Review of Panthera leo from trading range States - rev 1...To date, the SRG has only discussed the lion ( Panthera leo ) populations of Ethiopia, Namibia, Tanzania and South Africa,

Review of Panthera leo from trading range States

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

European Commission Directorate General Environment

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

Agreements

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

February, 2012

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 Email: [email protected] Website: www.unep-wcmc.org The United Nations Environment Programme

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-

WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment

centre of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost

intergovernmental environmental organisation.

The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years,

combining scientific research with practical policy

advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and

highlight the many values of biodiversity and put

authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre

of decision-making. Through the analysis and

synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the

Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely

information for conventions, countries and

organisations to use in the development and

implementation of their policies and decisions.

UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically

rigorous procedures and services. These include

ecosystem assessments, support for the

implementation of environmental agreements,

global and regional biodiversity information,

research on threats and impacts, and the

development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC. 2012. Review of Panthera leo from

trading range States. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

PREPARED FOR

The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of UNEP, contributory

organisations or editors. The designations

employed and the presentations do not imply the

expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part

of UNEP, the European Commission or

contributory organisations, editors or publishers

concerning the legal status of any country, territory,

city area or its authorities, or concerning the

delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The

mention of a commercial entity or product in this

publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP.

© Copyright: 2012, European Commission


3

Introduction

To date, the SRG has only discussed the lion (Panthera leo) populations of Ethiopia, Namibia, Tanzania and South Africa, even though international trade has been recorded from most African range States. Consequently, the European Commission requested UNEP-WCMC to produce a review of the species from trading range States excluding South Africa, as this country was discussed recently by the SRG. The present report presents a review of the species from all range States (excluding South Africa) that exported at least five specimens during the period 2005-2010: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Sudan, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.


4

MAMMALIA FELIDAE

SPECIES: Panthera leo

COMMON NAMES: Leeuw (Dutch), Lion (English), Lion d'Afrique (French), León

(Spanish), Simba (Swahili), Lejon (Swedish)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan (ex), Algeria (ex), Angola, Benin, Botswana,

Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (ex), Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti (ex), Egypt (ex), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia (ex), Ghana, Greece (ex), Guinea (?), Guinea Bissau, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (ex), Iraq (ex), Israel (ex), Jordan (ex), Kenya, Kuwait (ex), Lebanon (ex), Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (ex), Malawi, Mali (?), Mauritania (ex?), Morocco (ex), Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan (ex), Rwanda (ex), Saudi Arabia (ex), Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic (ex), Togo, Tunisia (ex), Turkey (ex), Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Western Sahara (ex), Zambia, Zimbabwe

RANGE STATES UNDER REVIEW: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic,

Cameroon, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Sudan, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

IUCN RED LIST: Vulnerable

PREVIOUS EC OPINIONS: Current Article 4.6 b import suspension for wild specimens

from Ethiopia first applied on 10/05/2006 and last confirmed on 07/09/2011. Previous negative opinion for wild skins from Ethiopia formed on 01/07/2004.

Current positive opinion for Namibia formed on 16/02/2010.

Current negative opinion for wild specimens from South Africa formed on 10/11/2011.

Current positive opinion for the United Republic of Tanzania formed on 29/02/2008.

TRADE PATTERNS:

Benin: Benin has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have not yet been received from Benin for 2003 and 2006 (as of February 2012). Direct trade in P. leo to the EU-27 directly from Benin over the period 2001-2010 consisted exclusively of wild-sourced hunting trophies (eight trophies exported to France and one trophy imported by Germany) and scientific specimens (three specimens and four millilitres of specimens imported by the Netherlands). No indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from Benin was reported 2001-2010.

Direct trade in P. leo from Benin to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 principally comprised wild-sourced skins (12) and skin pieces (10) imported by the United States in 2006 for


5

scientific purposes. In addition, Benin reported the export of wild-sourced hunting trophies to both the United States (two trophies) and the Russian Federation (one trophy) in 2001; the United States reported the import of one hunting trophy in 2001 and one in 2006. Benin also reported the export of two live, captive-bred animals to the United Arab Emirates for zoological purposes in 2004 (confirmed by the importer the following year, recorded as personal possessions).

