Review of Panthera leo from trading range States

Transcription

1 Review of Panthera leo from trading range States (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 February, 2012

2 UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Website: 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. 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: 2012, European Commission CITATION UNEP-WCMC Review of Panthera leo from trading range States. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

3 Introduction To date, the SRG has only discussed the lion (Panthera leo) populations of Ethiopia, Namibia, Tanzania and South Africa, even though international trade has been recorded from most African range States. Consequently, the European Commission requested UNEP-WCMC to produce a review of the species from trading range States excluding South Africa, as this country was discussed recently by the SRG. The present report presents a review of the species from all range States (excluding South Africa) that exported at least five specimens during the period : Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Sudan, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 3

4 MAMMALIA FELIDAE SPECIES: Panthera leo COMMON NAMES: Leeuw (Dutch), Lion (English), Lion d'afrique (French), León (Spanish), Simba (Swahili), Lejon (Swedish) RANGE STATES: Afghanistan (ex), Algeria (ex), Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (ex), Côte d'ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti (ex), Egypt (ex), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia (ex), Ghana, Greece (ex), Guinea (?), Guinea Bissau, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (ex), Iraq (ex), Israel (ex), Jordan (ex), Kenya, Kuwait (ex), Lebanon (ex), Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (ex), Malawi, Mali (?), Mauritania (ex?), Morocco (ex), Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan (ex), Rwanda (ex), Saudi Arabia (ex), Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic (ex), Togo, Tunisia (ex), Turkey (ex), Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Western Sahara (ex), Zambia, Zimbabwe RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Sudan, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6 b import suspension for wild specimens from Ethiopia first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild skins from Ethiopia formed on 01/07/2004. Current positive opinion for Namibia formed on 16/02/2010. Current negative opinion for wild specimens from South Africa formed on 10/11/2011. Current positive opinion for the United Republic of Tanzania formed on 29/02/2008. TRADE PATTERNS: Benin: Benin has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have not yet been received from Benin for 2003 and 2006 (as of February 2012). Direct trade in P. leo to the EU-27 directly from Benin over the period consisted exclusively of wild-sourced hunting trophies (eight trophies exported to France and one trophy imported by Germany) and scientific specimens (three specimens and four millilitres of specimens imported by the Netherlands). No indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from Benin was reported Direct trade in P. leo from Benin to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 principally comprised wild-sourced skins (12) and skin pieces (10) imported by the United States in 2006 for 4

5 scientific purposes. In addition, Benin reported the export of wild-sourced hunting trophies to both the United States (two trophies) and the Russian Federation (one trophy) in 2001; the United States reported the import of one hunting trophy in 2001 and one in Benin also reported the export of two live, captive-bred animals to the United Arab Emirates for zoological purposes in 2004 (confirmed by the importer the following year, recorded as personal possessions). Botswana: Botswana has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Botswana has not yet submitted an annual report for Direct trade in P. leo from Botswana to the EU-27 comprised small numbers of wild-sourced hunting trophies reported as purpose H and skins reported as personal possessions (Table 1); no trade was reported Table 1. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Botswana to the EU-27, (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced. (No trade was reported ; Botswana s annual report for 2010 has not yet been received.) Term Reported by Total Belgium trophies 1 1 Cyprus skins 1 1 Finland trophies Germany trophies Slovakia skins 1 1 Spain trophies Indirect trade in P. leo from Botswana to the EU-27 was exclusively wild-sourced and primarily comprised trophies and skins; with the exception of the specimens, which were traded for scientific purposes, all trade was reported as either purpose H, T or P (Table 2). The principal importers of skins and trophies were Germany and France, while the main re-exporter was South Africa. Table 2. Indirect exports of Panthera leo originating in Botswana to the EU-27, (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced. Term Reported by Total Belgium skins 1 1 trophies Czech Republic skins 1 1 trophies Finland trophies France plates skins specimens trophies 2 2 Germany skin pieces 4 4 skins

