assessing potential impacts of trade in trophies imported...

Assessing potential impacts of trade in

trophies imported for hunting purposes to

the EU-27 on conservation status of

Annex B species

Part 2: Discussion and Case studies

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

European Commission Directorate General Environment

Directorate E - Global & Regional Challenges, LIFE ENV.E.2 - Global Sustainability, Trade & Multilateral

Agreements

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

August, 2013

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road

Cambridge

CB3 0DL

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314

Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.unep-wcmc.org

The United Nations Environment Programme

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-

WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment

centre of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost

intergovernmental environmental organisation.

The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years,

combining scientific research with practical policy

advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and

highlight the many values of biodiversity and put

authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre

of decision-making. Through the analysis and

synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the

Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely

information for conventions, countries and

organisations to use in the development and

implementation of their policies and decisions.

UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically

rigorous procedures and services. These include

ecosystem assessments, support for the

implementation of environmental agreements,

global and regional biodiversity information,

research on threats and impacts, and the

development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC. 2013. Assessing potential impacts of

trade in trophies imported for hunting purposes to the

EU-27 on conservation status of Annex B species. Part

2: Discussion and case studies. UNEP-WCMC,

Cambridge.

PREPARED FOR

The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of UNEP, contributory

organisations or editors. The designations

employed and the presentations do not imply the

expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part

of UNEP, the European Commission or

contributory organisations, editors or publishers

concerning the legal status of any country, territory,

city area or its authorities, or concerning the

delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The

mention of a commercial entity or product in this

publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP.

© Copyright: 2013, European Commission

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2

TROPHY HUNTING AND CONSERVATION ............................................................................................. 3

DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EU WILDLIFE TRADE REGULATIONS ............... 6

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 9

ANNEX A: CASE STUDIES ..................................................................................................................... 13

ANNEX B: KEY TO CODES .................................................................................................................... 34

Introduction

2

INTRODUCTION

This report provides information to support SRG decision making on the regulation of trade in Annex B hunting trophies.

Trophy hunting, when well managed, can be an important conservation tool, but there are also instances in which the sustainability of offtake from populations subject to trophy hunting may be questionable. As the European Union is an important importer of hunting trophy items, it is now assessing its regulations pertaining to the import of Annex B hunting trophies to ensure that the sustainability of trade in those hunting trophies into the EU is adequately monitored and that the subsequent use of these items can be better tracked through imposition of stricter domestic measures.

The import of hunting trophies of species listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and in Annex B of the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations is subject to permitting exemptions in both sets of regulations, as hunting trophies may under certain conditions be defined as personal or household effects. Under these conditions, CITES Resolution Conf. 13.7 (Rev CoP16) provides that dead specimens, parts or derivatives traded as personal or household effects are exempt from the requirement of issuing an export permit or re-export certificate Similarly, under the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, while imports of Annex B specimens by EU residents require the presentation of an export and import permit, the import of specimens traded for trophy hunting purposes only requires the presentation of either an export permit or import permit.

As a result of the regulations that apply for the import of Annex B specimens for trophy hunting, EU CITES Authorities are unable to restrict these imports in cases where there are concerns about the sustainability of the trade. Under the present regulations, SRG opinions and EU suspensions for taxa traded for commercial purposes do not apply to Annex B specimens traded for trophy hunting purposes. Therefore even if commercial trade is being restricted, trophies can still be imported into the EU. Furthermore, cases where Annex B hunting trophies have entered the illegal market upon import into the EU are difficult to investigate in the absence of import permits and trade cannot be fully monitored and assessed (European Commission, 2013).

To address this situation, at the 16th Conference of the Parties to CITES, the EU proposed amendment of Resolution 13.7 to introduce a requirement that export permits be issued for all hunting trophies. Although this proposal was not adopted in full, Resolution Conf 13.7 (Rev Cop16) was amended so that Parties should require export or re-export certificates “for the export and re-export of rhino horn or elephant ivory contained in hunting trophies”. In addition, Decision 16.84 recommends that Parties consider the introduction of stricter domestic measures for the re-export of rhino horn products.

The EU is considering an amendment to the current EU regime that would introduce a requirement for import permits for the first introduction of hunting trophies of Annex B specimens into the EU (all or selected species/populations). This would enable EU CITES Authorities to better scrutinize trade, apply opinions and suspensions as required, and potentially aid the investigation of illegal trade.

This is the second part of a two-part report, which provides information to support SRG decision-making on the regulation of trade in Annex B hunting trophies. The first part provided an overview of trade in hunting trophies imported as personal effects which indicated that of the 54 Annex B taxa reported as hunting trophies or personal effects, suspensions or negative opinions were in place for 10 taxa (19 species/country combinations) and sustainability questions have been raised (i.e. no opinions types ii or iii in place) for 5 taxa (21 species/country combinations). The report also provided the basis for the intersessional selection of a number of taxa for case studies, namely: Equus zebra hartmannae, Ovis ammon, Ovis vignei, Kobus leche smithemannii and Budorcas taxicolor. This second part provides a discussion of considerations about the sustainability of trophy hunting, drawing on a variety of information, including from case studies of relevant taxa. The report outlines the merits of different regulatory options for trade in Annex B hunting trophies and their potential implications.

Discussion

3

TROPHY HUNTING AND CONSERVATION

Trophy hunting often polarizes views and there is debate as to whether and in which circumstances it is a suitable conservation tool (Leader-Williams and Hutton, 2005; Dickson et al., 2009). Recent policy and guidelines outline five components which trophy hunting programmes need to incorporate to contribute to conservation: “Biological Sustainability; Net Conservation Benefit; Socio-Economic-Cultural Benefit; Adaptive Management: Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting; and Accountable and Effective Governance” (IUCN SSC, 2012). These components are met to varying degrees by different programmes. Principles and guidelines relevant to recreational hunting were also prepared by Brainerd (2007) in collaboration with IUCN, CIC and FACE and adopted by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. Similarly, a guide to sustainable hunting under the Birds Directive was developed (European Commission, 2008).

While positive aspects of well-managed trophy hunting can contribute to conservation of species and habitats and support livelihoods, trophy hunting can also result in negative effects if poorly managed (Grimm, 2008; Damm, 2008; Dickson et al., 2009).

Trophy hunting as a useful conservation tool

Well managed trophy hunting can benefit conservation in various ways and may in some cases be the best option to ensure the preservation of habitats, protection of species and the support of livelihoods (Dickson et al., 2009; Loveridge et al., 2006; IUCN SSC, 2012).

Financial incentives for conservation

The revenues that can be accrued from trophy hunting can increase incentives to manage the resource and protect habitats (Baldus, 2008; Weaver and Petersen, 2008; Loveridge et al., 2006; Dickson et al., 2009). For example, the annual revenues of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa, derived from at least 18 500 hunters, were estimated at a minimum of US$201 million (Lindsey et al., 2007a), although these figures are contested in the grey literature (Campbell, 2013). Aboriginal people in Nunavut, Canada, benefit from the income generated from Polar bear Ursus maritimus trophy hunts, with ten hunts in 2008 reportedly bringing $210 000 to a local community (Wenzel, 2011).

Trophy hunting can convert local peoples’ perception of wildlife as a liability into wildlife as an asset, much as photo tourism does/can do (Weaver and Petersen, 2008; Lindsey, 2008). Revenues generated from each trophy hunting tourist usually surpass ecotourism (Lindsey, 2008), although which of the two is more profitable overall in economic terms depends on the characteristics of the area (Novelli et al., 2006). In Zimbabwe, for example, the CAMPFIRE programme initially succeeded at improving the management and conservation of wildlife resources in the country through the devolution of wildlife revenues generated from the sustainable use of wildlife, including trophy hunting (Child, 1996; Frost and Bond, 2008).

Trophy hunting can generate income where little alternative exists whilst conserving vast areas (Lindsey et al., 2007b; Child 2012) or in areas which are not suitable for other sustainable uses, such as photo tourism (Gössling, 2000). Trophy hunting may also be more resilient than tourism to outside market forces such as political instability, as hunters continue to visit politically unstable countries (Lindsey et al., 2007b; Hutton and Leader-Williams, 2003; Bond et al., 2004).

Incentives to protect habitats

In sub-Saharan Africa, trophy hunting operators were reported to manage at least 1.4 million km2, i.e. more than the area encompassed by national parks in the countries where hunting is permitted (Lindsey et al., 2007b) and on private land in southern Africa it has been an important stimulant behind the shift from livestock ranching to game ranching (Lindsey, 2008). In Namibia, for example, trophy hunting played a key role in the establishment of communal conservancies, which in 2007 covered 12 million hectares (over 14% of the country’s landmass), often extending the areas protected by national parks or providing corridors between them (Weaver and Petersen, 2008).

While developing countries may face various challenges with the implementation of sustainable trophy hunting, the high returns for the cost of a few trophy individuals was considered to be preferable to alternative options, which destroy habitats and populations, such as agricultural

Discussion

4

expansion, logging or subsistence hunting (Lindsey et al., 2007a; Loveridge et al., 2006). Trophy hunting was also considered to generally have a lesser overall footprint on the environment than sustainable alternative uses such as photo tourism (Lindsey, 2008; Gössling, 2000)

Sustainable trophy hunting has supported the conservation of many populations of the Giant Eland, Tragelaphus derbianus gigas, and was considered the best option to ensure that its savannah woodland habitat remains unmodified (IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008). Trophy hunting can also play an important role in the rehabilitation of degraded wildlife areas, such as the Coutada hunting blocks in Mozambique (Lindsey, 2008). By preserving target species’ habitats, protection may also be given to numerous co-occurring species (Roberge and Angelstam, 2004).

Improved management of species

Well managed trophy hunting has been recognized as a useful conservation tool for Caprinids (Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997), as targeting mature males was considered to be generally sustainable, and as trophy hunting is incompatible with poaching or habitat destruction, while generating substantial funds that could be used for conservation activities (Baldus et al., 2008).

Unregulated hunting brought the Markhor Capra falconeri close to extirpation in the 1980s in the province of Balochistan, Pakistan, until a community-based programme was initiated, which used conservative trophy hunting of Markhor and Urial Ovis orientalis to develop local livelihoods, virtually stopped illegal offtake, and led to a steady increase in the populations (IUCN SSC, 2012; Frisina and Tareen, 2009). The population of the Black Lechwe Kobus leche smithemanni, too, nearly collapsed in the early to mid 1900s, upon which its habitat was declared partly National park and partly game reserve, with conservative trophy hunting being an important part of the species’ management (Siamudaala et al., 2012; for more detailed review, see Annex A).

Financial incentives from trophy hunting have led to the re-introduction of a number of species, such as Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis, for which successful reintroduction programmes in North America have been financed with funds generated from trophy hunting (Festa-Bianchet and Lee, 2009) and the White Rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum, which was reintroduced into game ranches and trophy hunting ultimately aided its recovery in South Africa and Namibia (Leader-Williams et al., 2005). Similarly, the financial incentives for reintroductions on private land in South Africa provided by trophy hunting facilitated the recovery of Bontebok Damaliscus dorcas, Black Wildebeest Connochaetes gnu and Cape Mountain Zebra Equus zebra (Lindsey et al., 2007a).

In Namibia, community recognition of the value of wildlife from trophy hunting led to a reduction in poaching and to recoveries of wildlife populations in large communal regions of the country (Weaver and Petersen, 2008). For instance, the improved perception of Cheetahs Acionyx jubatus by farmers as a result of trophy hunting led to reduced levels of poaching and an increasing Cheetah population (Marker et al., 2003; Loveridge et al., 2009). Changing attitudes also led to increases in the population of Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra Equus zebra hartmannae populations (IUCN SSC, 2012; for more detailed review, see Annex A).

Incentives to protect non-target species

In some cases trophy hunting of less threatened species has contributed to the recovery of more threatened species. This is believed to be the case for the Markhor in Pakistan, where trophy hunting of the more numerous Appendix-II listed Urial supported development of the Torghar conservation project. Urial trophies, as Appendix-II listed species, could be imported into the US and EU; whilst both stricter domestic measures and CITES measures precluded the import of Appendix-I listed Markhor trophies until the COP approved a quota from Pakistan (Rosser et al 2005).

Other benefits

If well managed, trophy hunting may also contribute to problem animal control and reduce poaching through the presence of hunting operators (Lindsey et al., 2007a) and there are many more examples of successful management of the industry (see for example Dickson et al., 2009).

