J. Bio. & Env. Sci.

2012

Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES)

ISSN: 2220-6663 (Print) 2222-3045 (Online)
Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 1-8, 2012
http://www.innspub.net
RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Victims Perspectives of Lowe’s Monkeys’ (Cercopithecus campbelli

lowei) crop raiding events in Ghana: A case of Boabeng-Fiema
Monkey Sanctuary
Edward D. Wiafe*, Frank S. Arku
Presbyterian University College, P. O. Box 393, Akropong-Akuapem, Ghana
Received: 14 December 2011
Revised: 27 January 2012
Accepted: 28 January 2012

Key words: monkey, crop raiding, traditional believes, human-wildlife conflict.

Abstract
The conflict arising as a result of human and non-human interaction on a single landscape was investigated in
Ghana at the Boabeng-Fiema monkey sanctuary. Semi-structured interview guides were used to investigate the
farmers’ perceptions of the crop-raiding issue and the respondents were selected from randomly selected houses.
Irrespective of belief or knowledge system, majority of the respondents complained of crop or food damage by
Lowe’s monkey, with no reliable effective deterrent measures. The monkeys caused a lot of damage to human
food growing in the field, in storage as well as prepared food ready to be consumed. The monkeys also used force
to seize the food items from the humans especially the children, women and very old adults. About 61% of the
respondents attributed the increase in crop raiding to increase in primates numbers, 29% attributed it to habitat
decrease while 4% attributed it to inefficiency in the use of crop protection methods. Neither the dry nor wet
seasons were found to be a barrier to monkeys’ damage to human food as 97% of the respondents had observed
that the disturbance of the monkeys to human food occurred throughout the year. Since the monkeys play a
significant role in the culture of the people, non-destructive methods to reduce the food/crop raiding incidences
have been depended though these methods have proved ineffective. A more effective friendly method to reduce
the conflict must be investigated and implemented to ensure continues coexistence between human and non-
human primates.
*Corresponding Author: Edward D. Wiafe  edward.wiafe@presbyuniversity.edu.gh

1 | Wiafe and Arku

 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2012

Introduction trade and the subsequent decline in poaching.

Wild animals are compelled to exploit human Despite the fact that some animals are being
resources including crops in order to survive because recovered, more people also means more cultivated
humans are dominating ecosystems and habitats land, and hence a greater interface between people
(Strun, 2009). Crop-raiding animals may cause a and wildlife. For example, the world population is
substantial damage to agricultural crops, and this has predicted to grow by over 50% in the next fifty years
always been a major issue of contention throughout from six billion in 2000 to over nine billion in 2050.
the world. Due to the expansion of cultivated land Most of this increase is expected to take place in the
into previous wildlife habitat, crop raiding is least developed countries of Africa, Asia and Latin
becoming one of the most common conflicts America. This population increment is expected to
antagonizing human-wildlife relationships (Sillero- invade wildlife habitats thereby increasing the
Zubiri and Switzer, 2001). In areas where the species conflict.
involved in crop-raiding can be hunted as food, the
issue of crop raiding is not treated as a problem. The conflict usually emerges when wildlife and
However, it is a major cause of human-wildlife human requirements overlap with consequential
conflict in other areas where they are not hunted. costs to humans and/or the wild animals (Osei-
This is especially true of areas adjacent or close to Owusu and Bakker, 2008). Many authors have
protected areas, like national parks and sanctuaries, attributed the raiding of human resources to the fact
which can harbor large populations of wildlife. that at most basic levels, raiders target human foods
Animal crop-raiding activities can pose a significant because they have nutritional advantages over
threat to food crops and thus farmers’ livelihoods. natural forage (Naughton-Treves 1998; Naughton-
Conflicts between human and wildlife can vary Treves et al. 1998; Tarara et al. 1985; Warren et al.
within and between communities (Hill, 2000) and 2007). Forthman-Quick and Demment (1988)
also within and between animal species. For demonstrated that baboons raid crops as part of their
example, Marchal and Hill (2009) reported that foraging strategies to be able to reduce their overall
primates were perceived to be damaging crops foraging time investment because of the high
differently from other vertebrates in Sumatara, nutritional value of their preferred crops. The overall
Indonesia and baboons were found to be the major result is that, human foods are easier to process and
crop pest among the six primates reported to raid digest and raiders get more energy for less effort
crops in Budongo forest reserve in Uganda (Hill, when they eat human food. On the other-hand,
2000). natural forage is found to contain higher proportion
(forage contains higher proportion of protein than
The major causes of human-wildlife conflicts could which food?) of protein which therefore, may explain
be attributed to many factors ranging from wildlife why crop raiders do abandon wild food and adapt
population increase to habitat decrease as a result of exclusively to cultivated food (Altmann and Alberts,
human population increase. Sillero-Zubiri and 1987; Altmann and Muruthi 1988; Altmann et al.
Switzer (2001) stated that although there is a general 1993; Biquand et al. 1994; Bourg et al. 1994;
concern over declining wildlife populations, Bronikowski and Altmann 1996; Forthman 1986a, b;
particularly in tropical ecosystems, some species may Hill, 2000; Kemnitz et al. 2002).
actually be increasing in numbers. For example,
increasing reports of crop raiding by elephants in A long term solution to primate crop raiding can only
Africa may reflect the recovery of population be devised based on the outcome of proper
numbers since the Convention on International investigations into the behavioral dynamics and
Trade in Endangered Species’ (CITES) ban on ivory pattern of raids by the primates. Studies have already

