Pieter's Blog

Welcome to Pieter Kat's official LionAid blog. Here you can follow Pieter's opinions, thoughts, insights and ideas on saving lions.

Bluefin tunas bargained against elephants

                                                 

                                                   Save tunas? Only if you save elephants

 

 

This is an old report I came upon, but it clearly indicates how issues are handled at CITES meetings. 

The report can be found here.

 

 It concerns pre-CITES CoP15 (Doha, March 2010) negotiations between a group of 23 African nations (Kenya, Nigeria and Ethiopia are identified) and the EU bloc. The 23 African nations were concerned that the EU would allow Zambia and Tanzania to downlist their elephant populations to Appendix II so they could sell their ivory stockpiles (and engage in elephant trophy hunting, etc). So the group of 23 decided to apply a bit of pressure – we will vote to protect tunas if you vote against the Zambian and Tanzanian proposals.

 

"Please do not force our collective hand to cast our 23 votes against the EU on any of the issues it is supporting such as, for example, the high-profile proposed ban on bluefin tuna," they stated in a leaked letter seen by Reuters.

 

As you will remember, the elephants were not downlisted but the tunas were not protected – Japan was able to mobilize sufficient support to convince CITES that tunas should be looked after by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (which had overseen the decline in the first place) so that tuna fishing could go on unabated. Tanzania tried again to have elephants downlisted with a proposal to CoP16 in Bangkok, but withdrew the proposal before the Conference. 

 

So anytime anyone says that CITES carefully considers trade in species based on scientific evidence and the “precautionary” principle, please remind them of the tuna. It is all secretive horse-trading and politics at the end of the day. 

 

 

Picture credit: www.lastwordonnothing.com

 

 

 If you have not already signed up to our mailing list, you can add your name here and keep up to date with our ongoing work and, most importantly, DONATE to support our work to conserve the remaining fragile lion populations. Thank you. 

Add a comment | Posted by Pieter Kat at 14:40

LionAid proposes 10 Point Lion Conservation Programme

It is undisputed that lions are being lost at a great rate. Of the 49 continental African nations, lions are already extinct in 25 countries and seriously threatened in a further 10 countries. Only 14 countries with some lion populations remain, but even there these predators are increasingly threatened. 

 

The major threats include a long list of factors including loss of habitat, loss of prey due to unregulated bushmeat poaching, civil strife, lack of effective wildlife departments, lack of political will to engage in wildlife conservation, conflict with livestock and humans, excessive trophy hunting, diseases introduced by domestic animals, lack of dedicated national lion conservation programmes, and lack of realistic lion population numbers to guide better and more effective conservation techniques. 

 

Some of these factors can be addressed by conservation programmes, others will require significant sociopolitical solutions. For example, wherever there is civil strife, wildlife conservation is no longer on any agenda. Countries without effective central governments will also lack any effective wildlife conservation programmes. This means, that among the few African range states where lions might still remain, we can pretty much rule out a future for lions in Somalia, large stretches of South Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mali. 

 

Remaining lion populations in Malawi (<40), Nigeria (<40), Senegal (<40) will need greater efforts than currently exist to ensure any future survival. Remaining populations in western African nations like Benin, Burkina Faso and Cameroon immediately need to be placed on the IUCN Critically Endangered Species list as well as CITES Appendix I as they represent a unique genotype and perhaps have no more than a few hundred animals remaining.  All those three mentioned nations still allow trophy hunting offtake. 

 

So where do lions have a long-term future with much better conservation programmes? We would say Kenya, Ethiopia, Botswana, Uganda (no trophy hunting offtake); Zambia (trophy hunting moratorium); and Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Tanzania (trophy hunting offtake). 

 

Conservation challenges are different and similar in countries with and without lion trophy hunting. Except for South Africa, lion populations in all other nations occur within unfenced protected areas too small to contain seasonal wildlife movements.  As a general statement, wildlife concentrates in protected areas with water resources during the dry season, but then disperses away during the wet seasons. Not surprisingly, lion/livestock conflict increases greatly during the wet season. 