6 Term Reported by Total trophies 1 1 Greece skins trophies Italy plates skins trophies 3 3 Netherlands skins specimens Poland trophies Spain skins trophies 1 1 Sweden trophies United Kingdom plates Subtotals skins 1 1 trophies skins trophies Direct trade in P. leo from Botswana to countries other than the EU-27 primarily comprised wildsourced skins and trophies(table 3). All trade was wild-sourced, with the exception of 15 live, captivebred animals imported by South Africa. Apart from trade for scientific purposes and trade in live animals for circuses/travelling exhibitions or zoos, all trade was reported as either purpose H, T or P. The principal importer was the United States. Table 3. Direct exports of Panthera leo from the Botswana to countries other than the EU-27, (all sources and purposes). (Botswana s annual report for 2010 has not yet been received.) Values rounded to one decimal place, where applicable. Term Reported by Total bodies hair live skins skulls

7 Term Reported by Total specimens (kg) specimens (ml) specimens trophies Burkina Faso: Burkina Faso has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have been received from Burkina Faso for all years Direct trade in P. leo from Burkina Faso to the EU-27 consisted exclusively of wild-sourced trophies reported as either purpose H or P (Table 4). The principal importer was France. No indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from Burkina Faso was reported Table 4. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Burkina Faso to the EU-27, (all purposes). All trade was in wild-sourced trophies. Reported by Total Czech Republic France Germany 1 1 Italy Poland 2 2 Total Direct trade in P. leo from Burkina Faso to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 also consisted exclusively of wild-sourced trophies reported as either purpose H or P, with a total of five trophies reported exported (to the United States, Norway and Namibia) and 12 trophies reported imported (by Mexico, the United States and Norway). Cameroon: Cameroon has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have not yet been received from Cameroon for 2003, 2008 or Direct trade in P. leo from Cameroon to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced hunting trophies (purpose H ) (Table 5). The principal importer of trophies was France (according to exporter-reported data). No indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from Cameroon was reported Table 5. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Cameroon to the EU-27, (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Cameroon for 2003, 2008 or 2010.) Term Reported by Total Belgium trophies France trophies Germany trophies Italy trophies Netherlands specimens

8 Term Reported by Total Spain trophies Subtotals (trophies) Direct trade in P. leo from Cameroon to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced hunting trophies (purpose H ) (Table 6). The principal importer of hunting trophies was the United States. Table 6. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Cameroon to countries other than the EU-27, (Annual reports have not yet been received from Cameroon for 2003, 2008 or 2010.) Term Source Reported by Total live C 1 1 skin pieces W 4 4 specimens W teeth U 1 1 trophies W Central African Republic: The Central African Republic has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have not yet been received from the Central African Republic for 2003, 2004 or Direct trade in P. leo from the Central African Republic to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted exclusively of hunting trophies (purpose H ), the majority of which were reported without a source and the remainder wild-sourced (Table 7). According to exporter-reported data, the principal importing country was France. No indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from the Central African Republic was reported Table 7. Direct exports of Panthera leo from the Central African Republic to the EU-27, (all purposes). All trade was in hunting trophies (purpose H ) and was wild-sourced or was reported without a source specified. (Annual reports have not yet been received from the Central African Republic for 2003, 2004 or 2008.) Reported by Total Belgium Denmark France 1 1 Germany Luxembourg Subtotal Direct trade in P. leo from the Central African Republic to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted of trophies and skins recorded as purpose H, which were all either wild-sourced or reported without a source (a total of four skins and three trophies reported exported, and four trophies reported imported). 8

