1Non-human primates (hereafter “primates”) vary tremendously in their ecological traits and the environmental niches they occupy worldwide. They range through tropical and temporal latitudes and serve a diverse array of roles in the structuring and functioning of their ecosystems (Galán-Acedo et al., 2019). While there is considerable variation within and between these groups (Nowak & Lee, 2013), specialist primates are often limited to a narrow range of environmental conditions and food types, while generalist primates are more behaviorally flexible, able to live in many different environments and consume a diverse array of foods (e.g. Macaca, Papio, and Chlorocebus species). One thing most primates share, regardless of their ecological niche, is that their interconnections with humans are increasing in the Anthropocene (Fuentes, 2012). Some primates, often the more specialized species, struggle in human-modified landscapes or when humans alter habitats, while primates with generalized niches often thrive in these conditions. These interactions mean that nearly all primate species need “management” of some kind, whether that be to improve the conservation status of more specialized threatened or endangered species or to reduce conflict in the case of generalized, abundant primate species. Coexistence – the focus of this special issue – will, therefore, mean very different things based on the primate species in question, their place in the ecosystem, and the desires and perceptions of the local human communities in their midst.
2In this paper, I show how ethnographic data are a critical component in creating an effective coexistence strategy for humans and green monkeys (Figure 1 - Chlorocebus sabaeus – IUCN status of “least concern”) on the West Indian island of St. Kitts. West African in origin (van der Kuyl et al., 1995), the monkeys arrived in the region in the 1600s as pets of colonists and tradespeople primarily from England and France (Denham, 1982; Denham, 1987; Dore, 2017). I have been studying the human-primate interface in St. Kitts since 2010, primarily via ethnoprimatological methods focused on farmer-green monkey relationships.
Figure 1
St. Kitts green monkey (Chlorocebus sabaeus) holding an infant. © Kerry Dore
3Ethnoprimatology is the field of study dedicated to understanding the complexities of human-primate interconnections and it is well suited to determine the critical factors that will enable humans and primates to coexist into the future sustainably (Riley, 2018; Dore et al., 2017; Setchell et al., 2017). Ethnoprimatologists push against the nature-culture dichotomy, viewing humans as part of nature and humans and primates as co-participants in shaping ecological and cultural space (Fuentes, 2012; Anderson & Perrin, 2018). Investigating these mutual ecologies is an opportunity to investigate primates’ adaptability and behavioral flexibility at work (Riley, 2020) and how sociocultural, economic, historical, and political factors affect human perceptions of primates and the role that primates play in human lives (Fuentes & Wolfe, 2002; Paterson & Wallis, 2005). As our closest living relatives, we share behavioral and anatomical similarities with our primate cousins, and primates’ liminal, boundary-crossing status often leads to extreme perceptions – on both ends of the spectrum. Some primates are sacred or revered due to their human-like status, such as in Sulawesi, Bali, or India where they are protected or provisioned by certain human groups (Riley, 2010; Wheatley, 1999; Carter & Carter, 1999), while in other locales, primates’ anomalous, boundary-crossing status makes them devious (associated with sin and evil), mischievous, treacherous, clever, spiteful, or wasteful - identities typically only ascribed to other humans (Rowland, 1973; Naughton-Treves, 1997; Zak & Riley, 2016; Dore et al., 2018a). Mixed methods are one of the hallmarks of an ethnoprimatological approach; ensuring sustainable human-primate coexistence requires investigating the site-specific factors at play via a combination of primatological and ethnographic methods (Riley, 2006; Fuentes, 2012; Dore et al., 2017; Dore et al., 2018b).
4In a previous study conducted in 2010-2011, I showed that monkeys damage crops on over half of the farms in St. Kitts (Dore, 2013; Dore et al., 2021). More critically, the ethnographic data I collected during that year revealed larger contributions to what Kittitians call “the monkey problem”: the closure of a hundreds-of-years-old sugar industry in 2005, which led to dramatic land use changes and an economic shift to tourism. With monkeys’ range and population size no longer controlled by sugar industry gunmen (one of which claims to have shot 14,000 monkeys in his 40-year career), monkeys’ range expanded, and farmers and other locals began to see monkeys’ human-like qualities and behaviors for the first time. Monkeys’ boundary crossing – both in their human-like characteristics and physical crossing of the forest boundary into agricultural areas – exacerbates conflict. Characterizations used towards the monkeys - such as spiteful, vengeful, and wasteful - are typically only ascribed to fellow humans, illustrating the ways that their human-like status can work against them (Dore et al., 2018a). Power relations and politics also play a significant role in the conflict. Farmers’ sense of powerlessness to combat the monkeys is high because they do not own the land they sow; the government owns most of the country’s arable land due to the colonial history of sugar production. Monkeys’ status as a cute, charismatic mammal on the island only exacerbates farmers’ negative perceptions, as they feel tourists’ perceptions are keeping the government from embarking on any large-scale culling program (Dore, 2018).
