30 August 2013 To: Mr Hugo-Maria Schally Head of Unit - Global Sustainability, Trade and Multilateral Agreements DG Environment European Commission Dear Mr Schally, RE: European Union Consultation on possible revision of its legal provisions governing the import of hunting trophies into EU Member States We write to you representing IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, the leading international network of expertise on the conservation of species. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed change to the implementation of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, in the European Union. We have reviewed this proposal among the Specialist Groups of IUCN Species Survival Commission and attach below our comments. Yours sincerely, Luc Bas Director European Union Representative Office IUCN Simon Stuart Chair Species Survival Commission IUCN CC: Gaël de Rotalier, Policy Officer - for Coordination of CITES issues Hélène Perier, Policy Officer - for Scientific advice on CITES and the EU CITES Regulation
EUROPEAN UNION CONSULTATION REGARDING POSSIBLE REVISION OF ITS LEGAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE IMPORT OF HUNTING TROPHIES INTO EU MEMBER STATES IUCN COMMENTS August 2013 Proposal 1. The EU is currently considering introducing a requirement for all imports of hunting trophies of species listed in Annex B of the Wildlife Trade Regulation into the EU to require an import permit to be issued by the relevant Member State. 2. The motivation for this possible change is the potential for this measure to support conservation of the listed species through enabling better monitoring of the sustainability of trade, and the tracking of subsequent use of these items. Key considerations 3. IUCN's primary considerations in responding to the proposed measure are its likely impact on the species in question, and on the conservation and livelihood impacts of the associated trophy hunting programmes. 4. We note there are also significant questions of administrative burden and expense, relative to conservation impact, that the Member States may wish to consider. In this respect we note that the study on the effectiveness of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations, carried out for the European Commission in 2007, highlighted the need for better focussing of resources on areas where they are most needed in conservation terms (Ó Críodáin 2007, at 5). 5. Stricter domestic measures, such as those implemented by the European Union Member States and subject to extension by this proposal, are explicitly provided for by the CITES Convention text (Article XIV(1)(a)) and are utilised by a range of countries. However, they generate considerable controversy within CITES, and a program of work on cooperation and promotion of multilateral measures has been underway in CITES since the 57th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee. 6. With respect to rhino horn, we note that the current extreme level of demand for, and illicit trade in, rhino horn suggests that stronger means to monitor trade into the EU and enable investigation of illegal activity may be warranted. We note further, however, that there is little evidence that the entering of rhino trophy horns into illegal trade in the EU is a significant problem, and that South Africa has taken significant steps to counter the practice of pseudo-hunting. 7. With respect to elephant ivory, we note that reports from ETIS (Elephant Trade Information System) indicate that the illegal trade is driven by large-scale shipments of ivory from Africa to destination markets in Asia, with little indication that the EU is a significant route for ivory trafficking. It is not therefore clear that tighter import controls on trophies are justified on this basis.
8. For other Annex B-listed species, under current arrangements, trade in hunting trophies into the EU is subject to two layers of oversight. Import into the UK requires the issue of an export permit by the CITES authorities of the exporting country, on the basis of a non-detriment finding and a finding of legal acquisition of the specimen. Further, trade in specimens of these taxa is subject to the CITES Significant Trade Review process, which provides a cooperative, multilateral and consultative process to address potentially problematic levels of trade in particular taxa. 9. The proposed measure would enable the EU to extend an additional oversight role over the sustainability of trade in hunting trophies, and enable them to exercise independent scrutiny of the conservation impacts of the associated hunting and the legality of the acquisition of the permit. It is possible that this could lead to conservation benefits, if any consequent reductions of trophy imports into the EU from unsustainable trophy hunting programmes lead to reduced levels of hunting in range states. 10. However, from a conservation perspective there are also a number of problems with this proposed approach. 11. The rationale for the proposed change does not appear to take into account the important role trophy hunting often plays in conservation and sustainable management. Trophy hunting can justify the retention of areas for wildlife (which otherwise would be likely to be used for more intensive income-generating uses), produce revenue for protected area management or community conservation, offset the costs of living with wildlife for rural communities and generate positive attitudes toward wildlife, and/or be employed as a management tool for wildlife populations. Trophy hunting is viable across large areas where tourism is not viable, including areas with little infrastructure, relatively low wildlife densities, and political instability. 