9 Ethiopia: Ethiopia published export quotas for P. leo trophies in every year except 2010 (the 2001 quota included live animals) (Table 8), and for P. leo skins between 2004 and 2007 (Table 9). Trade remained within the quotas in all years. Annual reports have not yet been received from Ethiopia for 2008 or Table 8. CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Panthera leo trophies from Ethiopia and global exports, as reported by the importers and exporter. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Ethiopia for 2008 or 2009.) Quota 15* Reported by Reported by *Includes live animals Table 9. CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Panthera leo skins from Ethiopia and global exports, as reported by the importers and exporter. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Ethiopia for 2008 or 2009.) Quota Reported by Reported by 2 1 Direct trade in P. leo from Ethiopia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted of 200 captive-bred scientific specimens exported to Germany in 2007 (confirmed by the importer), and four claws reportedly seized/confiscated by the United Kingdom in Indirect trade in P. leo from Ethiopia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 comprised one pre-convention large leather product exported via Kenya to the United Kingdom in 2007 for a travelling exhibition (confirmed by the United Kingdom, reported as a skin). Direct trade in P. leo from Ethiopia to countries other than the EU-27 consisted of a large quantity of scientific specimens, the majority of which were wild-sourced, and smaller numbers of wild-sourced trophies and skins reported as purposes H, P and T (Table 10). In addition, small numbers of trophies and skins were reportedly seized/confiscated by Ethiopia. The principal importer, both of scientific specimens and of trophies, was the United States. Table 10. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Ethiopia to countries other than the EU-27, (Annual reports have not yet been received from Ethiopia for 2008 or 2009.) Term Source Reported by Total skins I W specimens C trophies I W W Mozambique: Mozambique has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have been received from Mozambique for all years Direct trade in P. leo from Mozambique to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced hunting trophies (purpose H ), of which the principal importer was Spain (Table 11). With the exception of one skin piece reportedly seized/confiscated by Portugal in 2004, all trade was wild-sourced. All trade was recorded as purpose 9

10 H with the exception of the skin piece, which was reported without a purpose, and one carving reported as purpose P. Table 11. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Mozambique to the EU-27, (all sources and purposes). Term Reported by Total Austria trophies 2 2 Czech Republic carvings Denmark trophies France trophies Germany trophies 1 1 Hungary trophies Italy trophies Poland trophies Portugal live 2 2 skin pieces 1 1 trophies Spain skins skulls trophies United Kingdom trophies Subtotals (trophies) Indirect trade in P. leo from Mozambique to the EU-27 was all wild-sourced, and consisted of trophies reported as purposes H and T (four trophies reported by exporters, three by importers), one skin and one skull reported by importers only (both purpose H ), and one scientific specimen reported by the exporter only. The principal importers were Spain and Germany, while the main re-exporter was South Africa. Direct trade in P. leo from Mozambique to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 principally comprised hunting trophies and trophy items (Table 12). All trade was wild-sourced, with the exception of two captive-bred hunting trophies reported imported by the United States in 2005, and reported as either purpose H or P. The principal importers were South Africa and the United States. Table 12. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Mozambique to countries other than the EU-27, (all sources and purposes). Term Reported by Total skin pieces 1 1 skins

11 Term Reported by Total skulls teeth trophies Namibia: Namibia has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Namibia has not yet submitted an annual report for Direct trade in P. leo from Namibia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted of trophies and trophy items (e.g. skins and skulls); with the exception of one trophy reportedly seized/confiscated by Poland in 2004, all trade was wild-sourced and reported as purpose H, P or T (Table 13). The principal importer was Germany. Table 13. Direct exports of wild-sourced Panthera leo from Namibia to the EU-27, (all purposes). (Namibia has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007.) Term Reported by Total Austria bodies 1 1 skins trophies Belgium trophies Bulgaria trophies 1 1 Czech Republic trophies Denmark trophies Finland trophies France trophies Germany claws 5 5 skins skulls teeth Italy skins Netherlands trophies trophies Poland trophies Portugal trophies Romania trophies

12 Term Reported by Total Slovakia skins Slovenia skins Spain skins trophies Sweden trophies United Kingdom trophies Subtotals (trophies, source W) Indirect trade from Namibia to the EU-27 was all wild-sourced and re-exported via South Africa; trade primarily comprised hunting trophies (purposes H, P and T ) and skins traded for commercial purposes (Table 14). Table 14. Indirect exports of Panthera leo from Namibia to the EU-27, All trade was wild-sourced. Term Reported by Total France trophies Germany plates Italy skins Spain skins 6 6 trophies 6 6 United Kingdom skulls 1 1 trophies Direct trade in P. leo from Namibia to countries other than the EU-27 consisted primarily of wildsourced scientific specimens and hunting trophies (purposes H and P ); the principal importer of both scientific specimens and trophies was the United States (Table 15). In addition, the United States reported the seizure/confiscation of one hunting trophy in Table 15. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Namibia to countries other than the EU-27, (Namibia has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007.) Term Source Reported by Total bodies W bones W claws W live C 2 2 skin pieces W

