Pieter's Blog

On March 17, the new Director of Wildlife of Tanzania posted an Opinion Piece in the New York Times entitled “Saving Lions by Killing Them”.

Describing himself as “Tanzania’s highest ranking wildlife official”, Alexander Songorwa sought to appeal via this message to the US Fish and Wildlife Service NOT to list lions on the US Endangered Species Act. Mr Songorwa indicated that this action would be “disastrous” to “conservation” efforts by depriving Tanzania of much-needed income needed to support game reserves and community wildlife areas.

Mr Songorwa seems sadly out of touch with the status of Tanzania’s wildlife:

• He states that “an average of 200 lions are shot each year, generating about $1,960,000 in revenue”. In actual fact, the Tanzania government earned an average of $556,610 per year from lion trophy fees over the ten years 2002-2011 from an average of 160 lions shot – in the past five years this has declined to an average of 110 lions shot.

• He states that Tanzania has 16,800 lions. A much more likely number is less than half that. Nevertheless, Tanzania contains three of the five largest lion populations on the African continent, and intelligent conservation of these lions is of primary importance to the long-term survival of the species.

• Mr Songorwa states that “we recently made it illegal to hunt male lions younger than 6 years old…” While it might be illegal in principle, there are no penalties in place and no independent means of checking the age of trophy hunted lions exported. In fact, Tanzanian hunters are notorious for shooting males as young as two years old (see pictures above).

• Mr Songorwa states that Tanzania has 130,000 elephants. At current estimates of less than 400,000 remaining on the continent, he would imply that almost a third of Africa’s elephants occur in Tanzania. This is very clearly wrong, especially since in the last three years it has been estimated that up to 30,000 elephants have been poached in Tanzania.

 
Mr Songorwa is the most recent Director of Wildlife in Tanzania, following a series of previous office holders relieved of duty for various infringements and corrupt practices. Mr Songorwa comes with good credentials – he has written several papers on community based wildlife management programmes, pointing out the reasons for their failure and suggesting ways forward. We hope that Mr Songorwa will now have the opportunity to put his theories into practice, as communities remain woefully out of step with income derived from Tanzania’s wildlife resources by Government and trophy hunting operators (see below).

Mr Songorwa’s assessment of 16,800 lions is far from current realities, and merely echoes previous statements by one of his predecessors, Erasmus Tarimo. In a reply to UK Undersecretary of State Richard Benyon in April 2011, Mr Tarimo stated that he:

1. Professed to understand concerns about the decline in Africa’s lions, and pointed out this was mainly caused by loss of habitat and retaliatory killings;

2. Had information to indicate that within nominally protected areas lion populations are stable and/or increasing;

3. Could assure that in Tanzania, all wildlife is harvested sustainably according to the Wildlife Conservation Act 5 2009, and Hunting Regulations 2010. In addition, he pointed out that there was now a six-year age rule for trophy lions, that hunting outfitters had been educated on trophy selection and encouraged to use camera traps and video to record what lions come to baits. 

Mr Tarimo and Mr Songorwa put great stock in the results of a lion “population survey” conducted in 2009. On investigation, this report (by Mesochina, Mbangwa, Chardonnet, Mosha, Mtui, Drouet, Crosmary, Kissui (2010 - Conservation status of the lion (Panthera leo Linnaeus 1758) in Tanzania) can be largely dismissed for the following reasons:

• The Report “data” was gathered between 19 October and 22 December 2009 (two months!) and the lion “survey” was based on questionnaires – 282 out of 311 responded positively to having seen lions (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly sightings) and so lion range in Tanzania was extrapolated to 816,790km2 or 92.4% of the country. This is nonsense.

• The Mesochina et al lion survey is unpublished and not peer reviewed. Funding and support came from the Tanzania Professional Hunting Association, Tanzania Hunting Operators Association, Safari Club International, IGF Foundation, and Tanganyika Wildlife Safari (who control more than half the hunting in Selous). These are all vested-interest groups, and doubtless had input. The report thus cannot be considered in any way unbiased.

• Mr Tarimo assured that lion populations in nominally protected areas remain stable and healthy. In fact, the report mentions that within protected areas, 35% of respondents (regardless of expertise) considered lions to be increasing and 33% of the respondents said they were decreasing.

• The report also acknowledges that the level of knowledge of lion populations is considered “high” for 42% of the protected areas without hunting, vs 1% of areas with hunting; “medium” for 32% and 33%, “poor” for 5% and 41%, and “questionable” for 21% and 17%. In other words, 74% of the information about the status of lions in protected areas could be considered to have some measure of reliability versus 34% for the hunting areas.

