Opt ou reintro workshop report forina arcus 2013

14‐16 APRIL 2013 BOGOR, INDONESIA

Organized by FORINA, supported by ARCUS Foundation Conveners: Sri Suci Atmoko Utami, Serge Wich, Carel van Schaik

0

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

OPTIMIZING ORANGUTAN REINTRODUCTION REPORT OF A WORKSHOP

Executive Summary The continuing wave of deforestation on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra has led to an enormous influx of orangutans into rescue centers. The aim is to release these orangutans back into forest areas. The reintroduction effort is now underway, with large numbers being released especially on the Indonesian part of Borneo (Kalimantan). One major challenge is that it is not yet clear which factors determine the success of individual reintroduction. During the ongoing reintroduction effort, various problems also surfaced that require a solution. Finally, we can anticipate problems that are bound to arise in the near future. A workshop was convened in Bogor from the 14‐16th of April 2013 to bring together all the reintroduction programs to exchange experiences and jointly design solutions to these vital issues, as well as to start a collaborative effort to determine which factors determine the success of orangutan reintroduction.

The workshop had four aims: 1. Secure a commitment from all currently active reintroduction programs to contribute the relevant information in the form of a data‐sharing agreement, so as to make possible a meta‐analysis of the pooled information to identify predictors of success; 2. Define the key outcome variables on reintroduction that each program needs to collect for its own analyses and for the meta‐analysis of success predictors; 3. Discuss key problems that each program has encountered and jointly develop solutions to these problems; and 4. Anticipate future problems by discussing what the participants saw as the most pressing problems that will face the reintroduction programs in the coming years.

The workshop has resulted in specific outputs, which can be arranged by these four aims: 1. An agreement to share data has been signed by most of the parties involved in reintroducing orangutans, and the agreement will be sent to those that were not present at the meeting. The signed original agreement will be deposited at FORINA in Bogor.

2. We collectively created a mutually agreed upon ideal list of variables, as well as a shorter list of key variables deemed to be especially likely to affect reintroduction success. Programs will make every effort to collect this information.

3. A variety of problems were discussed and solutions were proposed, as follows: a. The use of radio devices is essential for monitoring the success of reintroduction. However, there are various problems with the surgically implanted devices. One is that they are removed or damaged by orangutans.

To address his, we recommend that orangutans be temporarily housed in isolation after surgery to prevent conspecifics from removing them. Another problem is that radios stopped functioning rather soon after release. This could be linked to particular batches. Dr. Ian Singleton will compile the 1

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

information from all programs and communicate with the manufacturer to reduce the rate of malfunction. b. Some released individuals do not easily adjust to forest behavior. While each of these problems may have idiosyncratic causes, we can nonetheless recommend that release camps be made temporary, making it harder for released individuals to seek human sanctuary, and that personnel who know the animals from the center accompany the release, so they can recommend customized solutions to each individual animal. c. A general problem is when one should decide to intervene post‐release.

Unanimity was reached that visibly sick animals had to be treated, based on the precautionary principle (better safe than sorry), especially when recently released. However, it was also stressed that most animals could, and thus should, be treated on site. It was recommended to initiate routine monitoring of fecal samples for endoparasites, such as Strongyloides. d. All reasonable effort must be made to release animals in the region inhabited by their subspecies. However, if after the animal has been released it is established that provenance was estimated incorrectly, the benefit of recapture does not outweigh the costs and risks. e. All agreed that tourism and reintroduction do not mix, as also indicated by the IUCN guidelines. f. Various measures were discussed to boost staff morale at the release areas. It was agreed that continuing health checks of staff remains a high priority.

4. Likewise, the most pressing problems for the future were identified and discussed, as follows: a. Because existing reintroduction areas may turn out to be insufficient, additional areas may soon be needed. The group first listed the ecological and socio‐political features such areas must have to be eligible, and then designed a GIS‐based approach to identify such areas, which works in a hierarchical order, relaxing the criteria one by one if initially no suitable areas can be identified. b. Some animals become crop raiders or even attack people. Multiple approaches were compared. Translocation of problem animals may appear like an obvious solution, but is often ineffective, because it simply shifts the problem elsewhere. Rapid‐response teams and other communicative forms of engagement with the local human population were seen as valuable, because they could both solve the problem and serve in socialization. c. An unknown number of animals will have to remain in captive care in perpetuity. At present, only crude estimates are possible, but the total may well exceed 200 for Kalimantan (the only region where it is a serious problem). Although various alternative options are possible, the participants expressed a preference for a permanent, joint sanctuary, which could also have an educational and tourism function. Leo Biddle will lead the effort to find donors for such a sanctuary.

Finally, we drew the participants’ attention to the availability of funding for student projects on post‐reintroduction monitoring, made possible by the support of ARCUS. These should be Indonesian or Malaysian students, who will be advised by the three organizers.

2

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

General Introduction During the past few decades, the islands of Borneo and Sumatra have seen major deforestation as a result of conversion into agricultural plantations, timber plantations, and residential land, forest fires, and unsustainable exploitation of forest resources.

Accordingly, the number of wild orangutans has plummeted, and conflicts between humans and orangutans have increased sharply. Many orangutans were killed or captured. The latter were often confiscated and sent to special rescue centers.

In the Indonesian part of Borneo (Kalimantan), as of 2007 there were 1,200 orangutans in three Kalimantan‐based orangutan rehabilitation centers, namely BOSF‐Samboja in East Kalimantan and BOSF‐Nyaru Menteng (Palangka Raya) and OFI‐Pasir Panjang (Pangkalan Bun) in Central Kalimantan. Even after 2007, these numbers kept on growing, as illustrated by several new centers. Although the situation is most dire in Kalimantan, centers exist elsewhere as well. In the Malaysian part of Borneo, two centers exist: Sepilok Rehabilitation Center near Sandakan in Sabah and Semenggoh Nature Reserve in Sarawak. On Sumatra, there is a quarantine center in Batu Mbelin, Sibolangit, Sumatera Utara. However, only a few individuals are brought to these centers every year.