13 Term Source Reported by Total skins W skulls W small leather products W 1 1 specimens (kg) W specimens (ml) W specimens W trophies W South Sudan: South Sudan became an independent State in 2011; no direct or indirect trade in P. leo from South Sudan has yet been recorded. Sudan: Sudan has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have not yet been received from Sudan for 2008 or No direct or indirect trade in P. leo from Sudan to the EU-27 has been recorded Direct trade in P. leo from Sudan to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted almost entirely of live animals, the majority of which were wild-sourced and reported as purposes P, Z and T (Table 16). One live animal was reportedly seized/confiscated by the United Arab Emirates in The United Arab Emirates was the principal importing country. Table 16. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Sudan to countries other than the EU-27, (Annual reports have not yet been received from Sudan for 2008 or 2009.) Term Source Reported by Total large leather products W 2 2 live C 2 2 I 1 1 W trophies W 1 1 The United Republic of Tanzania: The United Republic of Tanzania has not published any export quotas for P. leo. The United Republic of Tanzania has not yet submitted an annual report for Direct trade in P. leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted primarily of hunting trophies (Table 17). With the exception of two trophies reportedly seized/confiscated by Australia in 2010, all trade was wild-sourced. Apart from the specimens and hair, which were traded for scientific purposes, all trade was recorded as either purpose H, T, P or reported without a purpose. The principal importers of trophies were Spain and France, while the principal importer of scientific specimens was the United Kingdom. Table 17. Direct exports of Panthera leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-27, (all sources and purposes). (The United Republic of Tanzania has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007.) Term (unit) Reported by Total Austria skins

14 Term (unit) Reported by Total skulls trophies Belgium skins 2 2 skulls 2 2 trophies Bulgaria skins 1 1 skulls 1 1 trophies Czech Republic trophies Denmark skins 1 1 skulls 1 1 trophies Finland trophies France skins skulls trophies Germany skins skulls specimens trophies Hungary skins 4 4 skulls 3 3 trophies Italy skins skulls trophies

15 Term (unit) Reported by Total Lithuania trophies 1 1 Luxembourg trophies Netherlands hair (kg) 1 1 hair trophies Poland trophies Portugal trophies Spain legs skin pieces skins 1 1 skulls trophies Sweden trophies United Kingdom skins 2 2 specimens (kg) specimens (ml) specimens trophies Subtotals (trophies, source W) Indirect trade in P. leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 was all wild-sourced, and comprised hunting trophies (purposes H, P and T ) and trophy items including bodies, skins and skulls (all purpose H ); in addition, a large quantity of scientific specimens was imported by France via Switzerland in 2010 (Table 18). The majority of trophies and trophy items were re-exported via South Africa. Table 18. Indirect exports of Panthera leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-27, (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced. Term Reported by Total Austria trophies 1 1 Denmark trophies

16 Term Reported by Total France bodies skins skulls specimens trophies Germany skins 1 1 skulls trophies Italy skulls trophies Spain trophies United Kingdom skulls Subtotals (trophies) trophies Direct trade in P. leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to countries other than the EU-27 principally comprised wild-sourced hunting trophies (purposes H, P and T ); the main importer was the United States (Table 19). The seizure/confiscation of one hair and one trophy was reported by the United States in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Table 19. Direct exports of Panthera leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to countries other than the EU- 27, (The United Republic of Tanzania has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007.) Term Source Reported by Total bones W claws W hair I 1 1 live C 1 1 skins W skulls W specimens W trophies I 1 1 W

17 Zambia: Zambia has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have been received from Zambia for every year Direct trade in P. leo from Zambia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 primarily comprised wild-sourced hunting trophies (purposes H, T and P ); the principal importer was Spain (Table 20). With the exception of three trophies reported exported without a source or purpose in 2004, all trade was wild-sourced and recorded as either purpose H, T or P, with the specimens traded for scientific purposes. Indirect trade in P. leo from Zambia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 was all wild-sourced, and consisted of hunting trophies and trophy items (sources H and T ) and one scientific specimen (Table 21). Table 20. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Zambia to the EU-27, (all sources and purposes). Term Reported by Total Austria trophies Belgium trophies 2 2 Denmark skulls 2 2 trophies Finland trophies France skins 2 2 trophies Germany skins 1 1 skulls 1 1 trophies Hungary trophies 2 2 Italy trophies Latvia trophies Lithuania trophies 1 1 Netherlands trophies Portugal skulls 2 2 trophies Spain trophies Sweden feet 2 2 skins 1 1 skulls

