( r l i

; i i,=:ri

t,ul

tr;,*{::

Chapter 14The Great Ape World HeritageSpecies Project

Richard W Wrangham, Gal i Hagel . Mark Leighton.Andrew.l. Mar-shall, Paul Waldau. antl Tosl.risada Nishida

l . lntroduction

Thc nission 01'rhc (;fcal Apc Wor.lt l Hcrilage Spccies projcct is to oflcr anc\,v way to help aver.t the cxti lctior.r crisis that curn.cntly fuces chirrrpanzees,bonobos. gor-i l las. and oralgutans. ald in so doing to assist the pltght oftl lcse apcs ln captivity also.

Wc belicve thiit a highcl intcrltatioral pr.oli le fbr the gr.elit apes is neccs_sary if thev tre to sLtrvive in the rvilcl. Our goal is t lrercfore lo 1au,,.,, a cor_li iboration that ivi l l icad to dcsiguatilg the gr.sat apes as Wor-ld HeritageSpccies. This desiglatiol ol World Hcr.ira-uc Spccie.s woulcl denore a tewinternntiol 'tally protectecl category ol specics. The esscDtial l.}o1ion ol WorldHeritage Specics stalLrs is that any specics so nanecl woLrld bc recogtrized tobe o1'outstandiug ri l ivcrsal I 'erlue. iLr.rcl 1o lccd spccial hclp i l.they are to becolserved in thc wilcl. Outslandilg ri l ivcrsai valuc is thc oper.atiorral citc_rioD lbr lton]iuatiotls to thc World I{critagc Conventiou. so ciesignatiol ofWolld Ileritagc Species nright bc thr.ough a prctocol to this conveitron. l.hegrciLl apcs \\ 'ould bc thc l lrst sct of spccies t. be so'antccl. Others wo.kl becxpeclecl to follow.

We considcr.that the dcsignation ol great apes as Worltl Hcr.itage Spccieswould advance thcir colscrvatiorr bi, ' . accelcrating intcrt.tatioual co-opcrationin thtee tlain ivlirs. siglifiecl by o ct.ttiot.t. tt,,rr.,irrn,.it ancl ntt,t.ltttni,ynt_

,l cltt ion titealls eleliLting a$,at.clless of thl] value and plight ol.gteaL apes.parlicularly anrong poli l ical lcacler.s.

RcsoutLcs nreans incleasilg the rcsollfccs ncccled ro hclp thc grcart apcs.espccially by tapping into thc u,orldwidc inlcr.esr i l grext apc *,! lfur-" o, olesult of theif uniqLre rclatiolship rvith hunrans.

flaclttutistn nteans creati ltg a ltew ittertationil l ntechanism for olg,Lnizinggfent apc co'servatio' ir t lrc wikl. gi 'cn thal lo such mecl]anism cu'.ctrt lv

, The Gteat Ape Wor-ld Her.itage Specics prqcct (GAWHSp) was iniriatcd ir

Janrary 2001 with the appointnent by the Ilter.national pfinarologicalSocietv of an Atl-hoc Conrrittee lbr thc Wor.ld l{critagc Status lbr the Gr.eat

132

14. The Great Ape World Heitage Species Prqect

ld Heritase

Mark Leighton,nd Toshisada N ishrda

leritage Species Project is to offer aiis that cunently faces chimpanzeegin so doing to assist the plight of

I profile for the great apes is neces-ur goal is therefore to launch a col-I the great apes as World Heritageritage Species would denote a newrcies. The essential notion of Wodd:s so named would be recognized too need special help if they are to be,ersal value is the operational crite-tage Convention, so designation ofh a protocol to this convention. Thees to be so named. Others would be

reat apes as World Heritage Specieslelerating international cooperationt, resources, and mechanism.f the value and plight of great apes.

rces needed Lo help the great apes,b interest in great ape welfare as a

lumans.fnational mechanism for organizingI that no such mechanism currently

Project (CAWHSPl was initiated inthe International Primatologicalbrld Heritase Status for the Great

.t '

tj

I

Apes (Anon, 2001). Toshisada Nishida proposed the project' and was

aipointed as the first chair of GAWHSP, a position that he contlnues to

hoid. nichard Wrangham has acted as co-chair since August 2002'

Since August 2002, GAWHSP has been an independent international

initiative. with activists united through email and occasional meetings in

JaDan. the United States, Europe, and Africa. Key participants and supporters

have been the International Primatological Society, the Chimpanzee

Collaboratory (initiated and funded by the Glaser Progress Foundation)' the

Primate Society of Japan, rhe Wild Chimpanzee Foundation, SAGA' Japan

(Support for African/Asian Great Apes), the Great Ape Action Group and

ihe dreat Ape World Heritage Species Project, Inc This chapter summartzes

the rationale for GAWHSB its development over its first two years' and its

prospects for promoting great ape conservation [Note that three years have

elapsed since ihis chapiet was accepted for publication in this volume' and

significant developments have occurred to further efforts for collaborative

iniernational great ape consewation. These chiefly concern the evolution of

GRASB the Great Ape Survival Project Partnership established under ajoint

UNEP and UNESCO Secretariat (www unep'org/grasp) We provide an

addendum at the end of this chapter to update readers of relevant developments

while preserving the historical time frame of this chapter']

2. The Severity of the Problem

Curently, six species of nonhuman great ape are recognized: Sumatran and

Bornearrorangutans, eastern and western gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos'

Predictions oigreat ape extinctions began at least as early as 1867 (Daruin'

1871). PessimiJc forecasts have subsequently been common because of the

great apes' slow reproductive rates, need for large areas, and competition with

ilr,rnu* ou", habiiat. Reliable data on the severity of the crisis are elusive'

however, because great ape population densities are diffrcult to measure'

Estimates therefore come from indirect data such as the predicted rates of lbrest

loss, calculations of losses from hunting, and occasional detailed counting of

nests in a few key arcas. Frequent conclusions from such methods are that without

dramatic changes to current conservation strategy, global extinctions of great

ape species wil'i stafi during the present century (e g', Rijksen and Meijaard'

t-qSS; Nithiaa et ul., 2001 van Schaik et al',2001) The Sumatran orangutan

will probably go first. Rec€nt survey work suggests that there are currently only

7,50b oraltgut-arls remaining on Sumatra, and that by 2010 they will become the

first ape s!""ies to be functionally extinct in the wild (Wich. e/ al'' 2003"

