Report on Conservation with Particular Respect to the Issue of Trophy

AreportpreparedbyProfessor David W. Macdonald CBE, FRSE, DSc⇤ tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt Director of WildCRU, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

at the request of Rory Stewart OBE ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt Under Secretary of State for the Environment tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

28 November 2016

⇤[email protected] Lion Conservation and Report Macdonald et al.

Contributors

TTT This report was prepared with the assistance of members of the Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, of which the core team was Dr Amy Dickman, Dr Andrew Loveridge, Mr Kim Jacobsen, Dr Paul Johnson, Dr Christopher O’Kane and..Dr Byron du Preez, supported by Dr Kristina Kesch and Ms Laura Perry.

It benefitted from critical review by: TTTDr Guillaume Chapron TTTDr Peter Lindsey TTTProfessor Craig Packer

It also benefitted from helpful input from: TTTDr Hans Bauer TTTProfessor Claudio Sillero TTTDr Christiaan Winterbach TTTProfessor John Vucetich

Under the aegis of DEFRA the report was helpfully informed by evidence and opinions offered during consultations with the following organisations: TTTBorn Free TTTLionAid TTTSafari Club International Foundation (SCIF) TTTThe British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) TTTThe European Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation (FACE) TTTThe International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) TTTThe Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) TTTThe World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

ii Contents

Contributors ii

Abbreviations Used in the Text viii

Preface ix

Executive Summary and Recommendations xiii

1 Reasons for examining the issue of trophy hunting with respect to lion conservation 1

1.1 Reasons for being concerned about lion conservation ...... 1

1.1.1 Whatvaluedolionshave?...... 1

1.1.2 To what extent have declined, in terms of numbers and geographic range?...... 1

1.1.3 Whatisthecurrentthreatstatusoflions? ...... 2

1.1.4 Whatarethemajorcurrentthreatstolions? ...... 2

1.1.5 Future considerations for lion conservation ...... 3

1.1.6 Summary of reasons for being concerned about lion conservation . . 4

1.2 Backgroundtoliontrophyhunting ...... 5

1.2.1 What is lion trophy hunting? ...... 5

1.2.2 Legality of lion trophy hunting ...... 6

1.2.3 Ethicalacceptabilityofliontrophyhunting ...... 10

1.2.4 Extentofliontrophyhuntinganditsmarkets ...... 11

1.2.5 Reason for the UK Government examining this issue now ...... 12

1.3 Summary of reasons for examining trophy hunting with regard to lion conser- vation ...... 18

2 Threats and impacts associated with lion trophy hunting 19

iii Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

2.1 Thesignificanceoftrophyhuntingasathreattolions ...... 19

2.1.1 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions at a population scale 19

2.1.1.1 Negative population effects associated with the removal of females ...... 20

2.1.1.2 Negative population effects associated with the removal of pridemales...... 20

2.1.1.3 Threat to lion populations of trophy hunting relative to other threats ...... 22

2.1.2 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions at a national scale 23

2.1.2.1 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions in 24

2.1.2.2 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions in Mozam- bique ...... 24

2.1.2.3 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions in 25

2.1.2.4 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions in 27

2.1.2.5 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions in Zambia 29

2.1.2.6 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions in 30

2.1.3 Factors mediating the threat posed by trophy hunting ...... 31

2.1.4 Significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions at a regional scale 32

2.1.5 Summary of the significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions . 32

2.2 Impactsassociatedwithliontrophyhunting ...... 34

2.2.1 Ecologicalimpacts ...... 34

2.2.1.1 Habitatprotection ...... 34

2.2.1.2 Reduction of other threats to lions and other wildlife . . . . 35

2.2.2 Impacts of economic benefits generated from trophy hunting . . . . . 36

2.2.2.1 Level of trophy hunting revenue generated ...... 36

2.2.2.2 The economic contribution of lion hunting and its impact on land-use ...... 37

2.2.2.3 Trophy hunting and economic incentives for lion conservation 41 iv 2.3 Summary of the impacts associated with trophy hunting ...... 44

3 Current and recommended lion trophy hunting practices 45

3.1 Leaselength,allocationandfixedquotas ...... 45

3.2 Restrictionsonlionsabletobehunted ...... 46

4 Options to improve the conservation impact of trophy hunting 49

4.1 Possibleimpactsofmaintainingthestatusquo ...... 49

4.2 Possibleimpactsofatotalimportban ...... 49

4.3 Possible impacts of stricter controls on the import of lion trophies to the UK 51

4.3.1 Reasons for considering stricter controls ...... 51

4.3.2 Possibleoptionsforstricterconditions ...... 52

4.3.2.1 Best-practice: Lion populations are sustainably managed, as determined by professional-standard science-based monitoring 54

4.3.2.2 Age-basedharvesting ...... 54

4.3.2.3 Interimscenario ...... 55

4.3.2.4 Dealing with areas which do not meet the desired conditions 55

4.3.3 Notesonscaleandconditionsofimport ...... 56

4.3.3.1 Recommended scale at which criteria are applied ...... 56

4.3.3.2 Verificationofhuntingpractices ...... 57

5 An overview: Framing trophy hunting in the context of wider lion con- servation 59

5.1 Summary of lion trophy hunting in the context of conservation ...... 61

Appendix A Ethics and trophy hunting 64

A.1 Theethicalbackgroundtotrophyhunting ...... 64

A.2 What is the moral status of animals? ...... 64

A.3 If trophy hunting is permissible in principle, what affects this? ...... 67

v Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

A.4 How does emotion affect judgements concerning trophy hunting? ...... 69

A.5 What inconsistencies are there in value judgments concerning acceptable reasonforkillinganimals? ...... 70

A.6 Does the Cecil event highlight changing perspectives on the acceptability of trophy hunting? ...... 72

A.7 Summary ...... 73

Appendix B Extent of trade in lion trophies 74

B.1 Botswana ...... 74

B.2 Mozambique...... 75

B.3 Namibia...... 76

B.4 Tanzania...... 77

B.5 Zambia ...... 78

B.6 Zimbabwe ...... 79

Appendix C Case study of a successful hunting area: the Bubye Valley Conservancy 80

C.1 Background to Bubye Valley Conservancy ...... 80

C.2 Lions in Bubye Valley Conservancy ...... 80

C.3 Revenue generated from lion hunting in Bubye Valley Conservancy . . . . . 81

Appendix D Example of an Adaptive Age Based Quota System 82

Literature Cited 85

vi List of Figures

1 Internationalliontrophytrademap...... 13

2 Threat Rankings for Lions in (a) West and Central and (b) East and SouthernAfrica...... 33

List of Tables

1 Summary of the historic extent of trophy hunting practice across Africa . . 8

2 Summary of the total number of wild-sourced lion trophies ...... 12

3 Comparison of hunting revenue per country per year ...... 38

4 Reported international imports vs exports 2006-2015: Botswana ...... 74

5 Reported international imports vs exports 2006-2015: Mozambique ..... 75

6 Reported international imports vs exports 2006-2015: Namibia ...... 76

7 Reported international imports vs exports 2006-2015: Tanzania ...... 77

8 Reported international imports vs exports 2006-2015: Zambia ...... 78

9 Reported international imports vs exports 2006-2015: Zimbabwe ...... 79

10 Zimbabwe’sadaptivequotapointssystem ...... 82

11 Workedexamplesofanadaptivequotapointssystem ...... 83

vii Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

Abbreviations Used in the Text

TTT ALWG African Lion Working Group CITES Convention on International Trade in of Wild Fauna and Flora CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals DAFF Department of , Forestry and Fisheries DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs FSC Forest Stewardship Council ISO International Organisation for Standardisation IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature PAC Problem Animal Control SCI Safari Club International SCIF Safari Club International Foundation TAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute UNPD United Nations Population Division USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service WWF World Wide Fund for Nature ZPWMA Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority

viii Preface

This is a scientific report about one aspect of the conservation of wildlife and, specifically, of lions in Africa. That aspect is the trophy hunting of wild lions, and the remit is to evaluate evidence that trophy hunting has, or could, impact on the distribution and abundance of lions for better or worse in terms of their conservation. Other considerations beyond this, most obviously ethics (Macdonald et al. 2016b), are relevant to society’s decisions on whether hunting lions for trophies is an acceptable activity. These other considerations are very important, and potentially decisive, but they are not the remit of this report. Indeed, those who have contributed to this report have done so strictly from a position of professional neutrality that is neither pro- nor anti-hunting, although they are united in being pro good evidence and anti bad management of lion populations.

The question of whether trophy hunting of lions harms or benefits lion conservation has become important and topical because lion numbers are declining fast and because the allegedly illegal hunting in Zimbabwe in 2015 of a lion nicknamed Cecil has focused unprecedented international attention on the issue (Macdonald et al. 2016a). It has also revealed that, at least in many of the countries into which lion trophies are currently imported, large sections of society regard hunting lions for sport as an ethically inappropriate activity for the twenty-first century (Macdonald et al. 2016a). Others take the opposite view, most notably often amongst people who actually have to live with lions in their range countries (Nzou 2015). Crucially relevant to the consequences of this disagreement is the proposition that rather than being a threat, hunting lions contributes significantly to their conservation, primarily through the maintenance of wild habitat, and that its cessation would worsen the species’ already deteriorating status (Lindsey et al. 2012b; Di Minin et al. 2016). These ethical and pragmatic views may be irreconcilable, but before deciding what to do about it, individuals and nations need to know the facts, and indeed the gaps in

ix Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. knowledge. Providing these facts, and identifying important gaps, is one function of this report, and it is particularly important insofar as policies applied impulsively could have perverse consequences if the intention to improve lion conservation resulted in worsening it. In that case, even those implacably opposed to lion hunting on ethical grounds might favour a journey rather than a jump.Forexample,ifsociety judged trophy hunting lions unacceptable, but also concluded that it benefited lion conservation, then this dilemma might be approached via a journey to find ways of replacing the benefits of hunting before jumping to end them.

It was against this background that the then Minister for the Environment, Rory Stewart, invited this review of existing lion trophy hunting practice with the aim of:

1. providing recommendations for criteria for best practice in the industry to inform assessments of whether trophy hunting is well managed and sustainable;

2. providing recommendations for what the UK, working with the our partners in the EU and also internationally, could do to assist implementation of best practice; and

3. framing these recommendations within the wider context, and overall goal, of supporting lion conservation.

As will become clear, the topic is vast, its ramifications endless, and the knowledge gaps numerous. Plugging those gaps could take a substantial inter-disciplinary research programme, and compiling even what is known now might usefully take a team of scholars a year. In reality, only a few months have been available, and so amongst the things this report is not, is entirely comprehensive or complete. Nonetheless, it aspires to set the scene and offer recommendations that are evidence-based, precautionary and workable.

Having stated that this report is concerned with trophy hunting in terms only of its impact on lion, and other wildlife, conservation, it is worth being clear on the meaning of conservation as used in this report. It is a highly inter-disciplinary blend of natural and social sciences that together provide the evidence from which x to understand, and thereby to provide the basis for conserving, species and their diversity. That evidence is necessary, but not sufficient, to make decisions on policy, because like other political matters good decisions rest upon wise judgement beyond the facts. Conservation is often characterised as being focused on populations, but insofar as the behaviour of populations emerges from the behaviour of the individuals that comprise them, conservation is also concerned with the fates and well-being of individuals. Conservation is sometimes characterised as being disinterested in animal welfare, but that is an error: for example, welfare is one of the factors that would be considered in evaluating different conservation policies. Furthermore, there was a time when conservation was thought to prioritise wildlife over people, but this too is a simplification to the point of error. Modern wildlife conservation strives to find mutual advantage between the well-being of wildlife and the people who live, often with difficulty and in poverty, alongside it.

In this report, the ‘lion estate’ refers to the area of land occupied by wild lions (more technically, their geographical range) and relevant to the species’ conservation in the wild. Due to ecological factors (principally linked to variation in rainfall, vegetation and prey abundance) lion abundance varies across their geographical range (East 1984). But over and above that natural intra-specific variation in population density (e.g. between <1 and 40 lions 100 km-2;Packeretal.2013a),theirnumbers are frequently below carrying capacity due to human factors. For example, lions are often poisoned in reprisal for stock-raiding, or killed by snares set by poachers for bushmeat, or they may be hunted unsustainably for trophies. This report is concerned with lion conservation in terms of impacts on the extent of the lion estate and the abundance of lions occupying it. Any human action that diminishes the extent of that estate is considered here as inimical to lion conservation; any action that maintains or increases the lion estate is a benefit to lion conservation. In terms of the abundance of lions, while in the face of their widespread decline increasing the numbers of lions is generally considered a benefit to conservation, maximising their numbers is not necessarily the goal of conservation. This is because, in the context of natural communities, a greater abundance of lions can lead, through competition, to smaller numbers of other wild carnivores (e.g. , cheetahs, African wild dogs) or, through predation, to fewer of their prey. Notwithstanding these nuances, the

xi Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. primary aim of this report is to evaluate how trophy hunting impacts lion conservation, where the goal is to maintain or increase the lion estate and the eventual abundance of lions thereon.

The original Ministerial request to prepare this report had the intention of in- forming the British government delegation to the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP17), at which a proposal by Niger and eight other countries to up-list lions to Appendix I was anticipated to have implications that could have added further restrictions to the trophy hunting of wild lions, and thus had consequences, some of them perhaps unintended, for lion conservation. As Bauer and Breittenmoser (2016) report, the proposal was not adopted and so trophy hunting of wild lions was not directly affected. However, the mood of the meeting, and perhaps also of a wider global community, was that if trophy hunting had on this occasion avoided strictures it was nonetheless the moment for that industry to take decisive steps to ensure forcefully not only that it caused no detriment to lion conservation but actively enhanced it. Thus an additional and timely role emerges for this report: to address the question of how, for so long as it continues, trophy hunting can be managed to maximise its contribution to lion conservation.

t David W. Macdonald t WildCRU, Oxford t 28th November 2016

xii Executive Summary and Recommendations ttt.Value and Status : Lions are charismatic, widely valued and have the potential to act as conservation ‘ambassadors’ for . As a species, they are not doing well: lions have disappeared from 92% of their historic range and their numbers have declined drastically to approximately just 20,000 individuals.

Grasping the moment to create the movement:Giventhisrapiddeclineof one of the world’s most iconic species, action to conserve lions is urgently needed. Considering this urgency, and from the perspective of conservation, it is unacceptable to tolerate factors worsening the lion’s status where options exist for mitigating them. With the world’s attention galvanised by the killing of ‘Cecil’ the lion, there is an opportunity to convert that Cecil Moment into the Cecil Movement for global conservation. From the perspective of conservation, there is a global responsibility to grasp that opportunity.

Threats to lions: The primary threats to lions (which vary regionally), are habitat loss and degradation, loss of prey base and conflict with people over livestock. These threats are likely to intensify with climate change and rapidly increasing human population, predicted to double in Africa by the year 2050. Trophy hunting of lions can be a threat to some populations.

Extent of lion trophy hunting:Trophyhuntingoflionswaslegalin18African countries in 2014, is currently practised at a significant level in at least 12 countries, and is an extensive form of land use therein. ‘Canned’ hunting of captive animals is legal in some countries but these are not considered wild lions and so are considered only in passing in this report.

Ethical considerations: The ethics of trophy hunting are much debated. This report focuses on trophy hunting’s consequences for lion conservation, while recognising that ethics, particularly relating to animal and human welfare, will influence policy decisions.

xiii Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

Numbers of lions hunted for trophies: Most trophy-hunted lions are bred in captivity. The number of wild lions trophy-hunted is hard to establish with precision due to inconsistencies in the data. Between 2006 and 2015, CITES recorded 4,474 ‘wild’-sourced lion trophies (which include parts of lions so may not reflect numbers of individuals) as imported world-wide, with only 2,429 reported as exported. Between 1991 and 2013, CITES records 80 wild lion trophies (not individual lions) exported to the UK; the UK importation records show 4 trophies.

Effects of trophy hunting on lion populations :Trophyhunting,particularly of females and pride males, can be a significant (and in some cases even primary) threat to lion populations at a local level, especially when additive to other effects. The damaging effects of unsustainable trophy hunting can extend beyond hunting areas into adjacent protected areas. However, there is little evidence that trophy hunting has substantial negative effects at a national or regional level. Where trophy hunting is well-regulated, transparent and devolves sufficient authority to the land managers, it has the potential to contribute to lion conservation, but in many countries, poor governance and weak regulation can lead to unsustainable trophy hunting.

Impact of trophy hunting on lion populations: There is little evidence that trophy hunting has substantial negative effects at a national or regional level. Where trophy hunting is well-regulated, transparent and devolves sufficient authority to the land managers, it has the potential to contribute to lion conservation, but in many countries, poor governance and weak regulation can lead to unsustainable trophy hunting.

Trophy hunting as a contributor to lion conservation : The most funda- mental benefit of trophy hunting to lion conservation is that it provides a financial incentive to maintain lion habitat that might otherwise be converted to non-wildlife land uses. It has been estimated that trophy hunting areas cover 1.4 million km2 –22%morelandthanNationalParks–inAfrica.Howmuchofthatareacould viably be converted to phototourism is unknown, but this certainly could not be accomplished everywhere.

Revenue generated from trophy hunting : The revenue generated by trophy hunting is debated, with estimates of >US$200 million in gross revenue annually across sub-Saharan Africa. Lion hunting probably accounts for 5-17% of that income, depending on the country. Overall, the trophy hunting industry is not heavily

xiv dependent on lions for its financial viability, but if lion hunting was ruled out, trophy hunting could, according to the only peer-reviewed published estimate (Lindsey et al. 2012), become unviable across approximately 60,000 km2.

Approaches to reducing the risk of over-harvesting:Twomainproposals have been made for reducing the risk of unsustainable trophy hunting – the first is area-based, with removal level ideally capped at 0.5 lions 1,000 km-2 (unless there is evidence it can withstand a higher level), and the second is age-based, where it is recommended that only males of 7 years or above are taken. In areas where other threats are present then combining the age- and area-based methods would be the safest policy (if other risk factors are not increasing, this should have a <10% risk of population extirpation within 25 years).

Trophy hunting in perspective :Overandabovetheissueoftrophyhunting, international attention should be focused on generating new financial mechanisms to secure lion populations across their range. In this context lions are a metaphor, and an ambassador, for wider biodiversity conservation. Given that there are probably 60 remaining wild lion populations, a priority, and a call to arms, is to secure the six remaining ones of those which have substantial lion numbers and to safeguard all 60 remaining wild lion populations.