18 Term Reported by Total trophies United Kingdom specimens 9 9 Subtotals (trophies) trophies Indirect trade in P. leo from Zambia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 was all wild-sourced, and consisted of hunting trophies and trophy items (sources H and T ) and one scientific specimen (Table 21). With the exception of the scientific specimen, which was re-exported via the United States, all trade was re-exported via South Africa. Table 21. Indirect exports of Panthera leo from Zambia to the EU-27, (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced. Term Reported by Total France skulls 2 2 Germany skins 1 1 skulls 1 1 trophies Italy skin pieces trophies Netherlands specimens trophies Spain trophies 1 1 United Kingdom skulls trophies Direct trade in P. leo from Zambia to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 principally comprised wild-sourced hunting trophies (purposes H, P and T ) (Table 22). With the exception of the specimens, which were traded for scientific purposes, and the live animals, which were traded for educational purposes, all trade was reported as either purpose H, P, T or recorded without a purpose. The principal importer was the United States; in addition, the United States reported the seizure/confiscation of two hunting trophies. Table 22. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Zambia to countries other than the EU-27, (all purposes). Term Source Reported by Total 18

19 Term Source Reported by Total bones W 1 1 live C 3 3 skin/leather items W 1 1 skins W skulls W specimens W trophies C 2 2 I R 1 1 W Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have been received from Zimbabwe for every year Direct trade in P. leo from Zimbabwe to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 primarily comprised wild-sourced hunting trophies (purposes H, T and P ); the principal importers were Spain and Germany (Table 23). With the exception of one skin and one body seized/confiscated by the United Kingdom in 2003 and 2004, respectively, all trade was wildsourced; all trade was reported as either purpose H, T, P or recorded without a purpose. Indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from Zimbabwe comprised a total of nine trophies and three skulls reported re-exported by South Africa, and two trophies reported imported by Denmark and Spain; all trade was wild-sourced and recorded as either purpose H or P. Table 23. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Zimbabwe to the EU-27, (all sources and purposes). Term Reported by Total Austria skins 1 1 skulls Belgium trophies trophies Bulgaria trophies 1 1 Cyprus skins Denmark skulls

20 Term Reported by Total trophies Estonia trophies Finland skins 1 1 trophies France trophies Germany skins skulls trophies Greece carvings 6 6 skins 1 1 Hungary trophies Italy trophies Lithuania trophies Poland trophies Portugal trophies Slovakia trophies Slovenia trophies 1 1 Spain trophies Sweden trophies United Kingdom bodies 1 1 Subtotals (trophies, source W) skins 1 1 trophies Direct trade in P. leo from Zimbabwe to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 principally consisted of wild-sourced trophies, with wild-sourced skins and skulls also traded in notably quantities as hunting trophies (purposes H, P and T ) (Table 24). A number of captive-bred scientific specimens, live animals and bodies were also traded, with a small quantity of scientific specimens from ranched sources also reported in trade. With the exception of the scientific specimens, 20

21 live animals traded for captive breeding or circuses/travelling exhibitions, and a small number of skins, trophies and specimens traded for educational purposes, all trade was recorded as purpose H, P, T or reported without a purpose. Table 24. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Zimbabwe to countries other than the EU-27, (all purposes). Term Source Reported by Total bodies C 2 2 W 1 1 carvings W claws I W garments W 1 1 large leather products W 1 1 live C W plates I 1 1 W skin pieces W 1 1 skins W skulls I 4 4 W specimens C I R W teeth I W 3 3 trophies W