Botswana: Botswana has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Botswana has not yet submitted an annual report for 2010. Direct trade in P. leo from Botswana to the EU-27 comprised small numbers of wild-sourced hunting trophies reported as purpose ‘H’ and skins reported as personal possessions (Table 1); no trade was reported 2001-2004.

Table 1. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Botswana to the EU-27, 2005-2010 (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced. (No trade was reported 2001-2004; Botswana’s annual report for 2010 has not yet been received.)

Importer Term Reported by 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Belgium trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter

Cyprus skins Importer 1 1

Exporter

Finland trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 2 2

Germany trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 2 2

Slovakia skins Importer 1 1

Exporter

Spain trophies Importer 1 1 1 3

Exporter 1 1

Indirect trade in P. leo from Botswana to the EU-27 was exclusively wild-sourced and primarily comprised trophies and skins; with the exception of the ‘specimens’, which were traded for scientific purposes, all trade was reported as either purpose ‘H’, ‘T’ or ‘P’ (Table 2). The principal importers of skins and trophies were Germany and France, while the main re-exporter was South Africa.

Table 2. Indirect exports of Panthera leo originating in Botswana to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced.

Importer Term Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Belgium skins Importer 1 1

Exporter 3 1 4

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1 2

Czech Republic skins Importer 1 1

Exporter

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Finland trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

France plates Importer

Exporter 2 2

skins Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1 2

specimens Importer 28 28

Exporter

trophies Importer

Exporter 2 2

Germany skin pieces Importer 4 4

Exporter

skins Importer 8 2 2 3 1 1 17

Exporter 3 2 2 1 1 9


6


trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 7 1 2 2 2 1 15

Greece skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

trophies Importer

Exporter 2 1 3

Italy plates Importer

Exporter 2 2

skins Importer 1 1 2 1 5

Exporter 3 3

trophies Importer

Exporter 3 1 1 5

Netherlands skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

specimens Importer

Exporter 1 1

Poland trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Spain skins Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1


Exporter 1 1 2

Sweden trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

United Kingdom plates Importer

Exporter 1 1

skins Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1 1 3

Subtotals

skins Importer 8 1 3 5 5 2 2 1 27 27

Exporter 3 5 3 1 4 3 1 2 22 22

trophies Importer 1 1 2 2

Exporter 10 5 2 4 4 2 4 3 2 36 36

Direct trade in P. leo from Botswana to countries other than the EU-27 primarily comprised wild-sourced skins and trophies(Table 3). All trade was wild-sourced, with the exception of 15 live, captive-bred animals imported by South Africa. Apart from trade for scientific purposes and trade in live animals for circuses/travelling exhibitions or zoos, all trade was reported as either purpose ‘H’, ‘T’ or ‘P’. The principal importer was the United States.

Table 3. Direct exports of Panthera leo from the Botswana to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all sources and purposes). (Botswana’s annual report for 2010 has not yet been received.) Values rounded to one decimal place, where applicable.

Term Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

bodies Importer 1 1 2

Exporter

hair Importer 4 1 6 11

Exporter

live Importer 4 4 3 6 1 1 19

Exporter

skins Importer 1 15 10 5 68 8 7 8 122

Exporter

skulls Importer 3 1 2 6


7


Exporter

specimens (kg) Importer 0.2 0.2

Exporter

specimens (ml) Importer 1111 1111

Exporter

specimens Importer 150 995 928 28 561 40 36 29 2767

Exporter 2.8 578 580.8

trophies Importer 9 2 13 16 19 11 4 74

Exporter 23 2 25

Burkina Faso: Burkina Faso has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have been received from Burkina Faso for all years 2001-2010. Direct trade in P. leo from Burkina Faso to the EU-27 consisted exclusively of wild-sourced trophies reported as either purpose ‘H’ or ‘P’ (Table 4). The principal importer was France. No indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from Burkina Faso was reported 2001-2010.