 

There have been a number of attempts to mitigate lion/livestock conflicts in the past, but these have been piecemeal, inconsistent, and seemingly incapable of integrating adaptive progress. As a comprehensive statement, financial compensation programmes for livestock losses do not convince communities to tolerate lions. This is because government programmes, like those in Botswana, are slow and bureaucratic. Private programmes might work better, but often run out of funds. Both programmes do not compensate fully for livestock lost to prevent false claims and encourage better herding practices. None of these programmes ultimately convince tolerance among communities living with lions to accept livestock losses.

 

Neither do the trophy hunting arguments that giving value for lions increases tolerance. Communities are expected to accept livestock losses because, overall, they benefit from lion trophy hunting fees and other handouts. In theory, a good agenda that has long underpinned the lion trophy hunting industry rhetoric. In practice, a failed programme as hunting companies only share about 3-4% of profits with communities and governments and community organizations dispense crumbs to those living with wildlife.  

 

In discussions with communities in Kenya suffering from direct lion livestock conflict there are much better ways forward. These include better protected bomas and night-lights to deter predators. But more importantly, the communities themselves came up with much more straightforward and equitable ways forward to deal with livestock losses and predator tolerance.  We cannot yet disclose these while we seek to implement them, but they are simple and elegant and could be applied across lion conflict zones at very little cost.

 

These programmes would also apply to regions in Africa too arid to allow bomas for cattle – Botswana for example, where free-ranging grazing is the only sustainable option outside the wet season. 

 

Another big problem for lion conservation is that we do not really know how many lions are left. Very few nations have engaged in direct lion counts as they are expensive. They require trained individuals engaged over many months, photographic evidence, repeat surveys, and unbiased evaluation. To date, lion surveys have largely been conducted by various categories of guesses and extrapolation of available habitat. This is no longer acceptable.

 

Especially as the trophy hunting countries need very accurate lion population numbers to at least guide future quotas and offtake. For example, vested opinion surveys placed 3,199 lions in Zambia in 2002. Other indirect surveys indicated a minimum of 970 to a maximum of 1,975. More recent estimates show that there might well only be between 414 and 750 lions. Zambia, before the moratorium on lion hunting, was allowing an average of 60 male lion trophies to be exported yearly 2007-2011. A hunter-funded programme, the Zambia Lion Project, supposedly oversees trophy lion age minima, but has not published any publicly available information since inception in 2004. 

 

This brings up another point. Nowhere, in any lion trophy hunting country in Africa, have there been any recent surveys of lions in hunting areas. In many trophy hunting countries, the concession holders have been allowed to set their own quotas based on no discernible data. Meanwhile, studies in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Cameroon have shown that trophy hunting concessions bordering on nationally protected areas greatly influence lion populations in terms of male depopulation, pride structure, reproduction. 

 

In 2004, Craig Packer and his associates published a paper much applauded by the hunting community that indicated that as long as male lions over the age of six were shot, quotas were not necessary. Based on very questionable data about male reproduction (males take over prides age 4, are evicted by new males when they reach age 6 and then have no further reproductive opportunities) supposedly based on Serengeti lion data (challenged by virtually all lion research programmes), and guided by computer models, this has now become written in stone for hunters. Now every trophy hunter supposedly aims for 6 yr old males to the benefit of future survival of lion populations. 

 

Big problems remain. Lions are very difficult to age through a telescopic rifle sight, and younger and younger males are continually shot. Only in Mozambique is there an enforced 6 yr minimum, but how do you realistically age a lion to 6 yrs? It remains a puzzle. Tooth wear, pulp cavity measurements, skull suture measurements all occur post-mortem. Nobody abides by them, and nobody admits that the 6 yr rule is fundamentally flawed. Craig Packer will not speak out against it, but he knows full-well that it is based on questionable science. 