Recommended criteria for importing trophies to the UK : The criteria for whether a lion trophy could be imported into the UK should be that the hunting (a) was unlikely to cause detriment to the lion population from which it was taken, and (b) contributes to lion conservation. Therefore, we recommend that the following essential criteria should be applied to the consideration of lion trophy imports to the UK: i. That the UK should import trophies only from areas that are sufficiently large to offer conservation benefit to lions (we suggest 500 km2 or more), and where the lion population is demonstrably well-managed. ii. Good management requires either adequate monitoring, which allows scientific quota- setting and shows a stable or increasing population, or age-based harvesting. Age-based harvesting could include either the precautionary approach (0.5 male lions of >7 years per 1,000 km2, with rest periods, unless there are good data showing it can withstand a higher level), or adaptive age-based quotas. iii. Areas that fail to qualify under the foregoing criteria could possibly receive a ‘grace period’ of up to 3 years under very strict criteria and annual review in order to allow

xv Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

them to reach the required standards. During any such period, hunting should be heavily limited, e.g. to a maximum of 0.5 lions 1,000 km-2 aged >7 years. Failure to meet the required conditions after the grace period would result in a moratorium on UK imports from the area until they are in place. iv. In areas where lion populations are declining unsustainably under any of the permitted harvesting systems, hunting should be stopped or, if there is a significant risk of losing that habitat from the wildlife estate, the area should be examined on a case-by-case basis and any lion hunting kept only at a very minimal level until the situation can be improved. v. These criteria should ideally be applied at the level of the hunting area not the country, and exports should be managed by an independent committee of stakeholders in each country. That committee should audit hunting practices, set and monitor quotas, encourage certification of hunters, ensure adequate training of professional hunters, ensure transparency and compliance, and verify the age of hunted lions based on hunt reports, photos and tooth X-rays. The costs of operating these national committees would normally be met by stakeholders such as the hunting industry, relevant NGOs, international and local governments.

In addition, the likelihood of trophy hunting contributing to lion conservation would be increased if regulations were designed to maximise the revenue procured that was, at least partly, available to conservation. Therefore, this report recommends that the following desirable elements should be in place: i. Short leases, and the short-termism and incentive for over-harvesting that they encour- age, should not be issued to hunting blocks. A suitable minimum would be ten years, with option for extension by the current tenant (assuming conservation requirements have been met). ii. Hunting blocks should be allocated according to an open auction system. iii. Trophy hunting fees should only be applied following successful hunts, thereby reducing the incentive to kill inappropriate individuals.

Because trophy hunting involves killing a wild animal that, if not killed cleanly, has the potential to suffer, and because human safety is also at risk with the use of firearms, this report recommends reviewing the evidence and codes of practice that would ensure: t that professional hunters are strictly accredited as evidenced by membership of interna- • tionally recognised associations that put standards first and foremost (including those

xvi of marksmanship and animal welfare), and will conduct investigations into reports of misconduct and expel guilty members (national governments should support such ex- pulsions by refusing disciplined PHs permission to hunt). Membership with such an association would be necessary to market hunts (e.g. at the large international conven- tions where an estimated >75% of the hunts are booked).

Finally, broader scale analysis of imports and exports of lion trophies is an essential element of monitoring the industry and its impact on conservation. The CITES database is a potentially incomparable resource for doing so. However, ambiguities over the muddling of entire lions and parts of lions, and some lack of clarity between exports and re-exports, currently confound the data, and lamentably diminish the value of the database. Therefore, this report also recommends that: t CITES procedures are adjusted so that it is possible to assign various body parts to a • single trophy lion (thereby avoiding the double-counting of, say, the pelt and skull of a single animal), and to track successive re-exports of that individual.

These recommendations, based on an impartial review of the scientific evidence, represent feasible steps for minimising risk of adverse effects of trophy hunting on lion populations, while ensuring that where trophy hunting occurs it contributes significantly to the benefit of lion conservation. This is important, but the UK government, and its partners and collaborators in this grand vision, will also need to invest heavily in tackling even greater issues beyond trophy hunting to secure the long-term future of this globally iconic species.

Wider implications for the governance of lion trophy hunting to ensure it is not detrimental to lion conservation and has the potential to enhance it:AlthoughthisreportwascommissionedbythethenUnderSecretaryofStateto inform decisions on the conditions that might apply to the import of lion trophies to the UK, the recommendations set out in that context in the foregoing section apply equally to the wider question of how the lion trophy hunting industry might be regulated to ensure that it is not detrimental to lion conservation and is best placed to enhance it.

xvii 1. Reasons for examining the issue of trophy hunting with respect to lion conservation

1.1 Reasons for being concerned about lion conservation

1.1.1 What value do lions have? they remain, generating large amounts of revenue (McNeely 2000; Lindsey et al. 2012b). Lions are a regular part of he African lion is one of the world’s the trophy hunting industry in at least T most iconic species, and has played 10 African countries and more informa- arichroleinthesymbolismandculture tion on the specific economic revenue of of the United Kingdom. At a wider scale, lion trophy hunting is provided in Sec- at least a large part of the global pub- tion 2.2.2. lic assign great existence value to lions (Dickman et al. 2011), and there is vast international interest in lion welfare and 1.1.2 To what extent have lions de- conservation (Macdonald et al. 2016a). clined, in terms of numbers Lions and other big cats are viewed as and geographic range? particularly charismatic species amongst people likely to engage with conservation campaigns, making them powerful am- The urgency and importance of lion con- bassadors for conservation (Macdonald servation arises from the fact that lions et al. 2015a). have experienced a dramatic decline in both numbers and geographic range over As apex predators, lions also have recent decades. The latest IUCN esti- great ecological value, and the removal mates suggest a population of 23,000 – of top carnivores from can 39,000 African lions (probably closer to have long-lasting negative ecological im- the lower estimate), representing a de- pacts (Ripple et al. 2014). In addition cline of at least 43% between 1993 and to their cultural and ecological signifi- 2014 (approximately three lion genera- cance, lions undoubtedly have very high tions) (Bauer et al. 2016). Most alarm- economic value, and are one of the top ingly, lions are now considered to have draws for both photographic tourists and been extirpated from at least 92% of trophy hunters to the countries where their historic range1 (Bauer et al. 2016).

1Lions occur in 24 African countries (Bauer et al. 2016). Since 1977, 20 of these countries have exported lion trophies (CITES: http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/ [accessed 2016-07-12])

1 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

According to the 2016 Red List Assess- port) that both those countries are ones ment, in Africa, lions are now extinct in which trophy-hunt lions. Similarly, while 15 countries (including Western Sahara, lions in most parts of Mozambique are which is technically a disputed territory), declining, in Niassa Reserve where are possibly extinct in another seven and hunting was tightly regulated, lion pop- now occur in only 24 countries (Bauer ulations increased locally between 1993 et al. 2016). Lion decline may be even and 2014. However, trophy hunting is more severe than currently estimated by clearly not a guarantee of increasing lion the IUCN, due to the assessment be- populations, as other key trophy hunting ing based on data from relatively well- countries such as Tanzania showed de- known populations. This is a common clines (Bauer et al. 2016), with previous practice, but well-monitored populations data from Packer et al. (2009) showing are also those which are likely to have highest declines in countries with highest relatively high levels of attention, invest- trophy hunting rates. ment and protection, so a possible bias is that they are likely to be less threat- ened than many other subpopulations 1.1.4 What are the major current (Durant et al. submitted). threats to lions?

The 2016 IUCN Red Listing for the lion 1.1.3 What is the current threat sta- states that “Among the causes of decline, tus of lions? the most important are indiscriminate killing in defence of human life and live- The lion is classed as ‘Vulnerable’ by the stock, habitat loss, and prey base deple- IUCN (Bauer et al. 2016) based on its tion. Prey base depletion is partly linked declining population size, so is thought to habitat loss, but more importantly to to be facing a high risk of extinction and bushmeat trade (Becker et in the wild. However, across the ma- al. 2013). An emerging threat is trade in jority of its range, the lion meets the bones and other body parts for traditional IUCN criteria for ‘Endangered’ status, medicine, both within Africa and in Asia with an inferred rate of decline of over (IUCN 2006a, b; Riggio et al. 2013). 50% across three lion generations, but Furthermore, although trophy hunting the positive trends from contributes positively to Lion conserva- reduce that average decline at a range- tion, improvements in management prac- wide level (Bauer et al. 2015). Only tices have been recommended (Hunter et two African countries (Namibia and Zim- al. 2013; Lindsey et al. 2013; Edwards babwe) had substantially increased lion et al. 2014), as when poorly regulated, populations between 1993 and 2014, and it also contributes to population declines it is of note (given the purpose of this re- (Packer et al. 2009; Croes et al. 2011;

2 Packer et al. 2011; Rosenblatt et al. In short, experts agree that the primary 2014). While attention is currently fo- threats to lions (which vary to some ex- cused on Lion hunting reforms to ensure tent by region; see Section 2.1.4) are sustainability, the leading causes of pop- habitat loss and degradation, loss of prey ulation decline are more difficult to ad- base and conflict with people over live- dress and are likely to continue”(Bauer stock depredation. et al. 2016).

The CITES/CMS meeting of all lion range states in May 2016 summarised 1.1.5 Future considerations for lion that: “...the main threats (listed in no conservation particular order) for lions in Africa are: (1) Unfavourable policies, practices and There are significant global challenges political factors (in some countries); (2) facing lions and other biodiversity, par- Ineffective lion population management; ticularly the impacts of human popula- (3) Habitat degradation and reduction tion growth and climate change. Human of prey base; (4) Human-lion conflict, populations are set to swell over the 21st (5) Adverse socio-economic factors; (6) century, as is their demand for resources Institutional weakness; and (7) Increas- including land. Africa, with a current ing trade in lion bones.” The two 2006 population size of 1.2 billion (UNPD ⇠ IUCN regional reports for lions noted 2015), has the fastest population growth that the major factors affecting lion via- rate in the world, with projections esti- bility were availability of wild prey, indis- mating a population tripling across 27 criminate killing of lions, size and extent African states by 2100, leading to a conti- of the lion population, and loss, degrada- nental estimate of 4 billion. Eight lion ⇠ tion and fragmentation of lion habitat, range states2 (as well as Mali, where li- with increasing human populations and ons are possibly extinct, and Burundi, poverty acting as key underlying root where they are extinct) are estimated causes of decline, as well as institutional to have a five-fold increase in human weakness and poor management (IUCN population by 2100 (UNPD 2015). At 2006a, b). A 2016 report by Panthera, current rates of population growth, by WildAid and WildCRU named human- the end of the century the population of lion conflict and bushmeat poaching as Tanzania will be two-thirds that of the critical threats to lions, while human en- United States of America (USA) but in croachment was a high threat and trophy an area ten times smaller. Worse still, hunting and lion poaching were deemed Nigeria, also with a surface area roughly medium threats (Panthera et al. 2016). one-tenth that of the USA, is projected

2Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia

3 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. to have a population that will be double ties. The implications of changing cli- that of the USA (European Commission mate for lions are not limited to direct 2015). The impact of this human popu- effects: it could also feasibly alter the lation growth on the lion estate depends potential human land-uses. There is un- on many variables, but even supposing certainty about how increasing aridity favourable economic development and may affect land conversion and the im- land-use transitions were to occur (which plications for the lion estate. However, seems unlikely in many places), it is ex- there is likely to be increasing pressure pected that pressure on lion habitat and on water-rich regions from growing hu- prey will increase substantially. Live- man populations, increasing demand for stock numbers are expected to grow con- land and increasing pressure on currently comitantly, leading to intensified human- protected areas. lion conflict. Changes in human pop- ulations may also be associated with changes in patterns of tourism, which 1.1.6 Summary of reasons for being might affect both photographic and hunt- concerned about lion conserva- ing revenues for lion range states. tion

Regarding climate change, under moderate emissions scenarios, global Lions have great value at national and mean temperature is expected to reach international scales, including significant existence, ecological and economic value. 2 above pre-industrial levels by 2050. More likely, and given the reticence or Furthermore, lions hold both symbolic incompetence with which governments meaning and widespread affection in the have faced climate change, these tem- UK, making their conservation impor- perature scenarios will be exceeded. A tant for the British populace. Rural populations in many African countries more likely prediction is 2.5–3 warming by 20503. Climate changes are likely to often take a different view of animals have pervasive effects such as reduced that can and do kill their stock and even and more erratic rainfall (Fields 2005; members of their families, and to them, Toulmin 2009). Although lions have lion killing can be not only ethical but broad habitat tolerance within the savan- often desirable (Hazzah et al. 2009; Dick- nah biome, the predicted drying trend man 2015). Furthermore, governments is likely to affect lions through declines in lion range countries, often affected by and changes in prey species communi- poverty and all the attendant pressures, will have different priorities from West-

3IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

4 ern audiences. Over only a few decades, it necessitates careful scrutiny. There the lion estate has shrunk strikingly, as have been vociferous arguments that tro- have numbers of lions occupying parts of phy hunting is one of the factors that it, so to those who value it, the conserva- imperils lions, while others state equally tion of this iconic species is now more ur- vigorously that restricting trophy hunt- gent than ever. With perhaps not many ing would be a larger danger factor for more than 20,000 free-ranging lions re- lion conservation. Therefore, it is urgent maining, and in the light of increasing that this issue is examined impartially, pressure on lion populations, there is a in order to develop suggestions for policy pressing requirement for effective conser- that would minimise negative impacts vation, and anything that might imperil for lion conservation.

1.2 Background to lion trophy hunting

1.2.1 What is lion trophy hunting? Safari Club International (SCI) define trophy quality by skull size (Safari Club International 2005). Trophies are usu- According to the IUCN, “Trophy hunting ally mounted for display and associated generally involves the payment of a fee kudos and nostalgia. by a foreign or local hunter for a hunting experience, usually guided, for one or Although an important part of the more individuals of a particular species pursuit, trophies themselves are not usu- with specific desired characteristics (such ally the sole motivation for hunting. Mo- as large size or antlers). The trophy is tivations may include engagement in out- usually retained by the hunter and taken door pursuits, an enthusiasm for collec- home” (IUCN 2016). Trophy hunting tion, social status and owning ‘bigger’ is also known as ‘safari hunting’ and is trophies (as evidenced by the empha- often referred to as a type of ‘sport’ or sis on trophy size in SCI Awards and ‘recreational’ hunting (and justifications record book). Surveys of over 600 inter- are clearly distinct from those when hunt- national trophy hunters who had hunted ing is primarily for pest control or subsis- in between 1999 and 2003 tence; Loveridge et al. 2007b). Regard- revealed that spiritual or emotional mo- ing lions, the trophy is normally the ani- tives (particularly the enjoyment of be- mal’s skull and skin (and clavicle, hyoid ing in nature), were the most commonly bone and claws). The mane is the promi- mentioned reasons for hunting, followed nent feature of the skin, with longer, by ‘emotional’ aspects such as enjoying thicker and darker hairs signifying a bet- the challenge of the hunt, although col- ter quality of trophy, although ultimately

5 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. lection of the trophy was an important system and the task of regulating it); theme for many people (Radder 2005). outfitters are responsible for all hunting requirements in-country, such as obtain- In Africa, government or wildlife ing the correct licences, permits, liaising management agencies make hunting con- with landowners, and organising all other cessions available, usually on leasehold, logistics. Outfitters also provide access and normally issue trophy hunting li- to a professional hunter (which may be cences that are available to the hunting the outfitter themselves), whose respon- client through hunting outfitters, also sibility it is to accompany the client and 4 known as safari operators ,forafee. ensure that the hunt is conducted to the The overall cost to the hunting client required standard. Professional hunters covers the direct costs of the hunt (e.g. are variously accredited by national hunt- trophy fees, per diem rates [which dif- ing bodies or wildlife management au- fer between species and are significantly thorities. The exact mechanisms of lion larger for dangerous species], concession trophy hunting vary by country, but once fees, accommodation, subsistence, staff the lion has been killed, the outfitter or and travel costs). It also usually covers professional hunter is responsible for the alevythatgoestotheGovernment,part field preparation and care of the trophy, of which may be used by the Government and ensuring that all the relevant per- to provide funds for wildlife areas and mits are in place for the client to export local communities (see Section 2.2.2.3). the trophy to its final destination. The motivation of the lion range states for permitting trophy hunting is, as for other forms of tourism, to generate rev- enue and jobs; this has the consequence 1.2.2 Legality of lion trophy hunting of financing a wildlife economy on land where in some cases alternative forms of The global outcry over the trophy hunt- land-use are less profitable or practical. ing5 of Cecil the lion in July 2015 (Mac- donald et al. 2016a) revealed widespread The hunting operations are usually surprise amongst the public, particularly run by outfitters (although sub-leasing in more developed countries, that tro- and external marketing complicates the phy hunting remains a legal practice

4Hunting outfitters or safari operators have the legal rights to hunt on a defined piece of land (either private land, government concession, or community land) for which they may be issued a hunting quota for particular species. Professional hunters are contracted by the safari operators to guide paying tourist hunters in their pursuit of quarry; doubling up as instructors, first aiders, bodyguards etc. 5All legal charges relating to the hunting of Cecil were dropped in November 2016. A Zimbabwe court ruled that they were too vague for a proper defence to be mounted (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa- 37948866). Most trophy hunting is legally practiced.

6 (and an expansive land use) in many The US Fish and Wildlife Service African countries. Trophy hunting (of found that as of May 2014, 18 African certain wildlife species, not just lions) is countries in Africa legally permitted lion currently practiced at a significant level hunting: Benin, Burkina Faso, Central in approximately 12 African countries African Republic, Democratic Republic (historically at least 33 African countries of the Congo, Ethiopia, Côte d’Ivoire, permitted trophy hunting; CITES data: Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/ Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanza- [accessed 2016-07-12]). A summary nia, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zim- of which African countries historically babwe (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hunted and currently hunt lions, accord- 2015). However, lions are thought to ing to CITES data, is shown in Table 1. be extinct in three of those countries (Côte d’Ivoire, Mali and Togo), and in As of December 2015, trophy hunt- Ethiopia and Uganda, trophy hunting ing was banned in six African lion is restricted to problem or dangerous range countries that are still thought to animals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have lions – Angola, Botswana, Kenya, 2015), with some similar restrictions in Malawi, Niger and Nigeria (U.S. Fish places in Namibia. However, they also and Wildlife Service 2015). While some found that as of 2013, lion trophy hunt- of these bans are long-standing (e.g. ing was only documented to occur in Kenya banned all trophy hunting in eight countries, namely Benin, Burkina 1977), some are recent bans – for ex- Faso, Central African Republic, Mozam- ample Botswana enforced a ban on all bique, Namibia, Senegal, Somalia, South trophy hunting in public areas from Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe – Zam- the start of 2014 (following a morato- bia imposed a moratorium on the trophy rium on lion hunting between 2001 and hunting of big cats in 2013, but lifted 2004, and successive restrictions there- it for the 2015/16 hunting season for after). Trophy hunting is also banned in leopards, and announced the lifting of Congo, Gabon and Mauritania, where the ban on lions for the following year the lion is regionally extinct, in Ghana (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). where they are possibly extinct, and in Swaziland has no legal protection for Rwanda where a small number of lions lions (similar to Guinea Bissau, where 6 were reintroduced in 2015 (U.S. Fish lions are possibly extinct, and Burundi and Wildlife Service 2015; Bauer et al. and Lesotho where they are regionally 2016). extinct) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015; Bauer et al. 2016). There have

6Rwanda is amongst the 7 countries we cite on a list of those from which lions have probably become recently extinct according to the IUCN Redlist. This situation may be retrieved by the 2015 reintroduction.

