CHAPTER 21 Global Conservation Policy: A Review of International Law and Enforcement Kristin Nowell*, Tatjana Rosen** *Cat Action Treasury and World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List Programme, Cape Neddick, ME, **Panthera and IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Khorog, GBAO, Tajikistan

INTRODUCTION schedule 5 (Harmful animals desirable to be re- duced in number, within sufficient limits), the Influence of the World’s First cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) was given a higher Environmental Treaty on National level of protection on schedule 4 (Animals to be Policies for Today protected from and destruction, except in limited numbers). The cheetah was included One of the first attempts at international en- under its older common and scientific name “the vironmental policy for Africa was drawn up in Cheetali (Cynalurus)” in the original London London in 1900 by colonial powers for African Convention of 1900, but was omitted from the , the Convention for the Preservation of updated version of 1933 (Mitchell, 2016a,b). Wild Animals, , and Fish in Africa (London This level of protection is still evident in na- Convention). Although it never entered into force tional policies covering the cheetah, which is fully (as it was not signed by every negotiating party), protected throughout most of its extant range its principles have resonated through African his- (Durant et al., 2015). However, in practice this pro- tory and have inspired the establishment of the tection has not prevented widespread offtake—by first nature reserves, and lists of species subject people seeking to protect (Chapter 13), to different levels of protection. Although most by direct hunting for their skins or for illegal trade large predators ( Panthera leo, Pan- (Chapter 14), or by indirect capture in snares set thera pardus, spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta, and for wild meat. Several southern African coun- Lycaon pictus) were placed on tries (, and )

Cheetahs: Biology and Conservation http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804088-1.00021-6 291 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 292 21. Global Cheetah Conservation Policy: A Review of International Law and Enforcement protect cheetahs but also allow problem animals of financial return for the losses caused, farm- to be captured or killed by private citizens under ers are now encouraged to utilize the cheetah on a permit system (Purchase et al., 2007). In Na- a sustainable basis, rather than implement total mibia, since 1975 cheetahs may be killed or cap- eradication” (Govt. of , 1992). tured in defense of life and livestock “whilst the The policy framework of southern African life of such livestock is actually being threatened” countries differs from that of most other African without a permit, but the person doing so must range countries in that landowners are granted report this to the nearest government authority legal ownership of wildlife species occurring on within 10 days, and must apply for a permit if the their land if certain regulations are met, unlike skin or live animal is to be retained. In 1996, per- many other countries where wildlife is the prop- mits issued for cheetah removals were analyzed erty of the government. The increased economic for a National Namibia Conservation Strategy benefits accruing to landowners from wildlife (Table 21.1; Nowell, 1996). Table 21.1 shows that can also have negative impacts for cheetahs, in the level of reported removals has been very high that owners may persecute cheetahs perceiving in the preceding decades, averaging 827 cheetahs them as a net loss to other more valuable tro- per year from 1978 to 1985, and declining to an phy antelope species (Johnson et al., 2013). In average of 297 from 1986 to 1995. These figures Namibia, killing of cheetahs by humans is the do not include cheetahs killed illegally without top known cause of cheetah mortality outside permits, or killed legally without application for protected areas (Marker and Dickman, 2004). a permit to retain the animal or the skin, and thus However, interviews with land owners reveal may under-represent the true level of removals. that approximately 50% see cheetahs as a desir- Trophy hunting is allowed, in limited num- able species to have on their land, even though bers under international (the Convention on 87% reported financial losses to cheetah (Lind- International Trade in of sey et al., 2013), suggesting that limited legal Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES) and national offtakes for the export trade can help constrain law (as envisaged in the London Convention), illegal and unlimited offtake of cheetahs. in just two countries: Namibia and Zimbabwe. Namibia is the main exporter; trophy hunting The Current Role of International of cheetah was legalized there under national Environmental Agreements in Cheetah law in 1982 (Nowell, 1996), and Namibia has ar- Conservation gued that legally taking a regulated number of wild cheetahs for export (so that national policy Several aspects of cheetah ecology lead in- thus enters the realm of international law un- ternational law to have a particularly impor- der the CITES treaty which regulates wildlife tant role in conservation of the species. As the trade between nations) benefits their conserva- most wide-ranging of the big cats (Chapter 8), tion on private lands. “In Namibia the cheetah viable cheetah populations require large areas is viewed as the single most important preda- of habitat, which in many cases are most read- tor on livestock on both commercial and com- ily provided when governments put together munal farms[…]. Trophy hunting and export of transboundary protected areas. Such areas re- live cheetah have been encouraged in Namibia quire communication and cooperation for their in an attempt to curb the number of cheetah shot effective management. Cheetahs typically oc- as predators of livestock, and to change the at- cur at lower densities than sympatric large car- titude of the farmers toward the cheetah from nivores, thus lending them an intrinsic rarity. ‘kill at all cost’ to one where cheetah would be The diplomacy involved in the functioning of tolerated and accepted. By providing some form international wildlife treaties is an important

3. Conservation solutions Introduction 293

TABLE 21.1 Number of Permits Issued to Citizens to Remove Cheetahs by the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 1978–95 (Nowell, 1996)

No. of cheetah removal permits

Permit categorya

Year 2 3 4 5 Total

1978 234 0 711b 0 945 1979 125b 1 711b 0 836 1980 125b 0 623 0 748 1981 125b 0 669 0 794 1982 125b 0 907c 0 1032 1983 88 0 725c 12 825 1984 107 0 633c 7 747 1985 117 0 552c 21 690 1986 79 0 318 17 414 1987 84b 0 317 12c 413 1988 95 0 272 20 387 1989 132 21 271 17 441 1990 84b 2 301 24c 411 1991 54 1 145 40 240 1992 95 0 34 35 164 1993 44 0 105 20 169 1994 32 0 111d 20 146 1995 50 0 116 20 186 Total 1795 25 7521 265 9588