2
 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2012

established that the frequency of crop raiding by he was surrounded by the monkeys; thence the local
animals such as elephants is affected by the chief priest decreed that no one should kill or eat the
ecological conditions within their forest refuge monkeys. Since then the villagers have always
(Wyatt and Eltingram, 1974; Barnes, 1982; Ruggiero, regarded the monkeys as a totem or sacred (Appiah-
1992), but that of farming landscape outside the Opoku, 2007). This traditional norm and belief was
protected areas has not been completely unraveled strictly adhered to until early 1970s when Christians
(Oppong et al., 2008). thought otherwise. According to one Christian sect,
the Savior Church maintains that humans are not
In this study, we document the current nature and bound by traditional beliefs and taboos and God has
extent of raiding activities of Lowe’s monkeys given man dominion over all creatures (including the
(Cercopithecus campbelli lowei), one of the two monkeys). Subsequently, church members started
primate species inhabiting the Boabeng-Fiema killing the monkeys for food (Appiah-Opoku, 2007;
Monkey Sanctuary (BFMS) in Ghana and how the Fargey, 1992). As the traditional authorities were
adjacent communities react to these activities. The concerned about by killing of the animals for food,
views of the people would serve as guidelines for they appealed to the Department of Game and
outlining strategies for successful management Wildlife, now Wildlife Division of the Forestry
schemes that may eventually lead to the Commission, which incorporated the area into the
improvement of livelihoods of the people and the National Protected Area System to add the
welfare of the monkeys. conventional method of wildlife protection to the
traditional method (Appiah-Opoku, 2007).
Materials and methods
Study area Data collection
The BFMS is located at 350m above sea level Semi-structured interview guides were used to gather
between Latitudes 7o 43’N and Longitudes1o42’W information from the farmers regarding their
within the forest savanna transitional zone of Ghana, perceptions of the crop-raiding issue. The framework
22km from Nkoranza. The topography is flat with a for interviews was adapted from Gillingham and Lee
gentle slope into a ground water spring adjacent to (2003) and the Oxford Brookes University Code of
the village of Boabeng. The mean annual rainfall is Practice on Ethical Standards was followed. Twenty-
1250mm between March and October with peaks in five (25) and 26 houses in Boabeng and Fiema,
June and September. The villages around the respectively, were randomly selected for the study
sanctuary have traditionally had a taboo against and two persons in each house took part in the study.
killing the black and white colobus (Colobus The manager of the Sanctuary was also interviewed,
polykomos) and Lowe’s monkey (Cercopithecus so in all 103 respondents took part in the study. Each
cambelli lowei) which the sanctuary harbors (Fargey, interviewee was subsequently informed that sensitive
1992). The sanctuary covers an area of 494.2 hectares information and personal characteristics would not
which is surrounded by maize, yam, groundnuts, be included in the report of the study (Christensen,
cassava, and oil palm farms. 1992). The study took place between 1st and 31st July
2011. Field observations were conducted to
The people of Boabeng and Fiema villages have document the mode of raiding.
considered the monkeys as sacred since the past 150
years. . The myth is that several years ago, a chief of Results and discussions
the area was mysteriously protected by some of the Demography of the respondents
monkeys during a tribal war. During the tribal war, The reported ages of respondents ranged from 15 to
the enemies were unable to shoot the chief because 100 years which were specifically grouped into youth