Table 4. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Burkina Faso to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes). All trade was in wild-sourced trophies.

Importer Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Czech Republic Importer 2 2 4

Exporter 2 1 3

France Importer 1 6 2 9

Exporter 7 9 18 11 11 8 14 9 13 10 110

Germany Importer 1 1

Exporter

Italy Importer

Exporter 1 2 2 1 2 1 9

Poland Importer 2 2

Exporter

Total Importer 3 8 4 1 16

Exporter 9 11 18 13 13 8 15 11 14 10 122

Direct trade in P. leo from Burkina Faso to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 also consisted exclusively of wild-sourced trophies reported as either purpose ‘H’ or ‘P’, with a total of five trophies reported exported (to the United States, Norway and Namibia) and 12 trophies reported imported (by Mexico, the United States and Norway).

Cameroon: Cameroon has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have not yet been received from Cameroon for 2003, 2008 or 2010. Direct trade in P. leo from Cameroon to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced hunting trophies (purpose ‘H’) (Table 5). The principal importer of trophies was France (according to exporter-reported data). No indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from Cameroon was reported 2001-2010.

Table 5. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Cameroon to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Cameroon for 2003, 2008 or 2010.)




France trophies Importer 1 1 2 4

Exporter 6 6 9 11 1 8 41

Germany trophies Importer 1 1 2

Exporter 1 1 1 3

Italy trophies Importer

Exporter 1 2 3

Netherlands specimens Importer 20 20 40


8


Exporter

Spain trophies Importer 3 1 1 2 7

Exporter 3 1 3 7

Subtotals

(trophies)

Importer 3 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 15

Exporter 3 7 9 15 14 3 12 63

Direct trade in P. leo from Cameroon to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced hunting trophies (purpose ‘H’) (Table 6). The principal importer of hunting trophies was the United States.

Table 6. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Cameroon to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Cameroon for 2003, 2008 or 2010.)

Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 Total

live C Importer 1 1

Exporter

skin pieces W Importer 4 4

Exporter

specimens W Importer 1 1

Exporter 40 1 41

teeth U Importer 1 1

Exporter

trophies W Importer 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 14

Exporter 2 3 2 1 8

Central African Republic: The Central African Republic has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have not yet been received from the Central African Republic for 2003, 2004 or 2008. Direct trade in P. leo from the Central African Republic to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted exclusively of hunting trophies (purpose ‘H’), the majority of which were reported without a source and the remainder wild-sourced (Table 7). According to exporter-reported data, the principal importing country was France. No indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from the Central African Republic was reported 2001-2010.

Table 7. Direct exports of Panthera leo from the Central African Republic to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes). All trade was in hunting trophies (purpose ‘H’) and was wild-sourced or was reported without a source specified. (Annual reports have not yet been received from the Central African Republic for 2003, 2004 or 2008.)

Importer Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Belgium Importer

Exporter 1 2 3

Denmark Importer 2 1 3

Exporter 2 1 3

France Importer 1 1

Exporter 5 2 1 8 15 20 51

Germany Importer

Exporter 4 4

Luxembourg Importer

Exporter 2 2

Subtotal Importer 3 1 4

Exporter 7 3 2 8 17 26 63

Direct trade in P. leo from the Central African Republic to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted of trophies and skins recorded as purpose ‘H’, which were all either wild-sourced or reported without a source (a total of four skins and three trophies reported exported, and four trophies reported imported).


9

Ethiopia: Ethiopia published export quotas for P. leo trophies in every year 2001-2011 except 2010 (the 2001 quota included live animals) (Table 8), and for P. leo skins between 2004 and 2007 (Table 9). Trade remained within the quotas in all years. Annual reports have not yet been received from Ethiopia for 2008 or 2009.