 

So how to go forward? We propose a much better lion conservation programme based on 10 points:

 

1. Lion range states need to conduct urgent, independent and sound population assessments. Such assessments need to be done in hunting concessions and protected areas alike. Once remaining population numbers are scientifically determined, much better conservation programmes can be put in place.

2. Lion conflict needs to be better addressed to truly mitigate costs of communities living with dangerous predators. No more piecemeal and temporary solutions, a breakthrough is both required and available.

3. Lion research programmes need to do more than monitoring. Disease threats need to be urgently assessed and quantified. Causes of lion mortality need to be documented and mitigated. Research programmes need to be established in hunting areas subjected to many years of male offtake to determine consequences of trophy hunting as a “conservation tool”.

4. Lions need to be brought to the forefront of range state national conservation programmes. Far too much attention is presently devoted to rhinos and elephants in Africa. All lion range states need to immediately formulate and enact lion conservation programmes. In all range states, lions should immediately be declared nationally protected species.

5. All lion trophy hunting should cease. There are no benefits to the species for this continued offtake.

6. The USA and the EU should immediately declare an import ban on all African lion trophies. Until independent assessments can verify that such offtake is sustainable, and does not impact negatively on trophy source populations, the precautionary principle allowed by CITES should immediately be implemented.

7. South Africa has allowed a captive breeding programme including about 7,000 lions to provide canned hunting for eager trophy hunters. All countries should immediately ban any import of lion trophies originating in South Africa on the basis that the industry integrally involves animal cruelty. No wild animal species should be purpose-bred in small enclosures using forced breeding techniques to be hunted. There is considerable evidence that lion breeding programmes to supply trophy hunters are being established in Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe at least.

8. Vested interest groups like the Safari Club International, Conservation Force, CIC, etc are lobbying hard to maintain lion trophy hunting. Politicians and decision makers should insist on careful evaluation of scientific information regarding the status of lion populations after more than 30 years of “conservation hunting” in a number of African range states. If conservation hunting had been successful, lion populations should be flourishing instead of being in steep decline everywhere.

9. Lions should be internationally recognized as a species of concern by agencies and governments, not shuffled under the carpet in favour of tigers, orang-utans, rhinos and elephants. Procedures to ensure lion protection have largely been ignored by NGOs and funding agencies in their rush to sanction species placed in the media spotlight rather than taking more considered courses to ensure biodiversity conservation.

10. LionAid is the only NGO specifically dedicated to lion conservation in the world. We should not be expected to bear this burden for an iconic species faced with an inevitable slide to extinction unless immediate and realistic attention is paid by conservation donors.

 

 

 If you have not already signed up to our mailing list, you can add your name here and keep up to date with our ongoing work and, most importantly, DONATE to support our work to conserve the remaining fragile lion populations. Thank you. - See more at: http://www.lionaid.org/blog/#sthash.FDoAV1Yr.dpuf

Add a comment | Posted by Pieter Kat at 16:48

Commercial trade in polar bears : not cultural, not subsistence, not necessary

                                                            Can’t stand being a commodity

 

 

The more I read about the recent defeat of the joint USA/Russian Federation proposal to uplist Polar Bears to CITES Appendix I (highly restricted international trade), the more convinced I become that this decision was politically motivated, was not based on any economic or cultural benefit to the native Inuit communities, was shamefully handled by the EU delegations especially Denmark, and was a blot on Canada that perhaps peddled influence over Arctic resources in return for votes. 

 My English teachers would be very critical of my use of the over-long sentence above. I beg extenuating circumstances that make me hot under the collar. And in order to consider the issue fully, I hope that you will extend the 2-minute attention span I am assured applies to all blog readers to about five or six minutes. 

 Let’s objectively consider some of the arguments used to defeat this proposal (a 2/3 majority was needed – 38 voted for uplisting, 42 against, and 48 abstained, including 26 EU member states as Denmark voted against – many of those who voted against used the argument that it would go against the cultural rights of the Inuits). A weak compromise proposal by the EU delegations was not accepted by the USA and the Russian Federation and was also defeated.