• The report acknowledges that “since most lion populations are not yet documented in terms of abundance, the population size proposed in this survey is considered as tentative and subject to refinement”. Nevertheless, based on two months of “research”, the authors propose that there might be 16,800 lions in Tanzania. Other estimates say 7073 (Bauer and van der Merwe, 2004) and 14,432 (Chardonnet 2002; an author of the 2010 report).

Mr Songorwa mentions that “Tanzania has regulated hunting for decades”. That does not mean that such regulation has included any measure of sustainability. In fact, records indicate that hunting quotas would have allowed between 31% and 73% of available male lions to be hunted each year. In terms of actual harvest, hunters achieved between 10% and 23% of “available” males each year. This is not sustainable in any fashion, and is a good indication why male lions between 2-3 years old were shot in concessions.

In 2004, Baldus and Cauldwell (Tourist hunting and its role in development of wildlife areas in Tanzania. GTZ, 2004) produced a scathing report on hunting practices in Tanzania. While earning an estimated $27.7 million that year for hunting operators, total community benefits (42 district councils) were only about $1 million. In addition, the report indicated the following:

• Non-effective control by the Wildlife Department;

• A lack of professionalism among the hunting operators;

• A lack of ethics and the absence of standards;

• Disregard of quotas;

• Lack of respect for environmental standards (especially in the camps);

• A decline of wildlife populations in hunting areas;

• Misplaced influence being exercised by the operators and highly placed officials in government;

• Resistance to make positive changes and truly involve communities.

Why has this been allowed to continue by Tanzania authorities? The answer is short term money to be earned over long-term conservation needs.

 We do not believe that trophy hunting of lions has been proven in any way sustainable in the past or will be in the future, but if Mr Songorwa wants to convince anybody that he can save lions by killing them (something we strongly disapprove of but that Tanzania seems determined to continue) we would suggest the following measures:

1. Declare a moratorium on trophy hunting at least for the time needed to conduct independent assessments of remaining lion populations in Tanzania based on ground counts rather than questionnaires sent by post;

2. Ensure that trophy hunting concessions are independently surveyed as to the population status and pride composition of lions in hunting concessions;

3. Based on results of 1 and 2 above, realistically assess the capability of Tanzania’s lion populations to be sustainably hunted by setting much more realistic quotas and very strict measures, penalties and sanctions to ensure underage lions are no longer hunted;

4. Consistently evaluate levels of commercial utilization of lions in Tanzania by requiring regular non-detriment reports based on actual and current data;

5. Immediately draw up a National Lion Conservation Plan to ensure long-term survival of the species;

6. Convince us that immediate actions will be taken to ensure that the current disparity between hunting operator and community benefits from consumptive wildlife utilization are significantly addressed;

7. Join his Minister of Wildlife to significantly address levels of corruption in the wildlife department;

8. Reform the guiding values of the Tanzanian Wildlife Department to ensure that commercial utilization of wildlife is seen as secondary to precautionary principles guaranteeing the conservation of Tanzania’s wildlife heritage in line with the vision of Julius Nyerere, Tanzania’s first President. 

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.

                                                                              Outfoxed?

The CITES conference has a few more days to go, and there will be much more to discuss. After failing polar bears, rhinos, and elephants and extending unexpected extra protection to West African manatees (the CITES Secretariat recommended rejection) and many turtles already on the brink of extinction, the next week will see sharks and a few other species on the menu.

In a terrifying show of resolve, CITES slapped trade sanctions on Guinea. Long criticized for not having teeth, CITES now bared them at a small western African country for allegedly ignoring many requests to halt illegal trade in wildlife products – in this case of Great Apes. Hmmm. How about trade sanctions against Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Thailand, Philippines, China among others for long being involved in the illegal ivory trade?

There will also be a number of “housekeeping” issues to attend to, like hopefully removing “personal and household” effects derogations for hunting trophies so they can rightfully be considered as trade. Another tricky issue will be consideration of a proposal by Denmark on behalf of the EU to insist that members of the Animals and Plants Committees declare any “conflicts of interest” before and subsequent to election.

 Interesting proposal that one – these Committees are quite powerful, and should not be populated by people with vested interests. But one glaring “housekeeping” issue is not on the agenda.

This is the dubiously legal trading that goes on in plain sight – something CITES would rather hide under the carpet as it reflects right back on the organization itself.

At the start of the conference Secretary General John Scanlon mentioned the following:

“…criminal activity can pose a serious threat… it also robs countries of their natural resources and cultural heritage, and it undermines good governance and the rule of law.
These criminals must be stopped and we need to better deploy the sorts of techniques used to combat illicit trade in narcotics to do so.”