aSince 1975, the Permit Office of the government agency now known as Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism has issued permits for removal of cheetahs over the years under the following categories: 1. Capture, keeping, and selling of by game dealers. (Permit category 1 is not included in Table 21.1 to eliminate the possibility of double-counting, as game dealers would more frequently purchase and keep cheetahs captured by farmers rather than run their own capture operations for this species.) 2. Capture, keeping, and selling of game by nongame dealers. 3. Shooting of game in communal areas and other State land. 4. Possession of skins of protected and specially protected game. 5. Trophy hunting of cheetah. A new system was put in place in 1994. Category 4 is subsumed into category 2, but it is still possible to distinguish between the two as the notation “live” versus “skin” is usually appended. Data on cheetah permits issued under these categories were collected from Permit Office annual reports and computerized databases. For category 5 more permits may have been issued than cheetahs actually removed, but for other categories the number of cheetahs removed likely exceeds the number of permits issued (Nowell, 1996). bPermit category data are not broken down by species in this year’s annual government Permit Office report; figure given is an average for the previous, surrounding or consecutive 5-year-period as appropriate. cNumber in the Permit Office annual report differed from figure given in Namibia’s CITES Appendix I proposal (Govt. of Namibia, 1992); figure given is an average of the two. dFigure given is an average of years 1993 and 1995.

3. Conservation solutions 294 21. Global Cheetah Conservation Policy: A Review of International Law and Enforcement element in motivating range country govern- from Namibia and Zimbabwe because it has not ments to prioritize conservation actions for rare found that current hunting and management and . Because monetary val- programs enhance the survival of cheetahs, al- ues for cheetahs are highest outside Africa (as though the United States did support the grant- trophies, animals, and, illegally, as exotic ing of an export quota for cheetah trophies in pets), a functioning international framework is 1992 under CITES (Nowell, 1996). necessary to regulate legal export and import, As shown in Table 21.2, there are eight interna- alongside international law enforcement coop- tional environmental agreements which directly eration to detect and combat illegal trade. affect cheetah conservation. Five are concerned International legal agreements bring signa- primarily with in situ conservation; the other tory national governments (legally described as three exclusively with wildlife trade controls contracting Parties) together to address global and their enforcement. This chapter describes and regional problems. Once national govern- their general nature briefly, focuses on provi- ments ratify an international treaty by officially sions which pertain to cheetah conservation, recognizing their participation in it in their do- and suggests ways they could be employed for mestic law, its contents become binding upon greater effect. The most space will be devoted to them (although of all the agreements reviewed CITES, the international forum which has devot- here, only CITES is considered binding in that ed the greatest amount of attention to the chee- there are consequences for noncompliance, in- tah specifically, and is currently of the most di- cluding trade sanctions). At regular meetings rect relevance to cheetah conservation, through (Conferences of the Parties, or COPs), a huge (1) regulating legal trade in wild cheetahs, thus array of annexes, initiatives, decisions, and rec- facilitating national policies of consumptive sus- ommendations have been adopted around the tainable use in both Namibia and Zimbabwe; international environmental treaties. Implemen- (2) regulating legal trade in captive cheetahs, tation and enforcement of internationally agreed thus facilitating global ; and policy depends entirely upon the contracting (3) working to stop illegal trade in cheetahs (a Parties, which means that international policy problem discussed in detail in Chapter 14). solutions are only as effective as national gov- ernments make them. National governments are often motivated to action at the behest of a wide INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS range of non-governmental organization (NGO) PRIMARILY RELEVANT TO IN SITU stakeholders which follow the regular meetings CHEETAH CONSERVATION and documents of the international conventions quite closely, and lobby governments to intro- The African Convention on the duce strengthened policy and to enforce these Conservation of Nature and Natural policies. In some cases, national policies take Resources precedence over international ones, such as the United States' stricter domestic measures for The African Convention has been described cheetah (which is listed as Endangered under as “the youngest and most modern among the the United States' Endangered Species Act) pre- oldest environmental conventions” (IUCN, 2004) cluding the import of hunted trophies (which because its roots trace back to the 1900 Lon- for some species listed as Endangered may be don Convention, while it has been extensively allowed if shown to enhance its conservation). revised to reflect contemporary environmental Specifically, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has stewardship practices. As African nations not allowed the import of sport-hunted cheetahs gained independence, the need for a new nature

3. Conservation solutions INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS PRIMARILY RELEVANT TO IN SITU CHEETAH CONSERVATION 295

TABLE 21.2 International Environmental Agreements of Relevance to Cheetahs

Cheetah range countries which have ratified or Name and primary nature Known as Commencementa acceded to the agreementb Reference

Conservation agreements

African Convention on the African 2017c Angola, Benin, Burkina AU (2017) Conservation of Nature and Convention Faso, Chad, Mali, Niger, Natural Resources (Revised, and South Africa 2003) Convention on Biological CBD 1992 All cheetah range countries CBD (2016) Diversity Convention on the CMS 1983 dAlgeria, Angola, Benin, CMS (2016a,b) Conservation of Migratory Burkina Faso, Chad, Species of Wild Animals Ethiopia, Iran, , Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Somalia, South Africa, , Uganda, and Zimbabwe Southern African Development SADC 2003 Botswana, Mozambique, Ecolex (2016b) Community Protocol on Protocol Namibia, South Africa, and Tanzania, , and Law Enforcement Zimbabwe Convention concerning the World 1972 All cheetah range countries Ecolex (2016c) Protection of the World Heritage except Somalia Cultural and Natural Convention Heritage

Trade agreements

Convention on International CITES 1975 All cheetah source, transit, CITES (2016c) Trade in Endangered Species and destination countries of Wild Fauna and Flora except South Sudan Lusaka Agreement on Co- Lusaka 1994 Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ecolex (2016d) operative Enforcement Agreement and Zambia Operations Directed at Task Force Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora African Common Strategy African 2015 Endorsed by the Executive TRAFFIC on Combatting Illegal Common Council of the African (2016) Exploitation and Trade in Strategy Union at its 27th meetinge Wild Fauna and Flora in Africa aDenotes the year the agreement was accepted by the United Nations as having legal force. bAccession has the same legal effect as ratification, and refers to when a country accepts the opportunity to become party to a treaty already signed by other nations. cOfficial confirmation from the African Union regarding the Revised Convention’s apparent entry into force in March 2017 had not been received by the time this chapter went to press. dRange countries which have included some information about cheetah in their triannual national reports are in italic. eThe Strategy is a nonbinding Declaration of the African Union not requiring ratification by member countries.