Table 8. CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Panthera leo trophies from Ethiopia and global exports, as reported by the importers and exporter. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Ethiopia for 2008 or 2009.)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Quota 15* 30 12 20 20 20 20 20 20 10

Reported by Importer 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1

Reported by Exporter 2 1 1 1 1

*Includes live animals

Table 9. CITES export quotas for wild-sourced Panthera leo skins from Ethiopia and global exports, as reported by the importers and exporter. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Ethiopia for 2008 or 2009.)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Quota 80 80 80 80

Reported by Importer

Reported by Exporter 2 1

Direct trade in P. leo from Ethiopia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted of 200 captive-bred scientific specimens exported to Germany in 2007 (confirmed by the importer), and four claws reportedly seized/confiscated by the United Kingdom in 2004. Indirect trade in P. leo from Ethiopia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 comprised one pre-Convention large leather product exported via Kenya to the United Kingdom in 2007 for a travelling exhibition (confirmed by the United Kingdom, reported as a skin).

Direct trade in P. leo from Ethiopia to countries other than the EU-27 consisted of a large quantity of scientific specimens, the majority of which were wild-sourced, and smaller numbers of wild-sourced trophies and skins reported as purposes ‘H’, ‘P’ and ‘T’ (Table 10). In addition, small numbers of trophies and skins were reportedly seized/confiscated by Ethiopia. The principal importer, both of scientific specimens and of trophies, was the United States.

Table 10. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Ethiopia to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Ethiopia for 2008 or 2009.)

Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2010 Total

skins I Importer

Exporter 2 1 3

W Importer

Exporter 2 1 3

specimens C Importer

Exporter 6 6

W Importer 165 165

Exporter 165 165

trophies I Importer

Exporter 5 5

W Importer 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 11


Mozambique: Mozambique has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have been received from Mozambique for all years 2001-2010. Direct trade in P. leo from Mozambique to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted primarily of wild-sourced hunting trophies (purpose ‘H’), of which the principal importer was Spain (Table 11). With the exception of one skin piece reportedly seized/confiscated by Portugal in 2004, all trade was wild-sourced. All trade was recorded as purpose


10

‘H’ with the exception of the skin piece, which was reported without a purpose, and one carving reported as purpose ‘P’.

Table 11. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Mozambique to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all sources and purposes).


Austria trophies Importer 2 2

Exporter 2 2

Czech Republic carvings Importer

Exporter 1 1

Denmark trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

France trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Germany trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

Hungary trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1


Exporter 1 1

Poland trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Portugal live Importer 2 2

Exporter

skin pieces Importer 1 1

Exporter

trophies Importer 2 1 2 3 6 2 16

Exporter 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 11

Spain skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

skulls Importer

Exporter 1 1

trophies Importer 4 4 5 3 2 3 1 1 23

Exporter 2 2 4 3 14 3 1 3 2 3 37

United Kingdom trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Subtotals

(trophies)

Importer 4 6 5 4 4 6 7 6 42

Exporter 3 4 5 4 14 6 3 5 5 8 57

Indirect trade in P. leo from Mozambique to the EU-27 was all wild-sourced, and consisted of trophies reported as purposes ‘H’ and ‘T’ (four trophies reported by exporters, three by importers), one skin and one skull reported by importers only (both purpose ‘H’), and one scientific specimen reported by the exporter only. The principal importers were Spain and Germany, while the main re-exporter was South Africa.

Direct trade in P. leo from Mozambique to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 principally comprised hunting trophies and trophy items (Table 12). All trade was wild-sourced, with the exception of two captive-bred hunting trophies reported imported by the United States in 2005, and reported as either purpose ‘H’ or ‘P’. The principal importers were South Africa and the United States.

Table 12. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Mozambique to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all sources and purposes).


skin pieces Importer

Exporter 1 1

skins Importer 13 3 3 19


11


Exporter 5 1 6

skulls Importer 13 1 3 3 20

Exporter 1 2 3

teeth Importer 265 265

Exporter

trophies Importer 3 6 2 8 8 2 8 6 6 6 55

Exporter 10 5 10 7 7 12 8 12 20 16 107

Namibia: Namibia has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Namibia has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007. Direct trade in P. leo from Namibia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted of trophies and trophy items (e.g. skins and skulls); with the exception of one trophy reportedly seized/confiscated by Poland in 2004, all trade was wild-sourced and reported as purpose ‘H’, ‘P’ or ‘T’ (Table 13). The principal importer was Germany.