Singleion er a/., 2004). Some estimates suggest that chimpanzees in central and

easiern Africa are the only great ape that is likely to survive in the wild to 2100'

and even then in much diminished numbers (Nishida el a/', 2001)'

The problem is acute because almost all great ape populations reed large

e"panse, of fruit-rich forest. These habitats are in steep decline throughout

284 Richard W \&rangham et al.

the tropics as a result both of conversion to agriculture and of logging. Theeffects of logging on ape populations vary with the intensity of timber extrac-tion. Light to moderate selective logging need not completely tlestroy apehabitat, and most evidence suggests that ape populations can be maintainedat somewhat reduced densities in degraded habitats (e.g., Rijksen andMeijaard, 1999; Felton et a1.,2003). However, as apes have long lifespansand slow reproductive rates, the long-term eflects of habitat degradation onindividual fitness, and therefore ultimately population viability, are diflicultto assess. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that habitat degradationwill lower lemale fecundity and lead to additional time-delayed but deter-ministic population declines ("extinction debt', sezsa Tilman. 1994).Furthermore, many logging operations are accompanied bv collateraldamage that endangers ape populations even more graveJy than does thetimber extraction itself. For example, unsustainable levels of hunting andelevated transmission rates of epidemic diseases associated with loggingoperations will likely result in the local extinction of several ape populationsin Africa (Rose, 1998; Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999; peterson,2003).

If the crisis itself is not surprising, it has nevertheless emerged into theconsciousness of the primatological community with surprising suddennessduring the 1990s. Until that timg particular populations such as the Virungagorillas were famously under threat and were the subject of major conservationefforts. The change during the last decade is that over most of their ranges, ithas now become clear that the majority (rather than a select minority) of greatape populations are rapidly losing numbers and habitat (Beck et a1.,2001).

In spite of the newly appreciated scale of the problem, attempts to solve ithave followed traditional paths. Thus, they have been directed largely Lowaroparticular populations or areas that happen to be of interest to specific sup-porters or donors (e.g., the Virunga gorillas, Tanjung puting orangutans, orNational Parks and Reserves such as Tai, Mahale, Korup, and others). Th€selocal efforts hmle had important successes. For examplg the Virunga gorillapopulation has risen in number steadily since the 1970s and continues to flourishdespite occasional episodes of disease and poaching (Robbins et a\.,2001).

More often, however, they have failed. Even some of the best-known grearape populations have suflered heavily. Logging has advanced rapidly in thekey orangutan habitats of Tanjung Puting and Gunung palung in Borneo,despite strong protests (C. Knott, personal communication). There has beensevere population loss of gorillas in Kahuzi-Biega, Democratic Republic ofCongo (DRC) (J. Yamagiwa, personal communication). In Gombe,Tanzanta, only one community of chimpanzees (the research and tounsmcommunity of Kasekela) appears viable (A. pusey, personal communication).Poaching has begun in the longest-studied bonobo community, at Wamba inDRC (T. Kano, personal communication).

It might be argued that some such reversals are bound to happen, giventhat there are many populations of great apes. But the emerging picture doesnot support such a comlorting view

_____.|

to agriculture and of logging. Thewrrn the lntenstty of timber extrac_need not completely destroy ape

rpe populatrons can be maintainedaded habitats (e.g., Rijksen andvever. as apes have long lilespansIetfects of habitat degradation on' population viability, are diflicultassume that habitat degradation

ddrtronal time-delayed but deter_rn debt" sezsa Tilman, 1994).are accompanied by collateral

)ven more gravely than does theustarnable levels of hunting andorseases

_associated wjth loggingnctron o[ several ape populationsr. 1999; Pe1s15sn. 2993).as nevertheless emerged into the[nity with surprising suddennessPopulations such as the Virunqathe subject of major conservatiJnthat over most of their ranges, iterthan.a select minor.ity) of greatnd habltat (Beck et al.- 20011.the problem, attempts to solve itLave been directed largely towardto be of interest to specific suo_Tanjung Puting orangutans, or

fialg Korup, and others). These,or example. the Virunga gorillate 1970s and conriuues to flourishraching (Robbins a at., 2001).n some of the best-known greatng has advanced rapidly in thernd Uunung Pllung in Borneo.ommunlcatton). There has been'Biega, Democratic Republic ofpommunication). In Gombe,

14. The Great Ape World Heritage Species proiect 2g5

Instead, we must reluctantly conclude that the current strategy is a failure.Throughout their rangc in the wild, great ape populations are plummeting(Nishida el a1.,2001). Unless something drastic reverses the trend, they aredoomed to ficquent national extinctions, which lor some sLrbspecies willl ikely become worldwide during the 21st century.

3. The High Value of Apes

The fbul species of great ape are uniquc among animals in their human-likecharacteristics, including their emotional l ives, mental abil it ies, and gcnetiomake-up. This phenomenon is readily recognized by untrained people whospend time with great apes in the wild or in captivity. At a scientific level,advances in genetics, comparative psychology, and ethology mean that withevery decade this close proximity of humans to the great apes has becomemore vivid. As a rcsult, the grcat apes are widely thought of as a kiDd ofbridge between humans and the rest of the animal world.

The special concem that people leel for the great apes is particularly promirentamong people who have had the opportunity fbr contact with individualapes. Such contact comes about not only through sanctualries. naturetourism. and zoos but also through fi lms, books, and magarzines. Educationthrough such means has created large numbers of people interested in sceinggreat apcs treated in humanitarian ways.

The great apes thus have particularly high value lor a wide range of people.But, so laq conservationists have done little to harness this widespreadpopuliu interest. As a result, the strong empathy that exists in m;rny parts ofthe world for great apes has done little to reduce the threats to their continuedsurvival in the wild.

This means that in an ellort to ensure great ape survival, there are importantopportunrties to tap the energies and commitment of large numbers ofpassionate, educated people ranging from zoo administrators to academics.across the professions, to individuals involved in Iocal animal shclters and thezoo-gorng pub]ic, and more. Many of these potential supporters have importantpolitical and economic power.

To harness these sources of support, the grcat apes need to be given botha substantially higher international profi le and a mechanism for takingadvantage of it.