5The lack of monkey management since the closure of the sugar industry has catapulted the monkeys to the status of “invasive species.” In 2018, St. Kitts and Nevis became one of seven Caribbean countries to participate in a regional initiative: “Preventing Costs of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) in Barbados and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Countries” (aka the IAS Project). Funded by the Global Environment Facility, implemented by the UN Environment Programme, and executed by the Centre for Agriculture and Biodiversity (CAB) International, the goal of the IAS1 Project was to contribute to the prevention, early detection, control, and management of invasive species in the Caribbean region (specifically: St. Kitts and Nevis, Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and Dominica). During scoping visits to St. Kitts prior to the start of the project, local people and authority figures from the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment cited monkeys as the most problematic invasive species and the GEF focal person for the country stated that the country would only participate in the IAS Project if the main deliverable of the project was a monkey management strategy. I was hired as the National Coordinator of the IAS Project and charged with conducting pilot project research to assess the monkeys’ impact to agriculture and biodiversity and to work with an economic consultant to create a monkey management strategy. Working as an employee in a government Ministry provided additional opportunities for me to ethnographically investigate the ways that invasive species projects are conceptualized and implemented on the ground.
6Projects like the IAS Project are becoming increasingly common because the globalization and habitat modification that characterize the Anthropocene have also led to unprecedented rates of species’ transport to new locations. Many of these translocations were intentional and are critical to human survival (e.g. crops and domesticated animals), but most were accidental, a by-product of the intercontinental transport of people and merchandise (Correa et al., 2021). Many of these translocated species have established themselves in these new locations and are expanding their range, often with no predators to control their population growth. Over the last few decades, attention is increasingly being drawn toward invasive species’ negative environmental impacts: both the UN Environment Programme and the IUCN regard invasive species as a major threat to the planet’s biodiversity, second only to habitat loss (MacKenzie, 2001; McNeeley et al., 2001). Invasive species can wreak ecological, social, and economic devastation. They can severely damage agriculture, forestry, or water management systems; cause risks to human health; create significant, negative cultural impacts; threaten native biodiversity; and transform ecosystems, often irreversibly (McNeeley, 2001; Low, 2002; IUCN, 2000; Edwards, 2006; Henderson et al., 2006). Island biotas are notoriously vulnerable, as they often have high levels of endemic species, a relatively large border-to-land mass ratio, large numbers of tourist arrivals, and a relatively high volume of trade (Moses et al., 2003). As a result of fears surrounding the impact of invasive species, many conservation organizations and environmental funding agencies prioritize controlling them as the main means of protecting or restoring local biodiversity.
7Despite the clear negative ecological impacts of invasive species in many places around the world, other factors can play a role in what species gets classified as "invasive." Over the course of the four years I coordinated the IAS project in St. Kitts and Nevis, it became clear that in addition to their role in the construction of “the monkey problem” in St. Kitts, boundary making and politics also play a role in the construction and management of invasive species worldwide. As ethnoprimatology has shown for primatology, a detailed understanding of local perceptions is critical if we want to understand the proximate and ultimate factors that lead to “problematic” human-nonhuman entanglements and design effective strategies to manage them. A large body of literature now exists highlighting how the integration and understanding of social and cultural perspectives on invasive species and the consideration of biological invasions as social-ecological phenomena is crucial for their successful management (both ecologically and socially; e.g. Kueffer, 2013; Kapitza et al., 2019). Subjectivity and arbitrary boundary-making can be present both among invasion biologists’ and conservationists’ species definitions/classifications and between these scientists and local human communities when it comes to invasive species’ negative impacts and the strategies that should be implemented to reduce them (Sagoff, 2018). The terminology related to non-native species can be applied inconsistently and be value-laden; the terms used are often social constructions of the ways we understand nature, informed by scientific data and cultural norms (Binimelis et al., 2007; Estevez et al., 2015). Terms such as native, indigenous, original, endemic, non-native, alien, adventive, exotic, foreign, introduced, non-indigenous, novel, established, naturalized, invasive, and pest can be used interchangeably and with no clear definitions (Falk-Petersen et al., 2006; Kapitza et al., 2019).