The large number of orangutans that reside in rehabilitation centers is a strong indication that poaching, trafficking, land conversions, and illegal ownership of orangutans still present grave threats to the orangutan’s survival in the wild. One of the steps that may be taken to mitigate potential conflicts is to relocate orangutans to new areas within the historical range and with suitable habitat: reintroduction. Such reintroduction demands great investment for the rescue activities, rehabilitation processes, search for suitable locations, and finally the transportation of orangutans to the new location.

Reintroduction is not only good conservation practice, it is also mandated by the Government of Indonesia and Malaysia. It is one of the targets of the Indonesian Orangutan Conservation Strategy and Action Plan that by 2015 there would no longer be any need for orangutan rehabilitation centers, whether in Sumatra or in Kalimantan. The aim of reintroduction is to establish several self‐sustaining wild orangutan populations in areas where the species had previously survived but have been significantly reduced to non‐viable or extirpated populations. In Malaysia, the major emphasis is given to protect wild orangutan populations and their forest habitat.

Several releases and translocations have been implemented in the past, but their results have not been adequately monitored, analyzed and evaluated. As a result, we are still facing many issues that complicate orangutan rehabilitation and reintroduction program. Thus, point 7 of the Orangutan State Action Plan 2012‐2016 states as a priority: “developing a strategy for the rescue, the rehabilitation, and the release of Orangutan, the implementation of proper post‐release monitoring”.

One of these unresolved issues is the lack of legal technical guidelines standardization for orangutan translocation, rehabilitation, reintroduction and post‐ release monitoring. Through the National Meeting in 2011 (Monitoring and Evaluation of Orangutan Indonesia Conservation Strategies and Action Plan 2007­2017), we recommended to the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry, that they revise the Ministerial Decree No. 280 of 1995 on the Guideline of Orangutan Rehabilitation (Pongo pygmaeus) to become Ministerial Regulation on Orangutan Translocation, Rehabilitation and Reintroduction, and we consistently supported and helped the institution in the process of the revision.

3

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

However, the revision process has not yet been completed. We must collectively provide the major inputs to the improvement of these practical guidelines.

To achieve this important goal, we need to thoroughly evaluate the current releases. Each currently active reintroduction programs wants to maximize their success (long‐term survival and reproduction). Achieving this goal requires that we are able to explain why some individual fail and others succeed, and thus what properties of animals and what kinds of preparation measures maximizes their chances of success.

Obviously, each program will try to do this. However, because each program’s sample size is limited and so many variables are involved, we can reach much firmer conclusions when the data from all programs can be pooled and analyzed together. By joining forces, we can provide the best possible input to the new guidelines and ensure that released orangutans have the best chance to thrive post‐release.

Workshop agenda The need for new guidelines and procedures for reintroduction based on a thorough evaluation of the determinants of success for the currently ongoing reintroduction efforts led FORINA to suggest that we convene a workshop to address these issues. The workshop was realized by the generous support of the ARCUS foundation.

Its first goal was to secure a commitment from all currently active reintroduction programs to contribute the relevant information, in the form of a data‐ sharing agreement so as to make possible a meta‐analysis of the pooled information.

Section 1 below contains the text of this agreement.

The second goal was to define the key outcome variables on reintroduction that each program needs to collect for its own analyses and for the meta‐analysis. Here, we need a compromise between precision and feasibility: how to get the most out of our often imperfect information we have on the animals and on their treatment before release. Section 2 contains the extensive (ideal) list, and an indication of the essential variables needed for each individual to allow us to analyze the factors contributing to successful reintroduction.

A third goal was to discuss key problems that each program has encountered and jointly develop solutions to these problems. Section 3 contains the report on this discussion, which serves as valuable input for the development of new practical guidelines.

A fourth goal was to anticipate future problems by discussing what the participants saw as the most pressing problems that will face the reintroduction programs in the coming years: (1) identifying additional suitable areas for the release of more individuals; (2) developing strategies to deal with human‐orangutan conflicts in and around the reintroduction areas; and (3) developing a strategy to deal with the unreleasable individuals, which will need care until they die. Section 4 contains three reports.

4

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

1. Text of the data­sharing agreement:

Data­sharing Agreement Assessment of Success of Orangutan Reintroduction

We, the undersigned, recognize that we have insufficient information on the success of orangutan reintroductions to develop guidelines to maximize their success.

We also recognize that we owe it to the orangutans, to the people and governments of Indonesia and the States of Sarawak and Sabah, and to the donor community, that we develop these guidelines (for Indonesia, this need is expressed in the Conservation Strategies and Action Plan for the Indonesian Orangutan, Ministry of Forestry, 2007).

Finally, we recognize that optimizing reintroduction requires an analysis of the pooled information on the outcomes of the various independent reintroduction efforts and some streamlining of the data collection procedures of the individual projects, to the benefit of the orangutans and all the projects involved.

We therefore pledge to share a mutually agreed set of variables (the “minimum set”, as detailed in the workshop report), on all the reintroduced individuals to be used in this meta‐analysis, which includes data on the histories and pre‐release preparation of the individuals, as well as selected information collected during the post‐release monitoring.