3. Conservation solutions 296 21. Global Cheetah Conservation Policy: A Review of International Law and Enforcement conservation treaty was recognized, one that identified by competent international organiza- moved away from protecting animals and plants tions for the preservation of threatened species. for utilitarian purposes and toward a shared The Revised Convention is seen as being much African responsibility for sustainable develop- stronger than the original and having great poten- ment. Under the auspices of the Organization of tial for African wildlife conservation (Erinosho, African Unity (now the African Union, AU), the 2013; IUCN, 2004; Lubbe, 2015; Van der Linde, African Convention entered into force in 1969 2002). However, after adoption by the African and was ratified by 31 countries as of December Union in 2003, it has taken much longer than 2001 (Van der Linde, 2002). It is credited with anticipated to receive the minimum number of motivating the writing and adopting of national ratifications by African countries (15) for it to take environmental legislation in a number of African effect. The Revised Convention appears to have countries (Lyster, 1993). There were significant finally awoken from its “sleeping treaty” status omissions in the document; however, among in March 2017 with little fanfare: the AU provides them provisions for institutional structures to fa- this date for adoption of the Revised Convention cilitate implementation by Party nations, as well (AU, 2017), but this likely refers instead to entry as mechanisms to encourage compliance and into force (A. Lukacs, Ecolex, and N. Lubbe, North- enforcement. Through a series of meetings and West University, South Africa, personal communi- consultations, the treaty was extensively revised, cation), with 16 signatories including six cheetah and adopted by the AU in 2003 (Ecolex, 2016a). range countries as shown in Table 21.1. The con- Among the notable changes is the exclusion of servation community must now partner with and reservations, thus requiring Parties to formulate motivate signatory governments to undertake the common solutions to common problems, with treaty’s long-awaited implementation, including no opting out by individual countries. encouraging the participation of the remaining Article IX of the revised convention requires cheetah range countries. Parties to adopt legislation ensuring that all forms of taking or harvest of flora and fauna Convention on Biological Diversity are sustainably managed, and to employ scien- tific monitoring of populations. Article X com- The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) pels contracting governments to identify and aims broadly at the conservation and sustainable eliminate the factors causing the depletion of use of biological diversity. Although its text does threatened species. These are suggested (but not identify any species of particular concern, not prescribed) to be defined according to the many of its obligations are relevant to the chee- IUCN Red List criteria, which would include the tah and other large carnivores, but its language cheetah. Article XI requires Parties to regulate has been described as insufficient to establish “in trade, possession, and transport of these spe- practice a clear boundary between compliance cies to ensure that they are taken or obtained in and violation” (Trouwhorst, 2015). Perhaps the accordance with both domestic legislation and chief value of this treaty is in providing a high- international law, and enact appropriate penal profile forum for the development and adoption sanctions and confiscation practices. This ad- of nonbinding but authoritative guidance, of dresses a weakness of CITES that Party nations which the most relevant for the cheetah are two often lack robust national implementing legisla- targets adopted by the CBD Strategic tion. Article XI also calls for Parties to cooperate Plan for 2011–20 in Aichi, Japan, known as Aichi through bilateral and subregional agreements Targets 11 and 12. Target 11 calls for 17% of ter- to control illegal wildlife trade. Article XII en- restrial ecosystems to be protected by 2020; a 2012 courages Parties to establish protected areas analysis of the World Protected Areas Database

3. Conservation solutions INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS PRIMARILY RELEVANT TO IN SITU CHEETAH CONSERVATION 297 estimated the coverage at 13% (Woodley as actually encompassing any species whose et al., 2012). Yet, a recent analysis has found that, range extends across more than one country,” even if the 17% target should be achieved, this and is evolving into an instrument for the would likely protect less than 25% of the range of conservation of transboundary populations in large carnivores, including the cheetah (Di Minin addition to those that regularly undertake long- et al., 2016). Target 12 calls for the improvement distance movements. In 2009, the cheetah was of the of threatened species included in CMS Appendix I, which extends the in decline by 2020, and similar to the African highest degree of protection to “endangered” Convention suggests (but does not prescribe) species, with the exception of the populations that “threatened species” be defined according of Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe (cheetah to IUCN Red List criteria (Critically Endangered, populations in these three countries are not list- Endangered and Vulnerable) (CBD, 2010). Im- ed under the convention, for reasons discussed provement of conservation status (which could later). Range countries, which are contracting be measured by an improvement in Red List Parties to the Convention, agree to conserve and category) will be a particular challenge for large restore the habitat of species listed on Appendix carnivores in sub-Saharan Africa, where human I, as well as prohibit their taking (e.g., hunting populations and habitat loss are projected to in- or other form of removal from the wild) except crease substantially by 2050 (Visconti et al., 2015), under strict circumstances (e.g., scientific). and where loss of savanna landscapes is acceler- The CMS provisions against taking and rec- ating (Riggio et al., 2013). With these challenges ommendations for gener- of projected range loss, and because it is unlikely ally have no “teeth” or enforcement mechanism. that protected status can be conferred on enough For instance, CMS cheetah range states are of their range to reverse projected population de- obliged to submit national reports every 3 years clines (Di Minin et al., 2016), the establishment of (6 months before each regular Conference of the a Large Carnivore Initiative under CBD with fo- Parties) to provide information on protection cus on the development of conservation solutions measures, but similar to many other CMS-listed outside protected areas would be highly benefi- species, the submission of reports has been spot- cial. This would broadly benefit biodiversity, as ty, the information in the reports is often of du- well as specifically addressing the unique prob- bious utility, and few have reported specifically lems of large predator conservation. A volume of on cheetahs (Table 21.2). When they have, it is the CBD Technical Series should be dedicated to in an abbreviated format and there is no inde- provide guidance and best practices for the con- pendent review to verify information submitted servation of large carnivores (Trouwhorst, 2015). (such as whether their population is increasing or decreasing). There is no mechanism for pen- Convention on the Conservation alties for either failing to report or to fulfill their of Migratory Species of Wild Animals obligations to prevent cheetah taking, conserve cheetah habitat, and remove obstacles to trans- The Convention on the Conservation of boundary movement. Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) However, CMS should not be viewed as inef- defines “migratory species” as species “whose fective. It provides a political platform for dis- members cyclically and predictably cross one or cussing conservation threats and, in the words more national jurisdictional boundaries” (Ar- of one expert: “the Convention is ‘soft’ [law], ticle I). As noted by Trouwhorst (2015); however, in such a way that no state need be reluctant to “the term has subsequently been interpreted by ratify it, yet it encourages and guides Parties to the CMS COP in a remarkably flexible manner, undertake practical and effective ‘hard’ work