7 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. also been some restrictions on lion hunt- ation by the USFWS). Most lion hunt- ing within countries – for example, Zim- ing in South Africa is from captive an- babwe imposed a regional moratorium imals: Lindsey et al. (2012a) reported on lion hunting between 2004 and 2008 that South African hunting operators es- (Loveridge et al. 2010). timated that only 0.9% – 1.1% of lions hunted in 2009 and 2010 were wild. The As with any other form of wildlife CITES Scientific Authority for South management, permitted trophy hunting Africa have given a slightly higher esti- activities are legislated by the relevant mate, with wild lions accounting for 5% national government and wildlife author- of total successful lion hunts, but the ities, and the specifics of that legisla- vast majority of hunting in South Africa tion (as well as how well it is enforced) is clearly from captive animals (Williams vary considerably. In some countries et al. 2015). There is widespread oppo- (most notably South Africa) lions can sition to the practice of canned or cap- be shot within very small enclosures, a tive hunting on ethical and animal wel- practice known as ‘canned’, ‘captive’ or fare grounds (IUCN 2016) and it has ‘put-and-take’ hunting. As long as the been condemned by the IUCN, which landowner complies with the relevant na- states: “Canned hunting...raises very dif- tional and provincial legislation regard- ferent issues from trophy hunting of free- ing minimum standards for fencing and ranging animals, and is condemned by ex- enclosure sizes, it is legal to breed li- isting IUCN policy” (IUCN Recommen- ons and hunt them within those small dation 3.093, ‘Application of the IUCN fenced areas (although trophies from Sustainable Use Policy to sustainable these captive lions from South Africa consumptive use of wildlife and recre- can no longer be imported into the US ational hunting in southern Africa’, 2004; as a result of the October 2016 evalu- IUCN 2016).

Table 1: Summary of the historic extent of trophy hunting practice across Africa, including information on the recent export of trophies from that coun- try. The current lion conservation status for each country is summarised as per Bauer et al. (2015). The relative scales as a proportion of 1 for both general trophy hunting and lion hunting are provided for the decade 2006 and 2015. Data were extracted from the CITES database (http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/ [accessed 2016-07-12]) for the years 1975 to 2015 and for the purpose of ‘H–Huntingtrophy’. The data were then subset by ‘W’(wild)sourceandterm‘trophies’. As there may be a lag in exporting trophies and updating the records, the ‘Recently exported’ columns consider data from 2014 to 2015.

8 Botswana banned lion trophy hunting in 2008, and all trophy hunting in public arenas ⇤ in 2014. tttt Zambia implemented a lion and hunting moratorium in 2013, which was reversed § in 2015 for leopards and 2016 for lions.

9 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

Across Africa, there is also a bias to- currently being maintained and bred on wards hunting captive lions rather than game farms as part of this industry wild ones7: CITES export records docu- should not be included in any assess- ment more than twice as many captive ments of the current status of wild lions.” lion trophies as wild ones, with a ratio of 2.35 to 1 (5,715 ‘captive’ versus 2,429 As this report is focused on wild lion ‘wild’), although the importers record a conservation, canned or captive hunting slightly different ratio, of 1.89 captive does not fall within its remit, and will trophies for every wild one (4,474 ‘cap- therefore not be considered further, ex- tive’ versus 2,367 ‘wild’). cept insofar as it might indirectly affect lion conservation. In South Africa at least, captive lions are bred for the purpose of supplying the demand for lion trophies, with this in- 1.2.3 Ethical acceptability of lion dustry regulated by the Department of trophy hunting Environmental Affairs (DEA) and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and There has been more than a century of Fisheries (DAFF)8;howevertheselions concern over the ethics of hunting (e.g. are generally neither considered as wild fox hunting in the UK: Burns Inquiry or contributing to lion conservation9. 2002; Macdonald and Johnson 2015a), against which background the killing of The African Lion Working Group Cecil the lion triggered widespread out- (ALWG) in 2016 stated that “the sport rage over the perceived ethical unaccept- hunting of lions that are captive bred ability of trophy hunting (Macdonald et and reared expressly for sport hunting, al. 2016a). The motivation for that out- and/or sport hunting of lions that occur rage varied, but tended to centre around in fenced enclosures and are not self- the unacceptability of killing an animal sustaining, does not provide any demon- purely for sport, particularly when that strated positive benefit to wild lion con- animal is a threatened species. servation efforts and, therefore, cannot be claimed to be conservation... The However, views regarding trophy estimated 8,000 lions in South Africa hunting (and indeed the killing of an- imals in general) vary markedly across

7Similar systems of put-and-take hunting are familiar in the West, for example, in the UK the shooting of reared game birds or angling in stocked trout lakes 8https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/lionmanagementinSA_questions_answers2015 9http://www.repository.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/2263/19272/Lindsey_Possible(2012).pdf

10 the world (Macdonald et al. 2016b). In are inextricably part of the process that many African communities, the killing of shapes conservation policy. alionisoftensomethingtobecelebrated (Hazzah et al. 2009; Dickman 2015), and there is a commonly-held view that it 1.2.4 Extent of lion trophy hunting was unethical for foreigners to care so and its markets much about the killing of one lion (or in- deed lions in general), particularly when It is surprisingly hard to determine ex- lions themselves kill people and endan- actly how many lions are trophy hunted ger their livelihoods (Nzou 2015). It was across Africa each year, because the also noted that much of the demand for CITES database (which records imports banning trophy hunting in Africa came and exports of such trophies) records from the United States, which has one of the number of trophies (i.e. individ- the largest domestic trophy hunting mar- ual parts moved) and not the number kets in the world (Sharp and Wollscheid of animals killed. One trophy-hunted 2009). The ethical debates around tro- lion could result in multiple trophies, phy hunting are important and merit for example if the skin, skull and claws consideration (Macdonald et al. 2016b), were counted separately. This is an but they are beyond the scope of this issue which is clearly highlighted by report, which is focused specifically on CITES itself, which states that “Because the role of trophy hunting with regard to ‘specimens’ include parts and derivatives, conservation. Conservation action does the numbers of specimens do not reflect not of course take place in an ethical numbers of individual animals” (CITES vacuum – Vucetich and Nelson (2012) 2014). In addition, the records of ex- provide an accessible account of applied ported trophies often do not match the conservation ethics. An exploration of number imported, partly because of de- the specific issues raised by trophy hunt- lays in the system and partly because ing is provided in Appendix A. Some of inconsistencies in the ways different people find any form of lion hunting countries record their data. Despite this, morally unjustifiable, regardless of the many reports publish the number of tro- sustainability question, particularly if phies as if it was the number of lions it is done in ways that involve animal hunted, which is misleading. Bearing in suffering. This report focuses on con- mind these caveats, the CITES database servation. But welfare and other ethical gives an overall idea of trends and com- issues (which dominated the much of the parative numbers, and a summary of public discourse following Cecil’s death) the number of wild-sourced lion trophies

11 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

(using data from the CITES database, national extent of trade in lion trophies http://trade.cites.org/)isgiveninTa- by country is given in Appendix B. ble 2, with more information on the inter-

Table 2: Summary of the total number of wild-sourced lion trophies (not necessarily the number of lions) recorded as exported or imported by CITES.

The UK was recorded as having 80 1.2.5 Reason for the UK Govern- wild lion trophies exported to it (from ment examining this issue now 9sourcecountries)duringthe22years from 1991–2013, with the importation Wildlife conservation has been a concern records showing 4 trophies10.Figure1 in Britain for centuries, and remains a provides an overview of the movements strong interest of the UK public (Suther- of lion trophy across the globe, and high- land 2008). lights the significance of the US and Eu- ropean markets for such trophies.

10These numbers have to be interpreted bearing in mind the problems of inferring number of lions from number of trophies.

12 Figure 1: Overview of international movements in lion trophies, showing source (red) and destination (blue) countries for lion trophies linked by directional arrows. Arrow width indicates the scale of trade from one country to another. Tone of colour per country indicates the relative scale of either export or import relative to all other exporters or importers respectively. ISO2 country codes of exporter and importer countries are indicated on the map. Lion hunting data was obtained from CITES and considered for the decade between 1996 and 2015. The data was subset to include only ‘ lion’‘trophies’ from a ‘wild’sourceandthatwere‘hunted’. (CITES data: http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/ [accessed 2016-07-12]) Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

For the roots of modern conserva- to pass legislation which restricted hunt- tion some might look to 1066 when King ing across large swathes of East and William I set aside forests, such as New southern Africa, and which ultimately Forest, Sherwood and Forest of Dean as led to the creation of some of Africa’s royal hunting reserves (others trace the most iconic parks, such as the Serengeti roots of conservation to concerns over National Park. UK forests in the 1660s). John Muir, aScotsman,inspiredthemovementto In short, hunting and conservation preserve wilderness in the USA, includ- has long been a preoccupation within ing Yosemite National Park. In 1892, he British society. There has long been a founded the Sierra Club, one of the first demand to examine and reform trophy organisations devoted to environmental hunting, but public awareness of the is- conservation. sue reached a peak in July 2015 over the killing of Cecil the lion (Macdonald et al. The roots of conservation in Europe 2016a). Much of the reaction to Cecil’s and the USA are inextricably bound to killing focused on pressing for bans on hunting, initially by protecting wild ani- trophy hunting, or at least of the carriage mals for it and latterly more often pro- and import of trophies to countries such tecting them from it. In 1903, British as the USA and the UK. As of August naturalists helped found another pio- 2016, 32 airlines, including British Air- neering conservation society (the Society ways, have instigated complete bans on for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna carrying trophies. Seven more refuse to of the Empire, which has evolved to- carry ‘Big Five’ trophies, and a further day into Fauna and Flora International) five have implemented specific embar- (Loveridge et al. 2007b). As a group they goes, from a ban on CITES Appendix I were known as ‘The Penitent Butchers’ species by Emirates to a much broader because all were former sportsmen or ban on dead/processed/research animals trophy hunters who became concerned by Turkish Airlines. In total, 44 air- by the wide-scale decimation of wildlife lines now refuse to carry lion trophies11, through unregulated hunting particu- with pressure on other carriers to do the larly in Africa (Loveridge et al. 2007b). same12. Their aim was to safeguard Africa’s large mammals from over-hunting and habitat As a measure of feeling (although it encroachment. The Society worked with floundered), in January 2016 a group of Governments, land-owners and hunters members in the European Parliament

11http://www.hsi.org/news/news/2015/08/airlines-shipping-hunting-trophies 12http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/trophies-back-board-south-african-airways-cans-its-ban 13http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc

14 called for the signing of a declaration tices; legal protection; local community restricting trophy imports13, while the involvement; and use of hunting fees for UK Government is actively considering conservation”(FederalWildlifeService, its position on the importation of lion 201616). This evaluation has now taken trophies, including asking for this report place for South Africa17 (with the con- to be produced to inform its thinking. clusion that only trophies from wild or wild-managed lions could be imported As of August 2016, several countries to the US); evaluations will follow for have already banned lion trophy imports, other relevant countries. including the Netherlands, France, Aus- tralia and Costa Rica. Whilst the USA A proposal (CoP17 Prop 4) for con- has refrained from an outright ban, lion sideration at the 2016 Conference of trophies had been made illegal in Wash- the Parties (CoP) to CITES was made ington State and New Jersey14,although by nine countries (Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, in late August 2016, the New Jersey ban Gabon, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, was deemed illegal by US authorities15. Nigeria and Togo) for all African popu- lations of Panthera leo to be transferred Moreover, in December 2015 the from Appendix II to Appendix I. How- US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ever, it should be noted that only three listed the lion in southern and east- of those countries (Chad, Niger and Nige- ern Africa, Panthera leo melanochaita, ria) are still thought by the IUCN to as threatened under the Endangered have any extant lions (Bauer et al. 2016), Species Act (the lion in west, central, and the proposed listing was met with northern Africa and India, P. l. leo, significant opposition by many of the was listed as endangered). Although key lion range countries, particularly the this threatened listing comes with an ad- southern African lion hunting countries dendum permitting the import of sport- where lion populations are stable. hunted trophies, the conditions under which a permit may be granted are rig- In fact, the first CITES/CMS (Con- orous, perhaps prohibitively so, requir- vention on International Trade in En- ing that exporting countries address con- dangered Species of Wild Fauna and cerns over “evaluating population lev- Flora / Convention on the Conservation els and trends; the biological needs of of Migratory Species of Wild Animals) the species; quotas; management prac- meeting of all lion range states, which

14http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/christie_signs_law_banning_trophy_animals_in_nj 15http://www.africahunting.com/threads/victory-for-new-jersey-hunters-in-the-anti-trophy-law.30930/ 16https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/pdf/Lion_FL_FAQs_Final.pdf 17http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-major-step-forward-for-lion-conservation-in- africa_us_5808f6ffe4b099c434319294

15 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. took place in 2016, highlighted the im- be exported from captive-bred lions in portance of trophy hunting under certain South Africa (CITES 2016). conditions, stating: “[We ] Highlight the benefits that trophy hunting, where it is This decision, and the subsequent Oc- based on scientifically established quotas, tober 2016 evaluation by the USFWS taking into account the social position, which banned the import to USA of tro- age and sex of an animal, have, in some phies from ‘canned’ lions, interact to countries, contributed to the conserva- raise two new questions of relevance to tion of lion populations and highlight the the conservation of wild lions. First, in- potentially hampering effects that import sofar as the majority of farmed lion tro- bans on trophies could have for currently phies would hitherto have been imported stable lion populations”. to the USA, will this prohibition cause aproportionoftheAmericanhunters Regarding the 2016 proposal to who might formerly have hunted farmed list lions on CITES Appendix I, the lions to turn to wild lions, thereby af- CITES/CMS report states that “Lion fecting the demand on the wild sector? Range States have different views on the Second, and considering the report by inclusion of all African populations of Williams et al. (2015) on the export Panthera leo in Appendix I, with some from South Africa of farmed lion prod- arguing that the populations in West and ucts aside from trophies, with the loss of Central Africa are fragmented and highly their income from trophies destined for threatened; and others arguing that the America, will the farmers flood the mar- species does not meet the listing criteria ket with lion body parts with the possi- and is threatened by factors other than ble result, through predatory pricing, of those CITES can address”. increasing the subsequent demand?

The 2016 CITES CoP (CoP17) even- In terms of lion conservation, ban- tually decided not to list lions on Ap- ning the importation of trophies to the pendix I, but did state they would work UK would have little significant direct towards lion conservation in a more ac- effect because the numbers of lions in- tive way, including helping to develop volved are so few (<4 lions yr-1 between and support the implementation of joint 1991 and 2013 exported from Africa to lion conservation plans and strategies Britain; CITES data; see Section 1.2.4). (CITES 2016). CoP17 did add an amend- However, the cascading indirect effects ment which prohibited the export of of UK policy are difficult to predict and bones, bone pieces, bone products, claws, possibly wide-reaching. The UK may skeletons, skulls and teeth from wild li- have impact beyond its borders through ons for commercial purposes, although the influence of the evidence it is able to it remained possible for these parts to present (e.g. this report) and through ad-

16 vocating for greater alignment of North and Central Africa and as Threatened in American and European positions. East and southern Africa on the annexes of the Endangered Species Act. As a con- Even if the UK doesn’t change policy, sequence, imports of lion trophies into the status quo will not be maintained, the large and lucrative American mar- as international policy developments will ket are no longer allowed from West and bring about change. For example, it has Central Africa, and the industry in other been proposed that lions should be up- regions is forced to demonstrate that tro- listed to CITES Appendix I, most re- phy hunting is of net benefit to lion con- cently in 2016 and previously by Kenya servation. Many trophy hunting areas to the CoP in 2004 (although that was are now setting up monitoring systems subsequently withdrawn) – such uplist- to be able to demonstrate net positive ing has not been passed but similar pro- effect in order to maintain access to the posals could be submitted again in the US market, and the US is currently con- future. It is very likely that any such sidering whether those areas do provide listing would lead to increased regulation enhancements for the species. The US- and/or limitation of trophy exports to FWS announced their first finding, for all Parties, including the UK. Although South Africa, in October 2016, stating strictly tangential to the issue of trophy that it would not permit the importa- hunting, the UK’s influence on the clas- tion of trophies from captive-bred lions sification of lions under CITES is likely as they did not meet the criteria for con- to be influenced by lobbying motivated servation enhancement, but would per- by opposition to hunting. Listing lions mit the import of trophies from wild and on CITES Appendix I would prevent wild-managed lions on a case-by-case ba- commercial trade in wild specimens but sis18.Somepossibleconsequencesfor hunting trophies are currently considered wild lions of this prohibition on the im- personal effects. It is not necessary to port to the USA of farmed lion trophies have specific Resolutions (cf black rhinos are mentioned above. and leopards) to permit future trade. In another policy development, many Although the CITES uplisting has Parties to the Convention on Migratory not passed to date, there has been a sig- Species are arguing that the lion should nificant recent change in international be listed under that Convention19 –the policy regarding lions, when in 2015 the implications would depend on which Ap- US listed them as Endangered in West pendix they were added to, but this

18http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-major-step-forward-for-lion-conservation-in- africa_us_5808f6ffe4b099c434319294 19https://cites.org/eng/news/sg/Lion_Range_State_Meeting_Joint_statement_by_CITES_CMS_300516

17 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. could facilitate management of trans- views and stakeholders involved, the UK boundary lion populations. The UK government has recognised the need for plays an active role in these international comprehensive and impartial advice on developments, but that doesn’t preclude how possible trophy hunting might af- further domestic policy development. fect lion conservation, as well as how the UK Government can best support lion Given the intensity of global interest conservation in a wider context. in this subject, and the wide range of

1.3 Summary of reasons for examining trophy hunting with regard to lion conservation

Lions are one of the world’s most large section of the global public appears iconic species, and are under increasing to have concluded that lion trophy hunt- threat. The degree to which trophy hunt- ing in particular, is unethical. However, ing plays either a negative or positive this contrasts strikingly with the views role in lion conservation is hotly debated of many people in the African countries and will be covered in more detail be- where lions occur, and it is important to low, but it is clear that there is a long consider how any actions taken by the history of polarised views over trophy UK and its partners would affect those hunting. Recently – and particularly no- range countries with regard to wild lion tably since the killing of Cecil the lion – a conservation.