8One trend is fairly consistent in invasive species projects: geographic origin is of utmost importance. And while many invasive species are unquestionably ecologically and economically devastating (e.g. common carp, red deer, wild boar, European hare, trout, and salmon), many are not, and many local/native species can also be ecologically and economically devastating (Correa et al., 2021). It is critical to acknowledge and evaluate the values present and promoted by invasion biology and to consider the bases and intentions of any courses of action, as conservation goals may be set by the social-political perspectives of different stakeholders as well as empirical evidence (Geist & Galatowitsch, 1999, Smith et al., 2006; Davis, 2009; Carruthers et al., 2011; Sagoff, 2009; Woodford et al., 2016). Ultimately, it is species’ attributes and interactions with the environment that define their ecological impacts, not their geographic origin (Correa et al., 2021).
9In addition to the need to clarify invasive species definitions and acknowledge their cultural character, invasive species research has also been criticized for its lack of consideration of local cultural perspectives on the species themselves. Out of almost 16,000 papers on invasive species/IAS between 1980 and 2013, only 124 considered social dimensions (Estevez et al., 2015). We need to better understand how values and perceptions translate into practices and to develop methods to determine the factors that influence people’s perceptions of invasive species if we are going to successfully manage them (Shackleton et al., 2019a & b; Kapitza et al., 2019). Power relations can also influence stakeholders’ management decisions and must be strongly considered in terms of the perception of invasive species (Carruthers et al., 2011). Different conceptualizations of nature, culture, and the relationships between them also profoundly influence the perception of invasive species for both scientists and the public (Kapitza et al., 2019). Scientists are often focused on invasive species’ origins and ecological impacts, while decision-makers are more attached to sense of place. In other words, “invasiveness” can be constructed differently in science and policy (Boonman-Berson et al., 2014; Kapitza et al., 2019).
10In what follows, I summarize the fairly “black and white” data obtained from the IAS Project’s agricultural and biodiversity work and then use an ethnographic lens to place these data in the broader context of local perceptions of the monkeys in St. Kitts and their status as an invasive species. My ethnographic objective was to assess how the monkeys’ physical and symbolic boundary crossing, local power relations, and the sociopolitical history of the monkeys continue to play a role in the construction of their invasiveness and the current management of “the monkey problem” (Dore, 2018; Dore et al., 2018a). My results support the value of an ethnoprimatogical approach, a consideration of the social and cultural perspectives on primates/invasive species, and the importance of focusing on species’ interactions with the environment in creating scientifically informed, sustainable, and locally relevant primate/invasive species management strategies.
11While acknowledging that assessing green monkeys’ impact to biodiversity would be challenging after almost 400 years of occupation in St. Kitts, we (myself and two regional coordinators from CAB International) settled on two projects that could assess the monkeys’ impact to biodiversity in St. Kitts and were doable during the four-year (2018 - 2022) IAS Project: a dietary study and an invasive seed dispersal study. The dietary project was rather exploratory (as no monkey dietary data had been collected since the 1980s) and focused on the proportion of native and non-native foods in their diet. My field assistants and I followed a semi-habituated monkey group at Kittitian Hill (aka Belle Mont Farm), an eco-friendly resort, for 20 hours per month for 12 sequential months (January 2021 – December 2021). The diet of the monkeys in this group is similar to what we would expect from other animals in this area, as due to the eco-friendly nature of this resort, the small cottage accommodations were built into the surrounding vegetation.
12I define the animals as semi-habituated because they would only allow us to follow them whilst on the property. Kittitian Hill has existed for almost 15 years, and for the entirety of its history, monkeys have been protected, as no shooting or trapping is allowed. However, prior to the establishment of the resort, the monkeys were heavily controlled in this area to protect the sugar cane. As a result, the monkeys would allow us to follow them from about five meters away at the closest. When the monkeys finished visiting the resort property for the day, they would retreat into the forest over a 150m ravine faster than we could follow them.