 The Inuit representatives at the CITES meeting lobbied that it was their cultural right to hunt polar bears as they had done so for centuries, and that the proceeds from such hunting was necessary to augment their meagre incomes associated with living in a part of the world where little alternative revenue is available. 

 

That argument needs to be looked at in some detail – actually it is two arguments. The first is that the Inuit have hunted polar bears for centuries and is part of their culture. That is true, and the polar bear plays an important part in an Inuit culture of hunting. However, such hunting used to come coupled with cultural ethics. For example, the Inuit believe that

“The greatest peril of life lies in the fact that human food consists entirely of souls. All the creatures that we have to kill and eat, all those that we have to strike down and destroy to make clothes for ourselves, have souls, like we have, souls that do not perish with the body, and which must therefore be propitiated lest they should avenge themselves on us for taking away their bodies.”

 Also,

“Because of these beliefs, the Inuit had a complicated set of hunting taboos that they needed to observe to be respectful of the animals that, by necessity, they needed to hunt … and to ensure that future hunting would be successful. Various gestures of respect and kindness to the souls of animals were considered to be encouragements to the animal to reincarnate into another body and, out of gratitude, allow itself to be killed again by the same hunter.”

Polar bears were special –

“The polar bear spirit was considered to be the most powerful, dangerous, and potentially revengeful … Bear hunts were usually accidental. If, while out seal hunting, fresh bear tracks are found, the hunter would set out with his dogs on the leash, armed only with his sealing harpoon. The chase was a strenuous one that could go on for days. When finally the hunter caught up with the bear, and the dogs had rounded it up, the fight was with the harpoon alone.”


Once the polar bear was killed, a number of rituals had to be observed –

“The Inuit believed that when a bear had been killed, its soul remained at the point of the harpoon head for four days if it was a male bear, and five days if it was a female bear. The soul of the bear was very dangerous during the days that it stayed in the weapon that killed it, and if it was offended, might become one of those evil spirits that persecutes people with illness or other distress. This time period was considered to be sufficient time for the bear’s soul to return to its family.

The hunter who has killed a bear and returns to his house must take off all of his outer clothing, including his outer mittens and kamiks, before entering the house. For a whole month, he must not eat of the meat or blubber of the bear. Since bears are always thirsty, it was thought to have a positive effect on their souls to give them drinking water once they have been brought into the house. (There is a prescribed way of doing this too.) 

Other death rituals (observed for four or five days, depending on the sex of the animal) surrounding the polar bear include taking the skin, with the skull intact, and hanging it, hair side out, by the nostrils in the snow hut. 

Inside, the skin, the bear’s bladder, spleen, tongue, and genitals are hung together with presents that are being made to the soul of the bear. For a male bear, various men’s implements such as knives, tools, harpoon heads, etc. must be hung up near the skin. If the bear was female, similar women’s implements (cooking utensils, an ulu, etc.) are hung up. The bear is given human tools because it was believed that bears could sometimes change themselves into humans. These gifts are similar to the possessions left with the dead because it was believed that like humans, male bears need their hunting weapons, and female bears need their domestic tools.

As long as the death taboo for the soul of the bear is being observed no man’s or woman’s work may be done, including gathering fuel or sewing new clothing (only the most necessary of repairs to clothing is allowed.) As soon as the taboo is over, children must throw the gifts to the bear’s soul on the floor and afterwards compete in picking them up again. The one who can collect the gifts most quickly will be a skilled bear hunter. 

It was thought that the spirits of humans and polar bears were interchangeable... possibly because bears have many “human” traits. They can stand up and walk on their hind legs. It walks on the soles of its feet the way humans do (unlike most other animals), and leaves full footprints when it walks. It can use its forepaws like hands to carry food to its mouth. It can sit and lean against something as if it is resting and thinking. 