We make this commitment under the following conditions: • Data will be made anonymous and will be treated as confidential; • If project representatives or independent researchers join the analysis, they must pledge to honor the confidentiality requirement; • No results will be shared with outsiders unless expressly approved by the participating projects; • Before publication, analyses and reports will be circulated among each participating project for their approval; • At least one representative of each project, as well as others who provide substantial input on the analysis or writing, will be represented as co‐authors on the resulting papers or reports.

Bogor, April 15, 2013.

The undersigned: Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation (Dr. Jamartin Sihite) Centre for Orangutan Protection (Hardi Baktiantoro) Frankfurt Zoological Society (Dr. Peter Pratje) OF‐UK (Ashley Leiman & Tigor Nainggolan) Orangutan Foundation International (Prof. Dr. Birute M. F. Galdikas) Sarawak Forestry Corporation (M.D./C.E.O.) 5

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

Sabah Wildlife Department (Datuk Dr. Laurentius Ambu) Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Program/ PanEco (Dr. Ian Singleton) Tabin Orangutan Project (James Robins) Vier Pfoten International (Dr. Signe Preuschoft) Yayasan IAR Indonesia (YIARI) (Karmele Llano Sanchez, DVM)

The data‐analysis consortium also pledges to treat all the data received with confidentiality and to follow the relevant conditions of this agreement, to conduct the analyses and prepare it for publication as soon as possible:

Prof. Dr. Serge Wich (Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK) Dr. S. Suci Utami Atmoko (Universitas Nasional, Jakarta, Indonesia) Prof. Dr. Carel P. van Schaik (University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland)

6

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

2. Key Variables for Meta­Analysis The meta‐analysis will use various indicators of success (Y) and relate them to variables measured before release (X1) and variables measured post‐release (X2). The outcome of this analysis should reveal which variables predict reintroduction success, and as a result, which measures should be taken to optimize the reintroduction procedures.

This is an ideal list, for all future releases. Where present, all information is welcome and will help in improving the analyses.

The starred (*) items are the minimum information expected for each individual. At present we cannot prioritize the data that need to be collected because one aim of the analyses is to determine which variables are important for reintroduction success and then use those results as a guideline for a minimum set of data to be collected in the future.

X1: Pre­Release Variables: Forest habitat of origin (dryland/peat swamp/both)* Age at capture from forest (in years, estimated if necessary) Direct wild capture (Y/N)* Sex (male/female)* Age at arrival at center (years)* Arrival with mother (Y/N) Attitude to humans1 (tame, wild (different aggressive behavior than abused ones), abused (scars, specific fears, indication of trauma)* Body weight (kg) on arrival* Body condition on arrival (emaciated, normal, fat) Health on arrival (healthy, intermediate, very poor condition/ seriously ill)* Physical injury on arrival (Y,N)* Duration in medical quarantine (date in, date out) Duration in center (date [first] arrival, date [first] transfer to reintroduction site)* Duration in forest school (date in, date out)* Forest school inside release area (Y/N)* Age at release (years)* Born in center (Y,N), and if Y: mother‐reared or not* Duration in cage alone (date in, date out; or Y,N) Duration in socialization cage (date in, date out; or Y,N) Number of visits to clinic while at center Basic competence right before release2 (nest building competence [makes own nest, sleeps in it, not on ground]; staying off the ground >90% of time; basic foraging competence: eating the major available food classes; social competence: Y, N [bonded, dominance‐competent]; response to humans: avoid people, ksq/display at people, attack people, engage with people, or ignore people)* Exposure to tourists (Y,N; if Y: avoid, ksq/display at, attack , engage with, or ignore tourists) Physical handicap at time of release (provide details)*.

1

To estimate duration in captivity, if pertinent information is lacking All data scored as Y/N. If forest school at release site, then data from first release into reintroduction area; if not, then data from time of transfer to release site.

2

7

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

X2: Post­Release3 Variables: Activity Budgets4* Diet5* Dietary diversity (N food items6 in diet per 6 months)* Height (especially time on ground)* Nest building rate (N of newly built nests per day) Sleeping height (m, and % on ground) Daily path length (m) (30‐min location track‐log)* Association time (% time) & mean party size Response to human observers (as above)* Appropriate response to predators (Y, N) Sudden shift in home range in a given year (Y, N) Long call rate Presence of remarkable innovations (Y, N; specify) Presence of abnormal behaviors (Y, N; need list of behaviors that qualify7)* Mother‐infant data (mothering competence [Y, N], and infant development) Co‐feeding and food tolerance rates (CHECK) Health and stress indicators (ad libitum, use list above)8 *

X3: Site­level background information: Presence of wild orangutans in area Y, N)* Release strategy (big clusters/ dispersed)* Habitat Type* Island* (Phenology)

Y: Measures of success 1. Feeding parameters (a) within range of wild orangutans, or (b) stabilized during at least 6 months, if outside this range.

2. At 6‐month intervals, record whether individual survived/ died/ was removed / or fate was unknown.

3. At 6‐month intervals, presence of absence of attempts to make contact with humans (unless sick).

4. At 6‐month intervals, initiating contact with humans or human structures.

5. Reproduction, in case of female (pregnancy, birth, infant survival).

6. If death, context (accident, starvation, predation, fighting, killed by humans, disease, snake bite, poisoned, unknown).

3

Definition of release (where forest school is at release site): % of feeding time on provisioned food below 5% threshold of total feeding time in release site, or if away from provisioning for at least 2 weeks 4 Post‐release data collection, using inclusion criteria of Harrisson et al. (2009) 5 As specified in the protocol published at the orangutan network (www.aim.uzh.ch/Research/orangutannetwork.html) 6 food item= plant part or organ for a given species, or animal prey type 7 see paper by Kalcher et al. 2012 8 Ideally hairs are collected at time of arrival at center, on release, and on post release whenever possible (best from orangutan back)

8

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

3. Key problems encountered by the ongoing reintroduction programs and proposed solutions

3.1 Problems associated with radio transmitters. (a.k.a. subcutaneous tracking devices, a.k.a. chips, a.k.a. implants) The opinion of all members of the working group whom had had experience of using radio telemetry implants to monitor and locate released orangutan was that the technology is of immense benefit to reintroduction work and that any problems associated with the technology did not foreshadow the benefits of its successful application. Further, those representatives of centers not yet employing radio telemetry all had plans in various stages of implementation to do so.