4. The Benefits of a Higher Profile for the Great Apes

The first major benefit of dcsiglating the great apes as World HeritageSpecies is that it would allow the passions of those who care about the greatapes to be represented forcefuliy to key political and cultural ieaders. Suchleaders include powerful opinion-makers ir both the non-range states and the

(the research and tourismpersonal communication).communlty, at Wamba in

s are bound to happen. givenBut the emergiflg picture does

286 Richard Vl Wrangham er at.

ili!#'li;liii,ffij#,r#:of such readers is criticar if conseruation."l1.li1l-:lr,:*y srrength, r#,;?:'":o#''ed

if a<lvocates present their

.."HilT:TJ l,'nT$H|;ill'l-:impo'taoc" or the grear apes has nor

d "#iff',"#X1i';'it;'1" ": New Zearand and the unired shtes,

European commu;fi;;;# tleat apes' The united states and the

;x,;,**x"*i;[# j:x#.:,,.iF:*:i,JHlj"t"Ji"j5:$i::;ili IJ [",'i,"finn lk# Li*i,' l,:?il :l ii tfu ,ftt.T,lJ li_

rvreanwh e. in range states. th

rjflx*ffi $fffi #,il';1i:l,,i,ti!i;:itfiir:j'.."HH:"'yJ:q 9':,'up..,, '"* uni';'iiX';';i:i;:i,ilijlli,l;iii.j"ili,i,lijJl;il#":i*::: j? xH[ fl::Ji,iT ji'Iff L ;f::" ** :r-mrnl;U;lt:*jf -t:,:,1# j".Tr:S{:#fi :iit'.",1i1, jiTil:::ill.1 h*, *r,r,'"",',,*i#*Lon:T,'ilI,y:TJJ,,I,ff;l:illJlT;:[il::'ff ili

'j:T:[:::'l;:'i.il!.1 rhe grear apes are in l,ir' u p,"..,,"io*

*:1n*;11,"i,,"-ffiti;:?l""Hi:: '.'l,'JJ""r;#:H:.1:fl :f t,":,1,.,:i.1,ff;:iffit;ffi |ffi::;T m::*laising

regar mechanism that pubricizesworld and the r;;";;;;;;;J;sreat

apes bv manv people throughout the

*:n*n:ru:i:,Hi*3il:?ijt:#::1"J"1J.1Ht"."..T,T:"?j5. The Benefits of an International Treaty

il: ".'r*:, :i i"1 ;'.' ;ft :',i;" # :,,t'J"?:' l [:i :",f iifi ,:l:rp€cres. because ir is from rhar desienarion m",.rr i ."r l l r i?l , t lcarions

,":;:: 'liJ;ff:;::*io;#.'lil'td' whv vet another treatv?A rreatv

;;iffi,ffi fi#*l.';i,":ffi $H*:.",_'r.Hl"rjxi,3,f;;'il3:'.':"H::::.,l:x',,ft1.f#iljff""ffi *:T*#ii,lib::l,l:

uch leaders is critical if conservatron:be obtained if advocates present theiirq untty.e importance of the great apes has not(ers.as New Zealand and the United Starcs,I apes. The United States and theaportant funds in support of great apenot become an object of widespread

Lre 160+ non-range states, and they3 lmportance of bringing the plight off.

stantial efforts of conservationists onsupport from political leaders. Theof illegal activities, tacit support forof resolve in planning conservation.the great apes is easily understood.

.h massive problems of war. poverty,I corruptron. And alrhough there arerished by traditional cultural valuesle of Wamba (Kano, 1992)), there arelreat the apes as unimportant. Theselhe great apes are in such a precariousto save the apes are hopeless. Instead,iative on ape conservation is required

aising legal mechanism that publicizesapes by many people throughout theexl rnct ions holds v i ta l promise forIn strategies. The worldt leaders need' apes a priority.

14. The Great Ape World Heritage Species Project 287

very eft'ective at implementing change. A treaty so that the range states thatchoose to participate can take the lead in the conservation of their ownnatural resources, in a unified cross-boundary effort. A treaty to create avehicle for the financial, technical, and scientific support of the range statesby non-range states as needed and requested. Finally, a treaty because that isan effective mechanism by which the range states that choose to do so canevaluate their internal laws and ensure their consistency with a voluntaryintemational standard.

But we already have the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species (CITES), and the Convention on Biodiversity, and halfa dozen other treaties, so why another one? The short answer is that none ofthe existing treaties we have identified accomplish the same purpose as thisone: to create a global protection strategy specifically for the great apes.CITES, for example, addresses cross-border trade in endangered species,and the Biodiversity Convention addresses across-the-board conseryationmeasures lor all species.

We envision that the treaty will consist of two documents: a Declarationfor the Protection of the Great Apes, and a Convention. The Declaration willset forth the philosophical, moral, and scientihc b;rsis for the Convention,which will contain the substantive provisions of the treaty.

In the Declaration, signatory countries will acknowledge the close geneticrelationship of great apes to humans; their exceptional intelligence, socialinteraction, and capacity for symbolic thought and cultural sophistication;their inherent dignity and worth; and that all these factors together entitle thegreat apes to the new special status of World Heritage Species, which in turnwill entitle them to the protection of all signatory range states and indeed ofthe entire participating international community.

In essence, parties to the treaty will commit to protect the great apes frominjury, imprisonment, destruction, and removal from their habitat (otherthan to protect them from further destruction). Specific measures will includea prohibition against activities likely to cause physical injury or death to greatapes. Each signatory range state will agree to closely monitor the population,health, and well-being of the great apes, and to create educational programsdesigned to increase awareness of the value of and threats to the great apes.And, the internal laws and enforcement practices in each signatory nationwill implement the obligations assumed in the treaty.

Non-range states, in turn, will commit among other things to providingscientific support as well as financial assistance when appropriate, and toensuring that their own activities will not injure great apes or their habitatslocated in other nations.

At this time, we are eager for the Declaration to be signed by 2005. TheConvention will follow, with a target date for signing of 2010. Thoughthe date may seem remote, the process of achieving a treaty may be almost asimportant as the treaty itself if it promotes sufficient awareness of thenroblem and therebv contributes to initiatives.

ional Treaty

on behalf of the great apes cangreat apes as World Heritasethat critical legal ramificatiois

why yet another treaty? A treatyboth the sovereignty of the ranglmnge states by the internationaleffort among nations, completely

tational law and the availabilitydeclde to participate, can be

.(!li

(I:

€[)

*:i

lliltwfi4".E:

Richtrd W Wranghanr ct al.