3. Conservation solutions 298 21. Global Cheetah Conservation Policy: A Review of International Law and Enforcement under specific regional Agreements” Oster( - as a target species for the development of a CMS woldt, 1989). These subsidiary agreements are Agreement and for the Convention to, thus, widely viewed as successful implementation play a more active role in transboundary chee- process for CMS. A number of these agreements tah conservation (Trouwhorst, 2015). And in have matured into “sophisticated regimes in 2017, the formation of a new joint CMS-CITES their own right, complete with an effective insti- African Carnivore Initiative was announced, to tutional structure and the political will to adopt include the cheetah along with the leopard, lion measures to protect the species for which they and African wild dog. The primary focus will are responsible” (Caddell, 2005). The existence be on “promoting coexistence, sustainable land of small quotas for international trade in wild management and maintaining connectivity for cheetah specimens under CITES for Botswana, all carnivores,” with a 3 year budget estimated at Namibia, and Zimbabwe, as discussed later US $53 million (CITES, 2017). in detail, led to the CMS decision to exclude Similar to CBD and CITES, when CMS gov- cheetah populations of these countries from ernments meet at COPs, they can adopt recom- Appendix I. Inclusion of these populations in mendations. Unlike the Convention text itself or Appendix II (species with an unfavorable con- subsidiary agreements, recommendations are servation status whose conservation requires nonbinding, but do carry weight by communicat- international cooperation) is an option that ing shared priorities and drawing international was discussed by the Scientific Council at its attention. The ninth CMS COP, held in Rome in 16th meeting in 2010 (CMS, 2010), but no action 2008, adopted a recommendation on Tigers and was taken, as neither Botswana nor Namibia is other Asian Big Cats, which included the Asiatic currently party to CMS (other non-Party range cheetah population in Iran (CMS, 2008). As that states include the Central African Republic, Su- population is not transboundary, the most rel- dan, South Sudan, and Zambia). Appendix II evant part of this recommendation for the Iranian listing would have obliged exploration of a sub- cheetah is its call for increased financial support sidiary legal agreement for these populations. from donor countries and organizations. CMS has These CMS subsidiary agreements and mem- appointed under the CAMI an fo- oranda of understanding provide a vehicle for cal point, responsible for advising CMS on activi- multinational and regional cooperation tailored ties related to the conservation of the species. to specific groups of animals, particularly birds and marine species (Caddell, 2005). Although Southern African Development originally envisioned to improve the conserva- Community (SADC) Protocol on Wildlife tion of species only partially protected under na- Conservation and Law Enforcement tional law (and listed on CMS Appendix II), these agreements and related initiatives may also ex- The primary objective of the Protocol is to tend to Appendix I species, and are also open to establish, within the framework of the respec- the participation of non-Party countries. Cheetah tive national laws of each party, common ap- populations may be already benefiting from two proaches to the conservation and sustainable CMS subsidiary agreements: the Saharo-Sahelian use of wildlife resources, and to assist with Megafauna Action Plan, focused on gazelles the effective enforcement of laws governing in 14 North African countries, and the Central those resources. There are many measures to Eurasian Aridland Mammals Concerted Action, be standardized, including species and habitat which spurred the Central Asian Mammals Ini- protections, regulation of taking and trade, and tiative (CAMI), and includes Iran and its cheetah powers granted to wildlife officers, among oth- population. The cheetah has been recommended ers (Cirelli and Morgera, 2010). The Protocol

3. Conservation solutions International agreements exclusively focused on wildlife trade control 299 does not identify any species of concern and thus the Serengeti National Park (Tanzania). Some does not extend any specific protections to the indication of the value of this recognition is that cheetah. It does allow for its governing Council less than 5% of listed sites are currently consid- to determine sanctions to be taken against any ered “in danger” according to Article 4 (World Party government which undertakes action that Heritage Convention, 2016). One of the selection undermine the Protocol, or persistently fails to criteria for sites on the List is that they “contain execute its obligations under the Protocol with- the most important and significant natural habi- out good reason (Article 12). Two recent signifi- tats for in situ conservation of biological diversi- cant developments to emerge from the Protocol ty, including those containing threatened species for the cheetah include the SADC Program on of outstanding universal value from the point of Transfrontier Conservation Areas (SADC TFCA) view of science or conservation,” and thus for and the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti- the cheetah the Convention has the potential to Strategy 2016–21 (SADC LEAP, 2015). assist in the preservation of priority sites through The TFCA Program has an active infrastructure their nomination for World Heritage. of support, including a Steering Committee and a membership Network of practitioners; 18 ex- INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS isting and potential transboundary protected EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON areas are in the process of being developed WILDLIFE TRADE CONTROL (SADC TFCA, 2016), all representing important landscapes for cheetah conservation, with the Convention on International Trade most active being the Kavango-Zambezi TFCA in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna (KAZA, 2016) and the Great Limpopo Trans- and Flora frontier Park (GLTP, 2016). The SADC LEAP Strategy urges every member country to create a CITES is best known for its appendices. No national task force to coordinate wildlife-related commercial trade is permitted for species listed law enforcement and antipoaching issues, and on Appendix I, regulated commercial trade is establishes a SADC Wildlife Crime Prevention permitted for species listed on Appendices II and and Coordination Unit to coordinate the efforts III, and trade in unlisted species is not regulated of the national task forces (WWF, 2015). under the Convention. Parties must, each, des- ignate a Management Authority (MA) and a Sci- Convention Concerning the Protection of entific Authority (SA), and before any legal trade the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of species or specimens listed under Appendix II may take place, the range state Party has to con- Contracting governments are committed to duct a nondetriment finding (NDF) exercise pri- doing everything within their power to ensure or to export. The cheetah was first listed in 1975 the “identification, protection, conservation, on Appendix I, which includes species “threat- presentation, and transmission to future genera- ened with which are or may be affect- tions” of the natural heritage situated on their ed by trade. Trade in specimens of these species territories (Article 4). It should be noted that must be subject to particularly strict regulation the Convention defines “natural heritage” to in- in order not to endanger further their survival clude, but not be limited to, sites on the World and must only be authorized in exceptional Heritage List (Trouwhorst, 2015), currently over circumstances,” according to Article III 1000. A number of important large protected of the Convention text. In practice, exceptional areas for cheetah are World Heritage sites, in- circumstances have been interpreted as not for cluding the Okavango Delta (Botswana) and primarily commercial purposes; in other words,