Undermining good governance can be placed at the CITES door as well. John Sands, CITES Secretary General  in 1980 mentioned a process whereby fraudulent CITES permits were facilitating illegal trade. In 2003 the Earth Journal had this to say:

“Environmentalists have had a long-running battle with the CITES Secretariat over the administrative practices of the treaty organization. For 20 years, according to many critics, the CITES staff have favored commercial exploitation of wildlife over protection. Instead of objectively weighing science and assessing enforcement efforts, the 12-member Secretariat has repeatedly argued against the precautionary principle and ignored flagrant violations of Appendix I and Appendix II regulations.

During the '80s, the Secretariat vehemently opposed banning the ivory trade, despite a poaching crisis that left 100,000 carcasses strewn across the African landscape each year and the utter failure of a hopelessly weak CITES ivory monitoring system. At the 1989 CITES meeting in Switzerland, CITES Secretary-General Eugene Lapointe lobbied fiercely against the proposed Appendix I listing for the African elephant (Asian elephants were already totally protected). He even held press conferences during the meeting to subvert the proposal. Lapointe touched off outrage in leading conservation nations. An inquiry by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) led to Lapointe's removal on grounds of malfeasance.

Unfortunately, little changed at the Secretariat after Lapointe's firing. His replacement was a bumbling UNEP bureaucrat who allowed the CITES staff - all cronies of Lapointe - to continue their anti-protection ways.

A UNEP investigation in 1998 found significant malfeasance throughout the CITES staff, including the sale of export permits. Several top staffers were fired and the Secretary-General, a Bulgarian named Izgrev Topkov, was forced to retire. UNEP has withheld the damning report from the Standing Committee of CITES, which oversees the Secretariat, as well as the public.”

CITES permits are issued by “authorities” in individual nations, and as you will see below, strange practices remain evident.

For example, in a deposition to the EU Parliament workshop on wildlife crime we provided the following statistics:

1. From 2005-2008, Denmark imported an average of about 6 elephant trophies annually. But then in 2009 this rose to 118 and in 2010 88 were imported. Most came from Zimbabwe. We do not believe that a small country like Denmark would have such a tremendous surge in elephant trophy hunters, and propose that tusks were imported via dubious means with all correct CITES paperwork.

2. From 2005-2009 Qatar imported no elephant trophies. But then in 2010, 185 trophies were imported, virtually all from Zimbabwe. We again do not believe that Qatar could have had such a tremendous surge in  elephant hunters and propose that tusks were imported via dubious means with all correct CITES paperwork.

3. For many years, CITES authorities allowed the export of trophy rhino horns from South Africa to Vietnam in large numbers, knowing full-well that this was a loophole. In 2012 CITES requested the Vietnamese authorities to check on the status of these trophy horns that are not allowed to be entered into commercial trade. Forty homes of trophy hunters were visited. Eleven hunters were not home. Twenty-two admitted they had lost the horns, cut them into pieces, given them to relatives. Only seven still had the horns intact. Despite 83% evidence that CITES regulations had been trounced, the CITES Secretariat praised Vietnam for their efforts and took no action.

4. South Africa has exported 187 live rhinos to China with CITES permits from 2006-2011. Sent to dubious destinations, CITES has not checked on the whereabouts or current existence of these rhinos.

5. CITES has allowed South Africa to send enormous quantities of lion bones, skeletons, bodies and “trophies” to Laos, knowing full well that these were to be used as substitutes for tiger bones in various Chinese Traditional Medicine products. We have said repeatedly that such supplies would stimulate demand and lion poaching. CITES sees no connections.

 We are preparing many more similar statistics on other species for presentation to the EU Parliament.

If CITES wants to start wielding a big stick and placing trade sanctions on Guinea, we would suggest they also look within to cease the issuance of false permits, a process ongoing since 1980 at least. Those false permits are no less of a crime than the illegal wildlife trade especially since they greatly undermine the transparency and trustworthiness of CITES itself.

Picture credit : http://bit.ly/YlEem7

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.

                                                                   Alice in CITESland

In Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass” there is a famous encounter between Alice and the Red Queen in a running race. They have been running for some time, but have remained in the same place.

"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else — if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."

"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

It is an apt analogy when we look at the ongoing CITES Convention in Bangkok.

Look at a report entitled “Combating the trade in endangered species through CITES” written in 1980 by then Secretary General Peter Sand.

Some excerpts:

1. The illegal trade in furs, trophies and protected animals now has higher profit margins than the drug traffic.

2. The aim of the Convention is to establish world-wide controls over trade in endangered wildlife and wildlife products in recognition of the fact that unrestricted commercial exploitation is one of the major threats to the survival of many species.