Table 13. Direct exports of wild-sourced Panthera leo from Namibia to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes). (Namibia has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007.)


Austria bodies Importer

Exporter 1 1

skins Importer 1 1 2

Exporter 1 2 3

trophies Importer 1 10 11

Exporter


Exporter 1 1

Bulgaria trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

Czech Republic trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Denmark trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

Finland trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

France trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

Germany claws Importer 5 5

Exporter

skins Importer 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 11

Exporter 2 3 1 6

skulls Importer 1 2 3

Exporter 1 1 1 3

teeth Importer 30 30

Exporter


Exporter 2 8 4 3 2 2 21

Italy skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

Netherlands trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Poland trophies Importer 1 3 9 13

Exporter 2 3 5

Portugal trophies Importer 2 1 3

Exporter 1 1

Romania trophies Importer


12


Exporter 1 1

Slovakia skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

Slovenia skins Importer

Exporter 1 1 2

Spain skins Importer

Exporter 1 1


Exporter 2 2

Sweden trophies Importer 1 4 5

Exporter 1 1 2

United Kingdom trophies Importer

Exporter 2 3 1 1 7

Subtotals

(trophies, source W)

Importer 1 6 3 7 5 12 6 11 51

Exporter 2 4 12 6 11 5 4 2 46

Indirect trade from Namibia to the EU-27 was all wild-sourced and re-exported via South Africa; trade primarily comprised hunting trophies (purposes ‘H’, ‘P’ and ‘T’) and skins traded for commercial purposes (Table 14).

Table 14. Indirect exports of Panthera leo from Namibia to the EU-27, 2001-2010. All trade was wild-sourced.


France trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Germany plates Importer

Exporter 1 1

Italy skins Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

Spain skins Importer 6 6

Exporter

trophies Importer

Exporter 6 6

United Kingdom skulls Importer 1 1

Exporter


Exporter 1 1 2

Direct trade in P. leo from Namibia to countries other than the EU-27 consisted primarily of wild-sourced scientific specimens and hunting trophies (purposes ‘H’ and ‘P’); the principal importer of both scientific specimens and trophies was the United States (Table 15). In addition, the United States reported the seizure/confiscation of one hunting trophy in 2010.

Table 15. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Namibia to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. (Namibia has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007.)

Term Source Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

bodies W Importer

Exporter 1 1 2

bones W Importer

Exporter 4 4

claws W Importer

Exporter 60 13 2 75

live C Importer 2 2

Exporter 2 2

skin pieces W Importer

Exporter 1 1


13


skins W Importer 1 3 2 1 7

Exporter 1 4 1 2 4 2 14

skulls W Importer 1 2 1 4

Exporter 3 3 1 2 9

small leather products W Importer 1 1

Exporter

specimens (kg) W Importer 0.4 0.4

Exporter 0.4 0.4

specimens (ml) W Importer

Exporter 2 2

specimens W Importer 184 4 25 10 223

Exporter 184 4 25 213

trophies W Importer 3 1 2 9 16 6 9 11 14 9 80

Exporter 8 2 1 14 10 7 11 19 3 75

South Sudan: South Sudan became an independent State in 2011; no direct or indirect trade in P. leo from South Sudan has yet been recorded.

Sudan: Sudan has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have not yet been received from Sudan for 2008 or 2009. No direct or indirect trade in P. leo from Sudan to the EU-27 has been recorded 2001-2010. Direct trade in P. leo from Sudan to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted almost entirely of live animals, the majority of which were wild-sourced and reported as purposes ‘P’, ‘Z’ and ‘T’ (Table 16). One live animal was reportedly seized/confiscated by the United Arab Emirates in 2003. The United Arab Emirates was the principal importing country.