Discussion

5

Potential negative impacts of trophy hunting

When poorly managed, trophy hunting can have a range of negative consequences for species, the environment and people (Lindsey, 2008; IUCN SSC, 2012). Sustainability has multiple dimensions, and impacts of trophy hunting can be assessed in terms of numerical offtake; demographic impacts; genetic impacts; unintended knock-on impacts on the hunted population (e.g. impacts of infanticide); and management impacts such as predator control (e.g. Reynolds et al., 2001; Milner-Gulland et al., 2009).

Unsustainable offtake

Trophy hunting is arguably strongly self-regulating and the requirement for a low off-take to ensure high trophy quality is in line with at least a minimum level of sustainability to prevent over-exploitation (Hofer, 2002; Lindsey, 2008). However, in practice quotas are often inappropriate (or absent) in some countries due to lack of resources to monitor populations (Lindsey et al., 2007a). Quota restrictions may not be fully implemented leading to excessive offtake (Damm, 2008) or inappropriate demographic selection, such as hunting of female rather than male Leopards Panthera pardus (Spong et al., 2000), or removal of young male Lions Panthera leo rather than post reproductive males (Packer et al., 2011).

Concerns over the sustainability of trophy hunting in some locations have been raised for certain species such as the Lion Panthera leo (Packer et al., 2006), and some small populations of Polar bear Ursus maritimus, where harvest levels are considered excessive (e.g. IUCN/SSC PBSG, 2009). However, often other forms of hunting such as poaching or commercial hunting are the main causes of concern, e.g. for the Hippo Hippopotamus amphibius (Lewison and Oliver, 2013) or Argali Ovis ammon (Zahler et al., 2004).

Impacts on reproductive patterns

Selective harvest may affect the performance of populations in various ways (Milner et al., 2007). If for example too many immature animals are taken for trophies (e.g. on the basis of trophy scoring systems), this may result in skewed population structures (Damm, 2008). The selective offtake of prime males for trophies was found to impact on reproduction in Lion Panthera leo populations by increasing turnover rates of pride males, leading to reduced cub survival due to infanticide (Whitman et al., 2004) and changes in socio-spatial behaviour (Davidson et al., 2011). The hunting of female Leopards Panthera pardus by trophy hunters in Tanzania was considered to be potentially more deleterious than hunting males only, as male leopards suffer a higher natural mortality rate than females and as dependent cubs die when females are hunted (Spong et al., 2000).

Directional selection of trophies can lead to evolutionary changes in populations (Allendorf and Hard, 2009). In Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis, for example, body weight and horn size declined in response to trophy hunting (Coltman et al., 2003) and similar effects were observed for Mouflon Ovis gmelini musimon (Garel et al., 2007). However, it is unclear whether horn size has an impact on mating success in ungulates (Festa-Bianchet and Lee, 2009) and horn length in Alpine Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra was found to be of limited importance in reproductive success, therefore selection by hunters was believed unlikely to have an evolutionary impact (Rughetti and Festa-Bianchet, 2011). It is essential to understand the mechanisms though which trophy hunting can influence evolutionary changes to mitigate for them (Mysterud, 2011).

Impacts on genetic diversity

Game farming for trophy hunting can also lead to deleterious effects on species conservation and the environment, through practices such as selective breeding to provide unique “varieties” such as hybrids of Black- and Blue Wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus and C. gnou, or manipulating genetics to produce black Impala Aepyceros melampus (Hamman et al., 2003) or white Springbok Antidorcas marsupialis (Lindsey, 2008). Trophy hunting of Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis led to selective pressure for slow-growing horns, although it is unclear whether this had an impact on reproductive success (Festa-Bianchet and Lee, 2009).

Introductions of non-native species into game ranches to increase the selection of trophy species may impact on the health of animals and genetic structure of the species, as well as the ecosystem that they have been introduced into (IUCN SSC, 2012; Hamman et al., 2003). Interbreeding is the main threat to

Discussion

6

one of the two subspecies of Damaliscus pygargus, phillipsii and pygargus (Lloyd and David, 2008), for example. The Bontebock D. p. pygargus is still recovering from near-extinction in the mid-19th century, but now it is threatened by hybridization with the Blesbock D. p. philipsii, which has been (re-) introduced widely on private game farms (Lloyd and David, 2008).

Impacts on ecosystems

The requirement to fence ranches that contain trophy species in some countries can interrupt natural migration patterns (Booth, 2005). Some ranches may be overstocked and become degraded rapidly (Bond et al., 2004; Lindsey, 2008) and non-huntable predators are persecuted on some ranches to avoid competition for trophies (Lindsey et al., 2005; Marker et al., 2003; Lindsey, 2008).

Inequitable distribution of benefits

The economic aspects of trophy hunting, whilst important in providing incentives for conservation, can also result in conservation challenges if the hunting programmes are not well managed, e.g. as a result of corruption (Leader-Williams et al., 2009). These incentives can drive private land holders to overstock, alter the balance of the ecosystem with fences, predator control and species introductions. On state or communal land the inequitable distribution of benefits from the trophy hunting industry, may lead to the mismanagement of the resource through unsuitable quota setting, overharvest, unsuitable allocation of hunting areas, corruption or inadequate enforcement of regulations (Lindsey, 2008). In many cases it is not clear whether and how revenues gained are reinvested into conservation (Loveridge et al., 2006) and what benefits local communities actually receive (Booth, 2010). In Tajikistan, for instance, and unlike in Pakistan, as the central government accrues most Markhor Capra falconeri hunting license fees, direct local benefits were considered to be minimal (Baldus, R.D. and Michel, 2011). Similarly, in Uzbekistan, failure to reinvest revenues from Argali Ovis ammon trophy hunting leaves the local people bearing the restrictions on grazing while not receiving any tangible share, resulting in poor enforcement, poaching and illegal livestock grazing (Michel, 2008).

The centralised system of collecting hunting profits in Tanzania, coupled with the lack of a compensation scheme for human-lion conflicts was considered to give insufficient incentive for communities to engage in lion conservation (Lindsey et al., 2012)

Other impacts

Further well known issues include canned hunts, use of bait, put-and take and other such practices, which may not be of major relevance in the conservation context (Lindsey et al., 2007b), but these and the abovementioned practices which have emerged in the trophy hunting industry affect the perception of the public and make it more difficult to justify the use of trophy hunting as a conservation tool (Lindsey, 2008; Festa-Bianchet, 2012).

In addition, a number of studies have shown that an increase in rarity has led to an increase in trophy price and/or demand, which can increase offtake levels and impact populations (e.g. Prescott et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2010; Palazy et al., 2011b; a; Courchamp et al., 2006), although the importance of this effect has been questioned (Harris et al., 2013).

DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EU WILDLIFE TRADE REGULATIONS

Under the current EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, EU Member States are unable to assess imports of hunting trophies on a case-by-case basis and to take steps where problems are identified, as import permits are not required for hunting trophies. Even where strong concerns have been raised over the sustainability of trade where “hunting trophy” is the main term in trade, such as for Lion Panthera leo from Ethiopia (SRG30) and Cameroon (SRG59), trophies can continue to be imported into the EU under the current derogation.

As a result of these concerns, the EU is considering a potential amendment of the Regulations, including the introduction of a requirement for import permits for the first introduction of hunting trophies of Annex B specimens into the EU (all or selected species/populations), allowing importing countries to assess the sustainability of the trade.

References

7

Amendment options

There are a number of regulatory options, including:

A. Maintain the current documentation requirements and derogation for trophy hunting purposes;

B. Introduce ‘stricter measures’ for all terms imported for trophy hunting purposes, whereby import permits are required in all cases;

C. Limit ‘stricter measures’ to a selected species, for which the SRG has raised concerns regarding the sustainability of trophy hunting;

D. Introduce ‘stricter measures’ for any species, for which the SRG has formed negative opinions or applied import suspensions for commercial trade; or

E. Limit ‘stricter measures’ to those populations of species listed in Annex B whose other populations are listed in Annex A (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Regulatory options for the introduction of stricter domestic measures for imports of terms traded for trophy hunting purposes into the EU, option A being status quo. (*Either an export permit or import permit is required for the import of a hunting trophy into the EU).

Implication of an amendment

The proposed changes to the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations would put measures in place to allow the SRG to assess whether trade is sustainable and provides incentives for conservation-driven management. There are risks but also opportunities associated with the proposed change in the regulations. Many of the arguments used in the debate on whether trophy hunting is preferable to alternative resource use may support the regulatory status quo, while the concerns over the sustainability of the industry and questionable practices call for action.

Adoption of stricter domestic measures as proposed by the European Commission can have positive benefits such as highlighting the need for capacity support to projects to improve management, but they can also have negative consequences, if they result in a cessation of trade with no further conservation management or oversight (Hutton, 2000). Application of the Precautionary Principle in the face of uncertainty is often interpreted as requiring the prevention of use of species, but where that use provides conservation benefits, then monitored use may be the optimum solution (Cooney and Dickson, 2005). The following provides a summary of some of the potential implications of stricter measures:

+ / no op.i/ii

E.

No

Any populations listed

on Annex A?

A.

Species a, b, c Other - / susp./

no op. iii

Current SRG opinions/

suspensions for commercial

trade?

B. C. D.

Species?

Export permit*

Purpose H

Export permit

Purpose H

Import permit

Yes

Import permit

Export permit Export permit*

Purpose H

Export permit*

Purpose H

Export permit

Import permit Import permit

Export permit Export permit*

Purpose H

References

8

Incentives for conservation

Restrictions on trophy exports may impact on incentives for conservation, with CITES bans on trophy exports limiting hunting revenues in some countries (Lindsey, 2008). The stricter-than-CITES domestic measures implemented by the EU and the USA were considered to be of concern to programmes that aim to conserve species and habitat through income derived from hunting a small number of high value specimens (Rosser, 2009). Baldus (2008) noted that hunting bans have not contributed to the protection of wildlife in countries where they have been applied and that removing the benefits derived from hunting while leaving the land owners with the associated costs could lead to the extinction of wildlife. The complete ban on trophy hunting in Kenya since the 1970s, and temporary bans in Tanzania and Zambia (Leader-Williams and Hutton, 2005) were associated with a decline of wildlife, due to the absence of benefits from wildlife for local people (Lindsey et al., 2006) and avoiding future bans was considered to be vital for conservation (Lindsey et al., 2007b). Due to the high income generated by Lion Panthera leo trophy hunting in Tanzania, Lindsey et al. ( 2012) considered the country to be economically highly vulnerable to a lion hunting ban; Baldus and Michel (2011) similarly noted that, in Tanzania, “banning lion trophy hunting or creating international trade barriers for hunters to take home legally obtained trophies removes the economic as well as the management and law enforcement incentives that are necessary for conservation”. Weaver et al. (2011) considered that the removal of Hartmann's Mountain Zebra E. z. hartmannae from trade could seriously affect conservancy operational incomes in Namibia.

On the other hand, a number of measures have been suggested to ensure an improved conservation performance of the trophy hunting industry (see for example Lindsey et al., 2007b) and the introduction of stricter measures for imports by the EU by one of the main importing CITES Parties may act as an incentive to move these forward. For example, given the precarious situation of the Lion Panthera leo in Cameroon, a temporary cessation of trophy hunting was considered to be required to allow recovery of the population, with a subsequent reassessment of the hunting system (Croes et al., 2011).

Administrative burden

EU CITES Authorities have in the past outlined a number of points in the process of assessing Annex A hunting trophies which are time-consuming, including: consultations (Management Authorities with Scientific Authorities and Scientific Authorities with exporting countries), difficulty of procuring proof of legal origin, checking origin details and quotas, identification issues, fraudulent practices (Ó Críodáin, 2007). An introduction of a requirement for import permits for Annex B hunting trophies would add to the workload of authorities in a similar way and due to the nature of consultations and assessments required, these applications may take longer to process. Hunters would also need to be made aware of the new permitting requirements and the greater regulatory burden may affect their decisions on where to hunt.

Provision of information

The SRG Guidelines for Scientific Authorities provide an overview of the aspects that Scientific Authorities need to assess when making non-detriment findings for hunting trophies. They specify a number of points that a “well managed trophy hunting programme” should meet, which should be scrutinized when assessing import applications for trophies. However, in order to assess whether all these criteria are met, a substantial level of detail is required, both on specific populations and management practices, and it may be difficult to collect this information in practice. Scientific information may in many cases not be available to the preferred level of detail, due to limitations in funding and capacity (Hutton and Leader-Williams, 2003), to demonstrate that offtake levels for trophy hunting purposes are sustainable, even if they are. Adams et al. (2009) indicate further that the level of detail required to assess sustainability is questionable and that forms of adaptive management with local quota setting may be sufficient, but also note the need for reform to improve hunting practices in some cases.