3. The odds against success are enormous.

 
4. Significantly, recent Australian investigations into bird smuggling revealed connections with organized crime in the United States. When member governments began to exchange export and import documents and to compare their national trade statistics, they discovered curious discrepancies. These, in some cases, were traced back to forgeries and corruption.

5. The committee works in liaison with Interpol and the Brussels-based Customs Cooperation Council (CCC).

6. The Convention seeks to draw a clear line between illegal traffic and black markets on one side and legitimate trade in renewable natural resources on the other.

 
7. Not surprisingly, the decisions of the CITES Conference are taken under a considerable amount of pressure, both from private conservation groups and from economic lobby groups ranging from the luxury fur and leather industries to pet dealers, safari parks and biomedical research establishments.

 
8. Enforcement of the CITES Convention is improving in many countries, as can be seen by an impressive confiscation record. But a number of problems and "loopholes" remain. One of these is the level of sanctions and penalties for violation of the Convention.

9. Western Europe's official 1977 imports of raw ivory may be estimated to represent at least 10 000 dead elephants. Heavy poaching because of this good market is resulting in a rapid decline in large tusked elephants. Furthermore, this means that poachers will kill more elephants to achieve their ivory goal.

10. Contrary to industry claims, only a small fraction of crocodiles originate from "crocodile farms." Once again, Western Europe, together with Japan, is the principal market. Of the estimated two million crocodilian hides traded annually in international commerce, approximately 1.2 million (60 percent) are consumed by tanners in Western Europe: France 500 000, Italy 400 000 and the Federal Republic of Germany 250 000 (4). The European share is equally high as regards snake skins, marine turtles and other reptilian products.

11. Commercial dealers from CITES countries circumvent the Convention either by way of subsidiaries and affiliates in non-member countries or by "transit" operations through free-port areas outside the reach of national customs controls. Furthermore, under pressure from local luxury leather industries, four European countries - Federal Republic of Germany. France, Italy and Switzerland-jointly refused in 1979 to grant full CITES protection to the valuable saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus), and, in the case of France and Italy, to other endangered crocodilians and marine turtles. Although the Convention's "opting-out" clause has previously been used by other member countries (e.g., for certain whale species), this was the first time global protection of a highly endangered species was virtually undermined by industrial lobbyists in importing countries.

Do you see the same problems almost a quarter century later? Do repeated terms like “the drug traffic”, “loopholes”, “circumvention”, “undermining by industrial lobbyists”, “crime cartels”, “lack of enforcement”, “working with Interpol” sound familiar?  Just substitute the names of a few countries above with China and Vietnam and you have exactly the same scenario. CITES might keep passing more and more resolutions, but lack of progress is palpable.

Through the looking glass of history, CITES remains in the same place despite much running in terms of money spent, conventions and meetings organized, motions passed and rejected. CITES could take advice from the Red Queen and maybe now run twice as fast to make a difference? 

Picture credit: http://bit.ly/YU94SN

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.
 

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

                                                            It must pay for it to stay

The Lion Conservation Task Force (LCTF) describes itself as a Texas based non-profit organisation, dedicated to conserving Africa’s wild lions and habitat.

Like many of us, they responded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) call for public comments to consider uplisting the African lion as endangered under the US Endangered Species Act.

Before we tell you what they had to say in this epistle to the USFWS, let us introduce the co-authors :

Colleen Begg Ph.D, Project Leader, Niassa Carnivore Project, Mozambique.  Colleen runs a lion research project in northern Mozambique, and she is responsible for assessing the “age” of trophy lions to determine adherence to Mozambique’s stipulations that these lions must be at least 6 years old.

J. Lane Easter, DVM – Co-founder of LCTF. Lane Easter is a dedicated hunter and life member of the Dallas Safari Club.

George Hartley, Professional Hunter, Tanzania Game Tracker Safaris. Hartley’s job description says it all.

Luke Hunter PhD, President Panthera Foundation, Conservation NGO. Luke Hunter is a proponent of lion trophy hunting and is the Foundation now becoming a pro-hunting lobby?

Aaron Neilson, Professional Hunter, President Global Hunting Resources. Aaron Nielsen is a hunting agent in the USA and liaises with African hunting outfitters to provide clients.

Craig Packer PhD, Principal Investigator Serengeti Lion Project. Craig Packer has been running the Serengeti Lion Project for well over two decades. He has used computer models to indicate that shooting lions over six years old is “sustainable” even though such males are only just taking over prides in many locations in Africa. Packer has recently provided evidence that trophy hunting of lions in Tanzania was unsustainable, but looks like he now sits on the fence?

Paula A. White PhD, Director Zambia Lion Project. Paula White is representing the International Professional Hunters Association at the CITES meeting.