6. The Need lbr an lnternational lnst i tut ionOverseeing Great Ape Corrservarron

The increased attcnliot and Ip,.,rr.. n'.. u"r*or. ;;;'i; fi:;T:,j',:,'J:';1,,1:."j1,,,-J:l,,"].fi,l.ji::;::Tl,l:::l

tor conserving and protecting ttr. g,.ut ,4,,.r. 'W.'i.,,"u"

,nn, .l 'r ' l itJof probrcm with the cufrent sysrem is that tl,"rc i. ',.,o ru.tr,r.,."t.,o,rir.n.As noted above. no existins tr.elt1, 31n,. ,p*ifl.,j f y "ip,_,rt".iing

,fr" gr.o,apes. Eclualiy importantjv. there has been no internatiorroi i,rJiui,on ,"rpon_siblc fbr lhc great lrpcs (tut sce Acldnndul.,). ft"r" Irnu" not "u"n

t.,".n "nyconscrviltion organizarions dedicated t., t1.," .n,.,r"*ntlo; ;; '*,.;, uo"ii ",

otaxoD (as opposed to advocarirg on bchalf "r "i,fr".

i,rJi"i.:r "ii

ip..i.r. ,u.tras chimpaLnzecs. or of animars is a whole). N;;;il. i l,ti.i.. r.,".n nny::l']::1"..1,]""

neetius ar which governmen,,. .;;;;ij;,;"iGOs. andsclenllsts havc met to gcitcl.ate a scries oi.."gi,r,],,I pi,rnr. i.L oton. a gtoUrlphr . { r .o lL . rc t t r . r . rher . . b" . , , . ; , , , " , ; i ; " : , ' , ' : ] ' ' l : l - ' : '_" ' " 'irtcrnationar corscrv^tion ,,.";::.. ' i i l_

signilicaut attenpt ro organizc ancrrbrts havc,."J;J,; l;'i;,":fl,.j::jl'":':.j;ifi :,,T$":.i::":JJlil;|1:'1,:::ll

p)acecr. rhey are ollen timitecl i,, ,;p;:;; o.,,r,r"i,ir.,r,.o r:lut c5 g t . r rcn i l p r inc ip le . .Fbr example. basic tcnets of c. ",,,Ly .,gsJ;;',h,; ;,;;;i ;";',:,'il'':,:i',?:j::r"il]sJ,.#fHi:::;,?f;:

Trl r\tectrol of r netr ork of rndr.oenclcnt, viable populations ifri J,rfrur nnOWitson. ter-7: SoLLjc. tqrT; prrrnack. 1993: Ijim"l,,ir]ii""ir]ffi ,, rrr",,to1:],:1U"T-T :: *'rrity ro idenrily rhose ralge popuiations of each species thatmrgur survrvc over.the iong terrn. Rcsources slr.rfO rr"

"rf".*iiu levored toprorccrrng thesc populatior.rs and thc habitats tfrot , uppo,-i ifr",lrl i,.,u*_,.r,,survival of species ancj thcir geographrc variability woujd bc best insured ifjl l:":'1\_1,t,'?:", cxlinctior, fronr rvharever .,,"... ' ir r;;;j;;;I,,g n.,ony ortnese populations.

ln practice. howcver. lew ifachievecl the ;r;; ;,";;;;;""'11

;rnv grcat ape co'scfvation eflorts have

lwhirten cr a/.. zo0'.j. ,,fi;;;. .."::l i:l l1,t "9d'::' thcsc.nritjor challengcs

popLrrarions thar !,rc so,,,",,",.,i,?illtll,tfllif ,T:?il.H i.XTilT,,l::;::both a l.w probability ard a low global ,ig,rin.un... S.,t,ri,,i*i irrr,", n.,aiso becndiverted into projects tl iot i l l teginte conse.*.,, ""0'0.".,.01n*,ln ways lhat neglcct t lte l l ttaitm

:il:gn,." loaLcs. r eve: r.,b;;;;:"i;;, ",;:$:'TT,:i #:.iilil::,:l1l:2001.). Meanw hrlc. ro're or rhr. tlmtreci nunrber ot "i;bb ;;;il,i:il ot *.n

:T":l:,11-": ,"1,..1 ro captnre thc auenlion of conscrvatiorisrs. As a r.csulr. wenrvc mlssed oppor-tunitics to reducc the rate of apc pop,,t"t io,t J..f ir,"r.we flnd it har-d to imaginc rhar rhe grcat apes wir survive without thesystematic.doption of a iarger_scalc i,., t[.ot",l 'p.rr1r"., ir,. i ' lrn. ,"i"* ,n.*pfobten,s. A major missing component r.cquircd io, , lr" .una.ruurin'n'o f. gr"or

Institution)n

rised by a higher international'lemented with an appropriatee great apes. We believe that at there is no such mechanism.)ciflcally at protecting the greatrIternational institution respon_There have not even been any

)onseNation of great apes as a'either individual species, suchIor, indeed, has there been anyts, conservation NGOs, andJronal plans, let alone a globalrcant attempt to organize an;reat apes. Thus, conservationa result, have not necessarily

cope and poorly inlormed by

Lology and population ecologyecles extrnction is through thepopulations (MacArthur and

m and Raven, 2000). It shouldrpulations of each species thatrould bc especially devoted tohat support them. Long-termri|ty would be best insured iftse, is spread among many of

)e conservation efforts haveldress these major challengesE eflor t has been put into apet their long-tcrm survival hasmce. Substantial funding haslnservatron and developmentnent of actual conservationet (11., 1999; Whrtten et al.,rf viable populations of eachrservationists. As a result, weape population declines.les will survivc without theperspective that solves thesefbr the conservation of great

14. The Grcat Apc World Heritage Species ProJect 289

ape species is their management as mcta-popll lations, without regard tonational boundaries or affi l iation with particular research tcams or conser-vation orga[izations. Conservtrtion cllorts must take into aocount the rlccd toprotect scvcral laqe habitat blocks that contlrin populations with the greatestchances of long-lcrm viabil ity. There is therefore the nccd fol a fbrmallyrecogrized and scientif ically fcspccted inter natio[al body to makc dcctstonsabout the allocation of resourcel This body would also hclp in many otherways, such as developing monitoring systcms of ape populations. assessingthe efficacy of various conservation efforts, coordinating the management ofsystems of proteoted areas that span several countries. and addrcssing thepolit ical probiems of tr ans-natioral collaboration.