18 2. Threats and impacts associated with lion trophy hunting

2.1 The significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions

2.1.1 Significance of trophy hunting addition of any hunting produced some as a threat to lions at a popu- degree of population decline and an in- lation scale creased probability of local extirpation, although conservative limits on hunting (see Section 3.2), resulted in situations rophy hunting can have marked im- with relatively stable dynamics and low T pacts at a population scale, par- probability of extirpation over a 25 year ticularly when harvest rates are high period. (Loveridge et al. 2007a; Caro et al. 2009; Creel et al. 2016). Trophy hunting tends In some populations, hunting alone to be particularly negative when it is ad- explains lion declines – Packer et al. ditive to other threats – and the magni- (2009) found that within Tanzania’s tude of those other threats also depends (the largest lion strongly on how well the hunting area trophy hunting landscape in the world), is managed. For example, lion popu- the hunting blocks with the highest lion lations are declining across the Benoue offtakes per 1,000 km2 had the steep- complex in Cameroon, thought to be est declines in lion populations, unre- due to a combination of high poaching lated to the impact of habitat loss. In pressure and excessively high lion trophy western Zimbabwe lion populations re- off-takes (Croes et al. 2011). However, bounded by 50% when lion hunting was there are strong underlying pressures in suspended, suggesting that previously Cameroon – large mammal populations high quotas were a cause of population have declined steeply since the 1970s decline (Loveridge et al. 2010; Loveridge due to habitat destruction and poaching, et al. 2016). In Zambia, trophy hunting and are particularly precarious due to was the major factor behind declining the small size and fragmentation of pro- lion populations (Rosenblatt et al. 2014). tected areas, as well as poor management Poorly calculated and/or enforced quo- of those areas (Croes et al. 2011). Mod- tas are thus perilous for lion populations elling by Creel et al. (2016) suggested (Caro et al. 2009; Packer 2015). The that in the presence of additional (and severity of impacts at a population level stable) threats such as human encroach- depends upon both the number and de- ment, poaching and prey depletion, the

19 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. mography of the animals removed, and Loss of male lions from a pride facili- this is covered in more detail below (see tates pride takeover by other males, and Section 3.2). infanticide of dependent cubs (Loveridge et al. 2007a; Loveridge et al. 2010). Rapid turnover of males also results 2.1.1.1 Negative population effects in premature eviction and subsequent associated with the removal of fe- death of sub-adults (Elliot et al. 2014). males ttt The difference in male turnover between hunting/non-hunting periods was evi- Currently, only male lions are now dent from cub survival rate, with only hunted in most countries, but females 66% of cubs surviving to 1 year of age were hunted in Zimbabwe until 2004 during the trophy hunting period, which (Packer et al. 2006) and are still hunted increased to 80% in the absence of hunt- in Namibia (Lindsey et al. 2013), as ing (Loveridge et al. 2010 ). Similarly, well as South Africa20 (although many cubs in protected core areas experienced of those lionesses are in canned hunting >40% greater survival than did cubs operations). The number of females in a in edge prides, presumed as a result of pride has a strong effect on per capita re- reduced male turnover (Loveridge et al. productive success, with the lowest cub 2010). production in prides with fewer females (Packer et al. 1988). Moreover, the consequences for hunted populations are not limited to Larger prides have greater survival those individuals on hunting concessions: of all cub age-classes, benefitting from there can be knock-on effects even across collective defence and possibly from syn- core protected areas, as a result of the va- chronous breeding and communal nurs- cation of territories. In Hwange, removal ing (Packer et al. 2001; Loveridge et of territorial males from the adjoining al. 2010). Therefore, the removal of hunting zone resulted in a ‘vacuum ef- adult females is particularly damaging fect’ where the availability of territory to populations of lions and other long- and lack of competition drew individu- lived species. als from the safe area into hunting zones (Loveridge et al. 2010). Thus, removal of males within hunting areas adjacent 2.1.1.2 Negative population effects to protected areas can have pervasive ef- associated with the removal of pride fects at a population scale when hunting males ttt offtake is high (Whitman et al. 2004; Loveridge et al. 2007a; Loveridge et al.

20https://www.discountafricanhunts.com/hunts/south-africa-spot-stalk-lioness-hunting-safari.html

20 2010). That excessive levels of trophy habitat and available prey and thus at- hunting can negatively impact lion popu- tractive to lions. The risk of mortality in lations is illustrated by Hwange National these areas is however very high with few Park. Sport hunting of lions over the pe- cues available to the lions to facilitate riod 1999–2004 greatly reduced the num- avoidance. ber of males in the population, result- ing in sex ratios heavily skewed towards These strong negative impacts asso- females. However male densities and ciated with the removal of pride males sex ratios recovered quickly once trophy forms the biological basis for stipulating hunting levels were reduced (Barthold et a minimum age limit where only older al. 2016a; 2016b; Loveridge et al. 2016a). (and ideally post-reproductive) males Similarly, the number of male coalitions can be hunted, as this should theoret- across the population was lower and the ically limit these ‘cascading effects’ of average coalition size smaller than in pride male removal. The principle be- the absence of hunting (Loveridge et al. hind restricting trophies to older males 2010). The number of adult females also is that their tenure in the pride should increased when hunting was absent or have overseen the raising of at least one light, probably as a response to increased generation of cubs to adulthood. Follow- adult and cub survival (Loveridge et al. ing early models setting the minimum 2016b). In the absence of hunting, there age at 5 years or older (Whitman et was an average reduction in male lion ter- al. 2004), age limits set within coun- ritory size of 421 km2 in Hwange, which tries have traditionally been set at >6 was probably due to a resultant increase years. However, more recent modelling in lion density from the lack of harvest (Creel et al. 2016) has suggested that offtake (Davidson et al. 2011). it would be prudent to raise this to >7 years (see Section 3.2 for more detail), Trophy hunting was the primary while Packer et al. (2006) suggest that cause of death in Zambia’s South Lu- because the ‘6-year rule’ was developed angwa landscape between 2008 and 2012, in Tanzania and male lions seem to ma- with 46 males harvested (Rosenblatt et ture later in southern Africa, it might al. 2014). This was linked to a declin- be prudent to use a 7 year minimum ing population, low recruitment, low sur- in southern Africa. Nonetheless, it has vival of sub-adult and adult males, de- been evident that in some populations, pletion of adult males and an ageing e.g. in , almost population of adult females (Rosenblatt all trophy males, even very old ones such et al. 2014). Similarly, Loveridge et as Cecil, were reproductively active in a al. 2016b show that trophy hunting ar- pride when hunted. Old males evicted eas form ‘attractive sinks’ for male lions, from prides in Hwange National Park in that they represent areas with intact rarely survive long enough to be hunted,

21 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. and even elderly males in prides seem for females, compared with trophy hunt- to be reproductive, meaning that their ing mortality rates of 0.65 and 0.30 for deaths are followed by perturbation in males and females respectively, which un- the same way as those of younger pride derlines the profound effect that anthro- males. pogenic factors can have on population dynamics (Loveridge et al. 2016b). In Tanzania’s Selous Game Reserve, trophy hunting is thought to also pose one of the 2.1.1.3 Threat to lion populations largest threats to lions (Creel and Creel of trophy hunting relative to other 1997), but this is Africa’s largest pro- threats ttt tected area, where other anthropogenic threats are likely to be relatively small. It is important to view trophy hunt- ing within the context of all threats In some other populations, trophy facing lion populations. Trophy hunting hunting is an additional (and often im- is usually only one of several threats portant) factor but not the major rea- facing lions, and the relative magnitude son for any lion decline. In Tanzania’s of those threats varies between sites. In Ruaha landscape, another major trophy South Luangwa, Zambia, trophy hunting hunting landscape, there is an extremely was indeed the major threat at the pop- high level of lion killing to protect live- ulation scale – although snaring was a stock or to fulfil cultural roles (Dickman significant concern, 87% of known snared 2015), and it is likely that the impact of lions were immobilised and successfully trophy hunting is dwarfed by these other treated for their injuries, so this had threats. In that landscape, 37 lions were little impact on lion dynamics (Rosen- documented as killed through conflict blatt et al. 2014). The snaring of prey is with pastoralists in an area of less than likely to contribute to the declining lion 500 km2 in one year – which equates to population as well, but the magnitude over 100 times the recommended maxi- of this threat had not been quantified, mum offtake if that was a hunting area and trophy hunting was the only obvi- (Dickman pers. comm.). That level of ous cause of the severe male depletion lion killing across just a few rural villages seen in the population (Rosenblatt et al. (which is likely to be an underestimate of 2014). the real level of killing), exceeds the num- ber of lions imported as trophies into the In western Zimbabwe, trophy hunt- US (the major importer) in 2013 from ing was the primary source of recorded Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Zam- mortality for adult lions (mostly males), bia and Tanzania combined (U.S. Fish followed by snaring bycatch and retalia- and Wildlife Service 2015). Similarly, tory killing. Natural annual mortality in the Niassa National Reserve, 12 lions rates were only 0.11 for males and 0.30

22 were trophy hunted in 2014–15, while at 2.1.2 Significance of trophy hunting least 42 lions were killed by local people. as a threat to lions at a na- Across Africa, the number of lions killed tional scale illegally has been estimated as perhaps 5 times as many as those killed by trophy hunters, with the level of illegal killing There are several guidelines for the per- being up to 10 times higher in some pop- centage of a hunted lion population that ulations (Panthera et al. 2016). can be sustainably harvested. Creel and Creel (1997) and Greene and Mangel We are not aware of any documented (1998) suggest sustainable offtakes of case of trophy hunting being the primary 5% and 10% of adult males respectively. driver of lion population extirpation – Caro et al. (2009) recommend harvests Tanzania’s is one of 5% of total population, which if only case where lions have apparently been males are hunted (as is the norm) would extirpated, according to the latest IUCN result in a higher proportion of males in listing (Bauer et al. 2016) and anthro- the population being hunted than Creel pogenic mortality is a likely driver of and Creel (1997) or Greene and Mangel that decline, but that includes both un- (1998) recommend. But few lion popu- sustainable trophy hunting and tradi- lations are adequately surveyed at the tional killing (Kiffner et al. 2009). population level, so using a percentage harvest to determine sustainable offtakes However, it should be noted that is generally unworkable. If the above there is considerable debate about guidelines are accepted then at the cur- whether lions have truly been extir- rent scale, trophy hunting offtake in most pated from Katavi – in communication of the countries where it currently oc- with the EU CITES Scientific Author- curs is relatively conservative with no ities, Tanzanian authorities maintain more that 2–4% of lions hunted annually that “there are substantial numbers of (Loveridge et al. 2009)21. lions remaining in Katavi and asignificantproportionofprimeage However, in the past, offtakes have males are still present, suggesting a bal- often been considerably higher (e.g. in anced age pyramid and population struc- Zambia, offtakes occasionally reached 8– ture (despite trophy hunting in the area)” 9% of the population per year, while in (Sigsworth pers. comm.). Zimbabwe historically offtakes reached 20–30% (Packer et al. 2006). Although, in a review for the Eastern and Southern

21Given that there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding lion population size and status across much of the species range these figures should be treated with some caution. The utility of defining sustainable offtakes as a percentage of a population is limited when population sizes is unknown.

23 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

African regional lion plan, Packer and the 46% decline in the Okavango, while colleagues concluded that “quota sizes Kwando/Chobe had an increase of 84% have probably been too small in almost and Magkadikgadi had an increase of every country to contribute to any de- 121% (Bauer et al. 2016). Di Minin cline in lion numbers in the past 20–30 et al. (2016) estimated that 37.2% of yrs...[with] one exceptional country, Zim- the country was in terrestrial protected babwe, there is some evidence that trophy areas, while 23.0% was in hunting areas, hunting can have a significant effect at a although Botswana has banned all lion national scale, as over the past 25 years trophy hunting since 2008 and all tro- the steepest declines in lion harvests oc- phy hunting in public areas since 2014. curred in countries with the highest hunt- Botswana does not have a national ac- ing intensities”(Packeretal.2009). tion plan for the lion, but did adopt a6-yearminimumfortrophymalesin Next, we examine the potential signif- March 2005. Botswana has imposed var- icance of trophy hunting as a threat to ious temporary bans on trophy hunting – lions in the six most significant coun- after the ban of 2001–2004 there was an tries for lion conservation (including expectation of high quality trophy lions, Botswana as the ban is very recent, and which pushed the price per lion hunt excluding South Africa as the vast major- from US$25,000–US$30,000 pre-ban, to ity of its hunting involves captive lions). US$85,000–US$115,000, and meant that the country was able to generate more 2.1.2.1 Significance of trophy hunt- income with half the quota (Winterbach ing as a threat to lions in Botswana pers. comm.). Before the most recent ttt cessation of lion trophy hunting the country had an annual quota of 30 lions, Our latest data suggest that Botswana of which 13–18 trophies were exported holds approximately 2,800 free-ranging (Winterbach et al. in prep.). Due to this lions22 in an estimated lion range of low offtake, lion trophy hunting in the 237,000 km2 (Dickman in prep.). The recent past may have been sustainable latest Red List assessments compiled in Botswana. data from three populations in Botswana (none of which were hunting areas), and found they had undergone an overall 2.1.2.2 Significance of trophy hunt- decline of 26% between 1993 and 2014, ing as a threat to lions in Mozam- although this was heavily biased by bique ttt

22Defined, for this and all countries in this section, as lions which are either completely free-ranging, in areas of at least 500 km2 if the population is partially fenced, or in areas of at least 1,000 km2 if the population is partially fenced.

24 have been depleted in Mozambique, due Our latest data suggest that Mozam- to factors including government culling bique holds approximately 1,500 free- of wildlife (including lions) during the ranging lions in an estimated lion range 1960s and 1970s, and extensive poach- of 247,000 km2 (Dickman in prep.). Di ing for meat during and after the civil Minin et al. (2016) estimates that 17.6% war (Fusari et al. 2010). Due to this of the country is in protected areas, wildlife depletion, most hunting areas while 10.5% is covered by hunting areas. currently generate negative returns on Lions have declined substantially across investment, with hunting operators in- Mozambique (with some areas, such as vesting in unprofitable concessions on the Niassa National Reserve, apparently the assumption that wildlife populations showing population increases; Bauer et will recover. Age-based export regula- al. 2016), and the key causes for the tions have now been developed and en- reduction in lion distribution and are forced in Niassa National Reserve, with a thought to be declining prey numbers 6-year minimum implemented in Septem- and conflict with livestock-rearing pas- ber 2006, limiting the negative impacts toralists (Fusari et al. 2010). The IUCN of trophy hunting (and leading the EU to Red List obtained population trend data conclude a positive opinion for lion tro- from only one population (Niassa Na- phies from Niassa only rather than the tional Reserve, where hunting occurs), whole of Mozambique; Sigsworth pers. which showed a 246% increase between comm.). The small number of lions tro- 1993 and 2014 (Bauer et al. 2016). phy hunted per year in Mozambique rel- Although Niassa might not be represen- ative to its population size suggests that tative of the whole country, as it has trophy hunting unlikely to have a signifi- had relatively high conservation invest- cant negative impact at a national scale, ment, it does hold perhaps two-thirds of with bushmeat pressure, growing human Mozambique’s lions (Dickman et al. in populations and pastoralist-lion conflict prep.), so this trend is significant for the more significant threats. country’s overall population.