13Monkey observations occurred either from ~08:00-12:00 or ~12:00-16:00, with an equal number of observation hours in each time period each month. Once we located the animals, we did group scan samples (Altmann, 1974) every five minutes. During each scan, two researchers (who were spread out to observe as many animals as possible) recorded all foods the monkeys were eating at the time of the scan. To assess the proportion of native versus non-native plants in their diet, we identified all foods consumed during the year to the species level (where possible) and determined their origin. For this study, we considered all food items known to be native to one or more Caribbean islands as also “native” to Saint Kitts and Nevis. We considered all remaining identified plant species as “non-native.” As the monkeys were not fully habituated, we were not able to observe them closely enough to record the demographics of the group or the parts of the plant eaten.
14For the invasive seed dispersal study, I fed five invasive or potentially invasive fruit species (determined by CAB International experts) to recently wild-caught, captive green monkeys at the Behavioural Science Foundation at Mills Estate: tamarind (Tamarindus indica), clammy cherry (Cordia obliqua), guava (Psidium guajava), limeberry aka sweet lime (Triphasia trifolia), and Indian jujube aka pomserrat (Ziziphus mauritania). I planted seeds directly from the plant alongside seeds that were digested or spat out by the monkeys at a local farmer’s greenhouse and assessed whether passage through the monkeys’ mouths or guts impacted the plant species’ germination percentage and time to germination.
15As part of the agricultural component of the IAS Project research, I followed up with every farm and farmer from my previous study (N=64) starting in 2019. These farmers were a randomly selected one-third of the agricultural population in 2010 and cover all of the agricultural areas of the island. In the nine years since the original research, five farmers passed away and 16 additional farms were abandoned. In terms of agricultural crop losses, I “followed” the land and monitored crop losses on the 43 farms still under cultivation (between 2019-2021), in some cases working with new farmers. In the instances where the farm had been abandoned, I met with the farmers about why they were no longer cultivating the farm and did a free listing exercise to assess the role that monkey crop damage played in this decision. These farmers were asked “why are you no longer growing food on this piece of land?” and the top five answers given were recorded. Free listing is an efficient ethnographic tool used to determine the most salient aspects of a language domain; in this case, the reasons why the land was abandoned (Bernard, 1994; Weller & Romney, 1988). Because respondents tend to mention the most important items first in a list, we can assume that the biggest factor contributing to the abandonment of the land will be stated first (Quinlan et al., 2002). Additionally, for every farmer still cultivating the land (N=43; see Table 1), I did a household economic survey (Appendix 1) about their annual production and the impact of animal pests and environmental issues on their yields. Through these activities, I gathered extensive data about the economic impact of monkeys and farmers’ current perceptions.
Table 1
Age/sex classes for the 43 farmers that participated in the household economics survey.
16Extensive ethnographic data were also collected over the course of the project by critically analyzing IAS Project documents, participating in IAS Project meetings at the national and regional level, writing (or assisting in writing) some of the main deliverables for the project [e.g. a Critical Situation Analysis of Invasive Alien Species Status and Management (Dore, 2019), the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan, and the final Monkey Management Strategy], designing the pilot research projects, and executing the communications goals of the project (e.g. radio and television appearances, social media campaigns through the Department of Environment, and public awareness activities with the community). I paid particular attention to the culminating “National Consultation on the Management of the Invasive Green Monkey,” which brought hundreds of stakeholders together on February 28, 2023. Through the review, production, and/or participation in these meetings, documents, and activities, I paid special attention to language use, boundary delineations and assumptions about invasive species, historical contexts, and power differentials.
17I obtained verbal consent from all farmers prior to conducting the household economic survey (N=43) or free listing exercise (N=16) and conducted the seed dispersal study under the Behavioural Science Foundation’s IACUC #2106.