3
 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2012

(8.6%), young adult (38.6%) and adults with the they were damaged by rodents, ungulates, insects,
highest percentage of (52.9%). Of these respondents, and birds, respectively (Table 2). About 96% of the
the majority (88.6%) were natives and (11.4%) non- respondents attributed the crop damage by primates
natives. About 52.9% of the respondents were to Lowe’s Monkey, while 4% attributed it to Black
Christians, 4.3% Moslems, 41.4% Traditionalists and and White Colobus.
1.4% belonged to other religions. Most (60%) of the
respondents were found to have stayed in the area for Table 2. Cross tabulation of religious background
more than 10 years, 30% less than 10years and 10% and complains of problem animals by the
had stayed there for less than five years. The majority respondents.
(44.3%) of the respondents engaged in farming and Problem animals Total
other activities like masonry, carpentry, and Religion Primates Rodents Ungulates Insects Birds

dressmaking, and 40% were solely farmers while Christian 42 3 1 4 5 55

Moslem 6 0 1 0 0 7
teachers and traders were 4.3% and11.4%,
Traditional 35 1 0 0 5 41
respectively. About two-thirds (74.3%) of farmers
Total 83 4 2 4 10 103
grew food crops and the rest of the farmers (25.7%),
grew cash crop with food crops. This suggests that On the trend of crop damage by monkeys, 54.4% of
the majority of the respondents use farming activities Christians, 38.8% traditionalists and 6.8% Moslems,
as supplementary source of food and income while a respectively, stated that the situation has increased.
considerable number also depends solely on farming The views of respondents with the three major
activities. religious backgrounds identified did not differ,
indicating that the religious belief has no influence
Table 1. Purpose of food grown by the people. on the crop damage complains (X2=0.19, DoF=2,
DESTINATION p=0.90).
FARM
PRODUCE COSUMPTION COMMERCIAL BOTH
% % %
Cassava 20 50 30 On the reasons for the increased in crop raiding
incidence, 64.1% related it to increased in primates
Yam 76 15 9
numbers, 23.3% and 5.8% related it to decreased in
Maize (dry & 68 16 16
fresh) primate habitat and increased in human habitat
Wild palm nut 33 22 45 respectively whilst 3.9% attributed it to inefficiency
fruit
Banana 46 36 18 in the use of crop protection methods. The difference

Mango 30 34 36 in views of the respondents on the possible causes of

increased in crop damage by primates was significant
Plantain 50 27 23
(X2=12.36, DoF=6, p=0.04). Only 2.0% and 1.0% of
Groundnut 44 32 34
the respondents said the dry and wet seasons
respectively contributed to the crop raiding
The Impacts of monkeys on humans occurrences while 97% had observed that the crop
It was deduced that, irrespective of the religious damage incidence by the monkeys occur always
backgrounds of the respondents, they faced problems (X2=1.03E, DoF=2, p=0.00). In contrast, Marchal
of crop damage which may have greater impact on and Hill (2009) reported that in Sumatara,
food security. The types of food grown by the farmers Indonesia, the crop damage by primates were high
included maize, yam cassava etc. for subsistence during the peak of fruiting of certain tree species,
and/or commercial purposes as shown in Table1. that is May to August. Hill (2000) also reported that
Whereas 79% maintained that primates damaged baboons in Budongo forest reserve in Uganda caused
their crops, 3.8%, 1.9%, 3.8% and 9.5% indicated that high damage in June. Table 3 shows the list of some

