Latest News

The LionAid Conference in Johannesburg on the conservation needs and status of African lions is now going ahead with eleven African range states – and more might join in the next few days. So far, from west to south to east we have Senegal, Nigeria, Cameroon, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia sending their delegates representing Wildlife Management and Scientific Authorities. During the two days of the Conference much will need to be discussed, and we will aim to have the African range states represent their comprehensive conservation plans for remaining lion populations.

We have structured the conference agenda to allow the maximum of free discussion among delegates. African lion conservation is the responsibility of African lion range states, and must be addressed with African solutions.

We are extremely grateful to all the represented nations for sending their delegates. It will be a Conference that will set lion conservation priorities for years to come, and we also thank the UK Government for making funds available to contribute to this important meeting.

Stay tuned for updates!

Want to contribute? Click here

Picture credit – Jean Huet

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

LionAid is proud to announce that we have recently been rated second on the list of “most hated” organizations by trophy hunters on their accuratereloading forum. Here is the text of the announcement by award master bwanamitch:

“Let us note the names of those decision makers responsible …  for allowing sentiment to cloud their professionalism and let us record these in the anals [sic] of history for when this occurs, they should be held accountable and be remembered for being responsible for the total decline of wild lion populations.

Allow me to start:
Dereck and Beverly Joubert (and their related ORGS and NGOs)
Lion Aid [LionAid]
IFAW [International Foundation for Animal Welfare]
Born Free Foundation
Several corrupt African Wildlife Departments
USFW [the US Fish and Wildlife Service]

Therefore, I now suggest every hunter to go as often as they can and hunt as many lion as they legally can. Let's shoot them all and be done with it.”

While we provisionally accept this silver medal, we will soon provide news that might place us in future contention for gold.

Meanwhile, it was a tough journey to achieve the silver medal. We would like to thank all our supporters, friends, parents, children and dogs for their support towards this achievement. We would also like to thank all those who voted for us among the hunters, their supporters, friends, children, parents etc. Please let us know when and where the award ceremony will take place?

We are humbled by this award, as we realize that it was achieved only by dedicated, careful, and scientific dismissal of all specious arguments by the hunting community trying to prove that hunting is conservation. We dismissed their economic arguments, their community benefit arguments, their financial benefit to range state government arguments, and their saving the species arguments. We so raised their hackles about their nonsensical rhetoric they awarded us this medal. We are honoured to be listed in the anals [sic] of the accuratereloading forum.

To the winner of the gold medal, Dereck Joubert, we say this. Well done, well deserved. But you will not be wearing that medal for long.

Picture credit: http://binged.it/ADfdT5

LionAid recently revealed the great discrepancy between “wild” lion sport hunting trophies exported yearly from South Africa (an average of 265 per year over 2000-2009 according to CITES records) and the very small number of truly “wild” lions available (perhaps 15 per year from hunting concessions bordering on Kruger National Park for example).

LionAid is delighted to be able to report that the Scientific Review Group (SRG) of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations has considered the issue, and recently formed a “negative opinion” on all wild lion specimens originating from South Africa. This means there is an import ban in place as of 10th November 2011 into the European Union for all lion trophies from South Africa designated as “wild”.

The Scientific Review Group judged that “wild” lion trophies (and all other lion products designated by CITES export permits as coming from a “wild” source) were being mislabelled. In other words, the SRG formed the same opinion as LionAid – there was either a “leakage” of captive bred lions into the “wild” category, and/or that such “wild” lion trophies might have originated from neighbouring countries (Zimbabwe, Mozambique) and declared in South Africa.

Such mislabelling had been going on for many years, and we commend the SRG for this decision. It will not prevent “captive bred” trophies from being imported into the EU, but stands as a clear message to the exporting authorities and hunting operators in South Africa that mislabelling will no longer be tolerated by the European Union.

We have also been assured in a meeting with the EU Directorate General for the Environment on January 11th that they will place all African lion imports into the EU on SRG agendas this year, with special emphasis on western and central African lion populations.