Karyl Whitman PhD, Wildlife Biologist. Karyl Whitman came up with the “pink nose” theory to age lions – supposedly by the time lions are 6 yrs old, their noses are 50% black. A highly controversial aging method widely rejected. Karyl has published on “sustainable” hunting of lions and worked together with hunting lobby Conservation Force to produce a field guide for the ageing of lions.

So, did the President of a prominent conservation NGO, wildlife biologists and lion project leaders finally convince the hunters of the error of their ways?  Sadly not, in fact they ALL agreed that the trophy hunting of lions is the very best way to conserve them and remind us that “In Africa: it must pay for it to stay”…..

This is what they recommend:

They want to introduce the “Huntable Male Lion” – a non-impact huntable subset of male lions. In case you are confused, this is a lion aged six or over, has completed one breeding cycle and is not known to head a pride or be part of a coalition heading a pride with dependent cubs. If this lion can be an older individual known to be no longer associated with any pride, then he is their ideal trophy target!

This is despite considerable information that male lions in natural populations keep reproducing until very late in life – they form new coalitions, shift prides, and keep going. In studies in Botswana, males evicted from a pride by stronger coalitions roamed widely and took over several other prides before they died.  There just is not a non-reproductive “huntable male lion”. It has been shown many times in trophy hunter manipulated populations where males are constantly removed that there is little reproduction and considerable disruption to pride structure.

How desperate are the hunters getting to hang on to right to hunt lions?  Do they not realise how absurd they sound?

They admit that their “definition” hasn’t met with much enthusiasm amongst the hunting fraternity, in fact only the Dallas Safari Club in the USA has so far adopted their amazing plan, but they say they are working to accomplish “global acceptance”.  In fact, Lane Easter recently said on the accuratereloading website “Unfortunately...we still do not have a lot of good to show for ourselves. Tanzania did not make a good showing with the new law and many young dead lions showed up on the internet again”.

They go on to outline a set of complicated rules and procedures that they wistfully hope the hunters and outfitters will follow. Why should they? It has been a failed formula for the past many decades and the only thing lion hunters want to conserve is their profits. We have stated before that NONE of the reductions in quotas and minimum age requirements have come from the hunters themselves. It was imposed by the governments and immediately the hunters sought ways around such rules. In Zambia, where Paula White is based, a voluntary age minimum for trophies lasted a short time, and now hunters are killing young males again, hunting on the borders and within national parks, and generally acting as usual as they cannot and will not hunt sustainably. The situation is no different in other lion range states that permit trophy hunting.

 It is clear that lions are greatly desired by trophy hunters. At a recent Safari Club International convention, something like $1.3 million was raised in short order “for lions”. It now appears that this slush fund could be used to challenge the US Fish and Wildlife Service in court if they are so bold as to include African lions on their Endangered Species Act – that will prohibit trophy imports among other regulations in trade.

Desired as lions might be, trophy hunting must stop. You cannot continue to advocate a continued offtake of lions given the current freefall decline of the species. You cannot continue to insist that a failed formula will suddenly work again with the same players who created the problems in the first place. You cannot keep insisting that trophy hunters continue to deprive African nations of their wildlife heritage no matter how well they bribe local officials. Despite all claims trophy hunting has NEVER been shown to be a conservation formula for wild populations of any species in Africa.

There are those who will support trophy hunting as there are funds to be derived. They will say that the impact of trophy hunting is unknown, but that is because the hunting concession owners steadfastly refuse independent analysis of their lion populations. They will say that rural Africans can benefit from trophy hunting despite decades of practice that show the income is minimal. They will continue to insist that African nations are provided revenue from trophy hunting despite all indications this is minimal and largely benefits a few elites.

Lion trophy hunting should go extinct before the lions do.

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

                                                                   A messy scene

On the 27th February, LionAid was invited to present information at a briefing to the EU Parliament about the illegal wildlife trade. Also present were representatives from WWF, IFAW, WCS, the USA Mission to the EU, Interpol, etc. The meeting was organized by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy MEP (Netherlands) and Kriton Arsenis (Greece) who have taken the lead in establishing the EU scope and extent of illegal wildlife trade, how the EU can effectively prevent such trade, and what measures can be taken to bring better law enforcement to the arena.

The situation is grim, and as of now, the EU is woefully underprepared to effectively deal with illegal trafficking. With over 2,000 points of entry, it is relatively simple for traffickers to identify weak points – the EU is one of the largest and most diverse markets for wildlife products. Also, there is no uniform standard of enforcement within the 27 Member States, and many have weak penalties for those convicted of illegal trafficking. It is therefore somewhat easy to establish operations in countries where enforcement and penalties do not disincentivise the considerable profits that can be made. Remember that once an illegal product enters the EU, the absence of internal border controls means that it can then reach almost all 27 Member States. The illegal trade is a low priority for CITES, there is insufficient coordination and cooperation among EU Member States, there are limited resources for enforcement – all adding to an environment facilitating illegal trade.