Accordingly, we view the first practioal benefit of World Heritage Speciesstatus as the establishmenl of an international institutior dedicalcd to theprotection of the great apes. We conceive of somc ltrrm of "lnternational CreatApe Commissior," which would bring goverrmerts, scientists. and NGOstogether into a com[lon fbrum lor recognizing thc global colrcerl] aboLLt thegreat apes, and lor planning, implementing. and monitoring lrn approFridteconscNation strategy. A recelt collaborative eflbrt to address the conscrvalioncrisis rclated to thc spread of the Ebola virus through many separate gorillapopulations il Central Wcst Africa is encoutaging ir this respect. Rcscarchers,policy-makers, and conservation profcssionals have stepped back ftom thc con-cens of their specific alrcas to seek a broad solution. Thc crcirl ion of a tormalintcrnational institution would providc thc mechanisn and have the truthorityto address such crises quickly ald efficientl1,.

Such a comnission could in theory develop out of existirg i l lstitLll ions. Forexamplc, it is possible that it might evolvc orLt of the recently instituted GrcalApes Survivirl Pro1ect (GRASP) of the United Nations ErvironmentalProgramme (UNEP) and the United Natiors Educalional. Scienti l lc andCultural Organization (UNESCO), or thc Pfimate Specialist Groups ol' theInternational Union for the ConseNation o[ Naturc (IUCN). We wouldwelcomc sucl] a developneDt. A key aim of the Great npe World HcrjtageSpecies Project, thetcfbre, is to promote the cstablishment of some suchmcchanism fbl uniting and trccclcrating cttrrent el'lorts.

As this chaplcr goes to press. GAWHSP is wolking with UNESCO andUNEP to plan a "summit meeting" on the great lrpcs. We ltope that oleoutcome of this n.reeting wil l bc such a commission.

7. The Value Problem in Conservation

The GAWHSP proposal is that the grcat apes be formally recognizcd at theglobal level as having outstanding universal valuc ibr all mar.rkind.

But lbr at least two rcasons lhis proposal is problcmatic lor many colser-vationists. F-irst, it challerges the oonvcntional rvisdom that all nonhumanspecies sl.rould be treatcd cqually. As Hargrovc ( 1989) wrote, the predomrnant

290 Richard W Wrangham et al.

quest rn envrronmental ethics has been for a nonanthropocentric philosophyof conseruation. This tends to lead to the view that all life has equ;l inherentvalue (e.g., Naess, 1986).

Accordingly, the priorities for conservationists are to save as many formsof life as possiblg which they do by directing resources to those specles thatare most endangered (Hargrove, 1989; Harcourt, 2000), and to areascontaining particularly high biodiversity (Myers, lggg; Mittermeier et ql.,1998; Olson and Dinerstein, 2000). (Depending on how these guidelines werenterpreted, some species of great apes would not be given special attention.For examplg there are many species more immediately threatened than thegreat apes; and the first 24 "biodiversity hotspots,' identified by Mittermeieret al. (1998) did not include gorilla or bonobo habitat.)

The GAWHSP argument that the great apes should be given a specialconservatlon status has therefore sometimes been seen as a threat to thisconventional conservationist philosophy. For example, the concern has beenexpressed by some people that efforts to save more threatened species ofprimates, such as some gibbons and monkeys, would be undermined if thegreat apes become "World Heritage Species.',

However, although endangerment and biodiversity are key criteria forsettlng conservation priorities, they need not be the only ones. In pracnce,different species are valued for many different reasons, including economlc,spiritual, scientific, educational, and strategic reasons, as well as theii umqueness(Hunter, 1996; Kellert, 1997). particular species or taxa often tend to besingled out lor special attention, including those that are more closely relatedto humans. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (l9gl_19g3)assumed that greater phylogenetic proximity to humans represented great€rvalue to humans (e.g., mammals outranked birds) (Norton, l9g7). Thegeneral public clearly feels the same way.

A fbcus on the great apes because of the empathy that humans feel forthem, therefore, fits public sentiment and can be used to the advantase olother species, including the small apes (gibbons and siamang) and otherprimates. We suggest that new ways of raising public awareness will bringnew economic, political, and activist resources to the problem. Furthermorgbecause the great apes can act as umbrella species (having large home rangesthat encompass many other species), flagship species (having broad andrntensely personal appeal), and indicator species (being particularly sensitiveto threats to their habitats), they have strong strategic value.

In fact, there is much overlap in conservation priorities of great apes versusother tropical plant and animal life. Because all great apes live at relativelylow population densities, large areas need to be protected for each population.These large areas of habitat are the optimal umbrella for the conservation ofall habitat and species diversity.

As noted, we also propose that the great apes be merely the first WorldHerilrge Species. We would expect other species to follow, if they wouldbenefit from a global support system with a new international mechanism forintegrating their conservation.

a nonanthropocentric philosophynew that all l i fc has equal inherent

ronrsts are to sltve as many lormslng resources to thosc species thatHarcourt, 2000), and to areas

(Myen, 1988; Mittermcier er a/.,dlng on how lhcse guideiines wererld not be given special attention.immediately threatened than the

rtspots" idcrtif ied by Mittermeierrbo habitat.). apes should be given a speciales been seen as a thrcat to this)r example, the concern has beensave more threatened species of:ys, would be undermined if the

biodiversity are key criteria forot be the only ones. In practice,)nt reasons, including economic,easons, as well as thcir uniqueness)ecres or taxa oltcn tend to berose that are more closely relatedtd Wildlife Se rvice ( l98l 1 983)/ to numals represented greatered birds) (Norton, 1987). The

) empathy that humans leel lorar be used to the advautage of)bons and siamang) and othermg public awerrcness will bring:s to the problcm. Furthermore,ncies (having large home ranges

species (having broad andies (being particularly selsit ive

ic vaiue.priorities ()1' grcat apes versus

all great apes live at relativelyprotected for each population.

lor lhe corrservation of

be mercly the first Wor.ld

14. The Great Ape World lJeritage Spccics Project 291

The second (and closcly related) diff iculty that CAWHSP intfoduccs fbrtraditional conservationist philosophy is that it aims to unite cnvironmentalethics with support for individual intcrests of nonhuman species. Advocatcsof the latter are in conflict with the "sustlrinablc usc" paradigm of conserva-tion. However. no great ape conservation group advocatcs harvest or kil l ingof great apes, ard this is illcgal in every great ape raDge state. Thus.GAWHSP ajms 10 enlist the passions of advocates for the individual interestsof great apes in the mission of conserving thcsc species in the wild. But,unlike those inlcrestcd in individual welfare. conservationists tend to playdown the importancerbf i ldividuals, personali l ics. and emotional l ives in thespecies that thcy try/to save. Indeed. they oftelr regard trnimal wcllarc as tnconflict with ervironmentalism. particularly bccause an interest in welfaretends to be associated with an animal rights philosophy morc concerned witl 'rhumal-l ike speoies than with biodivcrsity (Hargrove, 191.i9).