Specific problems (beyond inherent constraints imposed by the limitations of current technology such as range, equipment size etc.) associated with the telemetry systems were few based on the experience of the group and were separated into two categories.

1: Implanted devices being removed or damaged; generally by either the recipient orangutan or by conspecifics. ¾ Some sites reported individual orangutan, either accidentally or by design, subjecting the transmitter location to heavy blows on cage walls or trees. ¾ One instance of another orangutan biting the transmitter site of an implanted orangutan was recorded (destroying the transmitter and causing injury to the host orangutan). It cannot be ruled out that the aggressor in this altercation may have been deliberately targeting the transmitter in the host; it was noted by all sites that the device remains visible after surgical implantation. ¾ Implanted orangutan themselves also have the potential for interfering with and perhaps damaging the device both immediately after surgical implantation or indeed at any point thereafter since the implant remains tactilely detectable at its current size. However most centers reported low levels of interference in host/conspecific orangutan and, perhaps surprisingly, a high tolerance in orangutan for the current devices. ¾ It was noted that the ceramic casing of the implant is susceptible to stress fractures during handling, particularly by metal forceps during insertion. Care should be taken during all handling and transportation of implants. ¾ An acute physical reaction to a leaking battery in a damaged transmitter was recorded in one orangutan; luckily the attending veterinarian was part of the working group and expressed his opinion that, whilst obviously not ideal, damaged implants were unlikely to pose a significant health risk to recipient orangutan.

Proposed solution(s)

Little can be done to prevent or mitigate mechanical damage to transmitters after implantation into host orangutan, although thorough scrutiny can be given to each device immediately before implantation and particular care given when handling prior to surgery. ¾ It was recommended that orangutan be housed in isolation immediately following surgery to prevent conspecifics interfering with the surgical site.

9

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

¾ It was recommended that any obviously broken or seriously defective implants should be surgically reclaimed wherever possible to prevent health complications in host orangutan and also to send back to the manufacturer to determine the cause of each failure.

2: Implanted devices after a period of working normally abruptly cease to function at all. ¾ Two sites in particular reported a significant failure rate in devices a few weeks/months after implantation. After varying, but relatively short, periods of normal function in the host several devices abruptly went dark and in all cases have ceased to retransmit. ¾ Interestingly the site with the largest number of implanted orangutan has only reported one case of sudden and total failure. However the available sample size of implanted orangutan is currently very small; given that one site had a failure rate of as high as 3 in 5 in one batch of implants and that a second site had multiple failures in one batch of released orangutan but not in previous releases led the group to conclude that there may be grounds for suspecting a faulty batch of manufactured implants.

Proposed solution(s)

As orangutan subcutaneous tracking devices represents a fairly niche market with only one supplier/manufacturer it was unanimously agreed that all centers should share their information relating to failures in devices and do their utmost to identify if a current or future manufacturing batch of implants are defective in any way to prevent other potentially faulty devices from the same manufacturing run being implanted. ¾ An urgent need to tabulate all data relating to failed devices from all centers was identified, including when each failed device was purchased and its own unique frequency signature, in order to provide this information to the manufacturer as well as to potentially identify other suspect implants. ¾ Based on the above and if it appears or proves to be true that one or more batches of devices have a significantly higher rate of failure than others, then implants from identified batches should not be implanted into future orangutan at this time. ¾ Faulty/failed devices should be reclaimed wherever, and as soon as possible. ¾ Dr Ian Singleton agreed to become the focal person for receiving each center’s data and to act as the point of contact and coordinator between each site and the manufacturer. ¾ Dr. Ian Singleton is taking the lead in compiling the data from the various sites on the implants that are functioning and not functioning and will provide that information to the manufacturer. The manufacturer has already expressed interest in receiving the feedback and work with the people at the various sites to resolve this issue.

3.2 Behavioral problems with orangutan post release

A great deal of the working group’s discussions revolved around behavioral problems. Although all centers reported many instances of problematic behavior, the group struggled to definitively categorize behavioral problems, other than in the broadest sense, much less identify either broad spectrum or targeted solutions in order 10

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

to address them. Nonetheless, all present shared similar experiences with ex‐captives, but were unable to characterize central or unifying themes explaining behaviors.

One easy consensus that was reached is that the behavior of ex‐captive orangutan certainly can be problematic! ¾ One general meme that kept resurfacing is that aberrant or problematic orangutan behavior is a manifestation of many composites, not least life history and each animal’s individual personality. As such ‘one size fits all’ solutions would be near impossible to prescribe, given that similar behaviors may be caused in different individuals by different factors. For example attacks by orangutans on humans may be motivated by hunger, dislike of humans, affinity towards humans, a desire to receive medication and so on. ¾ It was generally felt that a greater understanding of an individual’s life history before its surrender to, or rescue by, each rehabilitation centre would provide the strongest predictive tool as to possible behavioral complications post release.

Though many difficulties were acknowledged in reliably sourcing this pre‐ confiscation information, any gains in the area would likely provide key indicators for suitability assessments or the needs of individuals post release. ¾ Although already generally uniform practice across all centers, a prolonged period of ‘forest school’ acclimatization/training was regarded as a necessity to reduce and/or predict post release behavioral problems.