4
 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2012

food items intended for human consumption that a group would use aggressive forces to grasp food
were raided by Lowe’s monkeys. from young children, females or very old people.
However, the Lowe’s monkeys were found to fear
Table 3. Human food confirmed to be consumed by grasping food from men and young adults. These
Lowe’s monkey. styles of raiding crops made it very difficult to
HOUSEHOLD State of Percentage Percentage estimate the cost of damage to crops and also made it
FOODS consumption (yes) (No)
difficult to predict times when they were likely to
Banana Ripe fruit 98 2
Pineapple Ripe fruits 56 24
raid.

Mango Ripe fruits 37 42

It was gathered that the monkeys avoid any food
Fufu Ready to serve 84 10
associated with pepper, for example ‘fufu’, which is a
Boiled yam Ready to serve 88 11
Boiled cassava Ready to serve 79 19 pounded boiled cassava or yam. The fufu is normally
Kenkey Ready to serve 80 20 served with soup (mixed with pepper). When a
Eggs Fresh 79 19 monkey came in contact with the ‘fufu’ with soup, it
Eggs Boiled 0 100 picked only the fufu and consumed it without
Bread On stalls for 94 6 drinking the soup because of the pepper component
sale
of the soup. Raiding Lowe’s monkeys were also
Biscuits On stalls for 89 11
sale observed to avoid consuming meat and boiled egg
Plantain Ready to serve 88 22
but preferred fresh egg (Table 3).
Pepper Fresh 0 100

Soup Ready to serve 0 100 Table 4. Methods for crop protection and their
effectiveness.
Mode of raiding Methods for crop
protection Effectiveness of the methods Total
The Lowe’s monkeys raid crops or food during the
day time. They moved in troupes ranging from three It works all It does not It does

to five groups in search of ripe fruits on the farms. the time work all not work

When a bout was found the animals grab it with their the time at all

fingers and loaded the cheek pouches with it, whilst Shouting 49 41 4 94
they consume some in a fast manner, depending on Scare crow 0 2 0 2
the security situation prevailing at the site. In case Shooting or 2 2 2 6
the farmer or any human being was on the farm, the Trapping
monkey had to stand at a distance, gauge the
Beating or 0 0 1 1
targeted food, grabbed it actively and ran away with
hitting the
it. But if a human being was not identified then they
animals
took their time to consume the food item on the spot.
Total 51 45 7 103
On domestic foods, the monkeys would search the
premises of the human houses, for example, kitchens Crop raiding mitigation measures
for prepared food items or stored food. If nobody was The respondents used various means to discourage
in the house, they consumed it on the spot but if the monkeys from consuming their food and crops
people were found in the house then the animals and these include shouting, using scare crows,
would use aggressive force to grab the food and ran shooting/trapping and beating or hitting the animals.
away with it. According to a regular victim ‘when the The survey revealed that, the most patronized
Lowe’s monkey sees that someone has any food in his method was shouting where 91.3% of the
hand it would do everything possible to get some’. It respondents said that was the method they depended
was observed further that the male dominant among