12. The potential for trophy hunting to generate important conservation incentives, the conditions under which it is likely to do so, and good practice examples in action, have been highlighted in the IUCN SSC Guiding Principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives 1. 13. It appears likely that the proposed measure could significantly negatively impact on the operation and viability of trophy hunting operations and programmes. The practical impact of the measure would presumably be that individual EU hunters would be required to individually apply for and gain an import permit in order to return with the trophy to their homes. (In effect, the hunter would be treated in the same way as a commercial enterprise seeking to trade Annex B listed species.) This process is likely to involve a considerable administrative burden, delay and uncertainty for both hunters and hunting operators, reducing the incentive for hunters to hunt and the economic viability of hunting programmes, and undermining their effective operation. This could have potentially serious negative conservation impacts in range states. 1http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ssc_guiding_principles_on_trophy_hunting_ver1_09aug2012.pdf
14. In addition to these conservation impacts, the livelihood implications should be considered. In some cases trophy hunting generates significant benefits for rural communities, in terms of both income and the capacity and institutional development associated with community-based natural resource management. Monetary values are often low in global terms but can be highly significant for very poor rural people 2. These benefits are likely to be reduced if trophy hunting loses value for hunters. 15. Given these potential problems, both the magnitude of the conservation threat addressed, and the potential for alternative measures to effectively address this threat, deserve scrutiny. 16. The evidence that trophy imports of Annex B-listed taxa into the EU are associated with negative conservation impacts is somewhat equivocal (see Table 3 and 4, UNEP-WCMC 2013). 17. Of the species-country combinations subject to an SRG negative opinion/formal suspension, for only five had any trade of trophy items been reported during the period of the negative opinion/suspension, and for three of these only a single item was involved (see Table 3, UNEP- WCMC 2013). 18. Of the five species identified by UNEP-WCMC as warranting further investigation of conservation impacts (UNEP-WCMC 2013, Table 4), for two of these species, the main source of imports into the EU are countries for which the SRG has made a positive opinion for that species. For one of the others (lions), the two major source countries are Zimbabwe and South Africa. Zimbabwe is the subject of a positive SRG opinion, while in South Africa most lion hunting is "canned" hunting, which while ethically distasteful has little conservation relevance. For the two other species, further investigation is required to indicate whether there are significant conservation problems associated with trade of trophies for these countries. 19. This limited nature and specificity of the conservation concerns associated with trophies of Annex B species imported to the EU suggests that more targeted and discriminating approaches may be better suited to achieve improvements in sustainability with fewer negative side-effects. 20. Interventions to improve the sustainability of trophy hunting, particularly through improvements in governance, are greatly needed in a range of contexts. However, targeted support for monitoring, institutional development or management in those range states may be a more effective approach than import measures, which risk indiscriminately affecting both good and bad practice programmes. 2 For example, Namibia's communal Conservancy programme generates benefits for over 200 000 members of rural communities, who are generally the poorest parts of Namibia's population with few other sources of cash income. Trophy hunting, along with tourism and live game sales, is responsible for generating the benefits from wildlife for communities (and the related incentives for conservation). While tourism now generates the majority of Conservancy income, trophy hunting is the most important use in the early stages of Conservancy development. See Weaver et al (2011).
Conclusions 21. While there is a clear need for reform of governance of trophy hunting in certain countries, and justified concerns about the conservation impact of imports to the EU of trophy items from a small number of species/country combinations, on current evidence it is difficult to view the proposed EU measure as a proportionate or effective response. This is particularly the case as it runs the risk of hampering the conservation and livelihood benefits that flow from the considerable number of successful and well-managed trophy hunting programmes. References Ó Críodáin, C (2007) Study on the Effectiveness of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations. A TRAFFIC Europe report for the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Online at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/effectiveness.pdf 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 1: Overview of trade. SRG 65/7. Prepared for the European Commission Directorate General E - Environment ENV.E.2. Development and Environment, Brussels, Belgium. Weaver, LC, 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 CITES and CBNRM: Proceedings of an International Symposium on "the Relevance of CBNRM to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Cites-Listed Species in Exporting Countries", Abensperg-Traun, M, Roe, D and O'Criodain, C (eds), pp 59-70. IUCN and IIED, Gland, Switzerland and London, UK. Online at http://pubs.iied.org/14616iied.html