References

9

Personal effects

If stricter measures for the import of hunting trophies into the EU are adopted, while present exemptions for trade for personal purposes remain, there is a potential risk that more of those trophies which can be prepared/cured prior to the hunters’ departure would be reported as personal effects to circumvent permit procedures and associated costs.

Consultation with trading partners

Resolution Conf. 6.7 refers to the potentially adverse effects that stricter domestic measures taken pursuant to Article XIV(1) may have on the conservation status of the species affected and recommends that range States of the species concerned be notified and consulted prior to the adoption of such measures. The European Commission has undertaken to conduct such consultation (European Commission, 2013) and the outcome should further inform the discussion prior to a decision being taken, bearing in mind the CITES decision taken recently to amend Resolution Conf 13.7 (Rev16) to only require (re-) export permits for elephant and rhino trophies.

Illegal trade

Another possible ramification of a change in regulation may be an increase in illegal trade due to hunters trying to avoid lengthier permit procedures and potential rejection of applications. If the decision goes ahead, this possibility should be closely monitored.

REFERENCES

Adams, W.M., Dickson, B., Dublin, H.T. and Hutton, J., 2009. Conservation, livelihoods and recreational hunting: issues and strategies. In: B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W.M. Adams, eds., Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, pp.363–371.

Allendorf, F.W. and Hard, J.J., 2009. Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(1), pp.9987–9994.

Baldus, R.D., 2008. Wildlife: can it pay its way or must it be subsidized? In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.12–16.

Baldus, R.D., Damm, G.R. and Wollscheid, K.-U. eds., 2008. Best practices in sustainable hunting - a guide to best practices from around the world. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation.

Baldus, R.D. and Michel, S., 2011. What does CITES mean for an African or Central Asian village? Some experiences from Tanzania and Tajikistan. In: C. Abensperg-Traun, M., Roe, D. and O’Criodain, ed., CITES and CBNRM. Proceedings of an international syposium on "The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and London, UK: IIED, pp.52–58.

Bond, I., Child, B., de la Harpe, D., Jones, B., Barnes, J. and Anderson, H. 2004. Private land contributions to conservation in South Africa. In: B. Child, ed., Parks in transition: biodiversity, rural development, and the bottom line. Earthscan, pp.29–61.

Booth, V., 2005. International and regional best practices and lessons applicable to sport and recreational hunting in Southern Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, p.96.

Booth, V.R., 2010. The contribution of hunting tourism: How significant is this to national economies. In: K.-W. Wollscheid and R. Czudek, eds., Contribution of wildlife to national economies. Budapest: Joint publication of FAO and CIC.

Brainerd, S., 2007. European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity. Strasbourg: Council of Europe and Bern Convention in cooperation with IUCN, CIC and FACE.

Campbell, R., 2013. The $200 million question: How much does trophy hunting really contribute to African communities? Econismists at Large. Melbourne, Australia.

Child, B., 1996. The practice and principles of community-based wildlife management in Zimbabwe: the CAMPFIRE programme. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5(3), pp.369–398.

References

10

Coltman, D.W., O’Donoghue, P., Jorgenson, J.T., Hogg, J.T., Strobeck, C. and Festa-Bianchet, M. 2003. Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. Nature, 426(December), pp.655–658.

Cooney, R. and Dickson, B. 2005. Biodiversity and the precautionary principle: risk, uncertainty and practice in conservation and sustainable use: risk and uncertainty in conservation and sustainable use. London, UK: Earthscan.

Courchamp, F., Angulo, E., Rivalan, P., Hall, R.J., Signoret, L., Bull, L. and Meinard, Y. 2006. Rarity value and species extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect. PLoS biology, 4(12), p.e415.

Croes, B.M., Funston, P.J., Rasmussen, G., Buij, R., Saleh, A., Tumenta, P.N. and de Iongh, H.H. 2011. The impact of trophy hunting on lions (Panthera leo) and other large carnivores in the Bénoué Complex, northern Cameroon. Biological Conservation, 144(12), pp.3064–3072.

Damm, G.R., 2008. Recreational trophy hunting: “What do we know and what should we do?”In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting - A Guide to Best Practices from Around the World. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.5–11.

Davidson, Z., Valeix, M., Loveridge, A.J., Madzikanda, H. and Macdonald, D.W. 2011. Socio-spatial behaviour of an African lion population following perturbation by sport hunting. Biological Conservation, 144(1), pp.114–121.

Dickson, B., Hutton, J. and Adams, B., 2009. Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

European Commission, 2008. Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds “The Birds Directive.”

European Commission, 2013. EU consultation in view of a potential revision of EU rules governing trade in hunting trophies in species included in Annex B of Regulation 338/97.

Festa-Bianchet, M., 2012. Rarity, willingness to pay and conservation. Animal Conservation, 15, pp.12–13.

Festa-Bianchet, M. and Lee, R., 2009. Guns, sheep and genes: when and why trophy hunting may be a selective pressure. In: W.M. Dickson, B., Hutton, J. and Adams, ed., Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.94–107.

Frisina, M.R. and Tareen, S.N.A., 2009. Exploitation prevents extinction: Case study of endangered Himalayan sheep and goats. In: B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W.M. Adams, eds., Recreational HUnting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.141–156.

Frost, P.G.H. and Bond, I., 2008. The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services. Ecological Economics, 65(4), pp.776–787.

Garel, M., Cugnasse, J., Maillard, D., Gaillard, J., Hewison, A.J.M. and Dubray, D. 2007. Selective harvesting and habitat loss produce long-term life history changes in a mouflon population. Ecological Applications, 17(6), pp.1607–1618.

Gössling, S., 2000. Tourism – sustainable development option? Environmental Conservation, 27(3), pp.223–224.

Grimm, U., 2008. Trophy hunting for endangered species. In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.17–19.

Hamman, K., Vrahimis, S. and Blom, H., 2003. Can current trends in the game industry be reconciled with nature conservation? African Inaba, 1(5), pp.3–6.

Harris, R.B., Cooney, R. and Leader-Williams, N., 2013. Application of the Anthropogenic Allee Effect Model to Trophy Hunting as a Conservation Tool. Conservation biology, 00(0), pp.1–7.

Hofer, D., 2002. The Lion’s Share of the Hunt. Trophy Hunting and Conservation - A review of the legal Eurasian tourist hunting market and trophy trade under CITES. TRAFFIC Europe, p.72.

Hutton, J., 2000. Who knows best? Controversy over unilateral stricter domestic measures. In: J. Hutton and B. Dickson, eds., Endangered species, threatened convention: the past, present and future of CITES. London, UK: Earthscan.

Hutton, J.M. and Leader-Williams, N., 2003. Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx, 37(02), pp.215–226.

References

11

IUCN SSC, 2012. IUCN SSC Guiding Principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives. Ver. 1.0. Gland, Switzerland, pp.1–11.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008. Kobus leche. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 01-08-2013.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008. Tragelaphus derbianus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 01-08-2013.

IUCN/SSC PBSG, 2009. Polar bear hunting, harvesting and over-harvesting. URL: http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/issues/threats/over-harvest.html. Accessed 27-08-2013.

Johnson, P.J., Kansky, R., Loveridge, A.J. and Macdonald, D.W., 2010. Size, rarity and charisma: valuing African wildlife trophies. PloS one, 5(9), p.e12866.

Leader-Williams, N., Milledge, S., Adcock, K., Brooks, M., Conway, A., Knight, M., Mainka, S., Martin, E.B. and Teferi, T. 2005. Trophy hunting of black rhino Diceros bicornis: proposals to ensure its future sustainability. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 8, pp.8–11.

Leader-Williams, N., Baldus, R.D. and Smith, R.J., 2009. Influence of corruption on the conduct of recreational hunting. In: Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.296–316.

Leader-Williams, N. and Hutton, J.M., 2005. Does extractive use provide opportunities to offset conflicts between people and wildlife? In: R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood and A. Rabinowitz, eds., People and Wildlife: Conflict of Coexistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.140–161.

Lewison, R. and Oliver, W. 2008. Hippopotamus amphibius. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 06-08-2013.

Lindsey, P., Roulet, P. and Romanach, S., 2007a. Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation, 134, pp.455–469.

Lindsey, P.A., Alexander, R., Frank, L.G., Mathieson, A. and Romanach, S.S. 2006. Potential of trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlife-based land uses may not be viable. Animal Conservation, 9, pp.283–291.

Lindsey, P.A., Frank, L.G., Alexander, R., Mathieson, A. and Romanach, S.S. 2007b. Trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and one potential solution. Conservation biology, 21(3), pp.880–3.

Lindsey, P.A., 2008. Trophy hunting in sub Saharan Africa: economic scale and conservation significance. In: Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting - a guide to best practices from around the world. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.41–47.

Lindsey, P.A., Balme, G.A., Booth, V.R. and Midlane, N., 2012. The significance of African lions for the financial viability of trophy hunting and the maintenance of wild land. PloS one, 7(1), e29332.

Lindsey, P.A., du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L., 2005. Attitudes of ranchers towards African wild dogs Lycaon pictus: Conservation implications on private land. Biological Conservation, 125(1), pp.113–121.

Lloyd, P. and David, J., 2008. Damaliscus pygargus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 01-08-2013.

Loveridge, A.J., Packer, C. and Dutton, A., 2009. Science and the recreational hunting of lions. In: B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W.M. Adams, eds., Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.108–124.

Loveridge, A.J., Reynolds, J.C. and Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2006. Does sport hunting benefit conservation? In: D.W. Macdonald and K. Service, eds., Key Topics in Conservation Biology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp.224–240.

Marker, L.L., Mills, M.G.L. and Macdonald, D.W., 2003. Factors Influencing Perceptions of Conflict and Tolerance toward Cheetahs on Namibian Farmlands. Conservation Biology, 17(5), pp.1290–1298.

Michel, S., 2008. Conservation and use of wild ungulates in central Asia. In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K.U. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting - a guide to best practices from around the world. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.32–40.

Milner, J.M., Nilsen, E.B. and Andreassen, H.P., 2007. Demographic side effects of selective hunting in ungulates and carnivores. Conservation biology, 21(1), pp.36–47.

References

12

Milner-Gulland, E.J., Bunnefeld, N. and Proaktor, G., 2009. The science of sustainable hunting. In: B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W.M. Adams, eds., Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Mysterud, A., 2011. Selective harvesting of large mammals: how often does it result in directional selection? Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(4), pp.827–834.

Nefdt, R.J.C. and Thirgood, S.J., 1997. Lekking, resource defense, and harassment in two subspecies of lechwe antelope. Behavioral Ecology, 8(1), pp.1–9.

Novelli, M., Barnes, J.I. and Humavindu, M., 2006. The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin: Consumptive Tourism in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1-2), pp.62–79.

Ó Críodáin, C., 2007. Study on the effectiveness of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations. Brussels, Belgium: A TRAFFIC Europe report for the European Commission.

Packer, C., Whitman, K., Loveridge, A., Jackson III, J. and Funston, P. 2006. Impacts of Trophy Hunting on Lions in East and Southern Africa: Recent offtake and future recommendations. Background paper for the eastern and southern African Lion conservation Workshop, Johannesburg, South Africa, 11-13 January 2006.

Packer, C., Brink, H., Kissui, B.M., Maliti, H., Kushnir, H. and Caro, T. 2011. Effects of Trophy Hunting on Lion and Leopard Populations in Tanzania. Conservation Biology, 25(1), pp.142–153.

Palazy, L., Bonenfant, C., Gaillard, J.M. and Courchamp, F., 2011a. Rarity, trophy hunting and ungulates. Animal Conservation, 15(1), pp.4–11.

Palazy, L., Bonenfant, C., Gaillard, J.-M. and Courchamp, F., 2011b. Cat dilemma: too protected to escape trophy hunting? PloS one, 6(7), e22424.

Prescott, G.W., Johnson, P.J., Loveridge, A.J. and Macdonald, D.W., 2012. Does change in IUCN status affect demand for African bovid trophies? Animal Conservation, 15(3), pp.248–252.

Reynolds, J.D., Mace, G.M., Redford, K.H. and Robinson, J.G. eds., 2001. Conservation of exploited species. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Roberge, J. and Angelstam, P.E.R., 2004. Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept. Conservation Biology, 18(1), pp.76–85.

Rosser, A.M., 2009. Regulation and Recreational Hunting. In: B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W.M. Adams, eds., Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.319–340.

Rughetti, M. and Festa-Bianchet, M., 2011. Effects of early horn growth on reproduction and hunting mortality in female chamois. Journal of Animal Ecology, 80(2), pp.438–447.

Shackleton, D.M. and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997. Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. Status survey and conservation action plan for Caprinae. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, p.390 + vii.