5
 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2012

for scaring the monkeys from raiding their food or

crops. Among the respondents who maintained that Conclusions and recommendations
shouting was the most appropriate method to drive Human-wildlife conflict occurs whenever the
the animals away from raiding, 47.6% said it worked landscape is shared by humans and wild animals. In
all the time, 39.8% said it worked sometimes, whilst the case of BFMS, the human lives at the boundaries
3.9% responded that though they depended on that of the protected forest of the monkeys. The monkeys
method it has never worked at all. The details of have evolved to live with the humans by entering into
other crop protection methods and their effectiveness their houses in order to feed on human food that
are shown in Table 4. Shouting was suspected to be seems to be more palatable to them than the natural
the most effective method of reducing crop raiding foods. The dimension of raiding at BFMS differs from
incidences because of the beliefs associated with the most of the reported raiding events in other primate
monkeys. range countries where crop damage were limited to
crops on farms. The raiding events at BFMS were not
Despite damages to their food and crops, the people only limited to crops on farms but the monkeys
of Boabeng and Fiema would always like to keep the moved to houses and streets to consume human
monkeys alive hence majority dependence on non- food. They did not only consume food that they come
lethal method (shouting) to scare the monkeys from in contact with per chance but actively search and
crop and food damage. It is also likely that the consume it per choice.
majority chose the non-lethal method in order to
reduce the damage to their properties, for example The most troublesome animals in the sanctuary were
houses. Thus, the use of other methods like shooting the Lowe’s monkey whose diet requirements are
or hitting the animals might accidentally end up flexible and that qualifies them to eat almost
destroying their houses or domestic animals. everything that human consumes at the Sanctuary.
The possible reasons assigned to the incidence of
Importance of the presence of the monkeys raiding of food could be attributed to the fact that
Some of the benefits derived indirectly from the animals are attracted to human’s food more than the
monkeys include tourists visiting the community, wild food. The human food is suspected to be more
improvement of income from sales of agriculture nutritious and easily digestible than the wild
goods as a result of increasing tourists to the place, counterparts. Moreover, preferred items might tend
and NGOs are also being attracted to the area. The to have high digestibility, lower levels of digestion
respondents also indicated that the presence of the inhibitors and more assessable protein.
monkeys have also helped them to protect the
environment. Thus, 73.5% said they have helped in Furthermore, people encroachment on the woodland
protection of the forest patches, while 22.0% which is meant to be the habitat for the monkeys
indicated that they have helped to improve sanitation might have contributed to the high invasion of
situations - as an NGO provided each house with a Lowe’s monkey in human homes. As human
toilet facility, and 5.5% thought the presence of the population increases without any harm to the
monkeys led to the conservation of the forest making monkeys, the population of the monkey also
the area to have its micro-climate which largely increases with time. The powerless monkeys are
contributed to the area having relatively higher being over-powered by humans as they invaded the
rainfall than the neighboring environment. All the habitant of the monkeys for construction of houses
respondents (100%) admitted that the monkeys and cultivation of farms.
helped them to keep to their culture and traditional
norms.

6
 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2012

The people of Boabeng and Fiema villages have used and activity levels. American Journal of Primatology
the indigenous knowledge and believe system to 30, 149–161.
protect the monkeys that inhabit the sanctuary. This Appiah-Opoku S. 2007. Indigenous beliefs and
has contributed to the population increment of the environmental stewardship: A rural Ghana
monkeys whilst the human population and experience. Journal of Cultural Geography 24(2),
associated development has contributed to the 79-98.
shrinking on the monkeys’ natural habitat. In
addition, the monkeys have been habituated to Barnes RFW, 1982. Elephant feeding behaviour
humans and this has compelled them to evolve to in Ruaha National Park. African Journal of Ecology
adapt to consume human food. The monkeys raiding 20, 123-136.
patterns differs from that of other animals and
primates at other places. Biquand S, Boug A, Biquand-Guyot V, Gautier
JP. 1994. Management of commensal baboons in
It is recommended that further studies be conducted Saudi-Arabia. Revue d’Ecologie (La Terre et la Vie)
to identify a more effective and efficient method of 49, 213–222.
raiding mitigation measures. Moreover, palatable
plants species must be planted at the buffer zone area Bourg A, Biquand S, Biquand-Guyot V,
of the sanctuary for the monkeys to feed on. This Kamal K. 1994. The response of commensal
could largely decrease the monkeys feeding on hamadryas baboons to seasonal reduction in food
human’s food. provisioning. Revue d’Ecologie (La Terre et la Vie)
49, 307–319.
Acknowledgement
Many thanks to Presbyterian University College, Bronikowski AM, Altmann J. 1996. Foraging in
Ghana for funding this research. We are also a variable environment: weather patterns and the
indebted to Mr. Daniel Adjei and Mr. Robert Nartey behavioral ecology of baboons. Behavioral Ecology
for their involvement in the data collection; the Sociobiology 39, 11–25.
Chiefs and people and all the staff of Boabeng-Fiema
Monkey Sanctuary for allowing us to conduct this Christensen G. 1992. Sensitive information:
research and other supports given to us during the collecting data on livestock and informal credit. In:
fieldwork. Devereux S, Hoddinott J, eds. Fieldwork in Devel-
oping Countries, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York,
References 124–137.
Altmann J, Muruthi P. 1988. Differences in daily
life between semi-provisioned and wild-feeding Forthman DL. 1986a. Controlling primate pests:
baboons. American Journal of Primatology 15, 213– the feasibility of conditioned taste aversion. In: Taub
221. DM, King FA, Eds. Current perspectives in primate
social dynamics. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
Altmann J, Alberts S A. 1987. Body mass and 252-273.
growth rates in a wild primate population. Oecologia
(Berlin) 72, 15–20. Forthman DL. 1986b. Activity budgets and the
consumption of human food in two troops of
Altmann J, Schoeller D, Altmann SA., baboons, Papio anubis, at Gigil, Kenya. In: Else J,
Muruthi P, Sapolsky R M. 1993. Body size and Lee PC, Eds. Primate ecology and conservation. New
fatness of free-living baboons reflect food availability York: Cambridge University Press, 221–228.