22 CONSERVATION STATUS in range states Panthera leo was reported to occur in most sub-saharan African countries (Wilson and Reeder, 2005; Bauer et al., 2008), with a single population of P. leo persica remaining in Gir Forest National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary in India (Bauer et al., 2008). The extent of occurrence was estimated at 4.5 million km², reportedly representing 22 per cent of its historical range (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a; IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b; Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). While 77 per cent of the species range was reported to lie within eastern and southern Africa, it was noted that information was lacking for large parts of Africa (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a; IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b; Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). The species was reported to occur in all African habitats, with the exception of deep desert and deep rainforest, making it an important element in many African ecosystems (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). The species lives in matriarchal prides, with males (single or coalitions) generally holding tenure over 2-3 years (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). Females usually lose their cubs to infanticide after takeovers, as males try to ensure paternity of offspring (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). Although males reach sexual maturity at 26 months, they usually only get the opportunity to breed at 5 years of age and while holding tenure of a pride (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). The size of home ranges and pride size was found to be correlated with prey biomass (Sunquist and Sunquist, 2002). P. leo numbers were noted to have halved since 1950, to as low as , or less, in the 1970s (Myers, 1975; in Bauer et al., 2008). In 1980, Ferreras and Cousin (1996; in Bauer et al., 2008) estimated a population of P. leo, with most animals occurring outside protected areas. Educated guesstimates by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group in the early 1990s ranged from to animals (Nowell and Jackson, 1996). In 2002, Chardonnet (2002) estimated animals, with about half of the species range in unprotected areas. Also in 2002, Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) estimated P. leo, primarily occurring in protected areas. In 2006, the population was estimated at between and animals (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a; IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b), however later counts in Western Africa found fewer animals than previously estimated, therefore requiring reduction of the 2006 estimates (LionAid, 2011). At least 17 P. leo "strongholds" of more than km² in extent were reported to exist (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). However, while genetic modelling was reported to have shown that large populations ( P. leo prides) and male dispersal were required to conserve genetic diversity and avoid inbreeding (Bjorklund, 2003), such conditions were considered to be met by few wild populations (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). However, reintroductions in reserves were found to be of questionable value to the species conservation, due to inbreeding (Trinkel et al., 2010). P. leo was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, based on a suspected population reduction of approximately 30 per cent over the past two decades (three generations) (Bauer et al., 2008). While the population estimates by Ferreras and Cousin (1996; in Bauer et al., 2008), Chardonnet (2002) and Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) used different methods and comparisons were considered difficult, the species was thought to have substantially declined outside protected areas but populations in protected areas were thought to be stable or possibly increasing (Bauer et al., 2008). Bauer et al. (2008) considered the declines of up to 90 per cent reported by a number of authors in the early 2000s to be most unlikely. However, 42 per cent of major P. leo populations were thought to be declining (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). Population declines were reported to be primarily due to indiscriminate killing in defence of life and livestock, combined with prey base depletion (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008) and disease (Ray et al., 2005). Some populations were noted to have declined and become isolated due to habitat loss and conversion (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). The retaliatory or pre-emptive killing of animals was considered to be the greatest threat to the species (Frank et al., 2006) and playing the most important role in its decline outside protected areas (Whitman et al., 2007). While Bauer et al. (2008) considered the economic impacts of stock raiding by P. leo to be significant, LionAid (2011) considered its impact on livestock as well as on human lives negligible, but noted that the species was still killed 22