Thc GAWHSP philosophy, by contrast. is that biodiversity is an importantcriterion of value, but it is not the oDly one. For stratcgic reasons, we think itunwise to advocate 1br animal rights since the rights question involves legal trndphilosophical issues that are unlikely to be viewod in similar ways worldwide.Ncvcrtheless. we view the relationship betweel conservationists and advocatesof great ape wellirre as a coalition witb potcntially mlrch greater power thanhas to date been achieved. We expect this ilcreased power to comc parlly bygalvanizilg widespread support l iom animal-wcllare gloups. a sector that hasto date been co-opted relatively l i tt le in the conservatiol movemcnt.

lrr sum, we suggest that the singling out of great apes fbr special attentronis justif ied by popular interest, aDd that, rather than jeopardizing thecoDservation of other specics. it wil l signiflcantly help other species.

8. The Development of GAWHSP, January 2001to January 2003

Thc projcct's fifst task has bee:r to make the scientific case that the great apesneed strolger protection, in order to hrd out whether intcrnational ager]cieswould support cflorts to obtain a higher profile fbr the great apes. This phase,organized by the Ad-hoc Committee for the World Hcdtagc Status fbr theGreat Apes. culminated at a meeting in Paris in October 2001. VariousUNESCO olTicers (concerned with the Convcntion on Wolld Heritage Sites)agrccd that improvcd intcrnational legislation to protect great apes isdesirable and practicable, and ercour aged the Ad-Hoc Committee to cxplorcways of achieving World Heritage Species status. We were also advised not toseek modifioation to the 1972 Convention on World Hcritagc Sites, because,in practice, UN Convcntions are very larely modified.

F-rom October 2001 to August 2002, thc Ad-Hoc Committee worked withthe Intemational Committee of the Chimpanzee Collaboratory to begin thedrafting of potential legislative iDstruments. It also approached v ioLrsorganizations, individuals. and governments in an attempt to gauge interest

to follow. if they wouldrnternational mechanism lor

292 Richard W Wrangham et al.

and support for the conccpt of Wolld Heritage Species status lor the grcat

apes. This lcd to public and private expressions of suppolt lor GAWHSP byrepresentatives from Uganda, the Demoorertic Republic of the Congo, andlndoncsia. Key lumiraries have written letters directly in support ofGAWHSfl including .Tane Goodall ald Edward O. Wilson.

In August 2002, GAWHSP was discussed at the InternationalPrimatological Congress in Beij ing. The achievements and goals of the IPSAd-hoc Committee for World Helitage Species for the Greal Apes werereviewed first in a two-hour workshop and subsequer.rtly by the lnternationalPrimatologigal Society (IPS) General Assembly. The Gencral Assembly votedto approvfhe eflort to seek World Heritage Species status for the GreatApes. The Assembly also proposed that the Ad-hoc Committee evolve intoan independent body which would continue its work by attempting todevelop a Convention on World Heritagc Species, with the great apes as thefirst such species. This proposal was accepted.

Since thcn. the IPS Ad-Hoc Committee has therefbre ofi icially trans-formed itself into the Stee ring Committee for GAWHSP. lt is this body thatcontinues to interact with UNESCO and other organizations to developan International Declaration, fbllowed by a Convenlion, as proposed bythe IPS Ad-Hoc Committee. For continuing news on these endeavors, seewww.4gfeatapes.con-I.

9. Addendum

This chapter was written in 2003. As it goes to press (May 2006), we wish tonote several positivc developments over the last three years. UNEP andUNESCO's Great Ape Survival Project GRASP) has undergone institutionalrevisions that address some of these issues, ald GAWHSP has been a strongsupporter lor GRASP's increascd effectiveness. At GRASP's inauguralCouncil Meeting in Septerrber 2005, the Kirshasa Declaration was unani-mously approved and now has been signed by nearly all government andNGO partners, with others intending to do so. The Dcclaration includesmuch of the sentiment and commitments we had hoped n.right be in a decla-ration establishing great apes as world heritage spccics. Further, in late 2004GRASP incorporated a Scientific Commission, and its initial objective hasbeen to locus GRASP actions on thc identification and protection of thosegreat ape wild populations that will preserve the genetic, ecological andcultural diversity o[ the grcat apes. This commitment is explicitly stated in theKinshasa Declaration.

The World Conservation Union's (IUCN) Primate Specialist Group estab-lished a Seotiol on Great Apes in 2004 that has begun addressing a numberof international collaborative issues to improve great ape conservation. Chiefamong these have been rcgional workshops to develop conservation actionplans lor specific great ape species and subspecies. Othcr taxon-specitic, but

trc(Gal

br

al

Ss(c

A

n(JI'l

IsItt(lI

I

Heritage Species status lor the great€sslons ol support for GAWHSp byocratic Repubiic of the Congo, andten letters dir.ectly in support ofEdward O. Wilson.

discussed at the Internationalachrevements and goals of the IpS

:.Species for the Great Apes wererd subsequently by the Internationalembly. The Geleral Assembly votedrntage Species status lor the Greatthe Ad-hoc Committee evolve intonl rnue r ts work by at tempt ing to:specles. wi lh the grcat ape5 as thepred.tlee has th(refor(. olllcjaliy trans-e lor GAWHSP t r is rh is body rhatId other organizations to developby a Convention, as proposed byurng news on these endeavors, see

14. The Grcat Ape World Heritage Spccies project 293

transnational wolkshops have helped identify priority populations forconservation atteDtion and fulding. We expect the IUCNiPSG! Section onGreat Apes and GRASP's Scientif ic Commission to fi l l mutually supportiveand complementary roles. So the crisis ill great ape conservation is nowbenefit ing fiom intemational scientif ic collaboratjon and advice.