The lion trophy hunting quotas in 2.1.2.3 Significance of trophy hunt- Mozambique have been criticised as be- ing as a threat to lions in Namibia ing too high, as well as being issued ttt without any scientific basis (Fusari et al. 2010). The annual quota was 50 The 2008 draft Namibian national lion animals in 2007, 111 in 2008 and 60 in conservation strategy suggested that, 2009 (Fusari et al. 2010), but the ac- based on data collected within the two tual offtake appears to be significantly previous years, Namibia had fewer than lower than that. Many wildlife areas 1,000 lions, including between 615 and

25 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

799 free-ranging lions (as termed in the tions, based on three areas (one of which report) and an additional 100 to 125 an- had hunting) showed an overall increase imals on private land (MET 2008). Our of 41% between 1993 and 2014. However, latest data suggest that Namibia holds this was strongly influenced by the huge approximately 750 free-ranging lions in increase in lions in Kunene (the area an estimated lion range of 170,000 km2 where trophy hunting occurred), which (Dickman in prep.). had an increase of 3,933%, going from an estimated 6 lions in 1993 to 242 lions The draft national lion conservation in 2014 (Bauer et al. 2016). strategy states that lions are subject to extreme human pressure, with nearly 900 At least as of 2008, Namibia had no lions destroyed over the past 20 years, annual national-level lion quota. Tro- mainly due to conflict with livestock phy hunting permits are allocated to kill keepers (MET 2008). Di Minin et al. problem lions (males only) on conser- (2016) estimated that 43.2% of Namibia vancy land. 38 lions were hunted this was covered by protected areas, with way between 1998 and 2008, with an 11.4% covered by game ranches. As average offtake of less than 4 a year. well as state protected areas and pri- In addition, trophy hunting is permit- vate game ranches, by the end of 2014, ted on free-roaming lion populations in Namibia had 82 communal conservan- hunting concessions, which may be con- cies (including 36 in Kunene region, men- servancies or protected areas (exclud- tioned below), which covered over 17% ing Etosha National Park) (MET 2008). of the country and encompassed 184,000 Most lions shot as trophies in Namibia people, around 8% of the national pop- are from hunting concessions, mostly in ulation and around one in four rural the Kunene and Caprivi regions (MET Namibians (NACSO 2011, 2015). Sus- 2008). tainable use of wildlife (including tro- phy hunting), with devolved power and The draft national lion conservation benefits to local communities, are a cor- strategy revealed that some illegal tro- nerstone of the conservancies – about phy hunting was occurring along the half the conservancies benefit solely from southern boundary of Etosha National hunting, and the revenues from trophy Park, making the allocation of quotas hunting totalled US$1.6 million in 2013 and maintenance of trust with landown- (NACSO 2015). This community-based ers very difficult (MET 2008). The draft conservation model is thought to be one national lion conservation strategy set of the key factors behind Namibia’s ex- out some key activities for improving panding population of free-roaming lions trophy hunting in Namibia, specifically (NACSO 2011, 2015). The latest Red that efforts should be made to: List assessment of Namibian lion popula- t Develop and implement an approved •

26 quota setting methodology rigorously reasons why Namibia’s lion population and consistently across all hunting ar- has increased over recent years (NACSO eas 2011, 2015). However, Namibia is an t Review and analyse annual quotas and unusual case in having relatively good • offtakes to ensure these are adaptive governance and very low human popu- and responsive to population changes, lation density, so it is unlikely that the trophy quality and levels of PAC over successes seen here could easily be repli- time cated across many other African coun- t Allocate quotas at a scale reflective of tries. More generally, governance and • lion ecological and biological functional- infra-structural capacity, of which cor- ity which invariably acts across different ruption is a factor, are relevant to the and/or smaller land units or uses delivery of felid conservation as docu- mented by (Dickman et al. 2015), and t Develop and implement standardised • governance has been highlighted as a key hunt return forms and trophy hunting issue with regard to the sustainability or databases and review annually there- otherwise of trophy hunting operations after (Packer 2015). t Ensure centralised database and cost- • effective system for data collection from hunting areas and subsequent collation, entry, analysis, reporting and feedback 2.1.2.4 Significance of trophy hunt- to key stakeholders in the wildlife in- ing as a threat to lions in Tanzania dustry (MET, NAPHA, NAU, NNFU, ttt Conservancies, conservation NGOs and researchers etc. as appropriate) Our latest data suggest that Tanzania t Provide training to MET, Conservancy holds approximately 9,900 free-ranging • and NAPHA personnel and other rel- lions in an estimated lion range of 2 evant field staff in the approved quota 380,000 km (Dickman in prep.). Tanza- setting methodology nia has around 32.2% of its land covered by protected areas, and 26.4% in game t Review trophy fees to maximise benefit • reserves (Di Minin et al. 2016). Tanza- and generate additional revenue nia contains about half of the continent’s remaining lion population (Riggio et al. Overall, trophy hunting does not 2013), but the IUCN found significant seem to pose a threat to lions in Namibia, declines, based on an analysis of five and is in fact (particularly in the conser- populations, one of which had trophy vancy areas) thought to be one of the hunting (Bauer et al. 2016). There was

27 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. an overall decline of 66% in the lion pop- clined in the past few years, with only 40 ulations between 1993 and 2014 – only lions exported in 2014; it is not clear if one population (the Serengeti) increased, this recent drop has resulted from hunt- while the population with trophy hunt- ing clients restricting their offtakes to ing (Katavi) was apparently extirpated lions aged 6yrs or older or from a contin- during that period, according to the uation of the trend reported by Packer et IUCN data (Bauer et al. 2016; although al. (2009). Leader-Williams et al. (2009) this is disputed – see Section 2.1.1.3). and Packer (2015) note that Tanzania has a poor record of hunting governance, Tanzania has long hosted the largest and the recent scandal over Green Mile lion trophy hunting industry, with 100– Safaris (whose clients posted evidence 300 lions hunted per annum (Packer et of multiple trophy hunting and animal al. 2010). The Selous Game Reserve is welfare infractions online, but who nev- the largest uninhabited protected area in ertheless were apparently permitted to 2 Africa (55,000 km )andisapremierdes- continue hunting in Tanzania23)isone tination for lion trophy hunters. Lions clear example of very poor management are considered to be declining in a signif- of the country’s trophy hunting indus- icant proportion of Tanzanian hunting try. Similarly, a recent report from East areas, with trophy hunting considered to Africa has raised concerns that corrupt be the primary driver of this decline out- officials in Tanzania and Kenya in par- side (and inside some) protected areas ticular, have been compromised through (Packer et al. 2011). Lion harvests de- bribes to allow the killings of wildlife clined by 50% across Tanzania between and the illegal export of trophies24. 1996 and 2008, and hunting areas with the highest initial harvests suffered the While there is evidence that trophy steepest declines; the intensity of trophy hunting has had negative impacts on hunting was the only significant factor Tanzania’s lion populations (Packer et in a statistical analysis of lion harvest al. 2011), other threats are more sig- trends (Packer et al. 2009). nificant. Tanzania’s National Action Plan for lions and leopards concluded Tanzania introduced a 6-year age that prey availability, land use and land minimum for lion trophies in 2012 (based cover change, anthropogenic killing, in- on the recommendations of Whitman et adequate management and disease may al. 2004); lion offtakes have further de-

23http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abusive-safari-company-tanzania_us_57769240e4b04164640fbba8 24http://allafrica.com/stories/201608291000.html

28 pose threats to those species, with re- result of the depletion of prey popula- taliatory killing, land use change and tions due to human settlement and the problems arising from inadequate man- bushmeat trade in Game Management agement the most important factors Areas (Lewis and Alpert 1997; Simasiku (TAWIRI 2007). et al. 2008). Quotas of lions have been excessive, are established arbitrarily and there is a lack of monitoring of wildlife 2.1.2.5 Significance of trophy hunt- populations or of trophies. Per annum, ing as a threat to lions in Zambia ttt 39 lions are hunted, while 13–18 trophies are exported (Lindsey et al. 2007). This Our latest data suggest that Zambia level of hunting is approximately 3.4% holds approximately 1,200 free-ranging of the estimated population, so is a rela- lions in an estimated lion range of tively high level compared to many other 2 135,000 km (Dickman in prep.). The countries. IUCN examined only one population in Zambia (Luangwa) for the IUCN Red Zambia’s national authorities ap- Listing – this population was hunted peared to consider trophy hunting as a for trophies and had declined by 28% significant threat to lions (hence the ban between 1993 and 2014 (Bauer et al. on big cat trophy hunting implemented 2016). in 2013) but later reversed the decision (with some adjustments to quotas and Di Minin et al. (2016) estimated regulations), mainly because of concerns that 37.8% of Zambia was covered by over a lack of revenue25. terrestrial protected areas, with 21.3% in hunting ranches. However, it is no- The Zambian lion management strat- table that despite this extensive cover- egy highlights poor management of the age of hunting areas, which is second trophy hunting process, and states that only to Tanzania and Botswana (before there is inconsistency in the collection of the ban), Zambia generates very little data at temporal scale and in terms of revenue from trophy hunting (see Ta- measurable variables making it difficult ble 3 for comparison of estimates). This to assess trophy quality trends in the concurs with the findings of Lindsey et country. The management plan states al. (2012b), who stated that most Zam- that it is focusing on the “promotion bian trophy hunting concessions appear of age-based harvesting of lions and set- to be running at a loss, probably as a ting of hunting quotas based on empiri-

25http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-32815508

29 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. cal biological data in addition to the on- Our latest data suggest that Zimbabwe going collection of trophy measurements” holds approximately 1,500 free-ranging (Zambia Wildlife Authority 2009). The lions in an estimated lion range of 57,000 national lion management strategy also km2 (Dickman in prep.). The IUCN Red highlights the following issues relevant Listing used data from five populations to improving trophy hunting within the in Zimbabwe, four of which had trophy country: hunting. All populations showed a sig- nificant increase (the lowest level was in t Standardization of lion survey methods • Hwange, but even that was 86%) so over- and conducting baseline survey of lion all, there was a very impressive 1,252% numbers increase in lion numbers across those t Setting of sustainable lion off take quo- • areas between 1993 and 2014, mainly tas due to increases in relatively small popu- t Monitoring and evaluation of the lion • lations (Bauer et al. 2016). The largest population in the context of existing increase was in Gonarezhou, the non- conservation and tourism programmes hunted population, which had a 7,900% t Preparation and implementation of increase (from 1 lion to 80), and this • field age determination techniques was closely followed by Savé Valley Con- t Development of area-specific lion man- servancy, with a 6,967% increase (3 lions • agement strategies especially for Game to 212) (Bauer et al. 2016). Management Areas (GMAs) Di Minin et al. (2016) estimated that 27.2% of the country was covered by However, that strategy was devel- terrestrial protected areas, with game oped in 2009 and it is unclear how much ranches covering 16.6%. From the 1970s progress, if any, has been made since lion trophy hunting harvests in Zim- then towards improving the manage- babwe were some of the highest in re- ment of lion trophy hunting in Zam- lation to population size in Africa, with bia. Therefore, it is still possible that annual offtakes of between 90 and 141 poorly-managed trophy hunting could be lions between 1992 and 2002 (Loveridge athreattoZambia’slionpopulations. et al. 2009; Packer et al. 2009), but quotas were reduced to 75 individuals in 2015 (ZPWMA 2015) and lion numbers 2.1.2.6 Significance of trophy hunt- are now increasing in several populations ing as a threat to lions in Zimbabwe (Bauer et al. 2016). Since the ttt trophy import ban in the US, there is

30 anecdotal evidence that lion have be- 2.1.3 Factors mediating the threat come relatively more important to the posed by trophy hunting national hunting industry economically.

Zimbabwe introduced a 5-year age Despite the threats posed by trophy limit on hunted lions in January 2006, hunting to individual populations, tro- and has used an adaptive age-based phy hunting has never (to our knowledge) quota system with evidence of success. been implicated as a significant factor This calculates a fluid quota per area in the extirpation of lions from a coun- based on the previous season’s perfor- try. While Chardonnet’s (2002) estimate mance in terms of hunting only older that 32 African countries supported wild males. The Zimbabwean adaptive sys- lions may have been optimistic, by 2015 tem has been associated with a rising seven of them no longer did so (Bauer age of hunted lions, a desirable outcome et al. 2016); however, none of these illustrating the role of quotas and age- countries had exported a lion trophy based restrictions in influencing popula- over that period [CITES trade database: tion demographics (ZPWMA 2015). The http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/ goal of the Zimbabwean system of inbuilt (Accessed 11 July 2016)]. feedbacks is to discourage outfitters from hunting lions that are too young, thereby It seems as if where trophy hunt- minimising negative impacts on the lion ing is well-regulated, transparent and population whilst maximising the sus- has a significant amount of power de- tainable yield, and therefore the eco- volved to the landowners (for example nomic incentive to conserve lions. With in Namibia; Naidoo et al. 2016a), it these lowered quotas and age-based sys- has the potential to deliver significant tems, there is little evidence that tro- conservation benefits in terms of pro- phy hunting is negatively affecting Zim- tecting habitat and allowing lion popu- babwe’s lion population at a national lations to persist (NACSO 2011, 2015; scale. Naidoo et al. 2016a). However, in many countries, poor governance26 and weak enforcement of hunting regulations in- creases the threat posed by trophy hunt- ing; indeed, Packer (2015) argues that corruption within the hunting industry

26Lion hunting countries rank poorly in governance scores from Transparency International (www.transparency.org)

31 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. and wider frameworks is the reason why 2.1.4 Significance of trophy hunting lion hunting often fails to deliver the ben- as a threat to lions at a re- efits to lion conservation that might be gional scale expected in principle, and Dickman et al. (2015) consider corruption as a limiting The IUCN 2006 regional conservation factor in delivering felid conservation in Strategies for lions (in West and Cen- some countries. tral Africa, and in Eastern and Southern Africa), considered possible threats to According to the IUCN in 2009, good lions, and ranked them using a points- governance was absent from almost the based system (IUCN 2006a, b). entire trophy hunting sector in many countries, with those currently in con- The top five threats (i. prey deple- trol of the system not prepared to share tion,ii.conflict with humans,iii.small power and undertake adjustments that population size,iv. livestock encroach- would mean relinquishing control; a posi- ment and v. habitat loss)werethesame tion that IUCN (2009) concludes serves in each region, albeit in slightly different individual interests, but not those of orders (see Figures 2a and 2b). conservation, local communities or good governance (UICN/PACO 2009). How- Trophy hunting was not ranked by ever, even poor national governance experts as one of the top three threats does not always preclude relatively well- to any lion populations across West managed trophy hunting: Zimbabwe has and Central Africa (IUCN 2006a). Tro- recently implemented an age-based adap- phy hunting emerged as a higher threat tive quota strategy (see Section 2.1.2.6), across Eastern and Southern Africa than which has resulted in the reduction of in West and Central Africa, but was not hunting under-age animals (ZPWMA ranked as a high level threat. 2015).

Similarly, despite weak governance 2.1.5 Summary of the significance of across much of Mozambique, age-based trophy hunting as a threat to adaptive management of trophy hunting lions (and work to address other threats to lions) has been implemented effectively Poor quota management and unregu- in the Niassa National Reserve, and lion lated hunting of lions, in particular that populations are increasing there despite of dominant males and pride females, can hunting (Bauer et al. 2016). result in significant negative impacts at apopulationscale(e.g.Loveridgeetal.

32 2007a; Packer et al. 2009; Croes et al. hunting quota. However, when assessed 2011; Packer et al. 2011; Becker et al. at either a national or a regional level, 2013). These negative impacts could be the negative impacts on lions from tro- ameliorated (either in whole or in part, phy hunting are deemed by experts to be depending on the population) by restrict- substantially smaller than other threats, ing offtake to males of >7 years, which particularly those of human-lion conflict should have reproduced, and in some ar- and loss of prey (IUCN 2006a, b). eas by combining this with an area-based

30 110 a. West and Central Africa b. East and Southern Africa 100

25 90

80 20 70

60 15 50

Threat Score Threat Score 40 10 30

5 20 10

0 0 Disease Disease Prey depletion Prey Prey depletion Prey Trophy hunting Trophy Trophy hunting Trophy Habitat conversion Habitat conversion Resource extraction Resource extraction Small population size Small population size Illegal killing (conflict) Illegal Illegal killing (conflict) Illegal Problem animal control Problem animal control Livestock encroachment Livestock Livestock encroachment Livestock

Figure 2: Threat ranking for lions in (a) West and Central Africa, and (b) East and Southern Africa, as assessed by experts at the 2006 IUCN Lion Conservation Strategy meetings (note that the y-axes are different scales as the magnitude of threats was considered higher in East and Southern Africa). The maps show the countries assessed in the strategies, with the colour showing the relative lion population in the range country, with darker colour showing a larger population.

33 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

2.2 Impacts associated with lion trophy hunting 27

2.2.1 Ecological impacts Africa’s premier destinations for photo- graphic tourists, over three-quarters of hunting land in the Northern Conserva- 2.2.1.1 Habitat protection ttt tion Zone had low potential for photo- tourism; Winterbach et al. 2015), so The protection of wildlife habitat is the hunting enables this land to be main- primary benefit associated with trophy tained under a wildlife-based land use. hunting, as it reduces the major threat This maintenance of habitat (even if li- of habitat loss – conversion to other ons themselves are negatively affected at forms of land use such as agriculture is some level) is by far the most significant often irreversible. In 2007, Lindsey et al. benefit provided by trophy hunting of li- estimated that a total area of at least ons, particularly given the fact that habi- 1,394,000 km2 was conserved for trophy tat loss and degradation is such a signif- hunting in sub-Saharan Africa, which icant threat to lions at all scales (IUCN exceeded the area of national parks in 2006a, b; Fusari et al. 2010; Henschel et those countries by 22%. In 2013, it was al. 2010; Henschel et al. 2014). Particu- estimated that lions were hunted across larly in West and Central Africa, trophy at least 558,000 km2, which comprised hunting maintains lion habitat in areas 27–32% of the lion range in countries where photographic tourism and philan- where trophy hunting of lions was per- thropy are absent – and those land uses mitted (Lindsey et al. 2013), and at are much less developed than in other re- least 16% of the total lion distribution gions. This is evident from the fact that in Africa (Riggio et al. 2013). Given the lions have been extirpated from most dates of those studies, the extent of this protected areas in the region (Henschel hunting range will now have declined et al. 2014) whereas the last two remain- slightly since Botswana imposed its lion ing substantial populations (>250 lions) trophy hunting ban in 2014. are both within large complexes of Na- Many of the areas that are (or re- tional Parks interconnected and buffered cently were) hunting zones are not cur- by hunting zones that appear to be at rently suitable for photographic tourism least partially effective at reducing live- (e.g. even in Botswana, which is one of stock encroachment, with hunting not

27Throughout, we try to provide as much specific data as possible with regard to lion trophy hunting, but in some cases information is only available for trophy hunting in general.