3. Conservation solutions 300 21. Global Cheetah Conservation Policy: A Review of International Law and Enforcement a transaction not for resale (such as the move- ment of private household effects), or for sci- entific or educational purposes CITES,( 2010). CITES requires permits from both the country of import and export which approve any trade in Appendix I species. A key cheetah range country, Namibia, acceded to the Convention in 1990 and entered a reservation for the species, meaning that the country would be treated as a non-Party to CITES concerning cheetah trade. As the Convention does allow for trade with non-Party nations, this allowed Namibia to ex- port wild cheetahs without permits (although CITES encourages the use of alternative permits when trading with non-Parties), which it did FIGURE 21.1 Total net imports of cheetah trophies from the 1960s up until 1975, when it was the grouped by importer, 1993–2012, from records of the CITES main supplier to (Marker-Kraus, 1997). In Trade Database (Nowell, 2014). DE, Germany; EU, Europe- 1992, Namibia explained at the 8th meeting of an Union. the Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, Japan, that it had entered a reservation intending to trophy hunting of cheetah, has not used its quo- continue cheetah exports because attaching a ta at all. CITES Trade Database records indicate commercial value to their populations was con- that Namibia’s exports exceeded its quota of 150 sidered “a prime means for the species conser- in both 2008 and 2009. There may be recording vation” (CITES, 1992a). Namibia submitted a errors because figures provided by the Namibia proposal to list cheetah populations of southern government (Nowell, 2014) of trophy exports African countries on Appendix II (Govt. of for 2009 do not correspond to the WCMC-UNEP Namibia, 1992), which would have allowed CITES Trade Database records for that year. Nev- commercial trade with export permits. The pro- ertheless, the Namibian government enacted a posal was withdrawn after a compromise was 1-year moratorium on cheetah trophy hunting in worked out between various Parties to CITES, April 2009 (Anon, 2009) to investigate the system, resulting in an annotation to the Appendix I list- and since then, Namibian exports do not appear ing allowing annual export quotas for Namibia, to have exceeded its allocated quota. Zimbabwe, and Botswana. As a result, Namibia Cheetah trophy hunting lacks the appeal of also withdrew its reservation on the cheetah. “the Big Five” trophy animals although, as just The Appendix I quotas allow the annual export discussed, the CITES quota is mainly trophies of both live animals and hunting trophies with and is largely filled annually. One interview sur- the following limits: Namibia (150), Zimbabwe vey found 37% of American hunters expressed (50), and Botswana (5) (CITES, 1992b). an interest in hunting cheetahs, but cheetah Most of the CITES trade under this quota sys- trophies cannot, currently, be imported into tem has been in hunting trophies, mainly to EU the United States under American national law Member States and particularly to Germany, with (Lindsey et al., 2006). South Africa’s CITES SA Namibia the primary exporter (90% of total net recently undertook a preliminary NDF concern- trophy exports shown in Fig. 21.1). Zimbabwe has ing the possibility of establishing a national exported an average of fewer than 10 trophies per trophy hunting quota for cheetah, and found year, and Botswana, which does not permit the that “there are insufficient data available on

3. Conservation solutions International agreements exclusively focused on wildlife trade control 301 pop­ulation size and trend and inadequate infor- commercial trade is allowed. Article VII, paragraph mation on the scale of illegal hunting to advise 4, of the Convention states that “Specimens of an an- on a sustainable quota” (Nowell, 2014). imal species included in Appendix I bred in captiv- The international CITES Appendix I quotas ity for commercial purposes[…] shall be deemed to apply solely to wild cheetahs. Wild-born live be specimens of species included in Appendix II.” animals were included in the quota because, in In Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) on Regis- the early 1990s, it was still considered difficult to tration of operations that Appendix-I animal spe- breed cheetahs in , and most animals in cies in captivity for commercial purposes, the Confer- the captive population were wild-caught from ence of the Parties to the Convention has agreed Namibia (CITES, 1992c). Since that time; how- to an interpretation of the provision, as follows: ever, improved management and knowledge of “Parties shall restrict imports for primarily com- the cheetah’s unusual mating and reproductive mercial purposes[…] of captive-bred specimens parameters have led to greater success in cap- of Appendix-I species to those produced by op- tive breeding, although only in a few facilities erations included in the Secretariat’s Register and (Chapters 22 and 27). The number of live cheetah shall reject any [export] document granted[…] if imports recorded as captive-bred has increased the specimens concerned do not originate from markedly over the last decade to an average of such an operation and if the document does not 88 per year, with South Africa being the major describe the specific identifying mark applied to exporter (Nowell, 2014). Namibia exported live each specimen.” The same Resolution notes that wild animals in the 1990s, but has since allo- import of specimens of Appendix I species bred cated its quota almost exclusively to hunting in captivity not for commercial purposes, and cov- trophies; in the 2000s, South Africa’s exports ered by a certificate of , may be of captive cheetahs grew (Fig. 21.2). According authorized for import whether or not the purpose to records of the South African CITES MA, 786 is commercial. live cheetahs were exported from 2002 to 2011 South Africa is the only country which has (Nowell, 2014), and now rivals the trophy trade registered with the CITES Secretariat Appendix I in terms of economic value. captive breeding operations authorized to ex- Captive-bred cheetahs are treated differ- port cheetahs for commercial purposes: DeWildt ently than wild cheetahs under CITES, in that (now Ayn van Dyk) Cheetah and Wildlife

FIGURE 21.2 Net exports of live cheetahs by major exporter, 1990–2012, according to records of the CITES Trade Database (Nowell, 2014). NA, Namibia—wild cheetahs exported under Appendix I quota; ZA, South Africa—cheetahs certified as bred in captivity.