In addition, our data show that EU Customs officials will accept “official” CITES documents from the exporting countries without in many cases establishing their authenticity and/or appropriateness under existing CITES and EU Wildlife Trade regulations:

• Significant numbers of elephant hunting trophies from South Africa have been allowed entry without establishing whether that country has sufficient “huntable” elephants. From 2006-2011 South Africa exported about 750 hunting trophies yet virtually all elephants are in nationally protected areas.

• From 2005-2008 Denmark imported about 6 elephant hunting trophies per year. But then in 2009 and 2010 Denmark suddenly imported a total of 206 elephant hunting trophies, mostly from Zimbabwe. Was that small country suddenly gripped by elephant hunting fever or were these tusks illegal ivory imports disguised as trophies?

• During 2009 and 2010, Portugal, Austria Denmark, Poland, Italy, France and Germany together imported close to one ton of tusks, mainly from Zimbabwe, and all with “permits”. These were not listed as hunting trophies but tusks by the kilo on the CITES database. Unless citizens from those EU countries all decided within two years to export one ton of heirloom tusks from Zimbabwe under derogations this constitutes illegal trade.

• Rhino horn “proxy hunters”, replacing the “pseudo hunters” from Vietnam, are increasingly importing trophies to Russia, Denmark, Poland, and Czech Republic. We would challenge the authorities in those countries to ascertain the presence of any rhino trophies still in the possession of the “hunters”. Most probably they are all in Vietnam by now, and perhaps the original owners lost them, misplaced them, gave them away, or declared them as “stolen”. 

There were a diversity of actions proposed at the meeting, including national action plans for enforcement; risk and intelligence assessments; training and awareness programs for prosecutors and the judiciary; liaising with authorities in source, transit and destination countries, CITES, Interpol and the World Customs Organization; building task forces, enhancing intelligence sharing and information management. In addition, the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations fall far short of the needed rigour in terms of being able to deal with the “grey” wildlife trade discussed above. So a very long list of items “to do”. This will take many years to implement let alone complete.

In contrast, the USA is already much better organized in terms of efficient interagency cooperation and existence of a number of highly applicable Acts like the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act. When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the illegal trade funded terrorism and militias and promised US support, a coordinated and efficient response could develop virtually overnight.

Meanwhile, the EU is badly prepared to handle both the illegal trade and the semi-legal “grey” trade in wildlife in the near future. Unless the EU Parliament and the Commission take a very active and indeed pro-active stance from now on, the EU will not effectively deal with the ever-more sophisticated and financially flush criminal networks that run circles around currently feeble contraventions. When a well-organized business is thrown against a slow and cumbersome bureaucracy there is no doubt of the victor. 

There are, however, things that can be done both immediately and in the short term. Almost immediately the EU WTR can suspend many legal loopholes. Among the most glaring is the Personal and Household Effects derogation for hunting trophies that currently allows for much fiddling as is seen in the case of both rhino horns and elephant tusks. Closing such legal loopholes will eliminate much of the currently flourishing “grey” trade.

In the short term, the EU can also place a total ban on any number of wildlife products, including ivory, lion skins, lion bones and trophies, polar bear products, snake skins etc. There is precedent for this – in 2009 the EU banned all Canadian Harp Seal products from being traded within the 27 Member States and this came into effect in 2010. Before the ban it was estimated that $5.5 million of products entered the EU from a population of almost 7 million Canadian fur seals. The trade value in elephant, lion and polar bear products is much smaller and comes from a comparatively much smaller source population. 

Once a ban on such products is in place, enforcement is much easier as there can be no further “grey” trade and any sale of such items. Given the current levels of concern among EU citizens about elephant and rhino poaching and the continuous steep decline in lion populations, this ban would have great popular support. MEPs at the wildlife crime meeting were indeed reminded by Catherine Bearder MEP (UK) that this concern could well play a part in the upcoming EU Parliamentary elections in June 2014. Cross-party MEP support for measures that put an end to EU trade in species vulnerable because of their high commercial value could pay re-election dividends.

Clearly, the EU needs to act fast and effectively. As the third-largest world market for wildlife products traded illegally this is both a duty and a responsibility. The EU and the Commission can do so within current trade legislation and without years of liaising, training, building, assessing, consulting, deliberating and enhancing. Those measures can come in parallel and will take precious time. But without dedicated action right now customs agents will be well trained in the future to recognize species that went extinct years ago.  