18Non-native plant species comprise the bulk of the monkeys’ diet at Kittitian Hill – approximately ~72%, with 13 non-native plant species each contributing ≥1% to the overall diet. Native species comprised ~10% of the total diet, with only two native plant species each contributing ≥1% to the overall diet. Unclassified food groups comprised roughly 18% of the monkeys’ diet, with four unclassified food groups each contributing ≥1% to the overall diet. The monkeys’ dietary patterns shift when seasonal, prized food items, such as mango (Mangifera indica; non-native), mahoe (Daphnopis americana) and white box berry (Symplocos martinicensis; both native), are present. Invasive seed dispersal work revealed that monkeys’ interactions with two fruit species (guava [Psidium guajava] and tamarind [Tamarindus indica]) improved the fate of the seeds, while their interaction with three fruit species (clammy cherry [Cordia obliqua], limeberry [Triphasia trifolia], and pomserrat [Ziziphus Mauritania]) reduced the species’ germination rates and slowed their times to germination (Dore et al., under review).
19The “Project Document” outlining the scope and plans for all seven islands participating in the IAS Project presented several assumptions about monkeys’ impact to biodiversity in St. Kitts and Nevis. The document explains that during visits in 2017 (totaling less than two months) the Environmental Awareness Group (EAG) “arrived at some…troubling conclusions about these voracious predators in a preliminary report” (p 147, emphasis added). The EAG argued that the monkeys “appear to have a far-reaching ecological impact.” They are “responsible for high levels of damage to plants… and the lack of bromeliads and orchids…may be largely due to monkeys” (p 147). One member of the EAG noted the absence of several ecologically important native cacti on the island compared to previous visits and that “this is due in part to the fact that monkeys will feed on these plants” (p 147). In addition, the document states that “the African green monkeys are responsible, or are likely responsible, for several native species declines and disappearances, including the St. Kitts bullfinch” (Loxigilla portoricensis grandis, p 149), St. Kitts’ only known endemic species. While it is reasonable to hypothesize that monkeys are having negative impacts to biodiversity, the value-laden language and statements of certainty in this document do not seem supported based on the short-term nature of the research and lack of hard evidence to support the conclusions.
20The extensive research I conducted on the history of invasive species in St. Kitts and Nevis to write the Critical Situation Analysis (CSA) and assist in the writing of the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP) provided important data about the ways monkeys have been conceptualized over time in the Federation. For example, the country’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in 2004 classified the monkeys as “introduced,” not “invasive.” A 2015 project document for a United Nations Development Program project “Conserving Biodiversity and Reducing Habitat Degradation in Protected Areas and their Areas of Influence” lists white tailed deer, mongoose, rats, mice, and green monkeys in the review of the ecological diversity of St. Kitts & Nevis (i.e. part of the island’s biodiversity). Specifically, they explain that the monkeys were introduced from West Africa approximately 300 years ago as a pet, “escaped and naturalized” (p 91, emphasis added). Most recently, in February 2019, the government released the 6th National Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity for St. Kitts and Nevis. In this document, they list green monkeys as one of the invasive species that are threatening, outcompeting, and/or eating native biodiversity (Dore, 2019). These documents show that even well after the sugar industry closed in 2005 and the monkeys’ range and population size expanded, there was conflicting information about their ecological classification.
21Research on the greater context of invasive species in the Federation revealed several other highly problematic invasive species that are likely having negative impacts to biodiversity. Specifically, the IAS Project identified nine species (in addition to the green monkey) to draw attention to in our public awareness campaigns: coral creeper (Antigonon leptopus), wild tamarind (Leucaena leucocephala), brown rats (Rattus norvegicus), black rats (Rattus rattus), mongoose (Urva auropunctata), tropical bont tick (Amblyomma variegatum), pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus), fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), and pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans). As there has been no significant research on the impacts of these species aside from the bont tick (Phillip, 2000), it is possible that these species – less charismatic and overtly agentive than the green monkeys – are negatively impacting the island’s flora and fauna as much as, or more, than the monkeys.
22Challenges that arose during the design of the biodiversity pilot projects also highlighted the assumed boundaries that are often present in invasive species research. In the green monkey dietary study, all food items that are known to be native to one or more Caribbean islands were considered as also “native” to Saint Kitts and Nevis, while all remaining identified plant species were considered as “non-native.” While these classifications are reasonable for the purposes of this study, they are likely an oversimplification of the complex, post-colonial ecological environment of St. Kitts. All arable land on the island was transformed into a sugar cane monoculture upon colonization in the 1600s, and at this time, hundreds of plant and animal species from all over the world arrived on the island. While Caribbean islands are similar in some ways, we expect there will be some local differences in the ways plants and animals affect their respective ecologies.