Howcver, these positive developments have not diminisl.red the need forvastly improved polit ical commitmcnt and funding, both of which would beadvanc$d by pursuing a fbrmal status of great apes as World HeritageSpecies.lAs we pursue this objectivc, it is critical to tie these clements rogernerso this stlrtus confers tangiblc and sustained benellts for the protcctioD ofgreat ape wild populations and individuals.

Acknot,,ledgments. This chapter rcpresents tltc energies, ideas, and activity ofmany individuals and organizations, including Christophe Bocsch, DebbyCox, Sally Coxe, Doug Cress, Jim Else. Takcshi Furuichi, Michele Goldsmith.Jane Goodall, Chie Hashimoto. Holly Hazard, Jan van Hooff, Gilbcrtlsabirye-Basuta, Jamie Jones, Sonya Kahlenberg, Cheryl Knott, Sarah Luick.Tetsuro Matsuzawar, Martin Muller, Dale Peterson. Herman pontzer. IanRedmond, Vernon Rcynolds, Tony Rose, Norm Rosen. Anne Russon. JohnScherlis, Craig Stanford, Janette Wallis, David Watts, Stever Wise, and JuichiYamagiwa. Particular thnnks go to David BufmoD and Kayo Burmon lortheir dcvelopment of Great Ape World Hcritarge Specics project, Inc.. ard tothc Glaser Ptogress Foundation tbr funding thc Chimpanzec Collaboratory.GAWHSP also appreciates the support of the Aiexnlder AbrahamFoundation, the Car Foundation. and the Sharcd Earth Foundation. TNthanks thc Global Environment Research Fund from thc Ministrv of theEnvironment, . lapan.

ReferencesAnonymous (2001). The great ape declaration preventing the extitlction of the great

apes by awarding thcm World Hcritage Statos. pdn Aftica Nclr.r 8:2 17.Beck,8.8.. Stoinski, T.S.. Hutchins. M., Maple. T.L.. Norton. B., Rowan. A.. SteveDs.

E.F., and Arlukc. A. (eds.). (2001). Great ,1pes und llu:11mls: jhe Ethits of'Coe xi s ten rc. Sn,)ithsoni.ln lnslilute, Washington, DC.

Darwin, C. (1871). Tlle Des(.1t of Ma an.l Sde(tio in Relatioa to .!c_r. Jol]n MrLrray.London.

Felton, A.M.. Engstrom, L.M., Felton. 4., and Knort, C.D. (2003). Oranguranpopulation deDsity. lorest structure and ftuir availability in handJogged and unloggedpeat swamp lbrest in West Kalimantan. Indoncsia. BialogiL. Con.servution 114..91 l0l.

Harcoult, A.H. (2000). CoiDcidence and mismatch of biodiversity hotspots: a globalsurvey lbr thc ordeq primd.tes. Bi.iogical Conseryation 93 163 1j5.

Hargiove -E.C- ( I989). Al overview of conservation and human values: are conserlationgoals merely cultural attitudes? [n: Western. D., and pearl. M.C. (eds), Col,renatiojl./br the Twetlly-Fi'st Cdrtrf,. Oxtbrd Uriversity Prcss. New Yo rk- pp. 227 23j .

es to press (May 2006), we wish tothe last three years. UNEp andIASP) has undergone institutional,.and GAWHSP has been a stronglrveness. At GRASp,s inauguralKinshasa Declaration was unani-ed by nearly all government anddo so. The Declaration includesre had hoped might be in a decla-

specres. Fnrthcr, in late 2004and its initial objective hasron and protection of thosethe genetic, ecological and

is explicitly statetl in the

Primate Specialist Group estab_has begun addressing a number

$eat ape conseryation. Chiefdevelop conservation action

Other taxon-specific, but

Richard W Wlangham et ir l .

Hunter. M.L.J. (1996). FuntLunentals of Ctttser|tiott Bialog).. Blackwell Science.Canbridge. MA.

Kano, T. (1992). Tl1. Last Alc; Pygnty Chinpanzcc Behuvior and Eohg;,. StanfordUniversity Press. Stanlbrd, CA.

Kellert. S.R. (1997). Kinship to Masterf: Iliophilio in Hunan Eyohurcn anriDev k) pnrn t. Island Prcss. Washington, DC.

MpcArthur. R.H.. and Wilson, E.O. (1967). L,;lunl Biugeogurphy. princeton

lUniversity Prcss. Princeton. NJ.Mlttermeier, R.4.. Myers. N.. Thomsen, J.B.. da Folseca. G.A.B.. and Oiivieri. S.

(1998). Biodiversity Ilotspots and major rropical wildemess areas: approaches tosctting conselvation priorities. abr.lcl.y4llon Biolog\' 12.516 520.

Myers. N. (1988). Thrcatened biotas: 'hotspots'in tropical lorcsts. Enrircnnentalisl8 :187 208.

Naess. A. (1986). lDtrinsic value: wil l the defendcrs of natur.e please rise? In: Soul6.M.E. (cd.). Cotlserratiotl Biology; The S(ie (:e oJ S(ar(itt, an.l Dij,ersitr-. Sina:ue\Sunderland, MA. pp. 504 516.

Nishida, T., Wlangham, R.W. Jones. J.H.. Marshall. A.. and Wakiba:.a, J. (2001). Dochimpanzees survivc the 2lst ceDtury? In: Brookfield Zoo (ed.). Tfu Ape,t. ChallengesJat tlrc 2lst Centut.),. Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, IL. pp 43 51.

Norton. B.G. (1987). Wb, preserj)( 4turul rar-i.l_t,: pfinceton Univcrsity press,Princeton. NJ.

Oates, J.F (l999). Myll1an.l Reali4, i1 thc Raitl Fot.e't; Hol, Cotlsetvttion Strutegi.sarc Failing h West ,Uiiut. University of Caiilornia Press. Berkeley, CA.

Olson. D.M.. aDd Dinerstein. E. (2000). The Global2000: A representation approachto conserving the earths most biologically valuable ecorcgions. CansenatiotlBiolog: 12:502-515.

Peterson. D. (2003). Eati g Apes. University ol'Calilomia pr.css, Berkeley. CA.Pimm. S.L.. and Raver, P (2000). Extinction by numbcrs. Nr/rarr, 403:843 845.Prinlack. R.B. (1993). Esst tials oJ Consetwtiotl Biolog)r. Sinauer Associates,

Sunderland. MA.Rijkscn, l{., and Meijaa:d. E. (1999). Our Vu ishtug Reldtite: The Statu.t tlf ll/ikl

Orang-utun.s at thc Cb.te ol the Ttrenticth Cer?1u,.1,. Tropenbos publications,Wageniugen, the Nethcrlands.