The polar bear eats many of the same foods that humans do. The Inuit respect the bears’ hunting skills, and some stories state that their ancestors learned how to hunt seals by watching polar bears. They respect the bears’ strength, patience, inquisitiveness, speed, and the maternal devotion to their cubs. The Inuit also respect the intelligence of polar bears. Some Inuit believe that polar bears have an intelligence matching or exceeding that of humans.

The fact that may garner the most respect is that a skinned bear carcass has an eerie similarity to the human carcass. Many Inuit stories have polar bears that become humans by removing their fur coats, and then become bears again by putting their coats back on, or are human in their houses, but bears outside of them.”

 

I have quoted the above at length from an insightful article written here as I believe it is important to understand the actual role polar bears played in Inuit culture. All of that has pretty much gone out the window, and polar bears are now hunted as a commodity. So where stands the argument that polar bears should be commercially hunted as part of Inuit culture and therefore an “inalienable” right? It is in fact cultural anathema to hunt bears for skins and trophies.

 

This is what Terry Audla, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and present to lobby at the CITES convention had to say about polar bear hunting  :  

"It is very important, it is our livelihood. 

This is how we make our living; this is how we put food on the table. And for the rest of the world to suggest that how we manage the polar bear is not right is a slap in the face - but the decision that was made today shows we are doing the right thing.

What's traded is not in any way detrimental to the polar bear population. We harvest for subsistence, we are never driven by the market."

 

But is it really so important to local economies? Let’s look at three pertinent lines of evidence, a very detailed report written by George Wenzel, a survey done by the provincial government of Nunavut in Canada, and a comprehensive report written by the Humane Society International and the International Foundation for Animal Welfare. 

 

Before we go there, let’s be clear about something. If the CITES delegates had voted for an uplisting of polar bears to CITES Appendix I, this would in no way have interfered with ANY rights of indigenous people to maintain their “cultural” rights to hunt polar bears. CITES only controls (poorly) international trade in endangered species based the impact that such trade will have on conservation status. The USA and Russian Federation proposal to uplist the bears was only based on commercial trade, not cultural rights. 

 

So how did the commercial trade evolve among the Inuit? Trade involves polar bear pelts and hunting trophies. Commercial sport hunting of polar bears has an interesting history. According to George Wenzel, the first sport hunt occurred in 1969, when an Army officer decided to shoot a bear near to where he was stationed. During the ten years 1970-1979 sport hunting accounted for 0.8% of the quota of 440 bears assigned to Inuits by the Canadian government. By 1990-2000, this had risen to 14.7%. Why? In 1983, the international market for Canadian seal skins collapsed, in part due to an import ban imposed by the European Union. At about the same time, narwhal hunting was placed on a moratorium. To make recompense, the Northwest Territories provincial government, through their Department of Economic Development and Tourism decided to promote polar bear sport hunting. The Department provided not only start-up funding for sport hunt development but facilitated contacts with “big game” hunting wholesalers.  

 

The Canadian government had insisted, as part of their agreement in 1981 to join the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, that they had the right to assign part of the annual polar bear quota for-profit to sport hunters via the Inuit communities. Hunting by local people was allowed by using traditional methods. Are bears therefore hunted with harpoons and dog sleds by the Inuit? Not on your life – these days it is with high powered rifles and snowmobiles. Sport hunters in contrast are given a more “cultural” experience and often get dragged around on sleds. Not that it handicaps them – in four polar bear population areas the success rate was 94% as reported by George Wenzel. 

 

So how commercially important to the Inuit is polar bear hunting? Is it really, as claimed by Mr Audla, an important part of their livelihood? The HSI/IFAW report has this to say:

“The economic benefits of polar bear hunting were, even at their peak, far too limited and far too concentrated in far too few hands to amount to anything approximating a solution to the broader socio-economic troubles faced by the Inuit…”

IFAW and HSI also said that barely half of the proceeds from bear sport hunting end up with the Inuit communities. And that out of 28 Inuit communities surveyed, polar bear sport hunting amounted to an average of 0.8% of the annual income of those communities. IFAW and HSI concluded that instead of any economic difference to Inuit communities via sport hunting, only several dozen individuals at most profited from commercial utilization of the bears. Also, many Inuit communities themselves rejected commercial hunting of polar bears – the very issue presented to CITES.