Table 16. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Sudan to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. (Annual reports have not yet been received from Sudan for 2008 or 2009.)


large leather products W Importer 2 2

Exporter

live C Importer 2 2

Exporter

I Importer 1 1

Exporter

W Importer 4 6 4 7 2 2 25

Exporter 9 12 14 35

- Importer

Exporter 6 6

trophies W Importer 1 1

Exporter

The United Republic of Tanzania: The United Republic of Tanzania has not published any export quotas for P. leo. The United Republic of Tanzania has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007. Direct trade in P. leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 consisted primarily of hunting trophies (Table 17). With the exception of two trophies reportedly seized/confiscated by Australia in 2010, all trade was wild-sourced. Apart from the specimens and hair, which were traded for scientific purposes, all trade was recorded as either purpose ‘H’, ‘T’, ‘P’ or reported without a purpose. The principal importers of trophies were Spain and France, while the principal importer of scientific specimens was the United Kingdom.

Table 17. Direct exports of Panthera leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all sources and purposes). (The United Republic of Tanzania has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007.)

Importer Term (unit) Reported by 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Austria skins Importer 4 4

Exporter 1 1 2


14


skulls Importer 4 4

Exporter 1 1 2

trophies Importer 2 1 1 1 3 8

Exporter 3 2 4 2 1 12

Belgium skins Importer

Exporter 2 2

skulls Importer

Exporter 2 2


Exporter 8 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 23

Bulgaria skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

skulls Importer

Exporter 1 1


Exporter

Czech Republic trophies Importer 4 4 1 1 10

Exporter 3 3 1 1 8

Denmark skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

skulls Importer

Exporter 1 1

trophies Importer 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 13

Exporter 5 5 1 11


Exporter 1 1 2

France skins Importer

Exporter 14 6 20

skulls Importer

Exporter 14 6 20

trophies Importer 32 10 10 4 2 9 2 1 7 77

Exporter 26 28 28 15 30 12 3 2 5 149

Germany skins Importer 3 6 1 1 11

Exporter 1 4 5

skulls Importer 3 6 2 11

Exporter 4 4

specimens Importer 32 77 109

Exporter 32 32

trophies Importer 1 4 10 3 8 4 6 9 3 48

Exporter 4 12 8 5 9 5 2 45

Hungary skins Importer

Exporter 4 4

skulls Importer

Exporter 3 3


Exporter 2 6 1 2 1 12

Italy skins Importer

Exporter 4 3 7

skulls Importer

Exporter 4 3 7

trophies Importer 1 3 3 1 8


15


Exporter 3 4 5 6 5 3 3 1 30

Lithuania trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter

Luxembourg trophies Importer 2 1 3

Exporter 1 1 2

Netherlands hair (kg) Importer 1 1

Exporter

hair Importer

Exporter 50 50


Exporter 1 2 1 4

Poland trophies Importer 1 1 1 3

Exporter 1 1 2 1 5

Portugal trophies Importer 1 1 2 1 5

Exporter 1 1 2 4

Spain legs Importer

Exporter 2 2

skin pieces Importer

Exporter 1 1

skins Importer 1 1

Exporter 4 3 7

skulls Importer

Exporter 5 3 8

trophies Importer 20 22 25 10 27 22 18 12 8 8 172

Exporter 21 23 12 10 25 14 1 3 2 111

Sweden trophies Importer 1 2 3

Exporter 1 1

United Kingdom skins Importer 2 2

Exporter

specimens (kg) Importer 0.9 0.9

Exporter

specimens (ml) Importer 400 225 625

Exporter


Exporter 41 31 515 587

trophies Importer

Exporter 2 1 1 21 25

Subtotals


Importer 66 38 54 32 41 43 28 25 28 19 374

Exporter 78 82 69 37 82 64 14 8 10 444

Indirect trade in P. leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 was all wild-sourced, and comprised hunting trophies (purposes ‘H’, ‘P’ and ‘T’) and trophy items including bodies, skins and skulls (all purpose ‘H’); in addition, a large quantity of scientific specimens was imported by France via Switzerland in 2010 (Table 18). The majority of trophies and trophy items were re-exported via South Africa.