Siamudaala, V.M., Munyeme, M., Matandiko, W., Muma, J.B and Munang’andu, H.M. 2012. Monitoring the endangered population of the antelope Kobus leche smithemani (Artiodactyla: Bovidae), in the Bangweulu Ecosystem, Zambia. Revista de biología tropical, 60(4), pp.1631–9.

Spong, G., Hellborg, L. and Creel, S., 2000. Sex ratio of leopards taken in trophy hunting: genetic data from Tanzania. Conservation Genetics, 1, pp.169–171.

Weaver, C., Hamunyela, E., Diggle, R., Matongo, G. and Pietersen, T. 2011. The catalytic role and contributions of sustainable wildlife use to the Namibia CBNRM Programme. In: M. Abensperg-Traun, D. Roe and C. Ó Críodáin, eds., CITES and CBNRM. Proceedings of an international syposium on “The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries.” Vienna, Austria: IUCN and IIED, pp.59–70.

Weaver, L.C. and Petersen, T., 2008. Namibia communal area conservancies. In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting. pp.48–52.

Wenzel, G.W., 2011. Polar bear management, sport hunting and Inuit subsistence at Clyde River, Nunavut. Marine Policy, 35(4), pp.457–465.

Whitman, K., Starfield, A.M., Quadling, H.S. and Packer, C., 2004. Sustainable trophy hunting of African lions. Nature, 428(6979), pp.175–178.

Annex A: Case studies

13

ANNEX A: CASE STUDIES

Methods

Trade data for the case studies presented in this report were extracted from the CITES Trade Database on 8th July 2013; this analysis includes the following data:

a) trade data for the period 2002-2011 (units have been converted, as outlined in Annex B)

b) all trade data in all terms reported under all purposes

c) sources W, U and unspecified (unless otherwise stated)

d) EU to EU trade has been removed

This analysis focuses on trade into the EU-27, as reported by the importers and does not include global trade in species/terms for which there were no imports into the EU-27. Trade into the new EU Member State Croatia (joined EU on 1st of July) has not been included in this part for consistency with the first part of the report.

Detailed raw trade data relating to the case studies can be accessed from the following link: http://wcmc.io/c66b.

Permit checks

Permits, as reported by importers and exporters, were analyzed to assess where trophy terms were traded on the same permit number and where possible, items that added up to one specimen were combined and the numbers reported adjusted accordingly (e.g. one skin and one skull traded on the same permit number were combined to one trophy). The resulting reduction in the number of trophies reported in trade for each taxon reviewed was as follows (based on importer-reported figures for trade originating in the countries under review): 25 Ovis ammon trophies (3%), eight O. vignei trophies (3%), 24 Kobus leche trophies (2%), 136 Equus zebra hartmannae trophies (1%) and zero Budorcas taxicolor trophies.

Conversions

Throughout the analysis, the term “trophies” is used. While trade is often reported as ‘trophies’, there are also other trophy items reported in trade under different terms. To account for this, relevant terms were converted to the term ‘trophies’ to estimate the number of individuals that were traded (Table 1).

Table 1: Terms converted to ‘trophies’, including conversion factors used. Conversions have been applied only to trade reported as either purpose ‘H’, ‘P’ or ‘T’, except in the case of manufactured products (such as leather products and carvings) where only trade reported as purpose ‘H’ has been converted.

Term (unit) Converted to

bodies trophies

genitalia trophies

skeletons trophies

skins trophies

skulls trophies

tails trophies

tusks trophies (divided by 1.88 for elephants (Parker and Martin, 1982), other taxa by 2)

sides trophies (divided by 2)

ears trophies (divided by 2)

horns trophies (divided by 2)

feet trophies (divided by 4)

teeth trophies for Hippos only (divided by 12)

bones trophy parts

derivatives trophy parts

garments trophy parts

genitalia trophy parts

horn carvings trophy parts

horn products trophy parts

skin pieces trophy parts

specimens trophy parts

small leather products trophy parts

Term (unit) Converted to

large leather products trophy parts

plates trophy parts

bodies (kg) trophy parts (kg)

bones (kg) trophy parts (kg)

derivatives (kg) trophy parts (kg)

ears (kg) trophy parts (kg)

feet (kg) trophy parts (kg)

hair (kg) trophy parts (kg)

ivory carvings (kg) trophy parts (kg)

meat (kg) trophy parts (kg)

oil (kg) trophy parts (kg)

skin pieces (kg) trophy parts (kg)

skins (kg) trophy parts (kg)

skulls (kg) trophy parts (kg)

specimens (kg) trophy parts (kg)

teeth (kg) trophy parts (kg)

tusks (kg) trophy parts (kg)

specimens (l) trophy parts (l)

large leather products (m2) trophy parts (m2)

skins (m2) trophy parts (m2)

http://wcmc.io/c66b


14

Budorcas taxicolor Takin (VU)

Distribution: Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar

Exported from1: China, Namibia

EU decisions: no previous opinions

Budorcas taxicolor is found in Bhutan, China, northeast India and northern Myanmar (Song et al., 2008). Song et al. (2008) recognised four subspecies: B. t. bedfordi, B. t. taxicolor, B. t. tibetana and B. t. whitei, all of which are found in China, while Wilson and Reeder (2005) did not recognise B. t. taxicolor as a separate subspecies.

B. taxicolor normally give birth to one calf and migrate regularly, often to higher elevations in summer and lower elevations in winter (Neas and Hoffmann, 1987). B. taxicolor are sometimes solitary but also occur in herds (Neas and Hoffmann, 1987); Ge et al. (1989) observed that herds of B. t. tibetana in the Tanjiahe Natural Reserve, northern China, consisted of young, subadults and adults of both sexes and comprised 10 – 45 individuals. A survey of B. t. bedfordi in the Qinling Mountains of China found that group size varied from 10 – 40 individuals, with larger groups being more common at higher elevations (Groves, 1992). Wang (1998) noted that the tendency of the species to move in groups made it an easy target for hunters.

China

Within China, B. taxicolor occurs in southeastern Gansu, Sichuan, Shaanxi, southeastern Tibet and northwestern Yunnan (Song et al., 2008). Ge et al., (1990), cited in Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group (1997), estimated the total population size of B. t. bedfordi in China as ≥1 200 individuals and Wang (1998) estimated the total population to be 2 000 individuals. A later estimate in 2001 by provincial officials in Shaanxi estimated 5 069 individuals (Song et al., 2008).

The total population of B. t. tibetana in China was estimated to be 7 000 individuals (Wang, 1998) and Song et al. (2008) noted that several thousand animals were believed to inhabit the Qionglai and Min mountains and that herds of 45-100 individuals were occasionally seen in Tianguan, Baoxing, Pingwu and Qingchuan.

According to Wang (1998), the population of B. t. taxicolor in China consisted of 3 000 individuals in Tibet, 10 herds in Yunnan (each containing 30-40 animals), and 500 solitary individuals. Wang (1998) stated that the total population of B. t. whitei in China was 2 000 and that the population was declining due to insufficient measures to stop poaching. However Song et al. (2008) considered that there was no known estimate of population size or trend for B. t. whitei in China. While Wang (1998) reported on a couple of B. taxicolor populations that were increasing in reserves, the overall trend for the species was considered to be one of decline in both 1997 and 2008 (Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997; Song et al., 2008).

Some populations of B. taxicolor are found within protected areas; around 10 reserves contain the majority of the world’s B. t. bedfordi and B. t. tibetana and the Nujiang Nature Reserve in the northern mountains of Yunnan was established to protect B. t. taxicolor along with other endangered species, with herds of >100 animals reported (Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997).

All subspecies of B. taxicolor were listed as Category I species under the China Wildlife Protection Law, which afforded them protection from direct exploitation (Song et al., 2008). Yi-Ming et al. (2000) stated that the hunting, selling, purchasing and transporting of Category I species was prohibited except with a permit from the state or province. Hofer (2002) reported that there were two organisations organising tourist hunts in China, both of which were attached to the State Forestry Bureau and had intermediate status between governmental and non-governmental organisations. Hunting quotas were set according to the suggestions of these organisations and were approved and controlled by the state game department (Hofer, 2002).

1 Source W, U, R and unspecified


15

Figure 1: Number of wild-sourced Budorcas taxicolor trophies imported directly from China into the EU-27 (EU) and countries other than the EU-27 (RoW) 2002-2007, as reported by exporters and importers, respectively (trophy items that reasonably add up to one individual have been combined). No trade was reported in 2004 or 2008-2011.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted RoW

EU

A small number of B. taxicolor were taken yearly in trophy hunts (Song et al., 2008) and Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group (1997) noted that a small number of B. t. bedfordi were permitted to be shot by foreign hunters each year.

Despite its legal status, hunting was considered to be a threat to all subspecies of B. taxicolor in China and serious difficulties were reported to have been experienced in the control of hunting and poaching in China because Caprinae such as B. taxicolor are traditional game animals (Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997). Wang (1998) noted that B. t. whitei and B. t. tibetana were also targeted as food by local communities and young individuals of B. t. bedfordi were caught by local people to be tamed for ploughing. Hunting of large herds of B. t. whitei in winter was reported to be a serious problem in the remote border areas of China, where there was almost no management or protection (Song et al., 2008). In a study of protected areas in southwest China, Li et al. (2012) noted that poached B. taxicolor were consumed locally or exported from the region as illegal bushmeat. Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group (1997) identified the need to undertake further population censuses of B. taxicolor in China and to protect the species from hunting.

In 2006, the Chinese State Forestry Agency announced a public auction of hunting quotas, which led to public concerns over the sustainability of trophy hunting by foreigners (Rosen, 2012). In response to these concerns, all foreign trophy hunting was suspended in 2006 and this suspension was reported to still be in place in 2012 (Rosen, 2012).

All direct trade in wild-sourced B. taxicolor from China 2002-2011 consisted of trophies reported as purpose ‘H’ (Figure 1). Direct trade to the EU-27 comprised eight trophies reported by China only in 2005, eight trophies reported by both trading partners in 2006 and one trophy reported by the importer only in 2007. Small numbers of captive-bred live animals were also traded for zoos over this period, all to non-EU countries. The only indirect trade in B. taxicolor originating in China comprised 0.02 kg wild-sourced hair exported to the EU for scientific purposes in 2008 and one wild-sourced trophy (purpose ‘H’) imported by the United States in 2003.

References

Ge, T., Hu, J., Jiang, M. and Deng, Q., 1989. Herd composition, numbers and distribution of Sichuan takin (Budorcas taxicolor) in Tangjiahe Natural Reserve. Acta Theriologica Sinica, 9(4), pp.262–268.

Groves, P., 1992. Aspects of golden takin ecology in the Qinling Mountains , China. Rangifer, 12(3), pp.161–163.

Hofer, D., 2002. The Lion’s Share of the Hunt. Trophy Hunting and Conservation - A review of the legal Eurasian tourist hunting market and trophy trade under CITES. TRAFFIC Europe, p.72.

Li, S., McShea, W.J., Wang, D., Lu, Z. and Gu, X. 2012. Gauging the impact of management expertise on the distribution of large mammals across protected areas. Diversity and Distributions, 18(12), pp.1166–1176.

Neas, J.F. and Hoffmann, R.S., 1987. Budorcas taxicolor. Mammalian Species, 277, pp.1–7. Rosen, T., 2012. Analyzing gaps and options for enhancing Argali conservation in Central Asia within the

context of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Report


16

prepared for The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, Germany and the GIZ Regional Program on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia, pp.1–76.


Song, Y.L., Smith, A.T. and MacKinnon, J., 2008. Budorcas taxicolor. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 29-07-2013.

Wang, S., 1998. China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals: Mammalia. Beijing: Science Press. Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M., 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference.

3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p.2142. Yi-Ming, L., Zenxiang, G. and Xinhai, L., 2000. Illegal wildlife trade in the Himalayan region of China.

Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, pp.901–918.


17

Equus zebra hartmannae Hartmann's Mountain Zebra (VU)

Distribution: Angola (?), Namibia, South Africa

Exported from2: Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola, Botswana, Zambia, Mozambique

EU decisions: Current positive opinion formed on 02/12/2008 for wild specimens from Namibia. Previous Article 4.6 (b) import suspension for wild specimens from Angola first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 26/11/2010.

Equus zebra hartmannae is endemic to the semi-arid mountainous escarpments of southern Africa (Moodley and Harley, 2006; Novellie et al., 2002)

In Namibia, E. z. hartmannae occur in the mountainous transition zone between the Namib Desert and the central plateau and are distributed across four populations: from Kunene Province southwards to the Ugab River and east to the Outjo District; the Erongo Mountains; on the escarpment from the Swakop River southwards to the Naukluft Mountains and eastward along the Kuiseb and Gaub drainages into the Khomas Hochland; and the Fish River Canyon and Huns Mountains near the Orange River in the south (Novellie et al., 2002). E. z. hartmannae occur in four key protected areas in Namibia: Skeleton Coast Park, Etosha National Park, Namib-Naukluft Park and Ai-Ais-Hunsberg Park complex (Novellie, 2008).