23 disproportionally in retaliation, with cultural killing difficult to differentiate from retribution in some countries. While the suspected declines were not considered to be due to trade-related causes by many in the cat conservation community, such as the Cat Specialist Group and African Lion Working Group (Nowell, 2004; in IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b), others considered trophy hunting to be the main driver of population decline in P. leo (e.g. Packer et al., 2009; Packer et al., 2011) and it was reported to be responsible for a higher proportion of P. leo deaths annually than retaliatory killings (LionAid, 2011). Trophy hunting was thought to have significant impacts on reproduction among hunted populations, with increased turnover rates of pride males and reduced cub survival, if prime males were targeted (Whitman et al., 2004) and changes in socio-spatial behaviour (e.g. Davidson et al., 2011). However, trophy hunting was thought to represent a trivial threat to the species, if breeding biology and social behaviour were considered adequately, with strict restriction of hunting to males of a safe minimum age of 6 years, potentially making the use of hunting quotas unnecessary (Whitman et al., 2004; Whitman et al., 2007). Loveridge et al. (2009) considered P. leo populations to be incredibly resilient, provided that the social structure remained relatively intact and immigration from other populations was possible. While trophy hunting was considered an important management tool for P. leo conservation, concerns were raised over potentially unsustainable offtakes under current management regimes (e.g. Packer et al., 2006). Furthermore, increased threat status/rarity of wild felid species was found to increase their attractiveness for hunters, while downgrading of the threat status was reported to lead to a reduction in hunting pressure (e.g. Palazy et al., 2011). Concerns were also raised over the likelihood of increasing illegal trade with increasing threat status and the authors considered it an unappreciated threat to those felids subject to hunting quotas, without efficient enforcement (Palazy et al., 2011). Scientifically established hunting quotas, regulated at an international level, combined with improved protection methods were considered to be urgently required for trophy hunting to be used appropriately as a conservation tool (Palazy et al., 2011). LionAid (2011) pointed out that P. leo population assessments required consideration of population structure and occurrence in protected areas to estimate available lions for trophy hunting; according to LionAid (2011), a given population size should therefore be reduced by 40 per cent (proportion of P. leo estimated to occur in protected or non-consumptive areas), of which 15 per cent were estimated to be adult males. LionAid (2011) considered trophy hunting to be highly unsustainable when depending on unknown source populations, and recommended a ban of all P. leo trophy hunting, until independent assessments of all populations within hunting concessions have been made and such populations have stabilized. Lindsey et al. (2012), however, noted that a hunting ban may have negative impacts on the conservation of the species and its habitat, compared to ecologically unfavourable alternatives, and Frank et al. (2006) noted that benefits of wildlife must outweigh the costs to ensure conservation of the species. Lindsey et al. (2012) consequently recommended that intervention should focus on reduction of hunting to sustainable levels, combined with improved management. Temporary hunting moratoria though were found to be potentially useful interventions to restore populations in hunting areas (Davidson et al., 2011). The species was reported to be present in a number of large and well-managed protected areas and was noted to generate significant cash revenue for park management and local communities, providing a strong incentive for conservation (Bauer et al., 2008). The species had been identified as a possible candidate for the Review of Significant Trade in 2004, based on trade levels in trophies, mainly originating from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe (AC20 Inf. 12). In 2004, the proposal to uplist the species from Appendix II to Appendix I (CoP13 Prop. 6) was withdrawn, with the Conference of the Parties recommending a series of workshops in support of the development of regional conservation strategies. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group consequently published the Conservation Strategy for the Lion in West and Central Africa (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a) and the Regional Conservation Strategy for the Lion in Eastern and Southern Africa, both of which were intended for implementation in the ten years following development (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). 23

24 LionAid (2011) reported that they were working towards an uplisting proposal of the species and were seeking support from Botswana, Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana and Malawi. At the 25th meeting of the CITES Animals Committee (July 2011), the Committee acknowledged that Kenya and Namibia had offered to lead the review as a high priority with range State consultation (AC25 summary record). At its 26 th meeting (July 2012), the Animals Committee encouraged Kenya and Namibia to continue and finalize their review and submit it as soon as possible to the Animals Committee for its consideration (Doc AC26 WG1 Doc. 2). In February 2012, the Second African Lion Working Group meeting was held in Etosha, Namibia (see Final communiqué in Annex 1). In March 2012, Lion Aid organised a meeting on the conservation needs and status of P. leo (see Annex 2 for reported outcomes). West and Central Africa The range of the species in West and Central Africa was estimated at km 2 and km 2, respectively (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). West and Central Africa were estimated to contain 10 per cent of the African P. leo population (LionAid, 2011) and the population was thought to number between 1000 and 2850 animals (Henschel et al., 2010). The West and Central African populations of P. leo were found to be more closely related to the Asiatic population than to the populations of Eastern and Southern Africa, requiring strategic priorization of genetically distinct lineages to conserve genetic diversity (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). In 2002, the population in West Africa was estimated at 850 (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004) to 1163 animals (Chardonnet, 2002), while in 2006, it was estimated at 1495 to 2530 animals (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). However, in 2011, the population was estimated at between 569 to 1039 animals, based on ground surveys which revealed that only two rather than 13 Lion Conservation Units (LCU) actually contained P. leo (LionAid, 2011). The West African populations were reported to be severely fragmented and restricted mainly to protected areas, with the lowest overall number of animals within Africa in two viable populations and a few smaller populations (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). In 2002, the Central African population was estimated at 950 (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a) to 2815 animals (Chardonnet, 2002). A lack of knowledge of the species status in Central Africa was noted, with population estimates showing the highest divergence across assessments (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). However, it was noted that the Central African region was less fragmented and contained two large and viable populations, in addition to a number of smaller ones (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). Most populations were reported to be restricted to protected areas, hunting zones and immediate surroundings (Bertola et al., 2011) and the species distribution was estimated to include 35 per cent/10 per cent national parks, 12 per cent/4 per cent reserves, 15 per cent/38 per cent hunting zones and 37 per cent/48 per cent other areas in West/Central Africa, respectively (Chardonnet, 2002). The main threats to the species were reported to be habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation; decline of wild prey base and human-lion conflicts; as well as the institutional weakness of the region and low capacity for species specific conservation efforts (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). Trophy hunting was reported to be practiced in three LCUs, all of which were considered to be viable; with exceptional hunting permissions issued in one further LCU in Senegal (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). Losses of human life were noted to be fewer than in other parts of Africa (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). The species was considered Endangered regionally (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004), with the populations reported to be isolated, with little or no exchange of breeding individuals (Chardonnet, 2002; Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004). The population trend was considered to be downwards, however it was pointed out that some natural recolonisation had been observed (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). 24