Table 18. Indirect exports of Panthera leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced.


Austria trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

Denmark trophies Importer

Exporter 2 2


16


France bodies Importer

Exporter 1 1

skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

skulls Importer

Exporter 1 1


Exporter


Exporter 1 2 1 4

Germany skins Importer 1 1

Exporter


Exporter 1 1


Exporter 1 1 1 3

Italy skulls Importer

Exporter 1 1


Exporter 2 1 1 1 5

Spain trophies Importer 1 2 3

Exporter 2 2 4

United Kingdom skulls Importer

Exporter 1 1

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1 1 1 4

Subtotals

(trophies)

Importer 1 1 2 2 1 2 9

Exporter 3 1 2 4 5 2 2 1 1 2 23

Direct trade in P. leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to countries other than the EU-27 principally comprised wild-sourced hunting trophies (purposes ‘H’, ‘P’ and ‘T’); the main importer was the United States (Table 19). The seizure/confiscation of one hair and one trophy was reported by the United States in 2006 and 2008, respectively.

Table 19. Direct exports of Panthera leo from the United Republic of Tanzania to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010. (The United Republic of Tanzania has not yet submitted an annual report for 2007.)


bones W Importer

Exporter 2 2

claws W Importer

Exporter 8 8

hair I Importer 1 1

Exporter

live C Importer 1 1

Exporter

skins W Importer 7 1 2 2 11 2 7 32

Exporter 39 32 71

skulls W Importer 7 1 2 3 9 4 8 34

Exporter 39 32 71

specimens W Importer 12 90 29 131

Exporter 11 11

trophies I Importer 1 1

Exporter

W Importer 126 143 122 93 116 131 80 104 112 78 1105

Exporter 139 120 118 51 116 116 42 10 11 723


17

Zambia: Zambia has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have been received from Zambia for every year 2001-2010. Direct trade in P. leo from Zambia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 primarily comprised wild-sourced hunting trophies (purposes ‘H’, ‘T’ and ‘P’); the principal importer was Spain (Table 20). With the exception of three trophies reported exported without a source or purpose in 2004, all trade was wild-sourced and recorded as either purpose ‘H’, ‘T’ or ‘P’, with the ‘specimens’ traded for scientific purposes. Indirect trade in P. leo from Zambia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 was all wild-sourced, and consisted of hunting trophies and trophy items (sources ‘H’ and ‘T’) and one scientific specimen (Table 21).

Table 20. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Zambia to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all sources and purposes).


Austria trophies Importer 1 1 2

Exporter 1 1


Exporter

Denmark skulls Importer 2 2

Exporter




Exporter 1 1 2

France skins Importer 2 2

Exporter


Exporter 1 1 3 1 4 4 14


Exporter

skulls Importer 1 1

Exporter



Hungary trophies Importer 2 2



Exporter 1 1

Latvia trophies Importer 1 3 4

Exporter 1 1 2

Lithuania trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

Netherlands trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Portugal skulls Importer 2 2

Exporter


Exporter 1 1

Spain trophies Importer 2 1 1 2 2 6 3 17

Exporter 1 1 4 3 4 5 3 3 24

Sweden feet Importer 2 2

Exporter

skins Importer 1 1

Exporter

skulls Importer 1 1

Exporter


18



Exporter 1 1 2

United Kingdom specimens Importer 9 9

Exporter 9 9

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1 5 1 8

Subtotals

(trophies)

Importer 4 3 4 1 7 6 10 7 3 45

Exporter 3 3 3 7 16 9 15 11 11 78

Indirect trade in P. leo from Zambia to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 was all wild-sourced, and consisted of hunting trophies and trophy items (sources ‘H’ and ‘T’) and one scientific specimen (Table 21). With the exception of the scientific specimen, which was re-exported via the United States, all trade was re-exported via South Africa.

Table 21. Indirect exports of Panthera leo from Zambia to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes). All trade was wild-sourced.