 

It would seem that provincial government surveys among the Inuit agree. Among Inuit “harvesters”, 44% indicated that issues like housing, education and employment were most important to their future. Only 6% of those Inuit people with an arguably vested interest in continuing polar bear hunting put that activity at the top of their list of overall priorities. What this says to me is that the Canadian federal government has got their support for international trade in polar bears badly wrong and should instead build schools, houses and clinics. They should certainly not have invested money in promoting polar bear trophy hunting as a means of employment…   

 

So where did it all go wrong at CITES? Well, there are many scenarios, so I’ll just add mine. 

•I believe delegations were wrongly swayed into opposition to uplist polar bears by Greenpeace, WWF and the CITES Secretariat who all made their negative opinions well known before the vote. 

•I believe delegations bought into the cultural rights argument of the Inuits to hunt polar bears and did not comprehend that this was not threatened by a cessation of commercial utilization. 

•I believe CITES Parties’ arms were twisted by Canada to consider a negative vote in return for rights to Arctic mineral and oil resources. It is interesting that such resources have become increasingly more commercially exploitable by one of the same factors threatening polar bears – global warming that is causing significant reductions in Arctic ice cover.

•I believe that the issue of commercial utilization of the bears was completely misunderstood in terms of it making any contribution to the financial wellbeing of Inuit communities. 

 

In short, the decision not to give declining polar bear populations additional protection from a cessation of international trade in bear products was a typical CITES snafu. There is some optimism though; this report points out that support for the continued use of polar bears as trade commodities is losing support among former proponents. Let’s hope that the issue is treated with more rational thinking at the next CITES Conference of Parties?

 

 

Picture credit: http://nicoleandtim.blogspot.co.uk/2009_07_01_archive.html

 

 

  If you have not already signed up to our mailing list, you can add your name here and keep up to date with our ongoing work and, most importantly, DONATE to support our work to conserve the remaining fragile lion populations. Thank you.

 

Add a comment | Posted by Pieter Kat at 17:10

CITES is keeping true to form

Wednesday 6th March 2013

CITES is keeping true to form


In their usual bid to avoid transparency, the CITES delegates voted to KEEP secret ballots in spite of much opposition from the conservation community. In fact, even the vote on the secret ballots was secret… CITES is a UN organization at the end of the day, funded with our taxes. Secret ballots are not part of the UN procedure, but CITES, in their arrogance, loves it. Why? Because your delegation, charged by you to perhaps vote in certain ways, can hide behind influence peddling and deals made in corridors. CITES is a trade organization after all, and one hand washes the other.

 

There also seems to be a huge furore developing over a rather straightforward proposal by the USA and the Russian Federation to uplist polar bears to CITES appendix I. No more international trade. Canada, the WWF, Denmark, Norway and even the CITES Secretariat oppose for a diversity of reasons.  They either say that polar bears are already accurately protected nationally (Norway, Denmark) or they say that the polar bear slaughter must continue (at least 600 “legal” bears per year in Canada and about 200 poached per year in Russia and then laundered through the Canadian system). Canada claims that the Inuit people (Eskimos) have a tradition of hunting polar bears and that these poor communities must not be deprived of their income and traditional practices. Nice that Canada is now paying attention to her indigenous people, long ignored and marginalized in terms of education, health care, integration into society, etc. Actually, what happens is that these Inuits are selling their polar bear quotas to trophy hunters from all over (China is now a big fan of polar bear trophies) and selling skins from bears harvested under “traditional practice” allowances. If the Inuit people want to harvest polar bears as a traditional right let them do so. But entering into international commerce should not be tolerated.