3. Conservation solutions 302 21. Global Cheetah Conservation Policy: A Review of International Law and Enforcement

Centre and Hoedspruit Endangered Species and a CITES intersessional working group com- Centre. The South Africa CITES MA (Nowell, posed of governments and NGOs. The Workshop 2014) notes that “the majority of live cheetah ex- on Illegal Trade in Cheetahs brought together rep- ported from South Africa originate from captive resentatives from CITES authorities and enforce- facilities not necessarily registered with CITES,” ment agencies from 13 Parties [Algeria, Bahrain, but which are registered according to national Botswana, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi legislation with provincial authorities. Less than Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, United 5% of South Africa’s cheetah exports were coded Arab Emirates (UAE), and Zimbabwe], the Chair as commercial in the CITES Trade Database; the of the Animals Committee, and cheetah experts purpose of most transactions was reported as Z from international and non-governmental­ or- (zoo), and under Article III of the Convention, ganizations (CITES, 2016a,b). The 66th meeting this type of trade is considered noncommercial of the CITES Standing Committee in January and exporting facilities need not be registered 2016 adopted the workshop recommendations, with the CITES Secretariat. Under South African and submitted a number of decisions which CITES implementation legislation, provinces were adopted at the Convention’s 17th COP administer certificates for international trade in in Johannesburg in September, 2016. The Deci- listed species, and bred-in-captivity specimens sions include the compilation of a CITES Trade can only be exported by facilities which have Resource kit for use in law enforcement, includ- registered with their provincial government ac- ing protocols to be followed in case of seizures cording to regulations under this law. Although and guidance on the immediate and long-term only about 20 facilities are licensed by provincial disposal of live animals; and the establishment authorities to breed cheetahs, a survey of cap- of a Cheetah Forum on the CITES website for tive facilities suggests that more are attempting Parties, experts, NGOs, and other stakeholders to breed (Marnewick, 2012). Cheetah experts to exchange and share information on cheetahs suspect that some facilities in South Africa may and illegal trade in cheetah. The COP also called not have mastered the challenge of breeding for the Secretariat to report to the Parties on the cheetahs and are instead making false bred-in- implementation of all the recommendations, captivity declarations for live-captured wild ani- including those adopted by the Standing Com- mals, illegally captured in South Africa, as well mittee calling for countries to strengthen their as neighboring countries (Nowell, 2014). national and regional enforcement actions con- Concerns raised by conservation NGOs cerning cheetah (IISD RS, 2016). about illegal trade, primarily illicit movement At the Kuwait workshop, South Africa present- of northeast African wild-caught cheetah cubs ed a number of government interventions being to the Gulf states (Chapter 14), but also poten- undertaken to strengthen its regulation of chee- tial fraudulence in the legal captive live chee- tah breeding, including development of a DNA tah trade, were instrumental in drawing CITES’ database for captive cheetahs to prove parental attention to the problem. This led to a detailed ancestry, as well as two microchips and photo study (Nowell, 2014) and a recommendation of identification (Tjiane, 2015). After the workshop, the CITES Animals Committee to hold an inter- a stringent ban on the keeping of exotic animals national workshop (CITES, 2014a). Although the as pets was announced by the UAE (Anon, 2016), Gulf states initially questioned the reliability of one of the main importers of South African cap- information on illegal trade (CITES, 2013a), in tive cheetahs, and the CITES Party where smug- 2015 the problem was acknowledged and the gled cheetah cubs are most frequently confiscated government of Kuwait hosted an international (Nowell, 2014). At the time of this writing, UAE is workshop convened by the CITES Secretariat still working on relevant draft legislation.

3. Conservation solutions REFERENCES 303

Other International Agreements to convening power: the CITES experience of coun- Combat Illegal Wildlife Trade tries discussing and planning actions against ille- gal cheetah trade has shown that these fora have Two other international agreements could the capability for constructive and focused action play a greater role in addressing the illegal trade planning to address specific problems and is- in cheetahs. This issue was first drawn to interna- sues. The NGO cheetah conservation community tional attention (CITES, 2013b) by the Coalition must continue to motivate CITES and the other Against Wildlife Trafficking, a public–private environmental bodies described in this chapter, partnership with 15 NGO members (including through participation in meetings and provision one cheetah-specific NGO, the Cheetah Conser- of researched recommendations, to take targeted vation Fund) and 6 governments (although none actions to protect cheetahs in their natural habitats in Africa). One prominent government member, and undertake intelligence-led enforcement to the United States, was instrumental in drafting prevent their smuggling across national borders. the CITES Animals Committee recommendation that “Parties include cheetahs as a species of pri- ority in their strategies to counter wildlife traffick- References ing” (CITES, 2014a). The Lusaka Agreement Task Force has participated in several coordinated in- Anon, 2009. Moratorium on trophy hunting cheetah permits in ternational global enforcement operations result- Namibia. Namibia Adventure Safaris, 24 April. Available from: http://namibiahuntsafaris.blogspot.com/2009/04/ ing in many arrests and seizures of a variety of moratorium-for-trophy-hunting-cheetah.html. wildlife, including cheetah skins (CITES, 2014b). Anon, 2016. UAE to ban possession of wild animals, With three East African countries as members, emirates 24|7, 20th January. Available from: http:// the Task Force could play more of a leadership www.emirates247.com/news/uae-to-ban-possession-of- role in helping range states to step up efforts to wild-animals-2016-01-20-1.617991. AU, 2017. Revised African Convention on the Conserva- combat the illegal export to the Gulf States. The tion of Nature and Natural Resources. Available from: newest agreement, the African Common Strategy https://au.int/en/treaties/african-convention-conser- on Combatting Illegal Exploitation and Trade in vation-nature-and-natural-resources-revised-version. Wild Fauna and Flora in Africa, adopted by the Caddell, R., 2005. International law and the protection of AU in 2015, may hold greater potential for ef- migratory wildlife: an appraisal of twenty-five years of the Bonn Convention. Colo. J. Int. Environ. Law Policy fective action because all African countries are 16, 113–156. members (except Morocco, which is not a cheetah CBD, 2010. Quick Guide to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: range state). Although it contains nothing specific Extinction Prevented. Available from: www.cbd.int/ to cheetahs, it embodies a new and unprecedent- doc/strategic-plan/targets/T12-quick-guide-en.pdf. ed level of political will. “There has never been CBD, 2016. Convention on Biological Diversity: List of Par- ties. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/information/ so much high level political momentum in Africa parties.shtml. to tackle transnational organized wildlife crime: Cirelli, M.T., Morgera, E., 2010. Wildlife Law in the Southern now there is a plan to turn this into action,” de- African Development Community. Joint Publication of clared one NGO observer (TRAFFIC, 2016). the FAO and CIC, Budapest, 136p. CITES, 1992a. Summary report of the Committee I meeting, Com I.8.1 (Rev). CITES, 1992b. Amendments to Appendices I and II of the CONCLUSIONS Convention adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its eighth meeting in Kyoto, Japan, 2–13 March. CITES, 1992c. Quotas for trade in specimens of cheetah. Doc. Environmental treaties are often considered 8.22 (Rev.). “paper tigers” that do not live up to their full CITES, 2010. Definition of “primarily commercial purposes.” potential. Perhaps their greatest benefit is their Resolution Conf. 5.10 (Rev. CoP 15).