23Assumptions and false dichotomies (between invasive and non-invasive) were also present in the seed dispersal study. Only one of the plant species studied – clammy cherry (Cordia obliqua) – is currently invasive in the country based on our observations. Two other species originally tested – wild tamarind (Leucaena leucocephala) and acacia (Acacia confusa or Acacia tortuosa) – are also currently invasive, but they were not included in the study because the monkeys tested always destroyed the seeds by chewing them. The remaining species tested - tamarind (Tamarindus indica), guava (Psidium guajava), limeberry aka sweet lime (Triphasia trifolia), and Indian jujube aka pomserrat (Ziziphus mauritania) – are not currently invasive. They were selected because they are invasive on other islands and have the potential to become invasive in St. Kitts. Because guava and tamarind are sweet and loved by locals, there was pushback when I presented these results to the community, as they didn’t feel these should be considered invasive species. This discrepancy is an example of the disconnect that often exists between scientists and locals; in this instance, locals would be happy if the monkeys’ interactions with these species increased their abundance, while invasive species scientists would find this concerning, as these species have the ability to “take over” an area and displace important native species.
24Ethnographic data collected during the design and execution of our public awareness campaign were also highly informative in identifying some of the biased ways information is sometimes disseminated about invasive species. For example, one of our deliverables was a billboard designed to draw awareness to the monkeys as an invasive species (as many locals do not realize they are), get people talking about how many monkeys might be on the island, and think about how they might be able to prevent additional invasive species from entering the country (Figure 2). In designing this billboard, we used militaristic language about invasive species [i.e. calling on locals to prevent the next invasion (Larson, 2005)] and purposefully selected monkey images that were not “too cute.” It makes sense not to use cute images in a campaign designed to draw attention to monkeys’ negative impacts, but this billboard is nonetheless an example of how invasive species campaigns often consciously focus on species’ negative characteristics and illicit fear and concern. These campaigns can oversimplify the complexities involved in invasive species management; the reality is that what a species looks like has nothing to do with their impacts on the environment.
Figure 2
Billboard erected by the IAS Project in Basseterre, St. Kitts in September, 2022.
25Finally, the concluding communications/public awareness deliverable for the IAS Project, the “National Consultation on the Management of the Invasive Green Monkey,” revealed how frustrated the agricultural community is around the lack of action to manage the monkey population. In this meeting, I presented the results of the agricultural work, revealing that half (8/16) of the farmers that abandoned their farms cited monkeys as the first or second reason for doing so, and of the farms still producing food, monkey crop losses have tripled since 2010. Our detailed agricultural analysis shows that the St. Kitts experiences $500,000 USD in monkey crop damages annually (unpublished data). More than any other comment, farmer after farmer described how they could not understand the lack of action to help them since the closure of the sugar industry and how they were “tired of the talk.” Some farmers argued that the money spent on the consultation should have been used to help farmers. In an exit interview, one farmer said: “It's ripe time now for action. We can look at the science and the numbers that would be presented, but that cannot capture or reflect the psychological and emotional strain and stress that farmers is going through as a result of these pests. I think that we must start the action now and simultaneously we can continue with our discussions.”
26In this paper, I show how ethnographic data can inform studies where abundant primate populations have obtained the status of “invasive species” and help policymakers create locally sustainable human-primate coexistence strategies. Understanding green monkeys’ ecological impact to biodiversity in St. Kitts is also critically important, as non-native monkeys can dramatically alter ecosystems (Jones et al., 2018). In Papua New Guinea, for example, bird, small reptile, and large mammal fauna all have lower densities in areas that contain invasive macaques (Macaca fascicularis) when compared to similar habitats that do not support them (Kemp & Burnett, 2003). On Desecheo island, Puerto Rico, invasive rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta, brought there for research purposes in 1966) contributed to the extirpation of at least five bird species and several local plant species and preyed on at least three species of endemic lizards before they were eradicated (Hanson et al., 2019). The seasonality of primates’ consumption of invasive and native species throughout the year is also critically important. In some instances, primates prefer invasive foods (Reinegger et al., 2022), and in other cases, invasive foods are more of a fallback that helps primates survive during times of low primary food availability (LaFleur & Gould, 2009; Wimberger et al., 2017). The net impacts of primates’ interactions with invasive flora and fauna on biodiversity will thus be seasonal and site-specific.