Robbins, M.. Sicotte, P. and Stewar.t. K.J. (eds.) (2001). Mowtain Gorillas: ThreeDecades of Reyarth ut Katisal{e. Cambridge University Press, New york.

Rose. A. (1998). Growing conmercc in bushmedt deslroys great apes and thr€atenshrrm \ity. Af ri&11 Prilnutcs 3:6 12.

Singleton. l.S. Wich, S., Husson. S.. Stephens, S.. Utami Atmoko. S.. Lcighton. M..Rosen. N., Traylor-Holzcr. K.. Lacy. R.. and Nyers. O. (eds.).2004 OrangutanPopulations and Habitat Viabil ity Assessment: Final Rcport. IUCN/SSCConscrvation Brecding Specialist Group. Apple Valley. MN. http://wwwcosg.or.grreports/excc sun/Otangutan PHVAo4 LowRcs.pdf

Soul€, M.E.. (ed.). (1987). Viable Populations.fi Consert atiott. Cambridge UniversityPress. Cambridge.

Terborgh. J. (1999). Requient fitr Narrlrz. Island Press. WashiDgton. DC.Tilnan. D.. May. R.M.. Lehman, C.L., and Nowak, M.A. (1994). Habirar destructior

aDd the extinction debt. Naturc 311:65 66.van Schirik. C.P. Monk, K.A., and Robertson, lM.Y. (2001). Dramatic decline in

orang-utan numbe$ in the Leuser ecosystem. northern Sumatra. O'.r_\ 35:14,25.

'',o/ion Biolog!. Blackwell Science,

:ee Behaior and Ecolog,r,. Stanford

,philia tu Human Etolution and

Island B iogeography. princeton

Fonseca, G.A.B., and Olivieri, S.wilderness areas: approaches to

togr 12:516 520.r tropical forcsts. Enyironmentalist

's^of natufe please rise? In: Soul€,)J )raftit1 anLl Dtv(rslry. Sinauer,

I, A.. and Wakibara, J. (2001). Do)ld Zoo (ed.), The Apes.. ChallenpesBrookfield, lL, pp. 43-51.e4,,? Princeton University press,

rest; Hotr Co seriJation Stratekiesia Press, Berkeley. CA.2000: A representation approach

tluable ecoregions. Coniervarion

ifornia Press, Berkeley, CA.nbers. r'y'alr//e 403:843 g45.n Biolog),. Sinauer Associates,

Relat^'e: The Status of WildTropenbos Publications,

l). Mounrain Gorillas; ThrcePress, New York.great apes and threatens

Atmoko, S., Leighton, M..O. (eds.). 2004 Orangutan

Final Reporr. IUCNiSSC. MN. hrtp://wwwcbsg.org/

Cambridge University

DC.(1994). Habirat destruction

I). Dramatic decline inOryx 35:14-25.

14. The Gfcat Ape World Heritage Species Projcct 295

Wells. M.S.. Guggenhcim. S.. Kahn. A.. Warclojo. W. and Jepson. P (1999). l tr tr :r l t)rg

i1 Biotliarsil): A Rctiev d Itldurciiis Inlagrutt:d Conscrtution (tnl Davla!)tttoll

PloTecls. Thc World Ballk. Washirgton DC-

Whittcn. T.. I Iolmcs. D.. and MacKinnon. K. (2001) Corlservatiol i biology: a

displirccmcnt behirvior for academi,r'). aonstrto!ion Riohg! l5tl 3

Wich. S.A.. Singleton. I . . Utami-Atlhoko- S.S., Geults. M.L.. Ri jksen. H.D. and vit t t

Schaik. C.P (2003). The stotus ol'ltlle Sumatran orang-utaD Potrya d)r lii. .rr1 ttpdirtc.

Olr,-r 37:,19 54.Wilkie. D.S.. and Cirrpcnter. J.F. ( 1999). Bushmeat huntirrg in thc Co|go Basir l : An

asscssment ol i lnpacts rnd optiol ls for mit igatiorl Biot l i rersit t und (t, l \er\ ' ( t l ian

8 :927 955 .

PROGRESS AND PROSPECTSChicago, Chicago, Illinois

of organic diversity wirh the continuiry ofseries exemplify the diversity of theoreticalcurenUy employed by primatologists and

primat€ behavior in natural habi-cons€rvation; functional morphology

systematics; genetic and phenotypic

PRIMATES IN TIIE

and Kate Elias

OFMESOAMERICANBEHAVIOR,

Mary Pavelka

BACKGROUNDSMartin Pickford,

BEHAVIORAL,

C,{TTA IN MADAGASCARKoyama

EVOLUTION

Conservation in the2Ist Century: Gorillaqas a case Studv \

Edited by

T.S. StoinskiThe Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund InternationalAtlanta, Georgia, USA

and

Zoo AtlantaAtlanta, Georgia, USA

H.D. SteklisThe Dian Fossey Gorille Fund InternationalAtlanta, Georgia, USA

and

D ep artment of Ant hr op o I o gyRutgers UniversityNew Brunswitk, New Jersey, USA

P.T. MehlmanThe Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund IntemationalAtlanta, Georgia, USA

O Springer

T.S. StoinskiThe Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund

Intemational800 Cherokee Avenue, SEAtlanta, Georgia 30315USAtstoinski@zooatlanta.org

PT. MehlmanConservation International2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500Arlingtor, VA 22202

Librarv of Consress Control Number: 2007922443

H.D. SreklisHCI Box 57623 Wildlife LaneElgin, AZ 85611

e-ISBN 978-0-387-70721-lISBN 978-0-387-70720-4

Printed on acid-free paper.

O 2008 Springer Sciencc+Busincss Mcdia, LLCA11 rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without thewritten permission of the pubiisher (Springel Science+Business Media. LLC, 233 Spling Street,New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarlyanalysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronicadaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hercaflerdeveloped is forbidden.The usc in this publication of trade names, tmdemarks, seryice marks, and simiiar terms, even ifthey are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an exprcssion of opinion as to whether ornot they are subject to proprietary rights.

9 8 7 6 5 4 t 2 1

sorinsercom