34 appearing to significantly affect the last specific lion killing (Ferreira and Funston remaining lion stronghold in , 2010; du Preez et al. 2015). The asso- the W-Arly-Pendjari (WAP) ecosystem ciated management issues (overpopula- (Bouché et al. 2016). tion and overpredation) may necessitate lethal control of the lions (Miller et al. Although lions are one of the main 2015), or intensive management strate- draws of trophy hunting areas and in- gies such as contraception or transloca- crease their financial viability, these ar- tion. eas are also very important for many other species, including some highly threatened ones. For example, in the 2.2.1.2 Reduction of other threats case of the critically endangered black to lions and other wildlife ttt rhino (Diceros bicornis), only 10 ‘IUCN Key 1’ populations remain (i.e. popu- At least within well-managed trophy lations that are crucial to the survival hunting areas, it is common to have of the species), and three of those oc- significant anti-poaching patrols, which cur on private hunting conservancies would reduce threats of human encroach- in Zimbabwe where lions are also key ment, such as the loss of lion prey hunted species (N. Anderson, Interna- through bushmeat hunting. For ex- tional Rhino Foundation, pers. comm.). ample, in Cameroon, where bushmeat However, not all the ecological im- poaching is a major conservation issue, pacts of trophy hunting are positive. observations between 2005 and 2010 sug- In areas managed predominantly for li- gested that anti-poaching efforts were ons, high densities have negative impacts higher in the hunting zones than Na- on the populations of smaller competi- tional Parks, due to economic incentives tors, such as cheetahs (Acinonyx juba- to reduce poaching in hunting areas, and tus) and African wild dogs (Lycaon pic- alackofgovernmentfundingtoconduct tus). Where provided with adequate re- similar anti-poaching efforts in Parks sources and protection (even where they (Croes et al. 2011). Even in poorly- are hunted), lion populations can achieve managed areas, funds from hunting can very rapid growth rates (e.g. Groom and still play a major role in funding anti- Watermeyer 2015; Miller et al. 2015; du poaching operations. For example, in Preez et al. 2016a). High lion densities Tanzania’s Selous Game Reserve (which (particularly within fenced reserves, in- is allegedly beset by high levels of corrup- cluding non-consumptive photographic tion), the ‘Selous Retention Scheme’ has areas) can lead to significant ecological recently been re-established, where 50% and social problems such as severe re- of hunting revenues from the Reserve ductions in prey populations and intra- are re-invested into conservation and anti-poaching (IUCN 2016). The Re-

35 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. serve’s chief warden from 1994–2008 and ternational, an organisation that is 2012–2015 has raised serious concerns explicitly in favour of hunting, con- about the impacts of trophy import bans cluded that across eastern and southern on the capacity of the reserve to suc- Africa (Botswana, Ethiopia, Mozam- cessfully conduct anti-poaching efforts bique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanza- (IUCN 2016). However, anti-poaching nia, Zambia and Zimbabwe) hunters efforts run by hunting operators vary spend US$326.5 million annually when considerably between countries and op- accounting for all in-country expendi- erators, and they tend to be seasonal ture, including not only the cost of the rather than year-round. hunt and associated fees but also other costs such as transportation, food and souvenirs (Southwickes Associates 2015). 2.2.2 Impacts of economic benefits They found the value-added contribu- generated from trophy hunt- tion to GDP (using multipliers derived ing from World Travel and Tourism Coun- cil) to be US$426 million (Southwickes There are several reasons for consider- Associates 2015). They also found that ing the economic contributions of trophy trophy hunting supports 53,400 jobs, hunting, not least because of its possi- when including supporting sectors. How- ble role in the economic development of ever, in 2009 the IUCN criticised the African nations and as a source of income low proportion of jobs created by the to local people (though the significance hunting industry in comparison to the of trophy hunting revenue is debated for proportional area of land it occupies – both those factors). However, within it cited figures of 15,000 salaried jobs the remit of this report, we focus on the across Africa, compared to a human connection between the economic impact population of 150 million in the eight of trophy hunting and conservation out- main trophy hunting countries, where comes. trophy hunting takes up 16% of their land (UICN/PACO 2009). However, this must be considered in the context of 2.2.2.1 Level of trophy hunting rev- naturally low human density in wildlife enue generated ttt areas, and the general incompatibility of (or inverse relationship between) large There are a range of estimates of the human populations and maintenance of degree of economic revenue generated wildlife populations. by trophy hunting, but there is a lack There is variation in estimates given of rigorous, independent data on the in the peer-reviewed literature regard- economics of trophy hunting. A re- ing the level of trophy hunting revenue, port commissioned by Safari Club in-

36 and those estimates usually do not pro- (UICN/PACO 2009). Though small on a vide value-added estimates or account national scale, income from trophy hunt- for revenue to supporting sectors etc. ing can be a significant source of income Lindsey et al. (2007) estimated that for the government bodies responsible trophy hunting generated gross revenues for managing wildlife. For example, the of at least US$201 million per year in Wildlife Division in Tanzania makes 60% sub-Saharan Africa, although this es- of its income from trophy hunting licence timate has been criticised in a report fees (Estes 2015). The IUCN stated that prepared for The African Lion Coali- adefinitepositiveaspectoftrophyhunt- tion, which is composed of animal wel- ing is that conservation results are fi- fare groups, for relying on unreliable nanced completely by the hunters, with- sources of data (Economists at Large out drawing from donors or requiring 2013). Booth (2010) estimated gross government commitment (UICN/PACO revenues of at least US$190 million for 2009). South Africa, Namibia, Botswana (the paper was published prior to Botswana’s Most of the figures discussed above trophy hunting ban that entered into concern trophy hunting as a whole, and effect in 2014), Zambia, Mozambique, only part of these are generated by tro- Zimbabwe and Tanzania. Di Minin phy hunting of lions specifically. Lind- et al. (2016) estimated total annual sey et al. (2012b) estimated that lions hunting revenue to be approximately generate 5–17% of gross trophy hunting US$217.2 million in those same coun- income on national levels among Mozam- tries (see Table 3 for a summary of esti- bique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and mates of the revenue generated by tro- Zimbabwe, but lions were not the species phy hunting per country). However, the that generated the largest proportion of report prepared for the African Lion trophy hunting income in any of these Coalition argues that that the contri- countries. bution of trophy hunting to national economies is insignificant because it con- stitutes only a small percentage of Gross 2.2.2.2 The economic contribution Domestic Product (GDP) (Economists of lion hunting and its impact on at Large 2013). The IUCN estimated land-use ttt trophy hunting revenue to contribute 0.19% of GDP in Botswana, 0.03% in From a conservation perspective, the Mozambique, 0.45% in Namibia, 0.04% overriding concern is how the economic in South Africa, 0.22% in Tanzania, profitability of trophy hunting of lions 0.05% in Zambia and 0.29% in Zimbabwe affects land-use.

37 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

Table 3: Estimates of revenue generated by trophy hunting per country.

Figure for revenue from lion hunting only ⇤

If a ban on the import of lion trophies of lions and wildlife in general. Transi- (or other policies) impacted the prof- tion to agriculture or livestock grazing itability of trophy hunting operations to is a serious threat to the survival of the the extent that it becomes less profitable lion populations (Loveridge et al. 2007b) than alternative land-uses due to re- and is the likely alternative to trophy duced demand, then it is likely that there hunting across much of Africa, because will be a transition to more profitable it is profitable for land-owners, or in the land-uses. The type of the land-use that case of government-owned land, because replaces trophy hunting is important to there is strong political pressure to turn predict the effect on the conservation these areas over to livestock production

38 (Loveridge et al. 2007b). the perspective of the owners/custodians of a piece of land, so the extent of habi- To consider the effect of curtailment tat loss could be greater than 59,538 of hunting of lions on land-use, informa- km2.Insomeareas,thenetreturnsfrom tion on the specific contribution of lions livestock is similar to those from trophy to the viability of trophy hunting oper- hunting (Lindsey et al. 2012b)so there ations is required. There is a paucity might be a transition to livestock pro- of information on this, but Lindsey et duction even with only relatively small al. (2012b) estimated the significance decreases in profitability of trophy hunt- of lions for the financial viability of tro- ing. Estimates of the profitability of phy hunting in Mozambique, Namibia, trophy hunting per hectare differ. IUCN Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. They (2009) reported US$1.1 ha-1,Lindseyet found that the trophy hunting indus- al. (2012b) estimated net earnings to be try is not dependent on lions to remain between US$0.24 to US$1.64 ha-1 year-1 viable in most areas, and that other depending on the country, and du Preez species are more important in financial et al. (2016b) calculated that hunting in terms. However, they conclude that if Zimbabwe’s lowveld was worth approxi- lion hunting was precluded, trophy hunt- mately US$16.4 per hectare per year for ing could still become unviable across all species and US$5.57 for lion hunt- 2 at least 59,538 km , which constitutes ing alone. Net returns from livestock 11.5% of the area lions are hunted in in semi-arid African rangelands (US$0.1– the countries included in the analysis. US$0.3 per hectare per year in areas with Lion hunting was found to be important 400–800 ml of annual rainfall (Cumming for financial viability of trophy hunting 2004) are similar to those from trophy in Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia, hunting in some areas, so these areas but of minor importance in Namibia and are at risk of conversion (Lindsey et al. Zimbabwe. Lindsey et al. (2012b) fur- 2012b). ther noted that had Benin, Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic been In the most attractive and accessible included in the analysis, the estimated areas, land-use could shift from trophy size of the area where trophy hunting will hunting to non-consumptive wildlife use, be lost is likely to increase significantly e.g. photo-tourism, such that habitat as these countries have low numbers and is maintained without lions being killed. diversity of other key trophy species. This could be the ideal outcome from Crucially, trophy hunting becomes un- conservation and welfare perspectives, as favourable as a land-use option not only lion populations would be secured with- if a trophy hunting business becomes un- out the damaging ethical, ecological and profitable, but also if it becomes less prof- welfare impacts of trophy hunting. In- itable than the alternative land-use from deed, Barnes (2001) concluded that pho-

39 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. tographic tourism has greater benefits of new photographic tourism areas might than consumptive use over about one- divert visitors from existing protected ar- third of the wildlife estate in Botswana, eas, some of which are already operating finding that “consumptive wildlife uses at a loss. are relatively unimportant in terms of economic contribution”, whilst consump- Even where photographic tourism is tive wildlife use is the only possibility financially viable, there is evidence for across the “less well-endowed two-thirds interdependence between this form of of the wildlife estate”. tourism and trophy hunting. In Namibia, trophy hunting was shown to be impor- However, only a subset of the areas tant for the establishment of conservan- that are currently used for trophy hunt- cies because it generates benefits sooner ing are likely to be suitable for photo- than photographic tourism after estab- graphic tourism (Lindsey et al. 2006). lishment of a conservancy, so it can al- For example, they might contain lim- low conservancies to remain financially ited numbers of charismatic species, lack viable while its photographic tourism is photogenic scenery, or be located in ar- developing (Naidoo et al. 2016a). Fur- eas with high risk of tropical disease, thermore, simulations show that a signif- poor infrastructure or political instabil- icant number of community-led Namib- ity (IUCN 2016). Trophy hunters are ian conservancies would not be able to less discouraged by these conditions than meet their operational costs if there was most tourists: during the first year of a ban on trophy hunting, which would land-seizures in Zimbabwe, the tourism remove both the incentive to maintain sector was reduced by 75% while prof- these protected areas and the financial its from trophy hunting only dropped means to manage them (Naidoo et al. 12% (Booth 2002). Also, it is unknown 2016a). whether there exists enough unsatisfied demand for photographic tourism to However, where the land-owners supply clients if current trophy hunt- value wildlife beyond their economic ing areas are converted to photographic value they might be willing to tolerate tourism, or whether this would simply low returns from their land in order to divert visitors from current protected ar- maintain wildlife habitat, if they have eas. Across Africa, a large number of sufficient wealth to do so. In these cases, protected areas with high levels of biodi- reductions in profitability of lion trophy versity receive very few visitors (Balm- hunting may not affect the conservation ford et al. 2015). This is not consistent of lion habitat. It is uncertain to what ex- with there being significant unsatisfied tent land-owners perceive intrinsic value demand for photographic tourism oppor- of wildlife, and considering that the host tunities, which suggests that the creation countries of lion hunting are developing

40 nations, the ability to absorb financial 2.2.2.3 Trophy hunting and eco- losses or reduced returns is likely to be nomic incentives for lion conservation low. ttt

Although there is anecdotal evidence Another way that the economic impact from such countries as Botswana and of lion trophy hunting is connected to Zambia after recent trophy hunting bans conservation outcomes is through the (see text box below), there is no pub- revenue generated by trophy hunting lished literature on the specific impacts that goes towards implementing conser- of the ban in terms of protecting lions, vation efforts and incentivises tolerance and very little information on actual land for lions and the maintenance of habi- use changes. At present, we are lim- tat for wildlife – reductions in the in- ited to inference: Williams et al. (2016) come generated from lion hunting could documented substantial decreases in the reduce these incentives among govern- density of lion, leopard, cheetah, African ments, local communities and private wild dog, spotted hyaena (Crocuta cro- land-owners. cuta) and brown hyaena (Hyaena brun- nea)aslandwasconvertedfromhunt- Governments require funds for ing conservancies to agriculture, follow- wildlife management and income to jus- ing land reform in Zimbabwe. Direct tify the maintenance of land as game evidence demonstrates that local peo- reserves/wildlife management areas in ple are often unsupportive of a ban, the face of increasing human populations and that significant loss of revenue to and demand for land. Some of the funds hunting zones occurs when lions can no generated by trophy hunting accrue to longer be utilised (Hann 2015). Hann governments. For example, in Tanzania, (2015) highlights the huge knowledge direct and indirect tax flows to the gov- gaps regarding hunting and its associ- ernment is approximately 44% of the es- ation with wildlife declines. The IUCN timated gross income of the trophy hunt- notes that “Revenues from trophy hunt- ing industry (Booth 2010), and, based ing are also important for conserving on data from 2008, 22% of the gross threatened species that are not hunted. revenue generated by hunting is allo- Populations of Black Rhino and White cated to the Wildlife Division (Di Minin Rhino and of the on 2016). However, much of the income the Savé and Bubye Conservancies in generated by the industry never enters Zimbabwe are not hunted, but proceeds the country, accruing instead to external from trophy hunting support their con- parties (Booth 2010). In Namibia, 21% servation” (IUCN 2016). of the income generated is captured by the government through fees and taxes (Humavindu and Barnes 2003). Lewis

41 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. and Alpert (1997) report that in Zam- income was US$48.5 head-1.InTanza- bia: ADMADE (Administrative Design nia, 3.1% of estimated gross expenditure from Game Management Areas) receives by hunting companies is spent on com- around 67% of all revenue generated munity development and fees paid to by sport hunting activities in Zambia’s the community and 11.9% on wages and Game Management Areas. Over half welfare (Booth 2010). In Namibia, agree- (53%) of ADMADE revenue is allocated ments between conservancies and oper- directly to local wildlife management ators specify the portion of income the and the remainder to community devel- conservancy receives, typically 8–12% of opment. However, is usually unclear total lodge revenue and 30–75% of tro- how much of the revenue captured by phy price (Naidoo et al. 2016a). Hu- governments across lion range countries mavindu and Barnes (2003) found that is channelled into conservation efforts, in Namibia, 24% of the income accrues especially in the context of high levels to poor segments of society in the form of corruption. of wages and rentals/royalties, while Samuelsson and Stage (2007) estimated From the viewpoint of lion conserva- that 40% went to local communities and tion, generating benefits for local com- low income wage earners. munities from trophy hunting of lions is important because it incentivises local If trophy hunting became unviable, communities to tolerate lions despite the thousands of Zimbabwean households threat they can pose to livestock and hu- that benefit from the CAMPFIRE pro- man lives (Loveridge et al. 2007b) and gramme would lose a combined US$1.7 the opportunity costs that they can of- million per annum, and the programme’s ten impose by restricting resource use. revenue has already been significantly These benefits can be in the form of reduced following the US ban on ele- financial/material contributions to com- phant trophy imports from Zimbabwe (C. munity development, employment or in- Jonga, quoted in IUCN 2016)28. How- come for local producers and service ever, despite some successes and good ex- providers. Before Botswana’s ban on amples of benefit-sharing, local commu- trophy hunting, 75% of the gross income nities rarely benefit from trophy hunting generated by hunting tourism remained activities (Lindsey et al. 2006) and tro- in the country, and of this 49% remained phy hunting frequently occurs without at the district level. This equated to meaningful community involvement or approximately US$5 head-1 when trans- consultation, which in many countries is lated to an income per capita at the na- further complicated by corruption, lack tional level but when attributed to the of transparency and weak rule of law main hunting districts, the per capita (IUCN 2009).

28http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-21699-US+embargo+hits+Campfire+revenues/news.aspx

42 Case study: Botswana after the hunting ban in 2014

Since trophy hunting was banned in Botswana in 2014, there has been minimal uptake of hunting blocks for photographic tourism (Winterbach pers. comm.). Winterbach et al. (2015) conclude that only 22% (17,142 km2) of the Northern Conservation Zone has intermediate to high potential for phototourism, while 78% has low phototourism poten- tial (61,769 km2). Ten concessions (out of 32) in the Northern Conservation Zone did not include high potential phototourism areas and only one of those ten was conduct- ing photographic safaris (although the economic viability of this concession was reliant on access to the nearby ). Although these ten concessions have been offered to public tender four times since the hunting ban in 2014, as of June 2016 still only one was operating phototourism, the other nine being without concessionaires or not operational. In terms of habitat connectivity between protected areas, those ten concessions are critical for ecosystem health and form a vital link between Moremi Game Reserve, Nxai/Makgadigadi Pans National Park, Chobe National Park in Botswana and Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe and surrounding concessions. While hosting what is possibly the geographically largest intact lion population in Africa, this is also a key wet season range for buffalo and elephant and hosts two long-range migration routes of . Some blocks that are part of the Western corridor in southern Botswana have already been changed to agricultural use (livestock farming), disrupting the link between the Central Kalahari Game Reserve and the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and probably fragmenting the lion population of the Southern Conservation Zone. Although the Gov- ernment of Botswana has a good conservation track record and there is no immediate threat to these areas, pressure from Botswana’s livestock industry for access to areas with limited tourism potential is only likely to increase (Winterbach et al. 2015). Initial reports from some communities in Botswana suggest significantly reduced conservation incentives (including meat, jobs and pensions) and hardening negative attitudes toward wildlife since the ban was implemented (Naidoo et al. 2016b).

Furthermore, lions generate only part areas because they pose a threat to live- of the total trophy hunting revenue con- stock in surrounding areas, and private sidered in the above figures. However, land-owners might want to remove lions if there was no income generated by li- from their trophy hunting concessions ons, communities could potentially wish because they predate other valuable tro- to eradicate them from trophy hunting phy species (Funston et al. 2013).