The decision by the SRG on South African wild lions indicates once again the value of careful consideration of scientific data to guide informed opinions and policies. The SRG can revise the negative opinion in the future, but in the mean time a clear message has been sent to South Africa – amend your reporting to end mislabelling and fraudulent declarations, or suffer an import ban to the European Union. We would strongly advise the USA Management Authority (the US Fish and Wildlife Service) to take note of the SRG decision and follow suit. After all, close to 70% of “wild” South African lion trophies are imported into the USA…

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

Richard Hargreaves, UK Director of the Campaign against Canned Hunting, sent me an interesting e-mail yesterday. This comes back to an earlier post on this site questioning the fact that between 2000-2009, South Africa reported an export of 2651 “wild” lion trophies in addition to 3024 “captive bred/ranched” lion trophies according to CITES records.

An online search of the CITES Trade Database allows one to make distinctions among the different categories of “trophies”. We pointed out that it was absolutely impossible for South Africa to export an average of 265 “wild” trophy lions on average per year over that period, as there were simply not enough wild lions in the country to support this offtake. We suggested widespread substitution of captive bred lions made up the numbers. Mr Hargreaves pointed us to a statement by Dr Dewald Keet, Chief State Veterinarian of Kruger Park, to suggest only about 15, yes, fifteen wild lions could be available to be shot as trophies per year in South Africa. A slight difference from 265 as reported by CITES.

So we will stay with our original assessment that CITES authorities in South Africa have many captive bred lions in the mix of “wild” trophies. It should be noted that false labelling is punishable by law under the Lacey Act of the United States and also under the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations. Whether that applies to a lion trophy imported as “wild” versus “captive bred” remains to be tested in court, but the regulatory statutes are in place, and the Lacey Act authorises legal repercussions for both the importer (client) and the hunting operator. 

Mr Hargreaves also pointed out that there was a major discrepancy when the CITES records were searched for “all categories” versus the cumulative and specific categories of “wild” and “captive bred/ranched”. And he is right. Suddenly 997 lion trophy exports from South Africa go missing. We would expect a few errors here and there in the CITES records, but 997 trophies from 2000-2009 is a bit on the wild side. How can this have happened? Mr Hargreaves suggests double labelling, and he might be right.

Nevertheless, two matters are clear, and both have to do with CITES urgently getting their house in order to investigate what is happening with issuing authorities in South Africa. First, 15 available wild lions per year cannot supply 265 trophies exported under the “wild” category. Second, a discrepancy of 997 lion trophies in their records cannot be simply attributable to clerical error.

CITES (officially termed the Convention in International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora) was established in 1973. 175 member states are now signed up to regulate international trade in wildlife species to ensure that such trade does not compromise the species’ conservation status. CITES is maintained by contributions from signatory Governments to the Convention, meaning our taxes. If CITES is responsible to us, we should reasonably expect better reporting and greater transparency?  

With new information available, LionAid has revisited the very serious and grim situation of the western African lions. In 2006, the IUCN published a conference report that opined there were between 1495 and 2530 lions in western Africa, albeit in mostly small and isolated populations.

That estimate was based on the “opinions of experts” attending the conference. Perhaps “wild guesses” would have been more a more appropriate descriptor. New information has become available in 2010 and 2011, and these results paint a completely different and much more depressing picture, especially as they are based on some actual surveys. 

Western African lions are genetically distinctive from other lions in Africa. Think Bengal Tigers and Siberian Tigers. But unlike those tigers, the western African lions have not been given much (any?) conservation attention. The IUCN has only unofficially recognized them as “regionally endangered”, and not formally afforded them the Red List status they now sadly deserve.

And these lions, believe it or not, are still trophy hunted – from 2000 to 2009, a total of 263 male lion trophies was exported from Cameroon, Burkina Faso and Benin. Would people sit quietly by if Siberian Tigers were trophy hunted? So why this strange complacency for western African lions?

Have a look at the table below that summarizes the status “accepted” by the IUCN in 2006, the more realistic current estimates, and the LionAid analysis. And realize that continued complacency will kill this unique cat.  

IUCN 2006 western African lion population numbers and current updates

Analysis: The IUCN conference on western and central African lions, published 2006, rather than performing a country-by-country analysis of populations, designated “Lion Conservation Units” (LCUs) – areas of lion conservation importance. LCUs sometimes amalgamated relatively isolated lion populations (but occurring in some measure of proximity) and those that might be shared across national borders. In virtually all cases, estimates were not based on actual counts, but rather on “guesstimates” from delegates. More recently, better information has become available (see references below) from actual field counts. For example, Henshel et al (2010) surveyed 15 LCUs as defined by the IUCN and only found evidence of lion presence in 2 LCUs (Nigeria – Yankari and Kainji Lake). Crous et al (2011) updated lion numbers in the Benoue Complex in Cameroon. Other information comes from informed sources who have significant knowledge of the areas.