27We were not able to identify any negative biodiversity impacts by green monkeys during the four-year IAS Project. While the monkeys consume primarily non-native foods, the most important factor is whether they are helping (dispersing) or hurting (destroying) the plants they consume. The results of the seed germination study indicate that green monkeys in St. Kitts are having insignificant impacts on three invasive (or potentially invasive) fruits (clammy cherry, limeberry, or pomserrat) and significant, positive impacts on two species (tamarind and guava). In sum, monkeys are likely shaping the landscape on St. Kitts and Nevis by advantaging certain seeds and disadvantaging others. Significantly more data are needed before any definitive argument can be made about the monkeys’ net impacts on invasive fruit dispersal.
28While the ecological/biodiversity data collected during the IAS Project are somewhat inconclusive, investigating both the human-primate interface and the construction and management of invasive species projects using ethnographic methods allows one to see the “bigger picture” and craft a locally relevant coexistence strategy. In the past, this ethnoprimatological theoretical framework has revealed the complexities of farmer-monkey relationships and the role of local and global politics in the social construction of “the monkey problem” (Dore et al., 2018; Dore, 2019). In the years since these initial data were collected, ethnographic methods have been a critical tool in assessing changes to human-primate relationships in St. Kitts and the ways the IAS Project may be playing a role. In this paper, I have shown that boundary-making and politics continue to influence the “monkey problem:” the monkeys’ continued geographic expansion and population growth (due to the new smallholding agricultural landscape and tourism-based economy; Dore et al., 2023) has catapulted them to a new category of “invasive species.” Historical documents and oral history data (Dore, 2013) show that despite their West African origin, the monkeys have been considered part of the island’s biodiversity in the past, exemplifying how hard it can be to define what “biodiversity” is, whether invasive species should be included as part of it, and at what point species become “naturalized” or part of an ecosystem (Sagoff, 2018). The animals have recently been re-classified as “invasive” due to their continued physical and symbolic boundary crossing: the sugar industry no longer keeps their population under control or contained within the forest and southeast peninsula. Farmers are feeling the effects of the monkeys’ presence more than ever as we have shown through our 14-years of crop loss data. Villagers have also begun to express significant concern about the monkeys’ presence. Recent research reveals concerns about virus transmission between humans and monkeys (Mancuso et al., 2023), backyard garden damages (Saiyed et al., under review), and extreme frustrations on the part of locals about monkey presence and behaviors (Saiyed et al., under review). These new data indicate that management in village areas must be part of a coexistence strategy.
29When the IAS Project came to St. Kitts and Nevis shortly before 2018, people in positions of power selected the monkeys as the species of focus despite other problematic invasive species on the island, supporting previous research showing that the socio-political perspectives of powerful stakeholders often determine the goals that are set in invasive species research projects (Geist & Galatowitsch, 1999; Sagoff, 2009; Woodford et al., 2016). To justify the need for research into the monkeys’ impact to biodiversity, the project document contained assumptions about the monkeys’ negative impacts: they claimed the monkeys were responsible for the extinction of the St. Kitts bullfinch and the decline in several important local plant species. It is possible, maybe even likely, that the monkeys played a role in these ecological changes, but the truth is that we cannot be sure of additional factors; factors such as climate change could be playing an equally important role. False dichotomies and assumptions about invasive species were also present in our study design. Classifying the plant species consumed by monkeys as “native” and “non-native” was challenging for some species and led to questions about exactly where the boundary between these categories lies. Mangoes are originally from India and thus non-native, but most locals would consider them native due to their long history on the islands. Similarly, the classification of tamarind and guava as potentially invasive species in the seed dispersal study led to questions from locals who love to consume these fruits. The fruits were selected because they can spread quickly and can overtake important local species, but the confusion around their classification as “invasive” shows the disconnect that can exist between locals and scientists and how buy-in from locals is required for successful invasive species management (Kueffer, 2013; Kapitza et al., 2019). The assumptions present in the project document and in these aspects of our study design as well as in some aspects of our public awareness work (i.e. the billboard) exemplify the ways that terminology related to non-native species is often value-laden and associative and highlights the false native-invasive dichotomy that is often prevalent in invasive species projects (Estevez et al., 2015).