3. Conservation solutions 304 21. Global Cheetah Conservation Policy: A Review of International Law and Enforcement

CITES, 2013a. Summary record of the ninth meeting of Com- wildlife-conservation-and-law-enforcement-tre-001348/pa mittee II. Sixteenth Conference of the Parties, CoP16 rticipants/?q=Protocol+on+Wildlife+Conservation+and+ Com. II Rec. 9 (Rev. 1). Law+Enforcement&xdate_min=&xdate_max. CITES, 2013b. Illegal trade in cheetahs. Sixteenth Conference Ecolex, 2016c. Convention concerning the Protection of of the Parties, CoP16 Doc. 51 (Rev. 1). the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (November CITES, 2014a. Illegal trade in cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). 23, 1972): Country/Participant. Available from: http:// Agenda item 18, 27th meeting of the CITES Animals www.ecolex.org/details/convention-concerning-the- Committee. AC27 WG3 Doc. 1. protection-of-the-world-cultural-and-natural-heri- CITES, 2014b. CITES Secretariat welcomes Operation Cobra tage-tre-155235/participants/?q=World+Heritage+ II results. Available from: https://cites.org/eng/news/ Convention. sundry/2014/20140210_operation_cobra_ii.php. Ecolex, 2016d. Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforce- CITES, 2016a. Illegal trade in cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus): ment Operations directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna Report of the Working Group. SC66 Doc. 32.5. and Flora (September 8, 1994): Country/Participant. CITES, 2016b. Summary record of the Sixty-sixth meeting of Available from: https://www.ecolex.org/details/treaty/ the Standing Committee, Geneva (Switzerland), 11–15 lusaka-agreement-on-co-operative-enforcement-opera- January. tions-directed-at-illegal-trade-in-wild-fauna-and-flora-tr CITES, 2016c. Convention on International Trade in En- e-001197/?q=Lusaka+Agreement+on+Co-operative+Enf dangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: Member orcement+Operations+directed+at+Illegal+Trade+in+Wi Countries. Available from: https://cites.org/eng/disc/ ld+Fauna+and+Flora+%28September+8%2C+1994%29% parties/index.php. 3A&xdate_min=&xdate_max=. CITES, 2017. Joint CMS-CITES African Carnivores Initiative. Erinosho, B.T., 2013. The revised African convention on the AC29 Doc. 29 Annex. conservation of nature and natural resources: prospects CMS, 2008. COP 9 Proceedings. UNEP/CMS Recommenda- for a comprehensive treaty for the management of Afri- tion 9.3: Tigers and other Asian Big Cats, pp. 149–150. ca’s natural resources. Afr. J. Int. Comp. Law 21, 378–397. CMS, 2010. The listing of the cheetah in Appendix II. 16th GLTP, 2016. Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Available meeting of the CMS Scientific Council, Bonn, Germany, from: https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/trans- 28–30 June. UNEP/CMS/ScC16/Doc.20 Agenda Item frontier/great_limpopo.php. 14.3. Govt. of Namibia, 1992. Proposal to transfer Acinonyx juba- CMS, 2016a. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory tus (populations of Botswana, , Namibia, Zambia, Species of Wild Animals: Parties and Range States. Avail- Zimbabwe) from Appendix I to Appendix II. CITES Ref. able from: http://www.cms.int/en/parties-range-states. Doc. 8.46 no. 9. CITES Secretariat, Geneva. CMS, 2016b. Convention on the Conservation of IISD RS, 2016. Summary and Analysis of CITES COP17. Migratory Species of Wild Animals: National Reports. Available from: http://www.iisd.ca/cites/cop17/. Available from: http://www.cms.int/en/documents/ IUCN, 2004. An introduction to the African Convention national-reports. on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Di Minin, E., Slotow, R., Hunter, L.T., Pouzols, F.M., IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 56. Toivonen, T., Verburg, P.H., Leader-Williams, N., Petrac- Gland, Switzerland. ca, L., Moilanen, A., 2016. Global priorities for national Johnson, S., Marker, L., Mengersen, K., Gordon, C.H., Mel- carnivore conservation under land use change. Sci. Rep. zheimer, J., Schmidt-Küntzel, A., Nghikembua, M., 6, 23814. Fabiano, E., Henghali, J., Wachter, B., 2013. Modeling Durant, S., Mitchell, N., Ipavec, A., Groom, R., 2015. Aci- the viability of the free-ranging cheetah population in nonyx jubatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Namibia: an object-oriented Bayesian network approach. 2015: e.T219A50649567. Available from: http://dx.doi. Ecosphere 4 (7), 1–19. org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T219A50649567.en. KAZA, 2016. Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Ecolex, 2016a. African Convention on the Conservation of Area. Available from: http://www.kavangozambezi. Nature and Natural Resources (Revised Version) (July 11, org/. 2003): Country/Participant. Available from: http://www. Lindsey, P.A., Alexander, R., Frank, L.G., Mathieson, A., ecolex.org/details/african-convention-on-the-conserva- Romanach, S.S., 2006. Potential of trophy hunting to tion-of-nature-and-natural-resources-revised-version- create incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa tre-001395/participants/?q=African+Convention+on+th where alternative wildlife-based land uses may not be e+Conservation+of+Nature+and+Natural+Resources. viable. Anim. Conserv. 9 (3), 283–291. Ecolex, 2016b. Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Lindsey, P.A., Havemann, C.P., Lines, R., Palazy, L., Price, Enforcement (August 18, 1999): Country/Participant. Avail- A.E., Retief, T.A., Rhebergen, T., Van der Waal, C., 2013. able from: http://www.ecolex.org/details/protocol-on- Determinants of persistence and tolerance of carnivores