Within South Africa, the historical range of E. z. hartmannae includes the northwestern part of the Northern Cape Province and small numbers still remain within conservation areas here – in Richtersveld and Augrabies National Parks and Goegap Provincial Nature Reserve (Novellie et al., 2002; Novellie, 2008). E. z. hartmannae have also been introduced outside of their historical range into other areas of Northern Cape Province and to Eastern and Western Cape provinces (Novellie et al., 2002). Their range may also extend into south-western Angola (Novellie, 2008).

The polygynous social organization of E. z. hartmannae, with an exclusive one-male dominance over a given number of females, results in a population made up of many sub-groups, comprising breeding groups and bachelor groups that accommodate surplus stallions (Joubert, 1974; Penzhorn, 1988). E. zebra have an even neonatal sex ratio (1:1) (Penzhorn, 1988). The age of sexual maturity for E. z. hartmannae is three years for males and two years for females (Joubert, 1974). Penzhorn (1988) reported a median foaling interval of 25 months for E. zebra.

The total population of E. z. hartmannae in Namibia was estimated in 1998 as 25 000 or ca. 8 300 mature individuals (Novellie et al., 2002). Schalkwyk et al. (2010) provided values for E. z. hartmannae population numbers in Namibia for 2004, based on figures from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET), of 72 736 E. z. hartmannae, of which 55 520 were on private land, 12 911 on protected areas and 4 305 on communal land. More recently, Lindsey (2011) gave an estimate of 81 194 E. z. hartmannae on freehold land in Namibia. While these figures appear to suggest an increase in numbers of E. z. hartmannae, Novellie (2008) stated that the population trend was unknown and that while populations were apparently increasing on communal lands in the north-western part of the country, the limited information available for other areas suggested they may well be declining and annual harvesting may result in a decline exceeding 10% over the course of the next 27 years.

E. z. hartmannae is listed in the Nature Conservation Act of 1975, and the subsequent amendments, as a “Specially Protected Game” species and a permit is required for any hunting or trade involving the species (Government of the Republic of Namibia, 1975, 1990). The majority of licensed hunting in Namibia takes place on private farmland and E. z. hartmannae is often included in hunting packages, although some game hunting also occurs on communal lands and state lands (Barnes and Novelli, 2008; Barnett and Patterson, 2005).

Barnett & Patterson (2005) considered the sport hunting industry in Namibia to have a “well-run monitoring and administration system”, including conservative quota setting, registration and supervision of the hunts and maintenance of an accurate dataset on trophies hunted, and attributed this



18

success to the fact that all stakeholders (hunters, commercial and communal land owners) have “bought into” the usefulness of the existing systems for making informed management decisions.

Trophy hunting is considered to have played a key role in the success of Namibia’s communal conservancy programme, created in the mid-1990s when changes in legislation devolved authority for wildlife use and management on communal lands to communities, if they organised to form a conservancy (IUCN SSC, 2012). As a result of wildlife being seen as a valuable asset instead of a threat to livelihoods, attitudes to wildlife improved, poaching declined and game numbers increased; in northwest Namibia E. z. hartmannae numbers increased from < 1 000 in the early 1980s to > 27 000 (IUCN SSC, 2012). E. z. hartmannae was considered by Weaver et al. (2011) as an important species in contributing to the viability of communal conservancies and noted that their removal from trade would have seriously affected conservancy operational incomes. Weaver and Petersen (2008) suggested that the abundance of E. z. hartmannae (18 000 in the northwest conservancies alone) provides an opportunity for conservancies to increase their income, through sport hunting of non-trophy animals.

Schalkwyk et al. (2010) reported trophy hunting figures for E. z. hartmannae in Namibia of 1 820 in 2008 and 1 064 in 2009 and estimated an approximate trophy off-take rate of 2%, an approximate own use off-take rate of 3% and an approximate population growth rate ranging from 15% (no predators) to 12%(with predators).

Novellie (2008) indicated that the estimated annual harvest rate of 2000-3000 E. z. hartmannae may exceed their rate of population growth, while Lindsey (2011) noted that the estimated off-take rate of 8.2% on freehold land, from all forms of consumptive use, was below their intrinsic population growth rate of 19.8.

Novellie et al. (2002) reported that E. z. hartmannae was regarded by some landowners as a nuisance, due to competition with domestic livestock over grazing areas and water resources and noted that the off-take encouraged by the MET to provide an incentive for conservation may have caused localised population declines. However, Novellie (2008) considered livestock production and farming activities that prevent access to water to be the most important threat to E. z. hartmannae in Namibia.

Trade in E. z. hartmannae originating in Namibia 2002-2011 primarily consisted of wild-sourced trophy terms reported as purpose ‘H’ or ‘T’ (Tables 1, 2; Figures 2, 3). Smaller quantities of leather products were also traded, primarily for commercial purposes. A small number of trophies were reported as seizures/confiscations over the ten-year period.

Table 1: Direct exports of Equus zebra hartmannae trophies and trophy parts (purposes H, P, T and purpose unspecified; sources W and source unspecified) from Namibia to the EU-27, 2002-2011. (Namibia’s annual report for 2007 has not yet been received.)

Term Source Purpose Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

trophies W H Importer 267 297 277 342 395 566 456 635 550 533

Exporter 414 417 494 569 708

780 881 398 805

P Importer 86 111 80 107 132 124 126 122 103 99

Exporter 270 228 261 280 148

311 276 94 189

T Importer 110 194 136 323 150 227 308 210 189 265

Exporter 234 223 161 322 144

267 205 54 252

trophies (kg) W P Importer

4

Exporter

- H Importer

Exporter

1

1

P Importer

Exporter

5

1

- Importer

5

Exporter

trophy parts W H Importer 5 1 20 80 3

10 80 27 28

Exporter 8 13 6 4

1 6 42 28

P Importer

28 2 17

1 2 4

Exporter

1

1

2 1

T Importer 8

3

5 12 6

Exporter

2

27


19

Table 2: Indirect exports of Equus zebra hartmannae trophies and trophy parts (purposes H, P and T; source W) originating in Namibia to the EU-27, 2002-2011.

Term Purpose Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

trophies H Importer 2 11

1

3 7

Exporter 9 2 3

14 5 1 19 1 3

P Importer 8 9 2 10 15 3 6 8 9 12

Exporter 59 20 68 96 115 51 46 41 48 37

T Importer 15 15 30 85 69 141 61 30 7 8

Exporter 32 14 31 145 95 140 63 37 1 9

trophy parts H Importer

1

Exporter

P Importer 2 1

2

Exporter

3

T Importer

26 3

1

Exporter

1

Trade in E. z. hartmannae originating in South Africa 2002-2011 also principally consisted of wild-sourced trophy terms reported as purpose ‘H’ (Table 3; Figures 4, 5). Small numbers of captive-produced trophies were also reported in trade up to 2008. Leather products were also traded in small quantities, primarily for commercial purposes. Small numbers of seized/confiscated trophies and leather products were also reported over the ten-year period. The only indirect trade in E. z. hartmannae to the EU-27 originating in South Africa 2002-2011 consisted of one wild-sourced trophy (purposes ‘H’) reported by the importer only in 2008.

Table 3: Direct exports of Equus zebra hartmannae trophies and trophy parts (purposes H, P and T; source W) from South Africa to the EU-27, 2002-2011.

Term Purpose Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

trophies H Importer 3 2 7 3 6 1 1 13 9 7

Exporter 12 5 17 3 17 12 3 30 20 24

P Importer 2 3 1 1 5 2

1 2 1

Exporter 13 24 8 1 9 1

4 1

T Importer 4 4

5 4 3 3

2 4

Exporter 4 2

6 1

1

2 5

trophy parts H Importer 2

2 2

Exporter

T Importer

Exporter 1

Figure 2: Number of wild-sourced Equus

zebra hartmannae trophies imported directly

from Namibia into the EU-27 (EU) and

countries other than the EU-27 (RoW) 2002-

2011, by purpose, as reported by exporters

and importers, respectively. Includes source

W and source unspecified (trophy items that

reasonably add up to one individual have

been combined; excludes trade reported by

weight).

Figure 3: Number of wild-sourced Equus zebra hartmannae trophies

imported directly from Namibia into the EU-27 (EU) and countries other

than the EU-27 (RoW) 2002-2011, as reported by exporters and

importers, respectively (Namibia’s annual report for 2007 has not yet

been received). Includes source W and source unspecified (trophy items

that reasonably add up to one individual have been combined; excludes

trade reported by weight).

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Imp Qty

Exp Qty

Imp Qty

Exp Qty

EU RoW

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted

(blank)

E

T

P

H

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted RoW EU


20

References

Barnes, J.I. and Novelli, M., 2008. Trophy hunting and recreational angling in Namibia. In: B. Lovelock, ed., Tourism and the Consumption of Wildlife: Hunting, shooting and sport fishing. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp.155–168.

Barnett, R. and Patterson, C., 2005. Sport hunting in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region: an overview. Johannesburg, South Africa: TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa.

Government of the Republic of Namibia, 1975. Nature Conservation Ordinance. Windhoek, Namibia, Namibia.

Government of the Republic of Namibia, 1990. Nature Conservation General Amendment Act. Windhoek, Namibia, Namibia.

IUCN SSC, 2012. IUCN SSC Guiding Principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives. Ver. 1.0. Gland, Switzerland, pp.1–11.

Joubert, E., 1974. Notes on the reproduction in Hartmann zebra Equus zebra hartmannae in South West Africa. Madoqua, 1(8), pp.31–35.

Lindsey, P., 2011. An analysis of game meat production and wildlife-based land uses on freehold land in Namibia: links with food security. Harare, Zimbabwe: TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa.

Moodley, Y. and Harley, E.H., 2006. Population structuring in mountain zebras (Equus zebra): The molecular consequences of divergent demographic histories. Conservation Genetics, 6(6), pp.953–968.

Novellie, P., Lindeque, M., Lindeque, P., Lloyd, P. and Koen, J. 2002. Status and action plan for the Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra). In: P.D. Moehlman, ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN/SSC Equid Specialist Group, p.ix + 190.

Novellie, P., 2008. Equus zebra ssp. hartmannae. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 26-07-2013.

Penzhorn, B.L., 1988. Equus zebra. Mammalian Species, 314, pp.1–7. Schalkwyk, D.L. Van, McMillin, K.W., Witthuhn, R.C. and Hoffman, L.C., 2010. The Contribution of

Wildlife to Sustainable Natural Resource Utilization in Namibia: A Review. Sustainability, 2, pp.3479–3499.

Weaver, C., Hamunyela, E., Diggle, R., Matongo, G. and Pietersen, T. 2011. The catalytic role and contributions of sustainable wildlife use to the Namibia CBNRM Programme. In: M. Abensperg-Traun, D. Roe and C. O’Criodain, eds., CITES and CBNRM. Proceedings of an

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Imp QtyExp Qty Imp QtyExp Qty

EU RoW

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted

T

P

H

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011N

um

ber

of

tro

ph

ies

imp

ort

ed RoW

EU

Figure 4: Number of wild-sourced Equus

zebra hartmannae trophies imported directly

from South Africa into the EU-27 (EU) and

countries other than the EU-27 (RoW) 2002-

2011, by purpose, as reported by exporters

and importers, respectively (trophy items

that reasonably add up to one individual

have been combined).

Figure 5: Number of wild-sourced Equus zebra hartmannae trophies

imported directly from South Africa into the EU-27 (EU) and countries

other than the EU-27 (RoW) 2002-2011, as reported by exporters and

importers, respectively (trophy items that reasonably add up to one

individual have been combined).


21

international syposium on “The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries.” Vienna, Austria: IUCN and IIED, pp.59–70.

Weaver, L.C. and Petersen, T., 2008. Namibia communal area conservancies. In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting - a guide to best practices from around the world. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.48–52.


22

Kobus leche smithemanni Black Lechwe (VU)

Distribution: Zambia

Exported from3: Zambia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana

Previous opinions: no previous opinions

The range of Kobus leche smithemanni is restricted to northern Zambia, where it occurs in the southern half of the Bangweulu Swamps; it previously occurred in the Chambeshi floodplains along the upper Luapula floodplains (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008). Lechwe are the only mammals able to fully exploit the fertile Bangweulu floodplain (Bell and Grimsdell, 1973).