 
 
Picture credit: www.stargazerpuj.wordpress.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. -

                                                          Next stop – Thai Skin and Hide

As of today, the number of rhinos poached for their horns in South Africa stands at about 107. Last year it was 668, the year before it was 448 and the year before that 333. Despite all assurances by the SA Department of Environmental Affairs that they are taking stern measures to stem the tide, the projections for 2013 now could achieve another record high.

That is just the illegal trade. Meanwhile, the legal trade in South African rhinos and their products, which could arguably be said to stimulate the illegal trade, continues unabated. Indeed, the South African Private Rhino Owners Association wants to export more in the future, and also wants to sell their stockpile of rhino horns removed as a precaution against poaching. The owners say they are instrumental in conservation of the species as they maintain about 4,500 rhinos in captivity (compared to about 16,000 or so in the wild), and that they have participated in bringing white rhinos back from the brink of extinction. Now they need to sell their horns legally, they say, to offset the enormous costs of keeping their rhinos secure in these days of rampant poaching. In fact, they claim that by “flooding the market” with rhino horns there will be no incentive to poach as the price will be driven down.

Such claims are easily refuted.

First, the private owners are NOT involved in any conservation of the species. They purchased and continue to purchase their rhinos among themselves and from the government as a business venture – they do not breed rhinos to return to the wild but to give them the financial returns on their investment. Much like the captive breeding of lions in South Africa, all animals involved are maintained for commerce.

Second, the private breeders did NOT bring rhinos back from the brink of extinction as they purchased surplus animals from organizations like the Natal Parks Board in the 1980s. In other words, rhinos were already doing well, and there was a supply available for sale.

 Third, if you enter into the commercial business of breeding rhinos for sale, you have to accept, like any business, that the commercial environment might change. In the case of rhino breeders, it could even be argued that they participated in changing that environment as they allowed the “pseudo-hunting” of rhinos, fuelling demand from countries like Vietnam. Consequently, the private owners are now stuck with the extra security costs to protect their investments and are complaining that the government is not helping them enough by refusing to allow private owners to sell their horns. This is like a bank complaining that the government is not doing enough to prevent bank robberies and that they have had to invest in better and stronger safes, bulletproof glass in front of tellers, private security guards, surveillance cameras, alarm systems, etc. Basically, if your business environment changes,  you, as a commercial enterprise, have to bear the added costs. If such added costs prevent you making adequate returns then you have to reassess the business.

And fourth, the concept of flooding the market with horn, bringing the prices down, and thereby disincentivising poachers assumes that one knows the level of demand. The fact that the illegal traders are willing to take considerable risks and invest substantial sums to obtain their rhino horns (bribes to officials being just one cost) means not only that the illegal traders have a better business model, but that the demand is very high to be able to offset their losses through various interceptions by customs and police agencies. Also, it is well known that rhino horn is seen in many Asian countries as an investment opportunity rather than a commercial commodity immediately placed on the market.

The private owners, in my opinion, thus have no leg to stand on. In addition, they keep fuelling the demand side by continuing to allow trophy hunting by “pseudo-hunters” now coming from a variety of countries besides Vietnam. Remember that it was the government that had to set the new requirements for future clients to show they had any past hunting experience – the private breeders were most happy to receive Thai prostitutes who had never shot a rifle to come and claim their rhinos. Surely the private owners and the professional hunters in their employ are best placed to determine the capabilities of their clients to see whether they fall into the “real” or “pseudo” hunting category? In any business, if you undermine your own sales and those of others in your business by shady trading, you are inevitably heading for trouble. In addition, it was the government that placed a moratorium on domestic rhino horn sales in 2008 to prevent leakage to the international trade – the rhino owners were happy for this domestic trade to continue.

To close this article, I would like to give an example of the ineptitude of the government department handling aspects of the legal trade in rhinos. In May 2012, Mrs S.V. Kalyan of the opposition Democratic Alliance received an answer to her Parliamentary Questions 889 and 1394 on live rhino exports from South Africa to Asia. The Department of Environmental Affairs listed the permit endorsements at the O.R. Tambo (Johannesburg) International Airport. 

Below are some tables where I compare the numbers provided by the DEA to Parliament versus the numbers of live exports listed by CITES. It is likely that the CITES numbers for 2011 are likely provisional and still could increase.

Live rhinos to China:

Live rhinos to Vietnam:

Live rhinos to Japan:

As you can see, the numbers do not match, except perhaps in the case of Japan. CITES has to ensure a match between numbers exported and numbers imported, so the constantly higher numbers of exports likely were provided by the importing countries.