3. Conservation solutions REFERENCES 305

on Namibian ranches: implications for conservation on and conservation needs of the cheetah in southern Africa. southern African private lands. PLoS One 8 (1), e52458. Cat News (Special Issue 3), 44–46. Lubbe, W.D., 2015. We need a new convention to protect Riggio, J., Jacobson, A., Dollar, L., Bauer, H., Becker, M., Africa’s environment. The Conversation, 7 May. Avail- Dickman, A., Funston, P., Groom, R., Henschel, P., de able from: http://theconversation.com/we-need-a-new- Iongh, H., Lichtenfeld, L., 2013. The size of savannah Af- convention-to-protect-africas-environment-40648. rica: a lion’s (Panthera leo) view. Biodivers. Conserv. 22 Lyster, S., 1993. International Wildlife Law: An Analysis of (1), 17–35. International Treatise Concerned With the Conservation SADC LEAP, 2015. SADC Law Enforcement and Anti-Poach- of Wildlife. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ing Strategy, 2016–2021. Available from: http://www.ga- Marker, L., Dickman, A., 2004. Human aspects of cheetah borone.diplo.de/contentblob/4715602/Daten/6225475/ conservation: lessons learned from the Namibian farm- SADC_LEAP_FINAL.pdf. lands. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9, 297–305. SADC TFCA, 2016. SADC Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Marker-Kraus, L., 1997. History of the cheetah: Acinonyx Available from: http://www.sadc.int/themes/natural- jubatus in zoos 1829–1994. Int. Zoo Yearbook 35, 27–43. resources/transfrontier-conservation-areas/. Marnewick, K., 2012. Captive breeding, keeping and trade Tjiane, M., 2015. South Africa country presentation at the of captive cheetahs in South Africa. Endangered Wildlife Workshop on Illegal Trade in Cheetahs, Kuwait, City, Trust, Johannesburg, South Africa. Kuwait, 3–5 November. Mitchell, R.B., 2016a. Convention designed to ensure the TRAFFIC, 2016. Africa steps up fight against wildlife crime, conservation of various species of wild animals in 20th April. Available from: http://www.traffic.org/ Africa, which are useful to man or inoffensive. Interna- home/2016/4/21/africa-steps-up-fight-against-wild- tional Environmental Agreements (IEA) Database Project. life-crime.html. Available from: http://iea.uoregon.edu/treaty-text/1900- Trouwhorst, A., 2015. Global large carnivore conservation PreservationWildAnimalsBirdsFishAfricaENtxt. and international law. Biol. Conserv. (24), 1567–1588. Mitchell, R.B., 2016b. Convention Relative to the Preservation Van der Linde, M., 2002. Review of the African convention of Fauna and Flora in Their Natural State. International on nature and natural resources. Afr. Hum. Rights Law Environmental Agreements (IEA) Database Project. Avail- J. 2 (1), 33–59. able from: http://iea.uoregon.edu/treaty-text/1900- Visconti, P., Bakkenes, M., Baisero, D., Brooks, T., Butchart, PreservationWildAnimalsBirdsFishAfricaENtxt. S.H., Joppa, L., Alkemade, R., Di Marco, M., Santini, L., Nowell, K., 1996. Namibian cheetah conservation strat- Hoffmann, M., Maiorano, L., 2015. Projecting global bio- egy. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, diversity indicators under future development scenarios. Namibia, 89 pp. Available from: http://www.catsg.org/ Conserv. Lett. 9 (1), 5–13. cheetah/05_library/5_2_strategies-&-action-plans/Now- Woodley, S., Bertzky, B., Crawhall, N., Dudley, N., Londoño, ell_1996_Namibia_cheetah_conservation_strategy.pdf. J.M., MacKinnon, K., Redford, K., Sandwith, T., 2012. Nowell, K., 2014. An assessment of conservation impacts of Meeting Aichi Target 11: what does success look like for legal and illegal trade in cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus. IUCN systems? Parks 18 (1), 23–36. SSC Cat Specialist Group report prepared for the CITES World Heritage Convention, 2016. List of World Heritage Secretariat, 65th meeting of the CITES Standing Commit- in Danger. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/ tee, Geneva, 7–11 July. SC65 Doc. 39 (Rev. 2). danger/. Osterwoldt, Ralph, 1989. Implementation and enforcement WWF, 2015. Bold new strategy to tackle wildlife crime issues in the protection of migratory species. Nat. Resour. in southern Africa, 6th November. Available from: J. 29, 1017–1049. http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?255930/Bold- Purchase, G., Marker, L., Marnewick, K., Klein, R., Williams, new-strategy-to-tackle-wildlife-crime-in-southern- S., 2007. Regional assessment of the status, distribution Africa.

3. Conservation solutions