K. l. smithemanni cows produce one offspring per year (Bell and Grimsdell, 1973); females show a relatively even distribution over suitable territories and a proportion of the males defend those networks of resource-based territories (Nefdt and Thirgood, 1997).

In the early 1900s, the subspecies’ population numbered over 250 000, but floods in the 1930s-1940 (Siamudaala et al., 2012) without the required reduction of prevailing hunting pressure (Bell and Grimsdell, 1973) led to declines of more than 90%, leaving the population at an estimated 15 000 in the 1950s (Siamudaala et al., 2012). In an attempt to save the remaining population, Zambia protected all habitats of the Black Lechwe either as National Parks or game management areas (Siamudaala et al., 2012). In 2009, the population had increased to over 55 000 animals; the annual recovery rate was estimated at 639 animals (Siamudaala et al., 2012).

In the Bangweulu game management area, K. l. smithemanni is the top trophy species and management of offtake for these purposes, while ensuring that the population continues to recover, was considered essential (Siamudaala et al., 2012). Annual offtake 2005-2009 was set at 59 animals for trophy hunting purposes and 46 animals for residential hunting on average, with fewer animals actually being taken (on average 37 each) (Siamudaala et al., 2012).

Wildlife on game management areas, the land being communal, belongs to the state and its use is regulated by the National Parks and Wildlife Services (Lewis and Alpert, 1997). Rights for trophy hunts were reportedly leased for three years (Lewis and Alpert, 1997). A policy developed in the 1990s required revenues from trophy hunting to be distributed as follows: 40% for the

management of the wildlife resource (i.e. for hunting operators), 35% for the local community and 25% for the government arm responsible for the management (Saiwana,


Figure 6: Number of wild-sourced Kobus

leche (including K. l. smithemanni) trophies

imported directly from Zambia into the EU-

27 (EU) and countries other than the EU-27

(RoW) 2002-2011, by purpose, as reported by

exporters and importers, respectively.

Includes sources W, U and unspecified

(trophy items that reasonably add up to one


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Qty Exp

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

Qty Imp

EU RoWN

um

ber

of t

rop

hie

s im

por

ted

(blank)

T

E

P

H

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted Kobus leche

Kobus leche smithemani

Quota K.l. smithemanni trophy hunting

Figure 7: Number of wild-sourced Kobus leche and K. l. smithemanni) trophies

imported globally directly from Zambia 2002-2011, by taxon, as reported by

exporters and importers, respectively. Quota for trophy hunting offtake for K. l.

smithemanni 2005-2009 after Siamudaala et al. (2012). Includes sources W, U and

unspecified (trophy items that reasonably add up to one individual have been

combined).


23

1996). Trophy prices for this subspecies in Zambia were reported to range between US$2000 and US$2600 in 2009 (Booth, 2009).

Early in 2013, Zambia reportedly announced a complete ban of trophy hunting of big cats and a partial ban of all other trophy hunting, affecting 19 hunting blocks, as well as a partial ban of resident hunting. Blocks still covered by valid licences would be allowed to continue trophy hunting until the expiry of the licence [presumably within the next three years], but licences would not be renewed; privately owned game ranches are not affected by the bans (Masebo, 2013; Chisala, 2013).

Trade levels in K. l. smithemanni are difficult to assess, as CITES Parties are not required to report at subspecies level for K. leche; therefore trade reported for K. leche may include trade in K. l. smithemanni. Trade in K. leche and K. l. smithemanni originating in Zambia 2002-2011 consisted mainly of wild-sourced trophy terms traded for trophy hunting purposes (Figure 6; Tables 4 and 5). Small quantities of specimens and trophies were also reported in trade for scientific and educational purposes, respectively, and two trophies were reported as seized/confiscated in 2006 and 2007. It is equally as difficult to assess whether trade levels reflect the trophy hunting quotas set by Zambia for the subspecies smithemanni (Figure 7). This subspecies is endemic to Zambia, therefore direct trade from other countries is presumed to be from introduced populations and has not been considered.

The main threat to K. l. smithemanni and the main cause of the slow population recovery was considered to be poaching (Bell and Grimsdell, 1973; Siamudaala et al., 2012), and was estimated at 3000 animals per year (Thirgood et al. 2008).

Table 4: Direct exports of Kobus leche and K. l. smithemanni trophies and trophy parts (purposes H, P, T and purpose unspecified; sources W, R and source unspecified) from Zambia to the EU-27, 2002-2011.

Taxon Term Source Purpose Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Kobus leche trophies W H Importer 1 14 10 2 22 21 31 25 20 27

Exporter

2

3 6 1 1

P Importer

161

6

1

Exporter

T Importer

4

1

Exporter

trophy parts W H Importer

1

Exporter

Kobus leche smithemanni

trophies (blank) (blank) Importer

Exporter

2

R H Importer

Exporter

1

W H Importer

7

Exporter

4

6 7 18 12 5 10 20

P Importer

Exporter

2

Table 5: Indirect exports of Kobus leche and K. l. smithemanni trophies and trophy parts (purposes H, P and T) originating in Zambia to the EU-27, 2002-2011 (no trade was reported in 2003). All trade was wild-sourced.

Taxon Term Purpose Reported by 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011

Kobus leche trophies H Importer 3

1 1 1

1

Exporter 1 1

2 2

P Importer

1

1

Exporter

1

Kobus leche smithemanni trophies H Importer

2

Exporter 4 1

2

References

Bell, R.H. V and Grimsdell, J.J.R., 1973. The Persecuted Black Lechwe of Zambia. Oryx, 12(01), pp.77–92.

Booth, V.R., 2009. A Comparison of the Prices of Hunting Tourism in Southern and Eastern Africa. Budapest: Joint publication of FAO and CIC, p.40.

Chisala, C. 2013. Hunting ban only for 19 blocks – Masebo. Zambia Daily Mail, 16th March 2013. URL: http://www.daily-mail.co.zm/local-news/742 Accessed 17-07-2013.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008. Kobus leche. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 12-07-2013.


24

Lewis, D.M. and Alpert, P., 1997. Trophy hunting and wildlife conservation in Zambia. Conservation Biology, 11(1), pp.59–68.

Masebo, S.T. 2013. Ministerial statement by the Minister of Tourism and Arts Hon. Sylvia T. Masebo, MP on resident hunting in Zambia. URL: http://www.parliament.gov.zm/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1037 Accessed 17-07-2013.

Nefdt, R.J.C. and Thirgood, S.J., 1997. Lekking, resource defense, and harassment in two subspecies of lechwe antelope. Behavioral Ecology, 8(1), pp.1–9.

Saiwana, L., 1996. Granting of safari hunting rights in Game Management Areas in Zambia. In: N. Leader-Williams, J.A. Kayera and G.L. Overton, eds., Tourist Hunting in Tanzania. IUCN Species Survival Commission, pp.50–53.

Siamudaala, V.M., Munyeme, M., Matandiko, W., Muma, J.B and Munang’andu, H.M. 2012. Monitoring the endangered population of the antelope Kobus leche smithemani (Artiodactyla: Bovidae), in the Bangweulu Ecosystem, Zambia. Revista de biología tropical, 60(4), pp.1631–9.

Thirgood, S.J., Nefdt, R.J., Jeffery, R.C.V. and Kamweneshe, B. 2008. Population trends and current status of black lechwe (Kobus: Bovidae) in Zambia. African Journal of Ecology 32(1), pp.1-8.


25

Ovis ammon Argali (NT)

Distribution: Afghanistan, Bhutan (ex), China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan

Exported from4: Canada, China, Iran, Islamic Republic of, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

Mongolia, New Zealand, Russian Federation, South Africa, Tajikistan, United States of America, Uzbekistan

EU decisions: Previous Article 4.6(b) import restriction for all countries first applied on 22/12/1997 and removed on 29/10/2001.

Ovis ammon occur over a large geographic range, covering northeastern Afghanistan, China, northern India, eastern Kazakhstan, eastern Krygyzstan, Mongolia, northern Nepal, extreme northern Pakistan, Russia, eastern Uzbekistan and eastern Tajikstan, but are separated into more-or-less disjunct populations, some of which are morphologically identifiable (Harris and Reading, 2008). Wilson and Reeder (2005) recognised the following subspecies: collium, comosa, darwini, hodgsonii, karelini, nigrimontana, polii and severtzovi, with O. a. hodgsoni and O. a. nigrimontana being listed on Appendix I/Annex A and the other subspecies on Appendix II/Annex B. Harris and Reading (2008) noted that subspecific taxonomy remained unresolved.

O. ammon is gregarious and lives in groups of 2 – 150 individuals, the size and composition of which varies with season, as most adult males leave groups of females early in the spring (Fedosenko and Blank, 2005). O. ammon reach sexual maturity by 2.5 - 3 years of age and females normally bear one young each year (Fedosenko and Blank, 2005). In a study by Reading et al. (2009), only 22% of O. ammon lambs survived more than one year (the main causes of mortality were predation and starvation).

Mongolia

Two subspecies of O. ammon occur in Mongolia – O. a. ammon and O. a. darwini, both included in Appendix II/Annex B, although genetic analyses have questioned the distinction between these two subspecies in Mongolia and indicated that further work is required to resolve the taxonomy (Harris and Reading, 2008; Tserenbataa et al., 2004; Feng et al., 2009) O. ammon are distributed widely but patchily across the majority of Mongolia, occurring in portions of the Altai, Trans-Altai, Gobi-Altai, Khangie, Khentie and Khovsgol mountain ranges, as well as isolated areas in the Gobi desert (Harris and Reading, 2008). While there are no rigorous nationwide population numbers for O. ammon in Mongolia (Harris and Reading, 2008), several estimates exist. Official government estimates placed the population size at 50 000 in 1975, 60 000 in 1985 and 13 – 15 000 in 2001, with results showing that O. ammon distribution was becoming increasingly fragmented (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002). Harris and Reading (2008) suggested that several thousand O. ammon probably persist in Mongolia. Frisina et al. (2007) estimated a country-wide population in 2002 of 20 226 and repeated this survey in 2009 to give an estimate of 26 155 (Frisina et al., 2010). Another nationwide survey in 2009 gave an estimate of 19 701 O. ammon (Rosen, 2012). While the government figures would indicate a decline in numbers, population trends established by Frisina et al. (2007) for individual survey sites suggested that population levels in some areas were depressed while in other areas the population trend was stable. The species is listed as Endangered in the Mongolian Red List, based on the decline indicated by the government population estimates (Clark et al., 2006).

O. ammon is highly prized by trophy hunters in Mongolia (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002). The species is protected as “Rare” under Mongolian law and although general hunting has been prohibited since 1953, trophy hunters can purchase licenses (Harris and Reading, 2008). The Mongolian cabinet sets the number of O. ammon that may be harvested each year by trophy hunters based on recommendations from the Ministry for Nature and Environment, which are in turn based on estimates of population size or expert opinion, from the Mongolian Scientific Authority (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002). Between 1993 and 2001, license quotas (c. 20-40 individuals) were always below the numbers recommended (c. 60-70 individuals), but in 2002 the Cabinet doubled the quota



26

for O. ammon licenses from 40 in 2001 to 80 in 2002, which was above the recommended quota of 60 for that year (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002). Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group (1997) suggested that trophy harvest levels were effectively set by hunting companies, who then pressure government officials and decision makers to increase the number of animals that can be taken. Unofficial sources suggest that more recent government quotas for O. ammon are lower; a hunting quota of 50 was approved in 2012, while in 2013 the quota was 15 (Anon, 2013).

Mongolian Hunting Law specifies that the Ministry actively manage and conduct censuses for game species every four years and local governments must conduct inventories every year following trophy hunting (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002). Trophy hunters are required by law to pay fees to the Ministry (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002) and revenue generated from O. ammon hunting is divided among the federal government’s general funds (70%), the local province (20%) and the hunting organization (10%) (Harris and Reading, 2008). These fees amount to US$18 000 for O. a. ammon trophies and US$9 000 for O. a. darwini trophies being allocated to local and federal governments (Harris and Reading, 2008) and the law states that some of these monies should be invested into conservation of the species (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002). From 2002-2009 an average of 73 O. ammon hunting licenses were issued each year (Frisina et al., 2010).

However, it was reported that investment of trophy hunting fees into the conservation of O. ammon rarely occurs, that there is growing local opposition towards trophy hunting, and that the population surveys required by law are only rarely conducted, data are inaccessible to the public and no management plan for O. ammon exists (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002; Zahler et al., 2004).