This more reliable current information indicates significantly lower lion population numbers than proposed by the IUCN in 2006. While the IUCN estimates cannot be considered reliable as they were based on little more than “opinions”, so the estimated declines of between 59 and 72% must be seen as approximations and not necessarily applicable to the last five years. However, what is abundantly clear from current information is that far fewer lions exist in western Africa than previously thought, and thus that their conservation status is becoming ever more tenuous. Given that western African lions are genetically highly distinctive from eastern and southern African lions, the need for effective protection programmes becomes ever more urgent.

a Where no new information exists, the 2006 data is brought forward
1 Radek Klimek, Peter Luptak – private communication
2 Henshel et al 2010. Lion status updates from five range countries in West and Central Africa. Cat News 52.
3 Hans de Iongh – private communication
4 Croes et al, 2011. The impact of trophy hunting on lions (Panthera leo) and other large carnivores
in the Bénoué Complex, northern Cameroon. Biological Conservation 144.

Picture credit: Martin Fowkes

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

Please click on this link to see a country by country assessment of lion trophy hunting for African nations that permit(ed) the practice. This is the most up-to-date analysis, and includes CITES export numbers, threat assessments for lion populations in each country, a summary statement for each country, and a conclusion on trophy hunting offtake.

Please bring this report to the attention of members of Congress, Senators, Members of Parliaments, and Members of European Parliament who represent you. It is a document that all decision makers need to see to end lion sport hunting. We need your active participation to circulate this report. Thank you.

Picture Credit : Chris Harvey

Today in Parliament, Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour – Bristol East) asked a question about what steps Minister Spellman (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) was taking to curb the hunting of endangered species. She then turned the question specifically to lions, asking the Minister to condemn the trophy hunting of this vulnerable species, holding up a recent article in the Sun Newspaper featuring millionaire banker and Tory donor, Sir David Scholey posing with his bloody trophy, under the headline of “Who is the bigger beast?”.

The response came from Richard Benyon (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). Mr Benyon replied this was a matter for CITES, but acknowledged that there are areas in Africa where lion populations are of real concern. He referred back to a debate on lions in Westminster Hall (brought by Andrew Turner MP and LionAid), and mentioned that concerns expressed by Ms McCarthy’s question and the previous debate will be raised with CITES.

LionAid will continue to promote such questions in Parliament, and advise MPs on pertinent issues. Future questions will concern the endangered status of western and central African lions that are still being trophy hunted, the need to give Kenya and Namibia all assistance to ensure the current CITES periodic review of lions will take place with only peer-reviewed scientific data and is free from vested-interest lobbying, and that current abuse of lion quotas in Zimbabwe is rectified immediately.

We commend Ms McCarthy’s question, and look forward to working with her in the future to ensure full efficacy of the UK Parliament in achieving successful lion conservation programmes.

Transcript: 
11. Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab):

 What steps she is taking to curb the hunting of endangered species. [82281]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon):

No native endangered species can be legally hunted in England. Although we cannot intervene directly in legal hunts of endangered species allowed by foreign Governments, the UK pushes for international co-operation through the convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES—in order to ensure that any trade in endangered species is sustainable. The UK also strongly supports the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium on commercial whaling.

Kerry McCarthy:

Will the Minister therefore join me in condemning the trophy hunting of endangered and vulnerable species such as that carried out by the millionaire banker and Tory donor, Sir David Scholey, who was pictured in The Sun recently, posing by the bloody corpse of a lion under the headline “Who’s the bigger beast?”? Does the Minister condemn that?

Richard Benyon:

 We recently had a debate in Westminster Hall about lion trophies and importation to the UK. There are certain areas of Africa where lion populations give real cause for concern, and we are working through colleagues in CITES to ensure that the concerns in that debate and throughout the House are raised.

Picture credit: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3806600/Whos-the-bigger-beast.html