Proposed solution(s) ¾ Make release camp temporary: When adequate time had been given for monitoring, forest adjustment or provisioning it would then be possible to collapse the release camp and then move it to a more remote location inaccessible to orangutans. This is obviously a site‐specific solution as not all centers are able to or would want to dismantle their release sites. ¾ Know the animals individually: It was unanimously felt that at least some of the personnel working at each release site should know each individual orangutan well and have worked with them for some time in order to be able to adequately predict, interpret and if possible solve any behavioral complications that may arise. Though in theory having familiar personnel around ex‐captive orangutan may increase some orangutan’s proclivity for initiating contact or remaining dependent, it was agreed that the benefits of having human individuals that could work with and recognize an orangutan’s behavior far outweighed any associated negatives. ¾ Treat each case independently: It was concluded that though orangutan present with both diverse and specific behavioral problems seemingly analogous to similar behaviors that manifest in other individuals, the causal factors underlying each behavior are extremely varied and specific to each individual. As such the recommendation of the group was that behavioral difficulties post release be treated on a case‐by‐case basis; by staff familiar with each animal.

11

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

3.3 When to intervene? (In the case of potentially sick individuals or those struggling to adjust to forest living) The group quickly reached unanimous agreement pertaining to the need for immediate intervention in instances where an orangutan is suspected of sickness. All group members attested to the fact that orangutan are slow to show signs of illness and felt that if staff familiar with orangutan were citing sickness as a concern then in the majority of cases it was likely that the orangutan was already unwell and potentially much more so than might be initially supposed. It was acknowledged that in some cases psychologically dependent orangutan might exploit human hyper‐vigilance, but it was agreed that the risk of mortality takes precedence and experienced staff (as above) could most likely distinguish a pattern of exploitative behavior.

Recommendations: ¾ The precautionary principle to be followed regarding intervention over suspected health issues. It was felt that the degree to which this principle was to be applied was inversely proportional to the time each orangutan had spent post‐release.

For example, a 5‐year veteran at a release site should not raise the same level of concern if it appears to be losing weight as a 5‐week rookie would. ¾ Intervention should not necessitate bringing the orangutan back into a clinic/captivity. Most centers’ release sites have a clinician on site or within 24hrs access and it was felt that most interventions could be conducted in the field, such as food supplementation, parasite assessment and treatment.

Indeed it was felt that bringing orangutan back in could prove counter‐ productive as some individuals may prefer the stability and ease of ‘clinic life’. ¾ We recommend fecal monitoring and to a lesser degree urinalysis (already taking place at most release sites). Many parasites can be detected by a simple microscope in field settings – Strongyloides was noted by some as a persistent offender and parasite of particular concern especially for animals newly introduced to forest living or as a secondary complication with otherwise compromised animals. Early intervention following a parasite bloom was recommended in the earlier stages of release.

3.4 Should orangutan provenance be considered a serious problem?

It was not generally felt by most group members that the geographic origin or subspecies of otherwise releasable orangutan should overly preclude them being released into available sites, although some centers have gone to much greater lengths to determine provenance. It was agreed that where provenance is known and there are options for multiple release sites better suited to origins of each orangutan, then it was reasonable to group different animals as distinctly as permitted. None of the working group advocated mixing at the species level.

Recommendations: ¾ It was agreed that the degree to which provenance should affect release was best determined by geneticists and that reintroduction centers would follow their guidelines. ¾ It was noted that significant logistical, bureaucratic and political obstacles to translocation of individuals between provincial or even national boundaries would remain even if precise provenance were determined.

12

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

3.5 Tourism and reintroduction

Quick agreement was made among all participants that tourism practices are not just problematic but generally counter‐productive to reintroduction efforts. IUCN guidelines already exist which clearly recommend not to conduct tourism activities in reintroduction sites. Tourism of course still happens at multiple sites, being government policy in the three Malaysian centers. However, the group felt it would be inappropriate to water down the already adequate and existing recommendation to cease all tourism at reintroduction sites.

Proposed solution(s) ¾ Follow IUCN guidelines to discontinue tourism alongside reintroduction efforts.

3.6 Staff issues (motivation and health)

Most centers shared similar experiences of difficulty in recruiting and retaining suitable staff. This is largely a consequence of working in very remote areas away from each nation’s concentration of educated workforce, coupled with the intention of most centers to offer employment within local communities contiguous to their centers and release sites. That affected and local communities have every right to receive preferential employment was accepted a priori along with the recognition of the logistical and financial necessities of local recruitment and the undisputed view that local communities are important stakeholders in any reintroduction endeavor.

The problems of motivation and employee health are obviously not restricted solely to staff recruited from the immediate locality. Still, most discussion focused on this employee group as opposed to foreign nationals or Indonesian employees from outside the islands of Borneo and Sumatra. It was noted that the presence of ‘imported’ staff can be a source of both motivation and demotivation for locally recruited employees as well as candidates for different routes of anthropozoonosis exacerbated by increased travel.

The group could prescribe no panacea for creating a healthy and motivated workforce; but some observations were made. ¾ Staff exchanges with other reintroduction centers or other international animal facilities have been seen by those centers conducting them to boost staff morale and increase development. ¾ Rotation of staff through different roles within each organization was thought to also offer motivational and educational outcomes. ¾ It was felt the presence of the correct students or foreign workers on assignment could also boost morale. ¾ All centers reported that whilst high controls and protocols are generally in effect for the center’s own staff, there are often uncontrollable variables when representatives of governmental authorities visit reintroduction centers or take part in confiscations. A possible, but perhaps unworkable solution would be to train and health‐screen dedicated staff from partnering authorities to specialize as liaisons. ¾ Film crews or donor visits should be subject to the same health scrutiny as domestic staff. ¾ BOS offered to share their staff health SOP with other interested centers. ¾ Health screening of staff (current practice) should be continued.