30My ethnographic data also support the importance of considering local cultural perspectives about invasive species/primates. Farmers in St. Kitts have reached the point where they are spiraling with anger and frustration about the lack of action on the “monkey problem.” One of the reasons why monkey control is stalled is because there are so many stakeholders with varying opinions about what should happen to the monkeys: farmers want them gone, some other locals love them, biomedical research facilities need a constant source of monkeys for their research projects, and tourists love them. Government officials in positions of power are forced to attend to global perspectives when tourism drives the country’s economy. Yet in a recent One Health study, focus groups with a wide array of stakeholders (e.g. government officials, the agricultural community, biomedical facility employees, veterinary faculty and students, and tourists) found shared values around the protection of agriculture, both smallholding and backyard gardening, highlighting the salience of the country’s food security concerns (Gallagher et al., 2022). Despite this shared value around the importance of agriculture and our new data about how much worse monkey crop damages have become, farmers feel their needs are being ignored and the island’s food security is suffering as a result.
31While our biodiversity work was inconclusive, I would argue that green monkeys in St. Kitts can be classified as an invasive species by standard definitions (IUCN, 2000) due to their negative economic impacts. However, whether they are technically “invasive” or not should not matter: regardless of their geographic origin, monkeys’ attributes and interactions in St. Kitts are economically devastating and that fact should merit management on a large scale. Based on the results of our research and monkeys’ negative impacts to agricultural and residential areas, the monkey management strategy created out of the IAS Project (an economic cost-benefit analysis that shows that culling and sterilization are both economically viable options) focuses management efforts on village and agricultural areas only (Dore et al., under review). At the time of this writing, the Ministry of Environment is in the possession of the strategy, and we are waiting on them to give their final approval. Once the strategy is approved, the country will need to set aside funds or seek funding from elsewhere to implement the strategy. Future work will continue to assess the monkeys’ impact to biodiversity, especially in villages, and re-evaluate strategies for the forest and/or southeast peninsula if necessary. If implemented, this data-driven and economically sound management strategy will improve the island’s food security, satisfying locals’ main concern. It will also reduce the inhumane killing of green monkeys that is currently occurring around the country (because frustrations are at an all-time high at the lack of action), protecting monkeys in areas where we have yet to document negative impacts, respecting the animals’ right to presence on the island and maintaining their value for the tourism and biomedical research sectors.
32Collectively, this research serves as an example of how to craft locally relevant and sustainable primate/invasive species management strategies by focusing on species’ interactions with their environment (rather than geographic origin per se), considering local cultural perspectives, and situating the “problem” with the species in question within local historical and sociopolitical contexts. This multi-disciplinary approach is relevant whether we are talking about abundant species where local people are calling for management or endangered species where we need to understand the factors that contributed to their need for protection. In the case of St. Kitts, the data presented in this paper show that monkeys’ impact to biodiversity is not currently the most important variable when it comes to sustainable coexistence: support for monkey control must come from a place where farmer/gardener livelihoods and the country’s food security are prioritized. This paper is also a call to action: we must acknowledge and address the ways that boundary making and politics may influence the desire for species management or protection, the questions that are asked, and the ways our data will be used in the future. Approaching primate/invasive species management projects from this perspective requires greater transparency and an acknowledgement of the subjectivity that sometimes exists within our disciplines and research questions.
33This research would not have been possible without funding from the Global Environment Facility and guidance from the United Nations Environment Programme; CAB International (CABI), especially Dr. Arne Witt and Mr. Naitram Ramnanan; the St. Kitts and Nevis Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Marine Resources, Cooperatives, Entrepreneurship, and Creative Economy; the St. Kitts and Nevis Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, Climate Action, and Constituency Empowerment; and the Nevis Island Administration. Extension officers from the Departments of Agriculture in both St. Kitts and Nevis were instrumental in the collection of agricultural data, as were agricultural research assistants Mr. Deonje Woodley and Mr. Dillan Richardson. The Behavioural Science Foundation was critical in the execution of the invasive seed dispersal study and the gracious accommodation of Kittitian Hill Resort was critical in the execution of the dietary study. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Sana Saiyed, Dr. Melissa Remis, Ms. Kate Orchard and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful feedback on this paper as well as the editors of Revue de Primatologie for their invitation to participate in this important special issue.
34The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Flux RSS