43 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

2.3 Summary of the impacts associated with trophy hunting

Trophy hunting can have marked neg- instead of converting the land to other ative impacts on the of lions at a uses, such as agriculture, and to tolerate population scale, and can also have neg- the presence of lions, which can pose a ative impacts on other species when an threat to livestock and human life. Some area is managed primarily for lions. How- revenue from trophy hunting accrues to ever, these impacts are generally small governments and to local communities, in comparison to other threats at a na- but information is lacking for most ar- tional and regional scale, and perhaps eas and in many places benefit-sharing counter-intuitively, trophy hunting could with communities is inadequate. Fur- in some areas be reducing some of the thermore, only a small portion of total primary threats to lions, namely habi- trophy hunting income is attributable tat loss and loss of prey. For example, to lions. However, without the income across Africa, approximately 1.4 mil- from lion hunting, trophy hunting is esti- ⇠ lion km2 has been estimated to be con- mated to become unviable across 59,538 served for trophy hunting purposes. It is km2 in five sub-Saharan countries alone, likely that without trophy hunting, parts and a transition to alternative land-uses of this vast area of land would become is likely. Photographic tourism is an al- economically unviable if maintained as ternative land-use that would allow lion ecologically intact wildlife areas, and populations to remain, but is likely only could well be converted to agricultural to be viable in a subset of current tro- use with strong negative impacts on li- phy hunting areas. The likely outcome ons and other wildlife. Governments for many areas would be conversion to require incentives to justify the main- agriculture or livestock grazing, which tenance of wildlife habitat, local com- would seriously threaten the survival of munities and private landowners require the lion populations in those areas. incentives to maintain wildlife habitat

44 3. Current and recommended lion trophy hunting practices

any of the detrimental effects on few of these issues directly, for example M lion conservation associated with potentially through specific import reg- trophy hunting are to do with failure to ulations, but it would be good to put establish and enforce regulatory systems pressure on the hunting industry to en- based on now well-established scientific sure that best practices are met, with principles, and within those regulatory strict regulations both imposed and ef- systems, failure to follow a good code fectively implemented. of conduct. The UK can only affect a

3.1 Lease length, allocation and fixed quotas

Short leases on hunting concessions tender. This provided the opportunity are not conducive to conservation goals to have wildlife monitoring, corporate (Damm 2005). The argument is that social responsibility, environmentally re- when short leases are issued with no guar- sponsible camp management etc., and antee of a long-term stake, then there the management plan became part of the is no incentive to invest in conservation, lease agreement. Biannual site visits by and the maximum quota is always taken Department of Tourism, Department of so as to maximise return on the cost of Environmental Affairs and Department lease, even if this means that wildlife are of Wildlife and National Parks were con- over-exploited as a result. With greater ducted to ensure compliance, and opera- security in the future of a concession tional licences could be revoked if people comes greater incentive to invest in the were not adhering to the lease agreement. resource, and thus conservation goals are This carefully regulated system contrasts more likely to be achieved. with the shortcomings of patronage, and associated over-harvesting, documented As an illustration, multiple use con- by (Packer 2015) as a major impediment cessions in Botswana were awarded on to hunting delivering conservation bene- 15-year leases. Evaluation of tender doc- fits to lions. uments included a Technical Manage- ment Plan, financial plan and financial Hunting blocks should also be allo- bid, which all contributed to a total point cated according to an open auction sys- score, which determine the winner of the tem (Dickson et al. 2009) that recognizes

45 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. the extent of past investments in each no fixed quotas, with hunters only pay- block while encouraging access by well- ing for the animals they shot, but other capitalized businesses or individuals and countries did have some mandatory fees allows options for long-term leases in the regardless of the actual offtake (Lindsey case of well-managed tenure. In some et al. 2013). This fee (regardless of ac- countries (e.g. Tanzania), the outfitter tual offtake) was apparently set at 30% has to pay a mandatory fee for the li- of the quota in Zimbabwe, 40% in Tanza- ons they are allocated to hunt, even if nia, 50% in the Central African Republic, they are not shot. Packer et al. (2006) 60% in Zambia and 100% in Namibia, noted that that ‘fixed’ quotas do not where concession rights are based on the provide any incentive for hunting oper- sale of the quota rather than lease of the ators to reject lions that are too young, land (Lindsey et al. 2013). Best practice leading to reduced trophy quality and would be to have no fixed quotas, with unsustainable harvesting. In 2013, Lind- hunters only paying trophy fees for the sey et al. reported that Mozambique, animals that are actually shot. Benin, Burkina Faso and Cameroon had

3.2 Restrictions on lions able to be hunted

The negative consequences of remov- ficult for most species because of the ing females from a population have been practical challenges of counting animal detailed above (see Section 2.1.1.1), so numbers and working out their popula- best practice would be to import only tion dynamics, but in the case of lions male lions. it is made much more difficult because their social system is such that the death To ensure that the benefit to lion con- of a pride male can trigger a perturba- servation from trophy hunting (through tion effect with cascading consequences habitat protection) outweighs the costs reducing recruitment (Loveridge et al. that may be imposed, it is important to 2007a). To avoid the hazard of over- estimate how many lions can be hunted harvest, two broad approaches have been from a particular management unit with- proposed by experts on lion populations, out imperilling the population, and in one area-based and the other age-based. order to import any lions, national regu- Both these approaches involve hunting lators should have some confidence that only adult males and there is now an the country concerned is making their emerging case for, in some circumstances, calculations based on good science. Cal- combining them (Creel et al. 2016). culations of ‘safe’ harvests would be dif-

46 The area-based approach recom- sumption behind this approach is that mends capping the number of hunted the harvest of those males can be sus- male lions at a sufficiently low number tainable irrespective of population size that there is minimal risk that this off- or numbers taken, and has no deleteri- take causes a decline in the population. ous effect on population genetic diversity In most populations, the offtake has been (Whitman et al. 2007). recommended as no more than 0.5 lions 1,000 km-2 (Packer et al. 2011), although However, these general rules involve there might be local variation – high- complications. The original computer density populations such as the Selous models by Whitman et al. (2004 & 2007) could probably sustain an offtake of 1 indicated that so long as only males older lion 1,000 km-2 (Packer et al. 2011), than >5yearswerehunted,thenum- as could well-managed and increasing bers taken had little impact on the via- populations such as those in Bubye Val- bility of the remaining lion population. ley Conservancy (ZPWMA 2015), while However, as Whitman et al. (2004) cau- in particularly low-density populations, tioned, this model was based on data the cap may have to be adjusted down- from a well-protected and growing lion wards. Lindsey et al. (2012b) present population with an increasing prey base: data showing that the introduction of conditions that may not apply to the arecommendedquotaoflionofftakes majority of lion populations in hunting of 0.5 lions 1,000 km-2 would allow lion areas. Furthermore, a practical difficulty hunting to be sustainable, while retain- is aging the candidate trophy lions ac- ing conservation incentives from trophy curately under challenging field condi- hunting. They conclude such a policy tions, although new guidelines (and an would result in only 7,005 km2 of existing associated training website) published hunting estate potentially become finan- by Miller et al. (2016) help with this, cially unviable (representing 1% of the as well as the field guide produced by ⇠ 516,738 km2 where lions are currently Whitman and Packer (2007). Revisit- hunted in the main lion hunting coun- ing Whitman et al.’s (2007) pioneering tries), and argue sustainability would be work, Creel et al. (2016) offer more pre- enhanced further if age-based regulations cautionary guidelines to minimise the were also implemented. risk of a hunted population being ex- tirpated, and advocated the hunting of The age-based approach recommends only males aged 7 years or more (along harvesting only older males that have with other measures such as recovery pe- had the opportunity to reproduce suc- riods from hunting and area-based quo- cessfully and whose deaths will therefore tas). Indeed, these recent models con- have fewer repercussions for recruitment clude that even this strengthened age- of cubs into the population. The as- based criterion does not necessarily en-

47 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. sure that the hunted population will not determined that an age limit of >7years decline if other threats such as bush- AND a maximum offtake of 0.5 lion ⇠ meat poaching are present. However, 1,000 km-2 AND interspersing fallow pe- the models show that the contribution riods of recovery, in combination reduced of trophy hunting to population decline, the risk of population extirpation within within the suite of all the threats facing 25 years to less than 10% (Creel et al. lions, will be minimised if only males of 2016). Although some people may view 7 years or older are removed. This is at any risk of population extirpation as un- least partly because setting the age limit acceptable, this level of risk is low com- higher reduces the impact of misjudging pared to the risk implied by recent de- age in the field by a year or so (Creel clines in lion populations (43% decline in et al. 2016). Individual lion age charac- 21 years), and should be weighed against teristics may vary regionally (Kays and the benefit of protecting lion habitat, Patterson 2002; West and Packer 2002; the degradation of which has been a pri- Patterson 2007; West and Packer 2013), mary cause of rapid lion decline at a and lion aging techniques differ pre- and continental scale (Bauer et al. 2016). post-mortem, with pre-mortem aging be- However, Creel et al. (2016) recognise ing less accurate and precise (Miller et al. that for some responsible operators this 2016), and thus enforcing minimum age stringency could reduce current offtakes requirements in the field is often difficult. tenfold; they suggest a compensatory However, Miller et al. (2016) have shown rise in trophy fees to maintain the same that a suite of lion age traits, in com- levels of economic return from the land bination with training workshops, may (Creel et al. 2016), which would only be be used to improve significantly field as- feasible in certain areas or markets. How sessment of lion age, and could thus be the demand for lion trophies would be used to improve sustainability of harvest affected by the price is a significant gap by reducing levels of underage offtake. in current knowledge. Post mortem monitoring of age is possi- ble (Winterbach et al. in review) but not We suggest that in order to be eligi- without problems (White et al. 2016). ble to export trophies, countries should be able to demonstrate that they are ef- Therefore, and as a failsafe regulation fectively implementing a quota system under conditions (which often prevail) based on this best available science, with where threats such as human encroach- hunting restricted to older males, possi- ment, poaching and prey depletion are bly with an additional area-based com- present (but not increasing) Creel et al. ponent. More information on how this (2016) suggested that a combined age- might feed into conditions for any im- and area-based method be used. They ports is provided in Section 4.3.2.

48 4. Options to improve the conservation impact of trophy hunting

egarding the importation of lions confidence of conservation benefit (and R into the UK, an option for the by working with other countries have a UK Government is to maintain the sta- greater impact). When considering the tus quo, which is conditional import, impacts of banning trophy imports, we with those from some countries banned acknowledge that if the decisions made and others subject to assessment against by the UK Government are only adopted strict criteria. Options are thus to make by them, then the impacts will be neg- the judgment that trophy hunting has no ligible, but we are assuming that the part in conservation, which might lead approach decided on by the UK Govern- to a ban on all imports, or whether to ment could influence the development of enhance existing criteria to give greater policies more widely.

4.1 Possible impacts of maintaining the status quo

Maintaining the status quo would to their positions on trophy hunting. It probably anger elements of the UK pub- would also miss the opportunity to in- lic, who have been vociferous in their centivise for the trophy hunting industry demand for the Government to take ac- to improve its performance, as is clearly tion to restrict the importation of tro- needed, in delivering benefits to conser- phies from lions (as well as from other vation and reducing its negative impacts species29), and would put the UK at on threatened lion populations. This odds with the US and two EU coun- is therefore probably the least desirable tries, Netherlands and France (as well as option for the UK Government. Australia and Costa Rica) with regard

4.2 Possible impacts of a total import ban

Another option would be for the UK section of the British public. If such a to impose a total ban on all lion trophy ban was done in partnership with other imports, and this would please a vocal countries then it would reduce the eco-

29http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/600874/CECIL-S-LAW-Brian-May-demands-law-to-stop- hunters-importing-trophies-back-to-UK

49 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. nomic viability of trophy hunting, which loss of lion hunting this could affect the might encourage land-owners to switch overall profitability of trophy hunting to non-consumptive forms of wildlife use. and thus reduce its competitiveness rela- This would be more ethically acceptable tive to alternative land uses that dimin- to large numbers of people, although ished the lion estate. the degree to which this would or could happen is uncertain. The degree to To predict the impact of a ban on which trophy hunting can be substituted the import of lion trophies it is also nec- by photographic tourism is debatable essary to consider what further policies (see Section 2.2.2.2), and in many ar- it is likely to give rise to. It is possible eas such a substitution seems unlikely, that a ban on lion hunting will precipi- particularly in countries that are less tate pressure for restrictions on leopard appealing to photographic tourists such hunting as well, and other charismatic as Cameroon and the Central African threatened species, such as the elephant. 30 Republic, and even large sections of well- There are already calls for such bans , visited countries such as Tanzania or and as these species are some of the Botswana. most sought-after for hunters, their col- lective removal would certainly reduce The major risk of a total import ban the economic viability of trophy hunting would be the removal of economic in- areas quite significantly. This is partic- centives to maintain the land in lion ularly true regarding potential restric- hunting areas under a wildlife-based land tions on leopard and elephant hunting; use, and this could have significant detri- the leopard appeared as one of the top mental impacts on lions. In 2012, Lind- three most-hunted species in Tanzania, sey et al. judged that in Mozambique, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zim- Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zim- babwe, while the elephant was amongst babwe, trophy hunting was not depen- the top three in Tanzania, Botswana, dent on lions for viability, with other Mozambique and Zimbabwe (Di Minin et species being financially more impor- al. 2016). Unless an alternative wildlife- tant. They also judged that trophy based land use was implemented at the hunting could nonetheless become unvi- same time as hunting was stopped, or able across at least 59,538 km2 in these the land was managed under conserva- 5countries,representing11.5%ofthe tion philanthropy, there is a significant 516,738 km2 where lions are currently risk that a considerable area of current hunted in these countries. Even where a hunting land could be converted to non- safari area remained viable despite the wildlife based land uses, with the con-

30https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/25/leopards-animal-welfare-groups-endangered- us

50 comitant increases in lion habitat loss decrease in global imports before new associated with that. markets were found – however, four years after the import ban, global imports ap- Popular disdain for lion trophy hunt- proached twice the volume of the year ing appears widespread in North Amer- of ban (Hann 2015). There is also a risk ica and Europe, but this mood is not that if countries feel that external views universal. If adopted more widely, one are being continually imposed on them speculation is that a ban on imports (for example through trade restrictions) to North America and Europe could in- then they may decide to opt out of agree- crease uptake of trophies by hunters from ments such as CITES, which would be other countries instead, for example the extremely damaging for the future valid- Middle East and Asia, with possible un- ity and operation of such international intended consequences for conservation agreements. There were some calls in and animal welfare. Similar shifts in the African media for African nations the market have been seen with other to withdraw from CITES in the run- import bans, such as with Asian giant up to CoP 17 and “reject the power of tortoises (Manouria emys), where an im- rich elites in Europe or America to dic- port ban was well implemented by the tate how they manage their affairs”31, EU and was associated with a two-year although no countries actually did so.

4.3 Possible impacts of stricter controls on the import of lion trophies to the UK

4.3.1 Reasons for considering point of lion conservation, particularly stricter controls considering the species’ deteriorating sta- tus (Bauer et al. 2016). However, it is also clear that trophy hunting is cur- It is clear that poorly managed trophy rently the reason for a large percentage hunting of lions can have serious nega- of the lion estate being maintained as tive impacts at a population scale (see land for wildlife – it has been estimated Section 2.1.1), and potentially some im- that four times as much of that estate pacts at a national or regional scale is in hunting areas than Parks (Packer (IUCN 2006b). Where they occur, al- 2015). A central dilemma is that impos- lowing these negative consequences to ing total import bans on lion trophies continue is unacceptable from the view- would, in the absence of alternative in-

31http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2016-08-23-african-nations-should-withdraw-from-cites/

51 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. centives to conserve lions, risk perverse with those of the US Fish and Wildlife consequences that may worsen the con- Service, which deem that, amongst other servation of lions (as well as everything conditions, the import of any lion tro- covered under their conservation um- phy to the USA should be contingent brella). Principally, this might occur upon the management of lions benefit- by reducing the economic incentives for ing the species in the wild (US Fish and wildlife-based land uses, which increases Wildlife Service 2015). Under this sce- the likelihood of land conversion out of nario, the UK acts directly by permitting the lion estate and exacerbates the main the importation of lion trophies only if threats to lions (namely the degradation stringent conditions that benefit lion con- of habitat, poaching of prey and conflict servation are met, and acts indirectly by with people; IUCN 2006a, b). convincing other nations to adopt those same conditions. With the intention of creating the strongest possible incentive for the tro- The main positive conservation en- phy hunting industry to take responsibil- hancement associated with trophy hunt- ity for improving its practices and regula- ing is securing habitat for both lions and tions in ways that maximise the benefits other wildlife; that benefit is likely to be to lion conservation, one solution to this significant to lion conservation only in dilemma would be to impose stricter con- larger areas. Therefore, this report rec- ditions linked to conservation gain for ommends setting a minimum size for ar- the issuance of any lion trophy import eas from which trophy imports can even permits to the UK. There are, of course, be considered; as a practical threshold, already strict conditions in CITES as im- we suggest 500 km2 to ensure that it is plemented by the EU CITES Scientific delivering conservation enhancements32. Authorities through the Scientific Re- view Group (SRG). CITES conditions require that the trophy lion had been 4.3.2 Possible options for stricter hunted according to regulations that conditions avoided a significant detrimental impact on the lion population from which it came, so evidence of this, and encour- Current CITES requirements are that agement to enhance conservation, could trophies can be approved for import be strengthened. These dual goals, rec- where, at a minimum, it is demonstrated ommended to the UK government, align that hunting has no detrimental impact on the sustainability of the lion popula-

32500 km2 is not a firm cut-off for all scenarios, but is a necessarily somewhat arbitrary judgment on the smallest area usually likely to enable lions to be self-sustaining and ecologically functional, and deliver meaningful conservation benefits for lions (and other wildlife) at the landscape scale.