13

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

4. Anticipating future problems before they arise

4.1. Identifying additional areas for reintroduction

It is not clear whether the current reintroduction areas will be big enough to hold all the released animals, depending on the experience with current releases. However, it is likely that the areas will reach carrying capacity, and new areas are needed to receive the new wave of animals.

1. What makes for a suitable release area?

1) Sufficient orangutan food availability (needs comparative approach) ‐ number of orangutan food species ‐ % of those that are mast/non‐mast species ‐ % of dipterocarps 2) Low elevation (<1000m on Sumatra, <750m on Borneo) 3) Bottom of area (not on hill or mountain) 4) Sufficient size (ideally large: no final consensus on minimum size, needs more work) and shape (edge effects, etc) 5) Ideally be a mosaic of habitats 6) Topography varying (if not peat swamp area) in the same habitat 7) Forest (FAO cut‐off (30% canopy cover): primary or degraded (level of degradedness needs to be checked in literature (Ancrenaz, etc)(time after degradation) 8) Presence of natural barriers (rivers, ridges, grasslands (only Borneo) surrounding the area that reduce chance of human‐orangutan‐conflict 9) Few or no natural or man‐made barriers within area

Other essential conditions which are relevant 10) No (primate) hunting 11) Effective habitat protection 12) Inside the pre‐historic range, but still within the ecological niche 13) Follows SK 280 (for Indonesia)

2. Have previous estimates of habitat suitability been validated?

Habitat suitability was estimated during the pre‐release surveys. Do these estimates hold up against observed habitat quality based on orangutan diets and phenology? In many cases, the answer is yes, but the problem remains the translation of these findings into an estimate of carrying capacity.

3. Where do we need new areas? ‐ Only in Kalimantan

4. How do we find these areas?

1st step: GIS exercise: specify the ideal features of reintroduction areas, and relax them one by one if by these ideal criteria no suitable area can be identified.

GIS layers: ‐ orangutan distribution ‐ orangutan density ‐ forest cover (2010) ‐ land use (compatible: non‐converted forest in concessions and protected areas) 14

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

‐ Social perceptions of forest and ecosystem services (Meijaard et al. xxxxx) ‐ ideal size of forest block for an MVP (>250km2) (size constraints can be relaxed) ‐ no villages inside forest block ‐ no public roads through forest blocks ‐ elevation <250m good, 250‐750m acceptable, >750m no (parts of the block can be above 750, but not all of it) for Borneo ‐ no hunting (based on hunting maps)

2nd Once the GIS exercise has been completed, one can initiate discussions with stakeholders and if they have a positive outcome, detailed field surveys can be conducted.

Some remaining questions/issues/remarks ¾ When is a wild population small enough for any reintroductions or are there other reasons to add to a wild population? Density <0.1/km2 (but if habitat is not suitable or there are threats than reintroduction is not recommended) ¾ Generally, organizations and governments attempt to follow the IUCN guidelines, but this can be difficult. Should a list be made as input to a potential revision of the guidelines? ¾ Locations might benefit from reintroductions in other ways.

4.2 Dealing with human­orangutan conflict 1. Release orangutans in very remote locations: Ideal: Reintroduced populations are isolated from human habitation by natural barrier.

Experience from the field: a. Ex‐Rehab orangutans in Beratus could move to human activity area 30‐40 km away. Semi‐wild in Betikap moved 20 km from villages. b. Buffer areas are the most desirable location, because they contain human gardens and thus domesticated fruits. c. Orangutans basically try to get a better area, but they bump it to the village or people garden or release location related to food d. Orangutans tend to return to first release location e. Often, they will keep coming back because there is not enough suitable habitat

2. When do we see human­orangutan conflict?

1. Ex‐rehab orangutans from the release area enter human neighborhoods.

2. Wild orangutans enter development area. Î Translocations should be seen as a solution of last resort, because of the difficulty of finding a suitable reintroduction area. In most cases, translocation would not end the problem, but only move it.

Experience from the field: a. OF‐UK built up the Human‐Orangutan patrol unit working with villagers and companies to mitigate the conflict. FZS, SOS‐OIC and FFI (for wild orangutans) also established an orangutan community patrol system. b. Conflict increased in release site.

15

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

c. Males move away when they get to be adolescent (ca 12 years old), and it is difficult to predict whether they seek out human habitat, depending partly on personality and perhaps on lack of familiarity with their new forest home.

3. Conflict Mitigation • Any program releasing orangutans must allocate sufficient resources to handling the future potential conflict as well as educational activities • Identify beforehand, how much crop damage villagers will accept. Adjust education and awareness strategies to this, and continue socialization after release. Should FPIC rules be applied to new release sites?

• Conduct awareness/education program continuously o Why are orangutans always considered the problem, not the victim?

Perception can be changed through an education program o Jambi: villagers knew that there was no wild orangutan population in Jambi, so the problem‐orangutan belongs to the NGO, for that they do socialization and educated the villager.

• At the national level, a compensation mechanism exists (permenhut no.48), but only people are injured or kill. However, in Jambi, claimants must prove that the damage of their fruit garden was caused by orangutans, e.g. by showing orangutan nest, teeth marks on the fruit from the garden or feces.

• Ex‐Rehabs have come to know and prefer human fruit or food. Fruits provided at rehabilitation centers should therefore be chosen carefully (e.g. carrots). Minimize exposure to anything human Æ engage forest food in Forest School.

• Early warning system (transmitter) that can be used by the patrol unit, choose the effective system.