 

It seems the EU is now proposing a compromise instead of addressing the issue head-on. The EU swing vote defeated the polar bear uplisting at the last Conference of Parties in 2010.

 

The compromise proposed is this:

Instead of uplisting, let’s delay action until we can have proper polar bear population counts and an assessment of commercial offtake versus conservation needs. This is sounding very familiar. Kenya proposed uplisting the African lion to Appendix I in 2004. The proposal was watered down by CITES – instead, let’s have regional meetings and some sort of population assessment. Kenya agreed, the meetings took place, and nine years later we are still no further in terms of an organized lion conservation programme, but we have lost a lot more lions. It will be the same with polar bears.

 

How many meetings, conferences, discussions and diversions do we need to finally agree that polar bears are in sharp decline, will decline further due to climate change in the future? But meanwhile let’s hunt another 800 bears per year while CITES dithers? And let Canada fudge their CITES documents to include poached polar bears from Russia into the international trade?

 

It boggles the mind what is happening at the CITES meeting in Bangkok. It is all smoke and mirrors to be able to continue just as before. The big discussions on rhinos and elephants have yet to take place. But already they have said science is not important, transparency is not important, and every issue on the table can be delayed and obfuscated until the cows come home. And cows are exactly what we will have left in the future instead of our disappearing wildlife heritage.

 

If you have not already signed up to our mailing list, you can add your name here and keep up to date with our ongoing work and, most importantly, financially support us to conserve the remaining fragile lion populations. Thank you

 

 

Add a comment | Posted by Pieter Kat at 16:00

CITES Travesty Part 3: Polar Bears

Friday 22nd February 2013

CITES Travesty Part 3: Polar Bears

The USA together with the Russian Federation have put a proposal to the CITES Conference of Parties to uplist polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Appendix II to Appendix I. The proposal considered that this higher level of protection was needed as polar bears, in addition to being threatened in the future by the increasing loss of ice in the Arctic (summer ice has decreased by 15-20% due to climate change) also are significantly affected by trade. Indeed, the USA proposal mentions that from 2001-2010 something like 6798 polar bear products were traded, including skins, skulls, trophies, “bodies” and live animals. 79% of the trade emanates from Canada.

Polar bears seem to be a forthcoming “hot issue” at the CITES Conference of Parties. 

Why is LionAid concerned with polar bears? We are following this proposal closely for several reasons.

First, with a remaining population of perhaps 20,000 animals it resembles the number of African lions remaining in the world.

 Second, the number of sport hunting polar bear trophies and skins exported are roughly similar to trade in similar products from lions, and the USA polar bear proposal could therefore be a test of whether such trade can be considered by CITES as having a negative effect on populations.

Third, polar bear and lion populations are only estimated rather than known, yet such estimates are considered sufficient information by CITES to allow a harvest of trophies and skins.

 Fourth, the polar bear uplisting proposal is based on a very important (but little used) concept that should guide many CITES decisions – the precautionary principle – that basically means that one should always err on the side of caution when allowing commercial offtake of any species where the long-term effects of such offtake are not adequately known.

 

So back to polar bear issues. Their arctic range has been divided into 19 recognized populations. Of those, one is deemed to be increasing in numbers, three are stable, eight are decreasing and seven are unknown/data deficient. For some populations, assessments are only made every 10-15 years. For one Russian population, several hundred bears are estimated to be poached per year for their skins.

 

Of the range states, Canada, Russia and USA allow “subsistence” hunting of polar bears by indigenous communities. Canada additionally allows sport hunting by non-natives and non-citizens by facilitating the indigenous communities to sell their quotas to hunters. The USA declared polar bears protected under their Endangered Species Act in 2008, meaning that no polar bear products can be commercially traded within the USA. Polar bear commercial hunting has been banned in Russia since 1956, and Greenland currently enforces a moratorium on polar bear offtake after a 2008 report indicating a detrimental effect on polar bear populations. Norway allows no offtake from her single population of polar bears in Svalbard.