There are a number of possibilities that could account for these discrepancies. The most obvious is that the DEA is incompetent: questions in Parliament deserve complete answers. It is also possible that the DEA is withholding information, as live exports of CITES-listed species require adherence to guidelines including that the destination is an approved facility. In the case of live rhino exports it was revealed earlier that many went to rather shady organizations, one of them by the name of Thai Skin and Hide, another by the name of the Kunming Game Reserve (established to protect indigenous elephants – no mention of exotic animals), another to the Bao Son Tourism and Construction Group, and yet another to Sanya Longhui Breeding Co., a rhino “farm” in China with an attached pharmaceutical company dealing in rhino products.

Clearly CITES permits are being extended without due diligence and the responsible Department is reluctant to give good information. That same department has said since 2009 that it was taking a firm stance against rhino poaching and illegal exports. Combine an incompetent national monitoring and licensing agency with maybe less than reputable private rhino owners and it is no wonder that the rhino situation in South Africa has ended up with a toxic outcome.

  Picture credit: Idris Ahmed- Indian rhino in crate – animalworks.co.au

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. 

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.

                   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.

                                    THE BIRD IN THE HAND IS WORTH TWO IN THE BUSH

Between February the 5th and the 8th, The Safari Club International held their Annual Hunters’ Convention in Reno, Nevada.

This meeting followed hot on the heels of Zambia’s Minister for Tourism and Arts, Sylvia Masebo, declaring a ban on lion and leopard hunting on the 9th January this year.

As you can imagine, this news from Zambia caused somewhat of a stir in the hearts of big cat hunters everywhere. The Zambian operators were seeing their lucrative hunting businesses facing the prospect of ruin, and their USA client suppliers were also appalled. In fact, the USA hunters were united in their condemnation of this ban and speculated on their forums whether it could be corrected by a matter of “a bigger bribe to reverse the decision” and that “there has to be money/graft behind the Minister's decision”.
So, in time honoured tradition, the hunters gathered up their substantial resources and did two things of note:

Firstly, they invited Minister Masebo to Reno to address their Board of Directors at the SCI Convention. Over the two days she was there, she was no doubt entertained royally and was told that the assembled hunters were indeed “the most dedicated of conservationists” and would help to fund “the most accurate population surveys for the country's big game species”.

Secondly, they promised to commit “hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct the necessary scientific research that is needed for Zambia's big game species”, and dedicated “a special segment of the Saturday evening events  [to] the African lion and lion hunting”.

And sure enough we hear that $1.2million was pledged at the event “all earmarked for Lion studies, Lion Conservation and to protect Lion hunting”.

They were suitably rewarded for their largesse with a speech from the Hon. Minister that invited SCI to play a major role in the future of Zambia hunting.

Minister Masebo invited SCI “to do a scientific survey on the viability of these [wildlife] species, in particular the lion and the leopard” and to “come up with sustainable legislation that will bring about sustainable wildlife and hunting”.

So now it seems that the hunters themselves will be responsible for “counting” the remaining lions and leopards and no doubt they will again find that lion populations are thriving despite hunting pressure.

 Should an important lion population count be done by a vested interest party? Of course not.

Should a vested interest party be consulted about future legislation about Zambia’s wildlife? Of course not.

At the time of announcing the ban in January, the Minister said that:

"We do not have enough cats for hunting purposes, especially if we have to save our national resource. The cats are gone, and no amount of convincing from any sector or group will convince me otherwise.”

Apparently SCI did just that.

"Why should we lose our animals for $3 million a year? The benefits we get from tourist visits are much higher". But Minister Masebo seems to be leaning towards hunting again. She perhaps has yet to realize the true potential of ecotourism in her country, and to consider that her decisions affect the wildlife heritage of the Zambian people.

Nevertheless, African wildlife states like Zambia are crucially dependent on external funding. Many know trophy hunting brings immediate returns, conveniently ignoring that this is at the expense of long-term conservation. Ecotourism has lagged behind in convincing nations that this formula is actually a better option as there are no equivalents of SCI Conventions to wine and dine Ministers. And if the hunters are ready and willing to immediately step in with their promises of future funding they do seem the only source of revenue on offer. With $1.2million pledged in one night they are the bird in the hand.

If we are to convince African decision makers of alternatives to trophy hunting we have to do a lot better. The trophy hunting machine is well oiled and well supported with many dollars to support short term vested interests. But a long-term conservation formula depends on donor Governments and agencies to speak up more loudly. Their silence perhaps convinced Minister Masebo to again court the hunters that contributed to the enduring problems of her country’s wildlife conservation.

They should not be invited back and Zambia must be presented with better alternatives.

Picture credit : http://bit.ly/XHzYNn

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.