O. ammon are theoretically protected in a number of parks and reserves throughout Mongolia with approximately 14% of the species’ range occurring within protected areas (Harris and Reading, 2008). However, both poaching and overgrazing were reported to be prevalent throughout most of them, with little or no active management (Reading et al., 1999). Reading et al. (1999) reported on plans to expand the protected areas system, but noted that as hunting in all protected areas was prohibited by law and due to the substantial income generated by O. ammon hunting, it was unlikely that parks would include prime O. ammon habitat.

Illegal hunting/poaching was considered to be a major threat to O. ammon in Mongolia, due to poor or non-existent law enforcement (Harris and Reading, 2008; Clark et al., 2006; Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002). Competition with livestock was reported to be another threat to O. ammon (Maroney, 2005; Harris and Reading, 2008). Maroney (2005) reported that in the Siilkhemiin Nuruu National Park (western Mongolia), where trophy hunting was prohibited, compensation to pastorialists would be required if they were to reduce herd sizes or discontinue grazing certain pastures. Maroney (2005) also noted that local people were receptive to management programmes based on community involvement and suggested that if Community Based Wildlife Management trophy hunting programmes were established in hunting reserves, these could subsidise O. ammon conservation activities in protected areas, although it was also recognised that this would take considerable time to implement (Maroney, 2005).

Frisina et al. (2007) suggested that if a sustainable management plan for O. ammon was implemented, potentially between 202-404 trophy rams could be harvested annually (based on their 2002 population estimate of 20 226 individuals). Based on their 2009 population survey which found a relative abundance of older rams in the population, Frisina et al. (2010) concluded that trophy hunting had not been excessive and that poaching was not limiting O. ammon populations on a national scale.

Amgalanbaatar et al. (2002) considered that given the relatively low quotas, trophy hunting posed less of a threat than poaching and competition from domestic livestock, but noted that it could affect local populations if it wasn’t well managed and that changes were needed to the trophy hunting system to prevent further declines of O. ammon populations. Proposals for community-based wildlife management programmes have been put forward but Harris and Reading (2008) noted that no progress had been made in recent years. While a relatively strong legal framework for the protection for O. ammon has existed since 1995, this has not been matched with effective administration and enforcement (Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997). Harris and Reading (2008) note that additional conservation measures for O. ammon are “desperately required” in Mongolia and that while changes to the management and implementation of trophy hunting could generate


27

Figure 9: Number of wild-sourced Ovis

ammon (including O. a. ammon and O. a.

darwini) trophies imported directly from

Mongolia into the EU-27 (EU) and countries

other than the EU-27 (RoW) 2002-2011, by

purpose, as reported by exporters and

importers, respectively (trophy items that

reasonably add up to one individual have

been combined).

Figure 8: Number of wild-sourced Ovis ammon, O. a. ammon and O. a. darwini

trophies imported directly from Mongolia globally 2002-2011, by taxon, as

reported by exporters and importers, respectively (trophy items that

reasonably add up to one individual have been combined). Mongolia’s annual

report for 2011 has not yet been received.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Imp QtyExp Qty Imp QtyExp Qty

EU RoW

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted

T

P

H

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted

Ovis ammon O. a. ammon O. a. darwini

substantial income for conservation and ensure benefits for local people, the barriers to such changes are formidable.

Trade in O. ammon originating in Mongolia 2002-2011 consisted principally of wild-sourced trophies reported under purpose codes ‘H’, ‘P’ and ‘T’ (Table 6; Figures 8, 9); small numbers of trophies were also reported as seizures/confiscations. The remaining trade comprised small quantities of wild-sourced and pre-Convention specimens reported under purpose codes ‘Q’ and ‘S’. The majority of the trophies were reportedly of the subspecies O. a. darwini; smaller numbers of O. a. ammon trophies were also reported in trade. All trade was reported as Appendix II. No indirect trade in O. ammon to the EU-27 originating in Mongolia was reported 2002-2011.

Table 6: Direct exports of Ovis ammon (including O. a. ammon and O. a. darwini) trophies (purposes H and P; source W) from Mongolia to the EU-27, 2002-2011. (Mongolia’s annual report for 2011 has not yet been received.)

Taxon Purpose Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Ovis ammon H Importer 3

1 4 2 5 6 2 1 1

Exporter 3 1 5 8

7

4

P Importer

1 1 1

1

1

Exporter

Ovis ammon ammon H Importer

2 4 4 6 3 2 1

Exporter

6

9

5

Ovis ammon darwini H Importer

2 9 7 4 4 1 3 2

Exporter 4 5 7 19 16 11 8 8 6

Trade in O. ammon originating in Kyrgyzstan 2002-2011 consisted exclusively of trophies, the majority of which were wild-sourced and traded under purpose ‘H’; a total of 339 wild-sourced trophies were reported by importers over the ten-year period, of which 101 were imported by the EU-27. The majority of trade was reported at the species level; the principal subspecies reported in trade was O. a. polii, with a total of 63 wild-sourced trophies reported by importers between 2002 and 2011. All trade was reported as Appendix II.

Trade in O. ammon originating in Kazakhstan 2002-2011 consisted primarily of trophies, all of which were wild-sourced and reported as purpose ‘H’ and ‘P’. A total of 24 trophies were reported by importers over the ten-year period, of which ten were imported by the EU-27. The majority of trade was reported at the species level; trade in wild-sourced O. a. nigrimontana trophies was reported in 2002 (two trophies, reported by the importer only), 2006 (one trophy, reported by the exporter only) and 2009 (one trophy, reported by the importer only), all exported to countries other than the EU-27. With the exception of the trade in O. a. nigrimontana, all trade was reported as Appendix II.


28

References

Amgalanbaatar, S., Reading, R., Lhagvasuren, B. and Batsukh, N., 2002. Argali sheep (Ovis ammon) trophy hunting in Mongolia. Pirineos, 157, pp.129–150.

Anon, 2013. Government of Mongolia approves the quotas for hunting in 2013. URL: http://www.infomongolia.com/ct/ci/5737 Accessed 07-08-2013.

Clark, E.L., Munkhbat, J., Dulamtseren, S., Baillie, J.E.M., Batsaikhan, N., Samiya, R., Stubbe, M. 2006. Mongolian Red List of Mammals. London: Regional Red List Series Vol. 1. Zoological Society of London.

Fedosenko, A.K. and Blank, D.A., 2005. Ovis ammon. Mammalian Species, 773, pp.1–15. Feng, J., Frisina, M.S., Webster, M.S.W. and Ulziimaa, G., 2009. Genetic differentiation of Argali sheep

Ovis ammon in Mongolia revealed by mitochondrial control region and nuclear microsatellites analyses. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 106(1), pp.38–44.

Frisina, M.R., Onon, Y. and Frisina, R.M., 2007. Population status of Mongolian argali Ovis ammon with reference to sustainable use management. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 104(2), pp.140–144.

Harris, R.B. and Reading, R., 2008. Ovis ammon. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 17-07-2013.

Maroney, R.L., 2005. Conservation of argali Ovis ammon in western Mongolia and the Altai-Sayan. Biological Conservation, 121(2), pp.231–241.

Reading, R.P., Kenny, D., Amgalanbaatar, S., DeNicola, A., Wingard, G. 2009. Argali lamb (Ovis ammon) morphometric measurements and survivorship in Mongolia. Mammalia, 73(2), pp.98–104.

Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S. and Mix, H., 1999. Recent conservation activities for argali (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia - Part 2. Caprinae, (January), pp.1–4.

Rosen, T., 2012. Analyzing gaps and options for enhancing Argali conservation in Central Asia within the context of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Report prepared for The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, Germany and the GIZ Regional Program on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia, pp.1–76.


Tserenbataa, T., Ramey, R.R., Ryder, O.A., Quinn, T.W. and Reading, R.P. 2004. A population genetic comparison of argali sheep (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia using the ND5 gene of mitochondrial DNA; implications for conservation. Molecular ecology, 13(5), pp.1333–9.

Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M., 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p.2142.

Zahler, P. Lhagvasuren, B., Reading, R.P., Wingard, J.R., Amgalanbaatar, S., Gombobaatar, S., Barton, N. and Onon, Y. 2004. Illegal and unsustainable wildlife hunting and trade in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2), pp.23–31.


29

Ovis vignei Urial (VU5)

Distribution: Afghanistan, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Oman (?), Pakistan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

Exported from6: Armenia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

EU decisions: Current Article 4.6(b) import suspension for wild specimens of the subspecies bocharensis from Uzbekistan first applied on 03/12/2006. Previous negative opinion for wild specimens from Uzbekistan first formed on 01/02/2006.

Pakistan

Three subspecies of O. vignei have been recognised in Pakistan: O. v. cycloceros, O. v. punjabiensis and O. v. vignei (Shackleton and IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, 1997; Valdez, 2008). In addition, O. v. blanfordi is variously recognised as a separate subspecies and as a synonym of O. v. cycloceros by different authors (Frisina et al., 2003). Wilson and Reeder (1993), the CITES standard reference for the taxon, lists both blanfordi and cycloceros separately under synonyms, but without indication of recognition of accepted subspecies. In its more recent edition, Wilson and Reeder (2005) list blanfordi as a synonym of the subspecies cycloceros. The subspecies O. v. vignei is listed on Appendix I/Annex A, while the others are listed on Appendix II/Annex B.

Most O. vignei populations in Pakistan are found at low elevations, often near human settlements, which make them especially vulnerable to poachers and competition from livestock grazing (Shackleton, 2001).

Awan et al. (2006) reported that O. v. punjabiensis live in groups which consist, on average, of three to seven individuals. O. v. punjabiensis females give birth to one or two lambs in early April and even sex ratios for adults have been reported (Awan et al., 2006). Estimated average survival to yearling age was reported as 38% in an area protected from poaching (Awan et al., 2006).

Table 7 summarises distribution, population estimates and trends for the three subspecies and indicates that populations of all three subspecies are declining.

Table 7: Summary of information from Sheikh and Molur (2004).

Subspecies O. v. cycloceros O. v. punjabiensis O. v. vignei

Global distribution Pakistan, Afghanistan Pakistan India, Pakistan

Recently known localities in Pakistan

Tanishpa, Shin Narai, Kundar, Khund in Torghar, Takatu,

Wakhan, Zarghoon areas.

Salt Range, Kala Chitta Hills, Kalabagh Reserve.

Northern Himalayas, Chitral, Gilgit, Shigar, Bunji, Rondu Baltistan.

No. of individuals in specific locations

Torghar: 1500-9000

Takatu : 7-20

Wakhan: 3-12

Noritan-Arandu: 12-20

Zarghoon: 18-30

Salt Range: 200-50

Jhanger: 80-100

Nursing phuar: 20-40

Massan jaba: 500-550

Mahura, Akhori jabb: 150-200

Kharphocho: 18

Nargora sarfarngo: 50

Shigar: 100

Bunji: 85

Danyor: 22

Konodas: 15

Presence in protected areas

Ziarat Juniper Wildlife Sanctuary

Chumbi Surla, Sodi, Diljabba Domeli, Kalla Chitta and Kalabagh Game Reserve.

Astore nullah game reserve, Danyore game reserve, Kharfocho (Proposed Wildlife

Sanctuary)

No. of subpopulations 5-6 16 7-9

Population number <10,000 Approx. 1000 300-600

Mature individuals 2000-3000 500-600 300-500

Population status Population is declining >20% due to Poaching habitat loss and will decline

> 50% declining in last 70 years and > 10 % decline is predicted in next 10 years due

> 10 % declining in the last 25 years and < 10 % decline in the next 10 years due to habitat loss

5 Listed as Ovis orientalis in the IUCN Red List. 6 Source W, U, R and unspecified


30

Subspecies O. v. cycloceros O. v. punjabiensis O. v. vignei

in future >

10% in the next 10 years

to habitat loss, poaching is predicted

National Status Vulnerable Endangered Endangered

Current threats Subsistence (food), habitat loss in the quality of habitat and fragmentation, drought and increasing human interference, hunting and lamb picking for recreation.

Habitat fragmentation creating isolated pockets of the species, increasing human

interference, roadways, habitat loss due to over grazing and shifting agriculture, capturing of fawns as

pets, hybridizers, sub-national/national trade.

Hunted for local, commercial use for fur, meat, whole animal, food and pet.

Habitat degradation, poaching, lamb picking, disease transfer from domestic livestock,

sport hunting

O. vignei are a major trophy species for foreign hunters in Pakistan and while there has been a total ban on big-game hunting in Pakistan since 1991, hunting is allowed within community-controlled hunting areas (Shackleton, 2001). Since all O. vignei subspecies are listed in CITES, the allocation of hunting quotas for these animals is made by the National Council for Conservation of Wildlife on a community-specific basis (Shackleton, 2001).

