Latest News

Following a very successful and landmark LionAid conference on the conservation needs and status of African lions in Johannesburg on the 29th and 30th March, we are delighted to now publish the Action Plans agreed by the delegates.

The Management and Scientific Authorities of seven African lion range States attended as follows:
Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria and Senegal.

We now  very much look forward to working with all these African lion range States to initiate regional and pan-African lion conservation measures to halt current catastrophic population declines in this iconic species.

We would like to thank Defra and the UK Government for granting us the funds without preconditions  to hold this conference.

LionAid has been asked develop National Lion Conservation Plans with all these lion range States. This places us in the responsible position of coordinating and facilitating overall lion conservation and management programmes, and we will soon proceed to responsibly address this remit.

                                                              ACTION PLANS

1. All lion range States that have not developed their National Lion Action Plans for lion conservation and management in a structured and coordinated way, to urgently do so by April 2013. Such coordination of the Action Plans to be undertaken and facilitated by LionAid.
2. The lion range States that practise consumptive utilisation of lions (e.g. trophy hunting) to ensure adherence to best practices of sustainability and transparency, and shall regularly monitor utilized populations.
3. The lion range States to propose to the IUCN to review the listing of the African lion with a view to upgrading the species to “endangered” status. LionAid to facilitate.
4. The lion range States to request UNESCO to consider the lion as a World Heritage Species, once the criteria and process has been established and a proposal for listing has been submitted.  LionAid to facilitate and inform.
5.  The lion range States to share intelligence with regional law enforcement agencies on illegal trade, e.g Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF) and INTERPOL.
6. The lion range States to establish a database along the lines of the Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) programme of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the illegal killing of lions, and keep accurate records on legal killing of lions associated with problem animal control measures and trophy hunting. Such records about legal killing to be made available by approval from and on request to the individual lion range State.
7. The lion range States to develop standardized data collection methods for lion population monitoring; currently it is difficult to accurately compare among methods utilized by the range States and results obtained thereby.
8. The lion range States to continue to engage in discussion regarding the correct and appropriate listing of lions on CITES (whether Appendix 1 or 2) as new information regarding the impact of trade becomes available.
9. The lion range States that have not yet done so are urgently encouraged to provide input into the ongoing CITES Lion Periodic Review process being led by the CITES’ Animals Committee representatives for African region.
10. Cognizant of current trans-boundary conservation plans, the lion range States to collaborate fully on trans-boundary lion conservation programmes/initiatives for shared lion populations, and to incorporate trans-boundary lion population needs in their National Lion Action Plans.
11. The lion range States to regularly assess progress of current lion research programmes within their countries as to their relevance to national needs and priorities, and to engage in a tender process to invite specific research on lions within subjects identified by the range states. 
12. The lion range States to encourage data collection in research areas of feline disease and genetics in addition to the ecological and human/livestock conflict dimensions of lion conservation.
13. The lion range States and LionAid to pursue urgent mobilisation of resources to achieve the above resolutions. The lion range States to identify national and trans-boundary programmes according to their identified priorities for funding submissions facilitated by LionAid.
14.  The lion range States to engage with neighbouring range States/regional range States to constructively collaborate on best ways forward to ensure the long-term survival of lions. Consideration to be made by range States to hold a series of small scale conferences among neighbouring range States to develop and implement regionally cohesive and regionally appropriate lion conservation strategies facilitated by LionAid.
15.  The lion range States to call for regular pan-African conferences to report progress on the above Action Plans, identification of new needs based on emerging data, and to determine overall continental best ways forward to ensure the conservation and management of the species. The next of these to be held in April 2013.
    

Last week, “Quenching a Thirst for Lion Bones“  by Fiona Macleod appeared in the weekly Mail & Guardian newspaper (South Africa).

This article again highlights the concerns about the emerging lion bone trade facilitated by CITES permits issued by South African authorities,  a supply made available by South African captive lion breeders, and the growth of legal but nevertheless  “pseudo trophy hunts” engaged in by Laos nationals.  It follows on from Pieter’s article “A worrying parallel between rhino poaching and trade in lion bones?"  (10th March).

Even without the ongoing catastrophic declines in African lion populations, this new trend is indeed a very worrying development – it could lead to specific poaching of lions for their bones. In 2008, it was estimated that a kilo of lion bones was worth about $10. Two years later in 2010, one kilo was now worth $300, an increase of 2,900%. What are they worth now? Certainly enough to support the trophy fees and associated costs of pseudo trophy hunters from Laos, who bagged at least 54 lion trophies in 2010? And to profit Laotian companies that received 250 kg of lion bones provided by South Africa in 2009? So is a kilo of bones now worth maybe $500? $700? $1000? Nobody yet knows, but a lion probably has about 30kg of bones, so possibly worth $30,000? Certainly enough to stimulate an interest in among the poaching syndicates so effectively working to smuggle elephant ivory and rhino horns from Africa to Asian paymasters.

I’m tempted to say that while South Africa has prided itself on wonderful conservation initiatives that have placed wild species in private hands, many aspects have gone wrong. So I will. South Africa needs to realize that their actions in terms of exports of lion, rhino, and elephant body parts echo negatively across other African range states, and need urgent revision. It might be commerce, but is not conservation.

LionAid is proud to announce that the UK Government (Defra) has provided funding for us to host a conference among African lion range states. The conference will ask delegates to present their latest updates to their national lion conservation plans, to provide non-detriment reports in case the range state allows commercial (trophy hunting) offtake, and to consider an uplisting of lions from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I.