4. Working with Private Sector to minimize conflict a. Companies are reluctant because they don’t know about orangutans (better check out), lack awareness, lack knowledge, do not know who should be contacted b. Some of company workers just kill orangutans, because they are afraid and think orangutans will attack them. c. Make an agreement with the company (MoU) not to plant plants attractive to orangutans in the buffer zone d. Apply BMP (best management practices) for the company/corporation

Solutions: • Education Material: There is currently a lack of information on how to respond to orangutans. A simple list of dos and don’ts is needed, and should be distributed to villages and companies.

• Patrols and report handling: Hotline service: plantations can call the hotline as soon as a problem arises. Reporting: the close of village site can use HT, remote area could use HP; they should know the contact person in the center. To prevent frivolous claims, only village heads should be allowed to file reports.

• Community patrolling should become a routine reporting system • Centers should build up good relationships with villages

5. Conflict prevention 16

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

Make orangutans fear people through conditioning (Langkat experiences) • Noise (kentungan, canon/karbit), but need to follow the movement and guide back orangutans to their habitat • Using nets (wrap the target tree) or create a visual barrier between food and orangutans • Bukit Lawang villagers: burn tires (orangutans afraid of the major smoke). However, this is an unacceptable practice • Corridor as barrier, planted with tree that orangutans don’t like it or cover it with nets (double).

Make orangutans fear returning to the release camp • Trained staff to ensure there is no garbage, no food can be seen, clean camp, no feeding place nearby • Limit exposure to camps: Move animals away from camp, or the camp away from the animals

4.3 Developing a strategy for the unreleasables.

Orangutan rehabilitation centers have a dual task: to save ex‐captive or displaced orangutans and make them healthy and competent enough for release into the wild in reintroduction areas. Thus, they have a combined welfare and conservation function.

The current centers now house unreleasables: (1) animals that have TBC and cannot ever be released; (2) animals that cannot be released for apparent health reasons, physical disabilities or behavioral problems; and (3) animals that came back permanently from the reintroduction sites because they were unable to cope with life in the wild and were certainly going to die if not removed.

For Samboja and Nyaru Menteng, categories 1+2 together are approximately 60‐ 80 individuals, and we can assume that for Pasir Panjang this number is comparable.

The other projects have much smaller numbers and thus also probably <10 of these unreleasables. What is fundamentally unknown at this stage, however, is the number of category‐3 animals: those that come back from the reintroduction site.

As a result, there will in a few years be numerous unreasables, at least 200 but maybe as many as 500 (if about a quarter to a third of the reintroduced animals turn out to be unreleasable). This is a pure welfare issue. For these animals, a long‐term solution must be sought.

One might think that these individuals can be easily accommodated in the current centers because they will have much space available due to the departures to the reintroduction sites. However, this is not the case. At the moment, these centers do not accept newcomers because they are full to well over capacity. But their primary function is rehabilitation (a process that ends in release, not in captive care in perpetuity), commensurate with their function of welfare‐cum‐conservation. Thus, the centers will give priority to the newly entering animals that are captured in conversion areas or are ex‐captives.

There are 3 basic options: (i) a sanctuary, (ii) euthanasia, and (iii) transfer to Indonesian and foreign zoos. Option ii is one of last resort. Option iii is politically extremely sensitive (for each individual, there will have to be an Ijin Presiden). Option i is the most realistic one for the majority of animals.

17

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

Centers can plan for one or more sanctuaries in their own region (the animals will not reproduce [because they are sterilized], and many will be TB‐positive, requiring isolation from others and form the public).

Now that this need is identified, it may be possible to find a donor to plan for such permanent sanctuaries (the centers were always meant to be temporary). An attractive opportunity may be here to combine the welfare function with an educational‐ tourism function. This could bring in revenue and serve to educate the public about conservation issues.

One suggestion is to invite Zoo Associations (e.g. WAZA) to support a sanctuary in Indonesia. Leo Biddle is willing to take the lead on this.

18

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

WORKSHOP AGENDA

Day/Date

Agenda

Day 0, Saturday 13 April 2013 12.00

Check in

18.00–21.00

Dinner

Day 1, Sunday 14 April 2013 08.00–08.30

Registration

08.30–10.00

Welcome Address and Opening Session:

‐ Herry Djoko Susilo‐FORINA ‐ Adam Phillippson‐ARCUS ‐ Carel van Schaik‐Zurich University 10.00–11.00

PASA Perspective on Reintroduction‐David Lucas

11.00‐15.00

‐ Presentation and discussion of Reintroduction Centers:

SOCP/YEL (Ian Singleton), FZS (Julius Siregar), IAR‐Indonesia (Karmele Sanchez), OF‐UK (Tigor Nainggolan) BOSF Nyaru Menteng (Simon Husson) BOSF Samboja (Aschta Tadjudin), COP (Imam Arifin), SPC‐Sarawak (Sundai Silang) Orangutan Project‐Sarawak (Leo Biddle) Sepilok Rehabilitation Center ‐ Sabah (Nigel Hicks) Tabin Orangutan Project – Sabah (James Robins) ‐ Pre and post‐release (pre‐results): Fitriah Basalamah 15.00‐16.00

‐ Text of data sharing agreement

16.00–19.00

FGD I (break to 2 groups):

‐ G1: key variables and database (Carel van Schaik & Serge Wich) ‐ G2: key problems encountered and solutions (Suci Utami Atmoko) Day 2, 15 April 2013 08.00–08.30

Registration

08.30–13.00

Working group presentation and summarizing the results

‐ Leo Biddle and Serge Wich 13.00‐14.00

Lunch

14.00‐15.00

‐ Promoting Drone as monitoring tool (Serge Wich) ‐ Update orangutan distribution (Suci Utami Atmoko) ‐ Orangutan genetic (Carel van Schaik)

19

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

15.00–18.00

FGD II (break to 3 groups):

‐ G1: ecological features of release sites and future protection of release areas (Serge Wich) ‐ G2: procedures of dealing with human‐orangutan‐conflict (Pahrian Siregar) ‐ G3: unreleasable orangutans (Carel van Schaik) Day 3, 16 April 2013 08.00–08.30

Registration

08.30–11.00

Working group presentation and summarizing the results

‐ Serge Wich, Pahrian Siregar & Carel van Schaik 11.00–12.00

Wrap up and closing (check out)

20

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

No. Name

Institution

Email

Phone

1.