7
 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 2012

Conservation Area, Ghana from 2004-2006.

Forthman-Quick DL, Demment M. 1988. Pachyderm 44, 59-64.
Dynamics of exploitation: Differential energetic Osei-Owusu Y, Bakker L. 2008. Human –
adaptations of two troops of baboons to recent Wildlife Conflict. FAO Elephant Technical Manual,
human contact. In: Fa JE, Southwick C, Eds. Ecology 45p.
and behaviour of food enhanced primate groups.
New York: Liss, 25–51. Ruggiero RG, 1992. Seasonal forage utilization by
elephants in Central Africa African Journal of
Gillingham S, Lee PC. 2003. People and Ecology 30, 137-148.
protected areas: a study of local perceptions of
wildlife, crop - damage, conflict in an area bordering Sillero-Zubiri C, Switzer D. 2001. Crop raiding
the Selous Game Reserve Tanzania. Oryx 37, 310- primates: Searching for alternative, humane ways to
325. resolve conflict with farmers in Africa. People and
Wildlife Initiative. Wildlife Conservation Research
Hill CM. 2000. Conflict of interest between people Unit, Oxford University.
and baboons: crop raiding in Uganda. International
Journal of Primatology 21, 299–315. Strum SC. 2009. The development of primate
raiding: implications for management and
Kemnitz JW, Sapolsky RM, Altmann J, conservation. International Journal of Primatology
Muruthi P, Mott GE, Stefanick ML. 2002. 31, 133-156.
Effects of food availability on serum insulin and lipid
concentration in free- ranging baboons. Tarara R, Suleman MA, Sapolsky R,
American Journal of Primatology 57, 13–19. Wabomba MJ, Else JG. 1985. Tuberculosis in
wild olive baboons, Papio cynocephalus anubis
Marchal V, Hill C. 2009. Primate Crop-raiding: a (lesson), in Kenya. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 21,
study of local perceptions in four villages in North 137–140.
Sumatra, Indonesia. Primate Conservation 24, 107-
116. Warren Y, Buba B, Ross C. 2007. Patterns of
crop-raiding by wild and domestic animals near
Naughton-Treves L. 1998. Predicting patterns of Gashaka Bumti National Park, Nigeria. International
crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Journal of Pest Management 53, 207–216.
Park. Conservation Biology 12, 156–168.
Wyatt JR, Eltringham SK. 1974. The daily
Naughton-Treves L, Treves A, 2005. Socio- activity of the elephants in the Ruwenzori National
ecological factors shaping local support for Park, Uganda. East African Wildlife Journal 12, 273-
wildlife:crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife 281.
in Africa. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A.
Eds. People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence?
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 252–277.

Oppong SK, Danquah E, Sam MK, 2008. An

Update on crop raiding by elephants in Bia