We have invited a diversity of African lion range states (Senegal, Cameroon, Nigeria, Namibia, South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Malawi) and the response to date has been wonderful. Eleven countries already confirmed attendance. The conference will be held in Johannesburg on March 29th and 30th, and in addition to the range states we expect a number of NGOs to attend.

We aim not to have this conference to be a talk shop but rather a consequential and immediately implementable contribution to conservation of African lions. We will therefore invite representation from country Management Authorities (usually Ministries) and Scientific Authorities (Wildlife Departments and Universities). This will ensure relevance to national lion conservation priorities.

What is most important is that African range states adopt the relevant measures to conserve an iconic species with local solutions.

Read the full Press Release here

Picture Credit: Chris Harvey

The media has recently been falling over themselves  to report the arrival of two rent-a-pandas at the Edinburgh Zoo. Yes indeed, for a yearly rental fee exceeding that of the most sumptuous London penthouse apartment, the Zoo now has on display two pandas raised in captivity in China for a contract of ten years.  Edinburgh Zoo expects a significant rise in visitor numbers to offset the rental costs, but let’s take a closer look at this pandamonium.

First, these are rented animals, to begin with a dicey practice for a zoo to get involved in. Would they rent a camel, an elephant, a polar bear? Not on your life, but a panda is different somehow. The rental fee has not quite been disclosed by the Zoo, as this would perhaps be crass. But journalists have mentioned $1 million per year, and we are not sure if this is for both “Sweetie” and “Sunshine” as the pandas are known, or whether this is $1 million for each. The Edinburgh Zoo last year lost £1.5m, saw its visitor numbers slump 15% to just under 550,000 and had to be rescued with a £2m bank loan. This year it has seen directors suspended for alleged misconduct. One was exonerated and reinstated, one was dismissed and its previous chief executive left, according to the Guardian newspaper and the Born Free website.  They seem a bit like Lehman Brothers in terms of their investment practices.

Second, where does all the rent-a-panda money go? China says it is for panda conservation, but I have my doubts. There are some wild pandas in China. Little is being done to provide additional protected habitat for them. There are many pandas in captive breeding programmes, but pandas being pandas, once in captivity they seem to shut down reproductively and require a number of assisted breeding interventions to make baby pandas. Big time assisted breeding, as in artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc. But what is the future of those “assisted” pandas? More rent-a pandas? The only reintroduction attempt into the wild was a disaster, and the single panda involved died. This was kept quiet by the Chinese authorities for many months… In addition, is the public now convinced that Edinburgh Zoo will “save” pandas, and that therefore the dire situation of wild pandas is now being adequately addressed? Conservation via confuscation? 

Third, what will Edinburgh do with these rent-a-pandas? Breed them? Good luck there, and for what purpose? To have more captive pandas that cannot be returned to the wild and thus contribute zip to real panda conservation? And who owns the offspring under their contract with China? Has Edinburgh Zoo read the fine print on the contract? Born Free provides this analysis from other zoos with rent-a-pandas:

" “We are not aware of any revenue coming in associated with our pandas. It is a common misconception about keeping pandas.” Christina Simmons San Diego Zoo. The Daily Record January 30th 2011

"The four zoos (Washington, Atlanta, Memphis and San Diego) collectively spent $33 million more on pandas from 2000 to 2003 than they received in revenue from exhibiting them.” Washington Post August 2005

"It was astonishing too see, in most cases, how much more it was costing the institutions than that [the panda exhibits] were bringing in.” David Towne. Giant Panda Foundation. National Geographic News 2006

"The loan agreements, most spanning ten years, have become a financial headache for the Nation’s [Washington] zoo” National Geographic News March 2006"

 Yet Edinburgh went ahead.  Already in debt, they rented pandas. We do hope it will bring positive finances to the zoo so they can pay back their bank loan. But it has to be seen for what it is – a costly gimmick. No conservation value, no benefit to wild pandas or other species. Zoos have an educational and conservation responsibility to the wild relatives of the species they display. Renting pandas is not the way forward. Who will pay the rental fees two or three years from now when the public droves and their gate fees have diminished? Does Edinburgh have a long-range plan? If so, let’s hear from them.

Picture Credit: BBC Nature

On May 3, 2011, the European Commission published a “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions” called (optimistically) “Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020”.

It contains the usual folderol, but there is a very interesting section in “Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss”. Under Action 17 “Reduce indirect drivers of biodiversity loss”, the communication states “… the EU will take measures…to reduce the biodiversity impacts of EU consumption patterns, particularly for resources that have negative effects on biodiversity” -17a. 

This would apply directly to the EU consumption of lion trophies, especially those from western and central Africa, where France is the major consumer. As explained before, these lions are genetically distinct from all other lions in Africa, are highly endangered, are losing populations at a great rate (locally extinct in Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Congo by 2010 surveys; Nigeria has 39 lions left, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, and Benin still allow trophy hunting despite greatly declining populations), and should be immediately be declared prohibited imports to the EU.

Also, the communication states “ The Commission will work with Member States and key stakeholders to provide the right market signals for biodiversity conservation, including work to reform, phase out, and eliminate harmful subsidies at both EU and Member State level, and to provide positive incentives for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use” – 17c.

This would, inter alia, hopefully provide a means of phasing out EU and UK subsidies for the Botswana beef industry that is greatly destructive of biodiversity in that country (see our blog on that matter here 

We will be bringing this matter up when we meet with the Cabinet Member of the EC Commissioner for Environment on January 11, 2012.

Photo credit: David Dugmore