The Torghar Conservation Project (TCP) is one of the longest running community-based trophy hunting programs in Pakistan and was established in 1986 in response to concerns over the status of O. v. cycloceros in the Torghar Hills (Shackleton, 2001). The TCP initiated a conservation program to stop poaching and use revenue from the sale of a small number of trophy hunts to employ local people as wildlife guards (Shackleton, 2001). Hunting fees are paid to the community-based trophy hunting program (Shackleton, 2001); in 2006 the fee for O. v. cycloceros was USD 10 000 with 20% of this fee going to the government and the rest being used to fund the programme (Bellon, 2008). Based on population surveys in 1999, Frisina (2000) suggested a sustainable annual trophy harvest in the core protected area of TCP of 13 O. v. cycloceros. However, up until 2004 harvest levels had not been more than four O. v. cycloceros in any one season (Woodford et al., 2004). The TCP is considered to have been successful, with increases in O. v. cycloceros populations reported (Woodford et al., 2004). However, this project would appear to be the only one of its kind in Pakistan to include an O. vignei subspecies, although Frisina et al. (2001) reported that the Kalabagh area in the Salt Range (which supports a population of O. v. punjabiensis) was under consideration for designation as a community-based sustainable hunting area and that an annual trophy harvest quota of five males would be a conservative and sustainable level until additional population surveys were undertaken. Valdez (2008) noted that WWF-Pakistan had initiated a participatory management programme in the Shirani tribal area which included protection for O. v. cycloceros.

Poaching of O. vignei in Pakistan has been particularly well documented in the case of O. v. punjabiensis. Although harvesting is illegal, in 1999 the government began selling licenses to keep O. v. punjabiensis as pets, for an annual license fee of US$50 (Awan et al., 2006). The possession of these lambs is seen as a status symbol and in the small towns scattered around the Kala Chitta and Salt Ranges, more than 50 people were reported to be keeping lambs in captivity (Awan, 2001). The removal of lambs to be kept as pets has reportedly increased and a supply chain of poachers and merchants has been established from the Salt Range to major cities (Awan et al., 2006). This has resulted in very low levels of yearly recruitment (only four yearling females per 100 ewes) which was considered insufficient to maintain the population (Awan et al., 2006). Mature males are also a sought-after trophy and Awan et al. (2006) reported that outside of protected areas in the Salt Range region, most mature O. v. punjabiensis males were shot and interviews with local people indicated that poaching occurred with the tacit accord of wildlife officials. The fact that no ram >6 years was observed during surveys provided further indication that levels of illegal hunting were high in this area (Awan et al., 2006). Within a protected area in this region (the community managed Kalabagh Game Reserve), effective enforcement protected O. v. punjabiensis from poaching for the last 70 years and populations were reportedly stable with 55% lamb survival and 88% yearling survival (Awan et


31

Figure 10: Number of wild-sourced Ovis

vignei (including O. v. blanfordi, O. v.

cycloceros, O. v. punjabiensis and O. v.

vignei) trophies imported directly from

Pakistan into the EU-27 (EU) and

countries other than the EU-27 (RoW)

2002-2011, by purpose, as reported by

exporters and importers, respectively.

Includes source ‘W’ and source

unspecified (trophy items that reasonably

add up to one individual have been

combined).

Figure 11: Number of wild-sourced Ovis vignei, O. v. blanfordi, O. v. cycloceros,

O. v. punjabiensis and O. v. vignei trophies imported directly from Pakistan

globally 2002-2011, by taxon, as reported by exporters and importers,

respectively. Includes source ‘W’ and source unspecified (trophy items that

reasonably add up to one individual have been combined).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

Qty Imp

Qty Exp

EU RoW

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted

(blank)

P

H

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted

O. v. vignei O. v. punjabiensis O. v. cycloceros

O. v. blanfordi Ovis vignei

al., 2008). However, Awan et al. (2006) noted that outside of this protected area, urgent measures were required to prevent further declines in O. v. punjabiensis.

Surveys of O. vignei in the Hingol National Park over the period 2005-2009 showed a slight increase in population numbers and no direct evidence of hunting pressure on this species was found in this area (Khan et al., 2010).

O. v. vignei was once common in northern areas of Pakistan but surveys in this area by Khan and Zahler (2004) found that numbers were very low, populations were fragmented and that heavy hunting pressure and a lack of enforcement measures meant that the few remaining small herds of O. v. vignei were in extreme danger. It was suggested that monitoring of the remaining herds combined with complete protection and active community support was essential to ensure their survival (Khan and Zahler, 2004).

Trade in O. vignei originating in Pakistan 2002-2011 consisted principally of wild-sourced trophies reported under purpose codes ‘H’ and ‘P’, a notable proportion of which were reportedly of the subspecies O. v. blanfordi (Table 8; Figures 10, 11); small numbers of trophies were also reported as seizures/confiscations. Small quantities of wild-sourced scientific specimens were also reported in trade between 2002 and 2004. All trade was reported as Appendix II. No indirect trade in O. vignei to the EU-27 originating in Pakistan was reported 2002-2011.

Table 8: Direct exports of Ovis vignei (including O. v. blanfori) trophies (purposes H; source W) from Pakistan to the EU-27, 2003-2010 (no trade was reported in 2002 or 2011).

Taxon Reported by 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Ovis vignei Importer

1 5 1

1 1 1

Exporter 1

2

Ovis vignei blanfordi Importer

1 1 1 1

2

Exporter

3 10 2 2 2 2 1


32

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Four subspecies of O. vignei are found in Iran: O. v. isphahanica (very restricted distribution in east-central Iran), O. v. laristanica (southern and south-eastern Iran), O. v. gmelinii (north-western Iran) and O. v. arkal (rolling hills and gentle mountain slopes of north-eastern Iran) (Valdez, 2008).

In the mid-1970s, the population of O. v. arkal in Golestan National Park was estimated to number around 15 000 individuals (Valdez, 2008). The subspecies occurs in two national parks, three wildlife refuges and three protected areas in Iran. In all these areas, hunting was reported to be prohibited and domestic animals to be under control (Valdez, 2008).

Valdez (2008) reported that the hunting season for Caprinae in Iran begins in September and lasts four months, with each licence being valid only for five days from its date of issue. The exact numbers of Caprinae shot each year by hunters were reported not to be available and the numbers killed by poachers was considered to exceed that of legal hunts (Valdez, 2008).

Trade in O. vignei originating in Iran 2002-2011 consisted principally of wild-sourced trophies reported under purpose codes ‘H’, ‘P’ and ‘T’ a notable proportion of which were reportedly of the subspecies O. v. arkal (Table 9; Figures 12, 13). A total of 28 trophies from captive sources were also reported in trade between 2007 and 2009; the trade was not confirmed by the importers. Small numbers of trophies and live animals were also reported as seizures/confiscations. All trade was reported as Appendix II, with the exception of one trophy reported as a seizure/confiscation in 2002 and one wild-sourced trophy in 2010, both reported at the species level and reported by the importers only (EU Member States in both cases). No indirect trade in O. vignei to the EU-27 originating in Iran was reported 2002-2011.

Table 9: Direct exports of Ovis vignei (including O. v. arkal) trophies (purposes H and P; sources W and U) from Iran to the EU-27, 2002-2011 (no trade was reported in 2009).

Taxon Source Purpose Reported by 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011

Ovis vignei W H Importer 10

2 2

3 1

Exporter 21

P Importer 8 12 1

3

1

Exporter

15

Ovis vignei arkal W H Importer

1

Exporter

10 11

8

P Importer

5 1

5 2

6

Exporter

13

3 1

U P Importer

1

Exporter

Figure 12: Number of wild-sourced Ovis vignei

(including O. v. arkal) trophies imported directly

from Iran into the EU-27 (EU) and countries

other than the EU-27 (RoW) 2002-2011, by

purpose, as reported by exporters and

importers, respectively. Includes sources W and

U (trophy items that reasonably add up to one


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Qty Imp Qty Exp Qty Imp Qty Exp

EU RoW

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted

T

P

H

Figure 13: Number of wild-sourced Ovis vignei and O. v. arkal trophies

imported directly from Iran globally 2002-2011, by taxon, as reported by

exporters and importers, respectively. Includes sources W and U (trophy

items that reasonably add up to one individual have been combined).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

Qty

Imp

Qty

Exp

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s im

po

rted Ovis vignei O. v. arkal


33

References

Awan, G.A., 2001. Pet trade threatens endangered urial. Caprinae, (November), pp.7–8. Awan, G.A., Festa-Bianchet, M. and Ahmad, T., 2006. Poaching, recruitment and conservation of

Punjab urial Ovis vignei punjabiensis. Wildlife Biology, 12(4), pp.443–449. Awan, G.A., Festa-Bianchet, M. and Gaillard, J.-M., 2008. Early survival of Punjab urial. Canadian

Journal of Zoology, 86(5), pp.394–399. Bellon, L., 2008. Sustainable conservation and grassroots realities lessons from the conservation

programme in Torghar, Balochistan, Pakistan. In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K.U. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting - a guide to best practices from around the world. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.27–31.

Frisina, M.R., 2000. Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni) and Afghan urial (Ovis orientalis cycloceros): population status in Torghar hills, Balochistan Province, Pakistan. Unpublished report to STEP and USFWS, p.21.

Frisina, M.R., Awan, G.A. and Woodford, M.H., 2003. Status of Blanford’s urial (Ovis orientalis [vignei] blanfordi) and Sindh ibex (Capra aegagrus blythii) on the Dureji Game Management Area, Balochistan province, Pakistan. A report to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of International Conservation and World Wide Fund for Nature - Pakistan, p.24.

Frisina, M.R., Woodford, M.H. and Awan, G.A., 2001. Status of the Punjab urial (Ovis orientalis [vignei] punjabiensis) population in the Kalabagh, Salt Range of Punjab Province, Pakistan. A report to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of International Conservation and World Wide Fund for Nature-Pakistan, p.13.

Khan, M. and Zahler, P., 2004. Status and new records of Ladakh urial (Ovis orientalis) in northern Pakistan. Caprinae, (October), pp.1–3.

Khan, M.Z., Zehra, A., Ghalib, S.A., Siddiqui, S. and Hussain, B. 2010. Vertebrate biodiversity and key mammalian species status of Hingol National Park. Canadian Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 4(2), pp.1151–1162.

Shackleton, D.M., 2001. A review of community-based trophy hunting programs in Pakistan. Prepared for the Mountain Areas Conservancy Project with the collaboration of the World Conservation Union (IUCN-Pakistan), and the National Council for the Conservation of Wildlife, Ministry of Environment, Local Government & Rural Development, Pakistan, p.60.


Sheikh, K.M. and Molur, S. (Eds), 2004. Status and red list of Pakistan’s mammals. Based on the Conservation Assessment and Management Plan. IUCN Pakistan, p.312.

Valdez, R., 2008. Ovis orientalis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 06-08-2013.

Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M., 1993. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 2nd ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M., 2005. Mammal species of the world - a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p.2142.

Woodford, M.H., Frisina, M.R. and Awan, G.A., 2004. The Torghar Conservation Project: management of the livestock, Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri) and Afghan urial (Ovis orientalis) in the Torghar hills, Pakistan. Game and Wildlife Science, 21(3), pp.177–187.

Annex B: Key to codes

34

ANNEX B: KEY TO CODES

Table 1: Purpose of trade

Code Description

B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation

E Educational

G Botanical gardens

H Hunting trophies

L Law enforcement/judicial/forensic (e.g. evidence for use in court, specimens for training)

M Medical (including biomedical research)

N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild

P Personal

Q Circuses and travelling exhibitions

S Scientific

T Commercial / Trade

Z Zoos

Table 2: Source of specimens

Code Description

A Annex A plants artificially propagated for non-commercial purposes and Annexes B and C plants artificially propagated in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

C Annex A animals bred in captivity for non-commercial purposes and Annexes B and C animals bred in captivity in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

D Annex A animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes and Annex A plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

F Animals born in captivity, but for which the criteria of Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 are not met, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

I Confiscated or seized specimens7

O Pre-Convention specimens1

R Specimens originating from a ranching operation

U Source unknown (must be justified)

W Specimens taken from the wild

Table 3: Conversion factors

Converted from Converted to

Grams; milligrams Kilograms (kg)

Millilitres Litres (l)

Centimetres Metres (m)

Items Whole values

Pairs Whole values [1 pair = 2 items]

Sides Whole skins [2 sides = 1 skin]

Table 4: Country name abbreviations

Full name Abbreviated name

Islamic Republic of Iran Iran

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Kingdom

United Republic of Tanzania Tanzania

United States of America United States

7 To be used only in conjunction with another source code.

assessing potential impacts of trade in trophies imported...

Documents