52 tion; however, insofar as trophy hunting levels that minimise the risk of extirpa- has been associated with over-harvesting, tion and (b) 500 km 2 or more of wildlife and declines in lion numbers, it is clear habitat is maintained within the hunt- either that these requirements are not al- ing zone. These conditions should sit ways properly applied, or the evidence to alongside other requirements of a high meet them has been inadequate. A sec- code of professional practice, ensuring ond requirement could be added, namely for example that robust animal welfare that trophy hunting delivers conserva- standards are met. tion enhancement. A fundamental ele- ment of that enhancement is the main- However, lions are hunted from popu- tenance of ecologically functional areas lations with different conservation status, of lion habitat. and under widely different conditions, in countries facing variously punishing Although not necessarily pre- poverty and infrastructural challenges, requisites for trophy importation, UK so these general principles need to be government should also encourage ad- tuned accordingly. We propose categoris- ditional benefits to conservation, e.g. ing hunting operations into three cate- anti-poaching patrols and/or wider co- gories, with varying import conditions. benefits such as contributions to com- We propose that the UK takes the lead in munity wellbeing. This responsible cus- an international effort to categorise hunt- todianship of the wildlife estate might ing operations according to the sustain- be considered appropriate requirements ability of their practice as set out below, of any responsible business that relies and applies concomitant import regimes upon wildlife use, whether that is con- with an effective import ban from the sumptive (such as trophy hunting) or least sustainable operations. non-consumptive (such as eco-tourism). We strongly recommend a best- The criteria for whether a lion trophy practice approach based on robust and could be imported into the UK should be on-going surveys of lion populations and that its hunting (a) was unlikely to cause long-term population trends and threats, detriment to the lion population from to obtain precise data from which a safe which it was taken and (b) contributes offtake can be calculated, and on the con- to lion conservation. Although in CITES sequences of trophy hunting and other terms the burden of proof rests with the threats. However, due to constraints CITES exporting authority, there is a such as funding, there is a need to con- strong case that the requirement should sider other methods, at least in the short- be made of the industry to prove that term, for ensuring that offtake is not lion trophies are from populations where detrimental. (a) lion offtake is strictly regulated to

53 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

It is incumbent upon the hunting are jeopardising it, the harvest model area management to demonstrate that should ensure that the hunted popula- its lion hunting operations are sustain- tion increases or remains stable. ably managed. We would recommend accepting these methods of demonstrat- Within an appropriate monitoring ing appropriate levels of sustainability: system, successive surveys will reveal trends in the lion population, and should t Monitoring data to show that lion pop- • demonstrate sustainability. If it is in- ulations are sustainably managed (this creasing or stable within the hunting would be considered best practice) area (without causing negative impacts t Data to show that the population is • on any adjacent area), then there should managed using age-restricted hunting, be no grounds for significant concern aiming for an ideal threshold of >7 year that hunting is detrimental. Hunting old males areas that have achieved these ‘ideal’ conditions of an independently stable or increasing lion population would be 4.3.2.1 Best-practice: Lion popu- eligible for best-practice hunting status, lations are sustainably managed, as and could be advertised as such to re- determined by professional-standard sponsible hunters. science-based monitoring ttt

In order to establish directly that trophy hunting of lions is sustainable, a pre- requisite is that reliable, standardised, 4.3.2.2 Age-based harvesting ttt and independently verifiable surveys are conducted in the hunting area. Possi- Two methods have been proposed for im- ble methods could include spoor counts plementing age-based lion trophy hunt- (Funston et al. 2010), camera-trapping ing. One model would be to limit hunt- (Cusack et al. 2015) or by individual ing to Creel et al.’s (2016) conservative lion recognition depending on local cir- prescription (i.e. only harvesting >7 cumstances. Once the lion population year old males at a level not exceeding has been surveyed the information can 0.5 males per 1,000 km2 –unlessthereis be fed into a harvest rate model, such as clear scientific evidence that the popula- that proposed by Caro et al. (2009), to tion can sustain a higher offtake without calculate an appropriate, scientifically- supplementation – with resting periods. based quota. Assuming the population As described above, this should carry a is well managed and no external factors low risk of population extirpation and

54 still keep land in the lion estate33). authorities, be postponed for a grace period of up to 3 years under very strict Alternatively, an option would be criteria and annual review by the na- the implementation and enforcement tional committee. For continuation of of an adaptive age-based quota sys- the grace period within those 3 years, the tem. Such systems have been trialled managers should demonstrate at each in Mozambique’s Niassa National Re- annual review that significant progress serve and adopted in Zimbabwe, with has been made towards implementing apparent benefits to lion conservation. the necessary criteria. While it takes Each hunted lion results in points be- time for changes to take full effect, Zim- ing awarded to (or taken away from) the babwe has seen marked improvements outfitter based on the age of the lion, with benefits for lion conservation within with the aim of rewarding hunters for three years so that should be a sufficient hunting older males (ideally of >7years) period for change. During any grace and penalising them for hunting younger period, lion trophy hunting should be males. limited to a minimum area and age- based quota, such as a maximum of 0.5 An example of a possible points- lions 1,000 km-2 aged 7years,orsim- based system (which may have to be > ilar precautionary figure calculated to adapted depending on the lion popula- be locally appropriate. Failure to meet tion) is shown in Appendix D. the required conditions after the grace period would result in a moratorium on 4.3.2.3 Interim scenario ttt UK imports from the area until they are in place. In these circumstances, If a hunting block failed to qualify under every effort should be made to ensure the suggested criteria above, then the that the land was not lost from the lion area would not be considered suitable estate. This scenario is intended to en- for importing trophies into the UK until sure minimal detrimental impact on the it qualified for one of them. Mindful of lion population during the grace period, the risk of such land being lost from the while incentivising improved manage- lion estate, this disqualification might, ment that will benefit lion conservation. at the discretion of the UK importing

33When considering a precautionary off-take that will be sustainable we have followed Creel et al.’s (2016) simulation as a safe starting point. However, the number of male lions that can be hunted sustainably will obviously vary with their population density and this will certainly vary between populations and may vary in any one population at different times.

55 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

4.3.2.4 Dealing with areas which do disbenefit to conservation. A judgement not meet the desired conditions ttt would have to be made, with lion con- servation as the criterion, on whether Trophy hunting areas whose manage- ashort,interimperiodofgrace,per- ment does not meet the conditions set haps involving a very low quota, was out in the three systems described above justifiable on the grounds of providing would not usually be able to import sufficient respite to enable the situation their trophies into the UK. In the highly to be remedied and the lion population undesirable event that a hunted lion pop- returned to a sustainable state and the ulation is declining unsustainably, under area retained for wildlife. any of these systems, and thus that hunting further lions would risk additive mortality and worsening the conserva- 4.3.3 Notes on scale and conditions tion of lions, then no import permit of import would normally be issued. Indeed, under circumstances where a hunted popu- 4.3.3.1 Recommended scale at lation is declining unsustainably best which criteria are applied ttt hunting practice would normally not countenance further hunting until the The foregoing criteria should ideally population was stable, and the strongest be applied at the scale of the hunt- pressure should be applied to the opera- ing area and not the national level. tor to remedy the situation. However, we This is because, while exports and im- are mindful of a scenario that, although ports are legally conducted at a na- perhaps uncommon, could perversely tional scale, allowing imports only from damage lion conservation. That is, if a country where all operators have im- the cessation of lion hunting caused the plemented best-practice hunting would financial viability of the hunting oper- disincentivise good operators within ation to collapse and thereby the land apoorly-regulatedcountryandwould to be converted to agriculture and lost, therefore risk damage to lion conserva- effectively irretrievably, from the wildlife tion. There is already precedent for this estate. Where the risk of this outcome scale of operation – for example, the EU was imminent, the local auditing com- approved trophy imports from Niassa mittee should look assiduously, on a due its good management rather than case-by-case basis, for any interim steps the whole of Mozambique (Sigsworth, to forestall the loss of land from the pers. comm.). The exporting coun- wildlife estate – this being the ultimate try should, via an independent panel

56 of stakeholders, transparently assess its the population can sustain a higher hunting areas and report (with requi- level site proof) which ones fulfil the criteria iv. Encouraging certification of hunting- above, and the UK Government could block operators modelled after a well- determine the scale of imports depend- defined system such as FSC, etc., and ing on the extent of compliance. which should ideally require consider- able investments by the operator in anti-poaching, community benefit pro- 4.3.3.2 Verification of hunting prac- grammes etc. tices ttt v. Facilitating training of Professional Each lion-hunting country should have Hunters regarding field assessment of an independent, competent and inclusive lion age (e.g. Miller et al. 2016) committee that is tasked with regulating and helping set formal appropriate and enforcing hunting practices. Ideally standards for lion hunts, particu- committees of this sort would be over- larly with regard to welfare concerns (e.g. demonstrating adequate evi- seen by an independent international dence of competence in shooting and organization such as International Or- other necessary skills, rapid dispatch ganisation for Standardisation (ISO). of wounded animals, using large-bore Their remit should involve the following rifles, no night-hunting, etc.) components, some of which have also been recommended by Di Minin et al. vi. Ensuring transparency of the process: (2016): there should be full disclosure to the public of results and reasons for block i. Auditing to ensure that lion monitor- allocations (which should be allocated ing practices (where they are in place; in order to maximise the funds avail- e.g. for the gold standard scenario) able for conservation), results of lion meet the required standards surveys, results of trophy age verifica- ii. Setting quotas where necessary, i.e. tion trophy inspection, offtake levels based on the results of the popula- and other relevant information, and all tion monitoring (for the gold-standard records (e.g. of samples for lion age- blocks) or based on the adaptive points ing) must be kept for any later inspec- system tion iii. Ensuring that minimal quotas (e.g. of vii. Ensuring compliance, so that the same 0.5 lions 1,000 km-2 or less for low- criteria are imposed on all block hold- density areas) are adhered to, unless ers, enabling independent observers to there is clear scientific evidence that be placed without advance warning on

57 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

trophy hunts, and ensuring that tro- and scars, nose and teeth colour. phies and permits are confiscated if The photos must be stamped with illegal practices are discovered, and the date and time or they would be that operators who break the laws are considered ineligible. barred from future hunting t X-rays of the upper premolar PM2 viii. Verifying the age of trophy hunted an- • and examination the degree of pulp imals before export. This should be closure in that tooth,asthishas based on the following information: been shown to be a very accurate t Hunt report forms confirming in- measure of lion age (White et al. • formation such as the date and lo- 2016). Both the upper premolars cation of the hunt. These forms should be presented to the inspec- are also required to be completed tion team to reduce the chance of for blocks even if no successful lion fraud. Presentation of the skull will hunt is completed in that area that also allow wear on the premolars year in order to encourage complete and canines to be easily judged – information and discourage under- this could be an alternative method reporting. of age estimation if an X-ray is t Photos of the lion immediately post- not possible, but all efforts should • mortem, to allow inspection of a be made to obtain the X-rays. It range of indicators of age, e.g. would also be desirable to take and mane development, facial markings bank DNA from all hunted lions.

58 5. An overview: Framing trophy hunting in the context of wider lion conservation

lthough many of the topics cov- proof fencing, which is more common in A ered in this report are hotly de- southern Africa, was an important deter- bated – such as the amount of revenue minant of short-term population trends. generated by trophy hunting, or its re- Awkwardly, the populations that seem placeability with photo-tourism – some to be declining fastest are also those that points are beyond debate. Key amongst are least well-monitored (and probably those is that the lion – one of the world’s have the least conservation effort), so most iconic species – has undergone se- inadequate data may be shrouding an vere declines in numbers and range over even worse situation. However, Bauer et the past few decades. Lions now re- al.’s (2015) population models suggest main in only 8% of their historic range, that the chance of populations declining with fewer wild lions now thought to ex- by half over the next two decades is 67% ist in Africa than rhinos (Bauer et al. in West and Central Africa and 37% in 2016). Nobody knows how many lions East Africa. So it is indisputable that there were in Africa a century ago, but effective, range-wide lion conservation the widely quoted speculation that there strategies are urgently needed to halt were about 200,000 is a tenfold contrast this precipitous decline. with current estimates closer to 20,000 (Bauer et al. 2016). The overarching priority is to se- cure and better manage existing pop- African lion populations are likely to ulations of lions – although there is be to be declining everywhere, except apressingneedformoresurveysof in four southern countries (Botswana, lion populations to assess numbers and Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe; trends. Dickman et al. (in prep.) used Bauer et al. 2015). The contrast be- the latest available data and concluded tween countries in southern Africa and that there are only six remaining popu- the rest of the continent is related to lations (Selous-Niassa, Serengeti-Mara, their lower human population densities, Kavango-Zambezi, Greater Limpopo, better management budgets and the Katavi-Ruaha and Kgalagadi) with more less damaging impacts on prey abun- than 1,000 lions. These 6 are amongst dance and lion by-catch of unsustainable 60 priority areas where lions are far from and increasingly commercialized bush- secure, over half of them with fewer than meat trade. Furthermore, Packer et al. 100 lions left. An apt conservation slo- (2013b) showed that presence of wildlife- gan, and call to arms, would therefore

59 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. be: secure the six, and save the sixty. impacts of each threat may often be dif- ficult to measure, it is hard to be precise Rising to this challenge will require when ranking them, and the ranking any- us to secure and better manage existing way varies from place to place. Nonethe- protected areas (which form the core of less, overall the major threats to lions lion populations), establish and moni- are the loss and degradation of habitat, tor lion presence and population trends the loss of prey, and conflict with peo- across lion range, improve the economic ple over livestock, and those pressures security of local people to reduce the are exacerbated when the lion popula- intensity of bushmeat poaching, and en- tions being affected are small, isolated sure that people have some power over and poorly managed, as is often the case wildlife on their land and receive suffi- (IUCN 2006a, b; Henschel et al. 2014). cient economic benefits from their pres- Experts agree that – certainly at a na- ence to outweigh any costs and incen- tional and regional scale – trophy hunt- tivise their protection. ing ranks low amongst the threats to lion populations (IUCN 2006a, b), and These steps cannot be taken by con- that it can, perhaps counter-intuitively, servationists alone – they will require have positive impacts through habitat effective collaboration across a huge di- protection and funding national wildlife versity of stakeholders, including pro- agencies (Di Minin et al. 2016; IUCN tected area managers, development ex- 2016). The fact that trophy hunting oc- perts, economists, national and local curs in an area does not necessarily make governments, and those people who live it a threat to the lion population there, with lions on their land every day. Most although it can be. importantly, enacting real change at a range-wide scale will require a level So, trophy hunting can be a locally of funding that is orders of magnitude important threat to lion conservation, higher than that allocated to wildlife and should be fiercely regulated to avoid conservation today. For example, Pan- this. A broader perspective, however, thera et al. (2016) estimate that just ranks trophy hunting generally not in effectively managing all protected areas the first division of threats to lion conser- within current lion range would require vation. Scanning the horizon, the great- an annual budget of at least US$1.25 bil- est threats over the next few decades lion – and many lions live outside those are likely to descend from the increas- protected areas, very many of them on ing footprint of a human population set trophy hunting concessions. to double, or more, by 2050. With this perspective, the real challenge for the Especially because constellations of UK Government, and the community of threats may interact, and because the those concerned for this iconic species

60 (and all the species for which it is an am- the world, chiefly the Governments and bassador), is to develop holistic conserva- local people in countries that still man- tion strategies likely to require long-term age lions. partnerships with stakeholders across

5.1 Summary of lion trophy hunting in the context of conser- vation

So, finally to take stock, why is tro- sport hunting of a threatened species, phy hunting of lions a topic of concern to perhaps on utilitarian grounds of secur- conservation? Because lions are charis- ing a greater good to conservation such matic top predators, already classified as habitat protection (Macdonald et al. as threatened or endangered (depending 2016b), the killing of lions nonetheless on the area) by the IUCN and demon- raises two obvious fears of over-harvest strably declining fast in parts of their and thus unsustainability. First, lions range, and trophy hunting is an obvious are difficult to count and therefore har- concern because it involves killing them. vests may be miscalculated and, anyway, There are two categories of reasons why there is an incentive to over-harvest for this may attract the attention of con- short-term profit, and documented ev- servationists and wider society. First, idence shows that this happens (some- the killing of individuals of a threatened times with dire consequences that have species for sport may be ethically unac- drawn a comparison with strip-mining; ceptable to some people and for those Packer 2015). Trophy hunting is most that hold this as a moral absolute, tro- straightforwardly34 acceptable to conser- phy hunting of wild lions (and, obviously, vation if it is demonstrably sustainable farmed lions) will be ruled out. Sec- (it should also adhere to high standards ond, for those who could countenance of animal welfare), and demonstrating

34The adverb ‘straightforwardly’ acceptable is not a descent into weasel words, but a caveat necessary to take account of argument in extremis with respect to the priority of retaining land in the lion estate and under wildlife use. The straightforward case is that trophy hunting is demonstrably sustainable, and that demonstration necessitates monitoring data, and therefore for trophy hunting to be acceptable there must be monitoring data and they must demonstrate sustainability. This should be the driving logic behind the regulation of trophy hunting as a potential contributor to lion conservation. However, and without relenting on the drive to demand high standards of trophy hunting, or other uses of wildlife, the logical possibility of an extreme possibility requires mention: even undesirably unsustainable trophy hunting may, in the short term, ‘buy time’ in keeping land in the lion estate and, irreversibly, out of agriculture, and this situation, while infuriating and lamentable, may be more tolerable than losing the land to wildlife.

61 Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al. its sustainability requires adequate data quences for lion conservation if it causes on lion numbers and their ages, ergo the marginal value of land previously trophy hunting is straightforwardly ac- retained under wildlife use for hunting ceptable only where lion numbers are to fall below that for non-wildlife uses monitored – and there are direct and (such as farming), and thus the lion es- indirect methods of doing this. tate to be diminished. Anticipating that possibility, there is an urgent imperative The most strongly evidenced benefit to find alternative means of giving those of trophy hunting to lion conservation is threatened parts of the lion estate suf- that it gives lions monetary value, which ficient monetary value to prevent their can provide a marginal economic advan- degradation. Indeed, the report strongly tage to keeping some land under wildlife re-emphasises Bauer et al.’s (2015) con- use that would otherwise more profitably clusion that unless political and funding be converted to other uses and thereby commitments are scaled up to address lost from the lion estate (at a time when mounting levels of threat, lions may dis- this is already shrinking perilously). All appear from most of Africa. else being equal, there might be no dif- ference in the conservation outcome if It seems that public opinion, in many lions are given the necessary monetary places, is strongly against trophy hunt- value by trophy hunting or by some other ing, particularly of threatened species means (for example, some form of inter- (Macdonald et al. 2016a). This creates national payment to encourage coexis- pressure for a ban on trophy hunting, tence; Dickman et al. 2011). However, but also risks unintended consequences all else is often not equal; killing ani- for lion conservation. This report ac- mals that are members of complex soci- knowledges that where there is evidence eties where they will be survived by sen- of scientifically-based regulation that is tient companions capable of behavioural strictly enforced, lion hunting can con- and psychological perturbation, may con- tribute to lion conservation, and that tribute to a mood in at least some sec- this constitutes a good reason to tolerate tions of society that, even if sustainable it at least on land that might otherwise and a benefit to conservation, hunting be lost to the lion estate. However, so- lions for sport is a recreation that is not cietal pressure may stop this recreation; compatible with 21st-century civilization. were this to happen before some alterna- Aplausiblespeculationisthatthisopin- tive means of giving lions monetary value ion will soon prevail (notwithstanding were in place (where photo-tourism can- clear cultural differences between East not do so), there are grounds to be fear- and West, North and South). Insofar as ful of serious detriment to the lions’ al- this creates pressure for a ban on trophy ready deteriorating conservation status. hunting it also risks unintended conse- In this regard, Macdonald et al. (2016a)

62 contrast the consequences of a jump ver- safeguard current protected areas for li- sus a journey: a precipitate jump to ons. For perspective, and while mindful ending lion trophy hunting might risk that society may face parallel expenses grave unintended consequences for the in funding custody of other global com- species’ conservation, consequences that mons, the amount needed seems less could be avoided by a carefully planned daunting when we realise that US$12 journey to that end. An obvious, and billion is spent annually in Europe and perhaps the only plausible, mechanism the US on perfume alone35.Untilsuch to achieve this would be some form of amechanismisinplace,therisktolion international payment to encourage co- conservation of a complete ban on tro- existence with lions; to the nearest or- phy hunting is too great to take, but der of magnitude, and considering only in the meantime the establishment of the costs of substituting other land uses strictly enforced regulations to ensure for trophy hunting, this could cost as that trophy hunting does benefit lion much as the US$1.25 billion estimates conservation is a priority. by Panthera et al. (2016) adequately to

35http://www.worldwatch.org/node/764

63