 

Canada is thus the single nation among polar bear range states allowing international commercial offtake. Looking at the official CITES records of exports from Canada there are some interesting trends in the trade. For example, from 2006-2008 Japan imported 913 skins. From 2007-2011 China imported 420 skins. From 2009-2011 China imported 142 polar bear trophies from Canada. Norway, having banned any offtake from “their” polar bears, allowed imports of 349 skins from Canada 2001-2010. It is estimated that a polar bear skin these days sells between $4000 - $8000.

 

Polar bears came on the CITES uplisting agenda in 2010. It was then defeated, primarily due to European Union swing votes. The CITES Secretariat, perhaps exceeding their mandate, has now advised Parties to again vote against the uplisting at CoP16. We already know that votes against will come from Norway and Denmark (adequate protection measures already in place) and Canada (profitable trade for the local communities regardless of impact on polar bear conservation). Russia and the USA will vote for the uplisting and so will some EU nations. Others, like the UK, are sitting on the fence for no scientifically valid reason. Conservation organizations like the WWF have already come out against uplisting – while appealing for polar bear conservation donations.

 

On our part, we would encourage all CITES member states to vote positively to place polar bears on CITES Appendix I. And once the trade is stopped, to do a careful analysis of remaining polar bear populations given that their habitat is melting away as you read this message.  

 

Picture credit: www.pelauts.com

 

 

If you have not already signed up to our mailing list, you can add your name here and keep up to date with our ongoing work and, most importantly, financially support us to conserve the remaining fragile lion populations. Thank you.

  

Add a comment | Posted by Pieter Kat at 19:19

Whatever happened to the Periodic Review of lions?

                   I DON’T LOOK LIKE AN ELEPHANT OR RHINO BUT I’M IMPORTANT TOO!

 

Back in 2004, Kenya suggested that African lions be placed on Appendix I of CITES . Kenya then was actively encouraged to withdraw that proposal at the CITES Conference of Parties 15,  and to instead accept that a number of meetings would later take place inviting lion range states to report their lion numbers and examine management practices for the species. So the application was withdrawn and such meetings were duly organized in 2005/2006. No substantive and effective action for lion conservation resulted  from those meetings.


Then, in July 2011, at the CITES Animals Committee meeting, Kenya and Namibia were appointed co-Chairs of a Periodic Review of lions.  The purpose of this Review which was recommended as “high priority” was to ask all lion range States to report on their remaining lion populations and report back BEFORE the 16th CITES Conference of Parties in March 2013.


Now, in late February 2013, it seems that this Review has NOT been completed as requested. It would appear that there has been a great reluctance on the part of the lion range States to participate in an accurate assessment of their remaining lion populations and the process has effectively stalled.


Make no mistake here, such a Review could well have resulted in a proposal to uplist the African lion to Appendix 1 at CoP16 if it was felt that remaining lion populations had declined to levels risking the sustainability of trade in the species.


As regular readers of our website will already know, we have already conducted our own review of lion populations and strongly believe that lion numbers have fallen to an all-time low of 15,244.


The reality is that of 49 continental African nations, lions are extinct in 25 (51%), virtually extinct in 10 (20%), and only have some possible future in 14 (28%). Only five populations number over 1,000 lions and these are located in Tanzania/Kenya (3), South Africa (1) and Botswana/Zimbabwe (1). Uniquely genetically distinct western and central African lions are virtually extinct.

 

We can only remain hopeful that Kenya and Namibia, despite any evidence of progress, will still produce a consensus document based on science on the current status of lion populations in Africa.


We realise that Kenya will be very occupied with elephant and rhino proposals at the conference but we would urge Kenya to also pay dedicated attention to other species requiring urgent conservation consideration.

 

Picture credit: Martin Fowkes

 

 

If you have not already signed up to our mailing list, you can add your name here and keep up to date with our ongoing work and, most importantly, financially support us to conserve the remaining fragile lion populations. Thank you.

 

Add a comment | Posted by Chris Macsween at 19:19