25 The following issues were considered to need addressing: a) West Africa: - Maintaining sufficient habitat to ensure survival of the species; - Ensuring sufficiency of wild prey base; - Sustainability of lion-human cohabitation; - Reduction of factors leading to population viability loss; b) Central Africa: - Improvement of P. leo habitat conservation; - Reduction of human-lion conflict; - Ensuring availability of wild prey base; The Strategy also recommended the consequent development of national action plans for the species (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). Benin: The majority of the population was thought to be concentrated in the Arly-Pendjari ecosystem area [north-western Benin] (Di Silvestre, 2002; in Sogbohossou et al., 2011), with a further population in the Mount Kouffe/Wari Maro area [central Benin] (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) estimated the species population in Benin at 65 animals in 2001/2002, while Chardonnet (2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005b) estimated the population at 325 animals. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006a) noted that there was disagreement over the size of the population in the Arly-Pendjari ecosystem [population shared with Burkina Faso, therefore overlap in numbers], with estimates ranging from 100 to 500 and the population was thought to be stable. Density estimates in Arly-Pendjari ranged from 0.67 (Sogbohossou, 2009; in Sogbohossou et al., 2011) to 1.5 (Sogbohossou et al., 2011) animals per 100 km 2. The population at Mount Kouffe/Wari Maro area was estimated at less than 50 animals, but with an increasing population trend (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). It was also reported to be threatened by illegal killing, prey depletion, human and livestock encroachment, human resource use in protected areas, problem animal control, trophy hunting and habitat loss (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). LionAid (2011) noted that the population size was unclear and that the species was impacted by illegal offtake and livestock encroachment and concluded that harvest was unsustainable in the absence of population. Trophy hunting was reported to be practised in five hunting areas in northern Benin, in the periphery of two national parks (Pendjari and W National Park), representing 3.5 per cent of the country s area (UICN/PACO, 2009). The number of big game hunting permits granted was reported to be increasing, with 89 permits granted in the season (UICN/PACO, 2009). About 4.2 P. leo were reported to be killed for trophies per year; however, the hunting quota was noted not to be based on a scientific basis and a system to monitor hunting was reported to be absent (UICN/PACO, 2009). The Mt Kouffe/Wari Maro area was considered to be a priority area for P. leo field surveys (Henschel et al., 2010). However, Benin reported to try to achieve a balance between national parks and hunting areas, was working towards sustainable financing and was reported to communicate about populations and on hunting assessments, which was considered to bode well for the future (UICN/PACO, 2009). Big game hunting was not considered to provide any real economic gains to Benin and a reconsideration of conservation strategies was suggested (UICN/PACO, 2009). Wildlife management was reported to be governed by Loi N of 18 October 2004 ( portant régime de la faune en République du Bénin ) (UICN/PACO, 2009). Burkina Faso: The species was reported to occur in three isolated populations in the south and east of the country (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) estimated the species population in Burkina Faso at 100 animals, while Chardonnet (2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005b) estimated the population at 444 animals. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006a) noted that there was disagreement over the size of the population, with estimates ranging from 100 to