Arctictis binturong

Habitat loss and degradation are major threats to the Binturong (Schreiber et al. 1989) as is fragmentation, particularly in those parts of the range where hunting is heavy. Throughout this species's range, there has been loss and degradation of forests through logging and conversion of forests to non-forest land-uses (Sodhi et al. 2010; WWF 2013, 2015; Gaveau et al. 2014). Forest conversion has been extremely high in the lower-altitude parts of its Sundaic range in the last 20 years (e.g. Holmes 2000, BirdLife International 2001, Jepson et al. 2001, McMorrow and Talip 2001, Lambert and Collar 2002, Kinnaird et al. 2003, Curran et al. 2004, Fuller 2004, Eames et al. 2005, Aratrakorn et al. 2006, Gaveau et al. 2014, Margono et al. 2014, Stibig et al. 2014). Protected areas are not exempt from deforestation; 40% of the forest lost in Indonesia during 2000–2012 was lost in areas where logging is restricted (national parks and protected forests; Rode-Margano et al. 2014), and in Kalimantan specifically, 56% of protected lowland forests were cleared from 1985 to 2001 (Curran et al. 2004). Lowland deforestation is now also a growing threat to populations in mainland South-east Asia (e.g. Chutipong et al. 2014, Donald et al. 2015). Choudhury (1997) noted that large-scale deforestation in Indian portions of the species’s range could be contributing to its increased rarity, because many former records come from areas where forests are now being degraded. In China, rampant deforestation and opportunistic logging have fragmented suitable habitat or eliminated sites altogether (Pu et al. 2007).

Throughout South-east Asia, Binturong is hunted for its meat, for traditional medicines and as pets (Corlett 2007, Roberton 2007, Datta et al. 2008, Shepherd 2008, Shepherd and Shepherd 2010, Naniwadekar et al. 2013). In the Philippines, this species is harvested for the pet trade, and in the south of its range it is also taken for human consumption (GMA Philippines 2006). In Lao PDR, this species is among the most frequently displayed caged live carnivores and skins are traded frequently in at least Vientiane (R.J. Tizard pers. comm. to Duckworth et al. 1999, T.N.E. Gray pers. comm. 2015). Considered a delicacy in parts of Lao PDR, the Binturong is taken for food and is also traded as a food item to Viet Nam (I. Johnson pers. comm. to Duckworth et al. 1999). There is a large demand for civet meat, including Binturong, in China and Viet Nam (Bell et al. 2004, Roberton 2007).

Recent camera-trapping evidence across the species’s range has made clear that the Binturong descends to the ground more frequently than had previously been thought; therefore, the threat of snaring to this species is likely to be more serious than had been assumed. Non-specific hunting of large mammals is very high across most of the species's mainland range, with industrial level cable-snaring especially prevalent in parts of northern South-east Asia. Given that the Binturong is relatively unafraid of people and is sometimes active during the day, it is often conspicuous both to surveyors (suggesting that the few encounters reflect a low population) and to hunters (thus exposing it to elevated risk) (Duckworth et al. 1999); this is supported by verbal reports from wildlife hunters in North-east India (see Naniwadekar et al. 2013). A number of national-, landscape- and survey-area-level reviews of small carnivore records in mainland South-east Asia have found Binturong to be infrequently recorded, and sometimes not at all, in relatively intensive camera-trap surveys (i.e. more than 1,000 effective camera-trap-nights) (e.g. Chutipong et al. 2014; Coudrat et al. 2014; Gray et al. 2014a, 2014b; Willcox et al. 2014: SOM T3). Although the species’s arboreality may in part explain the paucity of records, the large number of camera-trap surveys, some of which were targeted at species found in similar habitats e.g. Mainland Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa, and the hunting-pressures in this region that have caused the declines in a large range of animal species, suggests that the current infrequency of Binturong records from the mainland South-east Asia portion of its range may be a genuine indication of its rarity there and that this reflects recent decline.

Stricter enforcement of legislation against poaching, wildlife trade, habitat degradation and deforestation is required to conserve Binturong. In India it has been on CITES Appendix III since 1989 (CITES 2015). It has also been listed under Schedule I of The Wild Life (Protection) Act of India; this gives the highest conservation status to any species. In Borneo, it is included on Schedule 2 of Sabah’s Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997, under which hunting and collection is allowed with appropriate license issued by the Sabah Wildlife Department, on Part II of the First Schedule of the Sarawak Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1998, and on Indonesia’s Government Regulation No 7. In Brunei, however, the Binturong is not legally protected. In Bangladesh it has complete protection under wildlife protection law of 2012. It is protected in Malaysia, Thailand (under WARPA 2003), and in Viet Nam (Appendix 1B; Decree 32/2006). In the Philippines, the Environmental Legal Assistance Center has been involved in controlling and enforcing wildlife laws. The species is listed as Critically Endangered on the China Red List.

Binturong occurs in many protected areas spread across its current range; however, the effectiveness of these reserves at protecting this species is highly variable: it has not been targeted as a conservation focus, or indeed even surveyed for, in many protected areas, and most of the confirmed records are from general surveys or by-catch from surveys aimed at other species. Detailed radio-tracking studies, combined with watching to pay particular attention to ground-level use, would aid, greatly, understanding of this species’s ecology and therefore (i) a far more confident assessment of whether the lack of camera-trap records from some areas is a genuine reflection of decline/absence, and not of ineffective camera-trap placement, and (ii) more effectively targeted conservation.