Adam Phillipson

Arcus Foundation

adphill100@yahoo.com aphillipson@arcusfoundation.org

2.

Herry Djoko Susilo

FORINA

herrysusilo08@gmail.com

0821 2363 5505

3.

Carel van Schaik

vschaik@aim.uzh.ch

(+41) 44 635 5410

4.

Serge A Wich

s.a.wich@lymu.ac.uk

5.

6.

Agung Nugroho Sundai Silang

agnugroho@gmail.com sundai@sarawakforestry.com

0812 7876 148

7.

Leo Biddle

8.

David Lucas

9.

James Robins

10.

Nigel Hicks

11.

Sarah Fell

12.

13.

Ian Singleton Matt Nowak

14.

Mukhlisin

15.

Julius P. Siregar Karmele Llano Sanchez

19.

20.

G.A. Campbell ‐ Smith Ashley Leiman Tigor P Nainggolan

University of Zurich Liverpool University KKH‐PHKA SPC‐Sarawak Orangutan Project‐Sarawak PASA Tabin Orangutan Project‐Sabah Sepilok Rehab Center‐Sabah Orangutan Appeal UK Paneco ‐ SOCP SOCP‐YEL SOCP‐YEL – Jantho Project FZS‐SOCP Yayasan IAR Indonesia Yayasan IAR International Yayasan IAR Indonesia OF‐UK OF‐UK‐Lamandau

21.

Jamartin Sihite

BOSF

22.

J.H. Sunderland‐ Groves

BOSF

23.

Simon Husson

24.

Adhy M Tampubolon

25.

Aschta Tajudin

26.

Putri Wulansari

27.

Anne Russon

28.

Agnes Ferisa

29.

Hardi Baktiantoro

COP

30.

32.

Imam Arifin Signe Preuschoft

Citrakasih Nente

33.

Albertus Tjiu

34.

35.

36.

Tito Indrawan Andjar Rafiastanto Erik Meijaard

COP Vierpfoten

Vierpfoten WWF‐Kalimantan Barat Yayasan Palung FFI‐Indonesia PNCI

16.

17.

18.

31.

Adi Irawan

21

BOSF ‐ Nyaru Menteng BOSF ‐ Nyaru Menteng BOSF‐ Samboja Lestari PT. RHOI Proyek Orangutan TN.Kutai Proyek Orangutan TN. Kutai

biddleleo@gmail.com

dclvisions@hotmail.com

(+61) 407 562 129

stleonards4@hotmail.co.uk

nigret@aol.com

sarafell1@aol.com

mokko123@gmail.com nowak.mg@gamil.com

0811 650 491 0821 6794 2182

mukhlis_22@yahoo.co.id

0813 6024 1309

julius.siregar31@gmail.com

0813 8065 6556

karmele@internationalanimalrescue.com

0813 1888 7263

adi@internationalanimalrescue.org

0813 9203 0337

primatelass@gmail.com

ashley@orangutan.org.uk tigor1999@yahoo.com jsihite@gmail.com jhs_sihite@yahoo.com

0813 5277 3232

jsunderlandgroves@orangutan.or.id

0813 8640 2275

sjhusson@gmail.com

0812 5845 2030

amaruly@yahoo.co.id

0821 5790 0628

aschta.tajudin@gmail.com

0856 9113 4782

putri_komodo@yahoo.co.id

0821 1934 4929

arusson@gmail.com

0813 5783 5050

aferisa@gmail.com

0813 5011 4969

orangutanborneo@mac.com info@orangutanprotection.com

0812 1154 911

imam@cop.or.id signe.preuschoft@vier‐pfoten.org signe.preuschoft@gmail.com citrakasih@gmail.com

albertus_1972@yahoo.com

0812 5624019

tito_indrawan@yahoo.com andjar.rafiastanto@gmail.com emeijaard@gmail.com

0813 4541 5503 0812 8036 943 0812 5514 006

0811 9846 80

0812 5829 2259

0812 530 41021

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

37.

Didik Prasetyo

38.

Fitriah Basalamah

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

Sri Suci Utami Atmoko Pahrian G. Siregar Ike Nurjuita Nayasilana Moh. Arif Rifqi Frida Mindasari Saanin

Universitas Nasional (UNAS) Zurich University ‐ IPB

dprasetyo.unas@gmail.com

0812 9495 1265

f3_basalamah@yahoo.com

0813 7695 9726

UNAS‐FORINA

suci_azwar@yahoo.co.id

0815 1397 6405

FORINA

pahrian@gmail.com

0852 1655 4155

FORINA

nayasilana@gmail.com

0813 8008 1417

FORINA

arifqbio@gmail.com

0852 5589 0489

FORINA

fmsaanin@gmail.com

0811 1172 089

22

Optimizing Orangutan Reintroduction Report of A Workshop |Bogor‐Indonesia, 14‐16 April 2013

23 3

Optimizing Orangutan R Reintroduction Report of A W Workshop |Bogo or‐Indonesia, 1 14‐16 April 2013