loss due to hunting and / or
the pet trade may be sizeable. Recent reports [ ] indicate an increase in poaching”.
*********
Supriatna, J., Manansang, J., Tumbelaka, L., Andayani, N., Indrawan, M., Darmawan, L., Leksono, S. M.,
Djuwantoko, Seal, U. and Byers, O. (2001). Conservation Assessment and Management Plan to the
Primates of Indonesia: final report. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Apple Vally,
MN.
The CAMP report gives species overviews, listing amongst others the threats to the different species. They
list habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, fire, genetic problems, and climate chance as threats to the Sumatran
Orang-utan, only habitat loss and habitat fragmentation are perceived as threats to Agile Gibbons and
Siamangs, and only habitat loss is listed as a threat to Kloss’ and Lar Gibbons. Furthermore it is
interesting to note what is not perceived as a threat to the apes of Sumatra: the establishment of plantations
or droughts were not perceived as problems, neither is hunting or trade is listed as a threat (it is listed as a
threat for Bornean Orang-utans, three species of langur and ten species of tarsier): no reason is given why
it is not perceived as a threat for Sumatran Orang-utans. Further on in the report (p 243) it was
recommended, however, to ‘investigate and reduce Sumatran primate related trades especially for the
threatened species i.e. orang-utans and siamang’ suggesting that trade is perceived as a threat.
*********
Rosen, N., Russon, A., and Byers, O. (2001). Orang-utan reintroduction and protection workshop.
IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN.
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia 40

The workshop proceedings present a wealth of data on the pros and cons and intricacies of reintroduction
of orang-utans, including veterinary aspects. Trade is mentioned throughout the different sections; for each
orang-utan forest area the threat that trade poses to the local population was assessed on a scale from 1 to
5, with 1 indicating that it is a small problem. Of the five Sumatran populations listed, the level of threat
trade poses was indicated for one (Leuser Ecosystem) , with question marks for three others (North Aceh,
Batang Toru, Tapanuli Tengah) indicating lack of knowledge on the level of threat trade poses to these
populations. It was identified that CITES and other international treaties were not always used as
effectively as possible to combat illegal activities, although this seems to refer mostly to trade in timber
and not so much the trade in orang-utans per se.
**********
Rosen, N. and Byers, O.(2002). Orang-utan Conservation and Reintroduction Workshop: Final Report.
IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN.
It was recognised that despite international awareness campaigns, there is still a need to continue and step
up exposure of the plight of the orang-utan, focusing attention on habitat loss and eco-labelling of tropical
hardwoods. At the same time it was noted that the issue of the pet trade should not be ignored. Prosecution,
development and enforcement of protection laws were recognised as vital, as this may enlighten countries
about the problems caused by the illegal orang-utan and timber trade. Recognising that there is much
anecdotal evidence on the lack of prosecutions and judicial law enforcement in relation to illegal logging
and orang-utan confiscations, compilation of detailed factual information would support efforts to identify
problems and strengthen enforcement. It was recommended that systematic independent research (NGO
or academic) should be conducted to learn the facts and figures about the current status of the legal system.
Specifically, independent systematic research should be directed into, amongst others, the following: (a)
the number of orang-utan confiscations / arrests of illegal loggers leading to prosecutions; (b) the nature of
fines and penalties imposed by different courts in different districts in relation to confiscations / illegal
logging; (c) the extent and location of the orang-utan pet and bush meat trade (opinions differ strongly as
to the extent of such a trade).
**********
Singleton, I., Wich, S., Husson, S., Stephens, S., Utami Atmoko, S., Leighton, M., Rosen, N., Traylor-
Holzer, K., Lacy, R. and Byers, O. (2004). Orang-utan population and habitat viability assessment:
Final report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN.
Throughout the report it was stressed that habitat loss is the main threat to the species. Low levels of
hunting were included into VORTEX model as to assess the effect of hunting: “With the best natural
mortality, a removal due to hunting of 1% of the orang-utans per year does not cause population extinction
but does lead to depressed population size, while even this low level of hunting can cause declines to
extinction if natural mortality is at the levels estimated for less than optimal habitat. Higher rates of
hunting are unsustainable even under the best assumption for natural mortality. The current numbers of
orang-utans estimated to be removed annually by capture for the pet trade or killed to obtain infants as pets
is much higher than the rates that would be sustainable. Additional killings of orang-utans for food or other
purposes would further accelerate decline”. Some of the recommendations focusing on policing, law
enforcement and protection, were to increase the effectiveness of environmental lawyers to develop cases
and coordinate these (by employing an environmental law expert in each of the priority areas to ensure that
cases are carried as far as possible in the court cases) and since illegal logs and orang-utans are marketed
An assessment of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Sumatra, Indonesia
41

through a limited number of ports, it was deemed necessary to ensure that relevant government bodies carry
out patrols at these ports.
**********
Nijman, V. (2005a) In Full Swing. An assessment of trade in orang-utans and gibbons on Java and Bali,
Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, and Nijman, V. (2005b) Hanging in the balance.
An assessment of trade in orang-utans and gibbons on Kalimantan, Indonesia. TRAFFIC Southeast
Asia, Petaling Jaya.
These reports present a compilation of the extent of trade in gibbons and orang-utans in Java, Bali and
Kalimantan, based on data from 35 animal markets, 5 wildlife rescue centres, 4 rehabilitation centres and
15 zoological gardens, presenting data on 553 Hylobates gibbons, 142 Siamangs and 1706 orang-utans. It
found trade to be widespread and concluded that despite considerable efforts by the government and by
NGOs, and substantial financial investment to conservation of orang-utan and gibbons, there are no
indications that the past 15 years have seen a decrease in trade in gibbons and orang-utans. This in part
results from a serious lack of co-operation between government planning agencies and the forestry
departments with respect to the protection of wildlife. Large forest areas, with significant large
populations of orang-utans and gibbons are continuously being converted to cash-crop plantations or are
being clear-felled, leading to large numbers of gibbons and orang-utans to die or to end up in trade. Law
enforcement with respect to orang-utans and gibbons is failing at different levels. Prosecution of those that
violate wildlife conservation laws is absent, and despite hundreds of orang-utans and gibbons being
confiscated over the past decade not a single person has been prosecuted. Government authorities do not
appear to consider trade in orang-utans and gibbons to be a problem; perceived levels of trade are low and
the offence is not considered serious enough to warrant punishment.
**********
Foead, N., Elliott, W., Ziegler, S. and Nijman, V. (2005). WWF’s Species Action Plan for the conservation
of