France skulls Importer

Exporter 2 2


Exporter

skulls Importer 1 1

Exporter

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Italy skin pieces Importer

Exporter 1 1

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Netherlands specimens Importer

Exporter 1 1

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Spain trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1

United Kingdom skulls Importer

Exporter 1 1

trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Direct trade in P. leo from Zambia to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 principally comprised wild-sourced hunting trophies (purposes ‘H’, ‘P’ and ‘T’) (Table 22). With the exception of the ‘specimens’, which were traded for scientific purposes, and the live animals, which were traded for educational purposes, all trade was reported as either purpose ‘H’, ‘P’, ‘T’ or recorded without a purpose. The principal importer was the United States; in addition, the United States reported the seizure/confiscation of two hunting trophies.

Table 22. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Zambia to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes).



19


bones W Importer 1 1

Exporter

live C Importer 3 3

Exporter

skin/leather items W Importer

Exporter 1 1

skins W Importer 1 4 1 3 2 11

Exporter 1 1 2

skulls W Importer 1 4 2 3 10

Exporter 1 1 2

specimens W Importer 88 88

Exporter 95 95

trophies C Importer 2 2

Exporter

I Importer 1 1 2

Exporter

R Importer

Exporter 1 1

W Importer 14 15 39 59 37 40 42 38 23 307

Exporter 18 3 33 53 51 47 35 29 182 451

- Importer

Exporter 34 34

Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe has not published any export quotas for P. leo. Annual reports have been received from Zimbabwe for every year 2001-2010. Direct trade in P. leo from Zimbabwe to the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 primarily comprised wild-sourced hunting trophies (purposes ‘H’, ‘T’ and ‘P’); the principal importers were Spain and Germany (Table 23). With the exception of one skin and one body seized/confiscated by the United Kingdom in 2003 and 2004, respectively, all trade was wild-sourced; all trade was reported as either purpose ‘H’, ‘T’, ‘P’ or recorded without a purpose. Indirect trade in P. leo to the EU-27 from Zimbabwe 2001-2010 comprised a total of nine trophies and three skulls reported re-exported by South Africa, and two trophies reported imported by Denmark and Spain; all trade was wild-sourced and recorded as either purpose ‘H’ or ‘P’.

Table 23. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Zimbabwe to the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all sources and purposes).


Austria skins Importer 1 1

Exporter


Exporter


Exporter 3 3 3 1 1 11

Belgium trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1

Bulgaria trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 1 1 1 3

Cyprus skins Importer

Exporter 1 1

Denmark skulls Importer 1 1

Exporter


20



Exporter 5 2 1 8

Estonia trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter 2 2

Finland skins Importer 1 1

Exporter

trophies Importer 1 1 1 1 1 5

Exporter 2 1 3

France trophies Importer 1 1 1 3

Exporter 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 14

Germany skins Importer 8 4 1 13

Exporter 1 1


Exporter

trophies Importer 2 5 2 3 4 1 2 1 20

Exporter 5 6 2 1 3 3 1 21

Greece carvings Importer 6 6

Exporter

skins Importer 1 1

Exporter

Hungary trophies Importer

Exporter 1 1


Exporter 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 10

Lithuania trophies Importer 2 1 1 4

Exporter 1 1 1 3

Poland trophies Importer 1 1 1 1 4

Exporter 1 1 1 1 4

Portugal trophies Importer 5 5

Exporter 2 2

Slovakia trophies Importer 2 2

Exporter 2 1 1 4

Slovenia trophies Importer 1 1

Exporter

Spain trophies Importer 6 14 11 11 7 1 2 1 2 1 56

Exporter 5 7 10 8 6 1 3 2 1 43

Sweden trophies Importer 1 1 1 3

Exporter

United Kingdom bodies Importer 1 1

Exporter

skins Importer 1 1

Exporter


Exporter 3 1 3 2 9

Subtotals


Importer 18 22 19 15 13 9 5 4 6 4 115

Exporter 24 19 26 15 13 12 8 8 8 6 139

Direct trade in P. leo from Zimbabwe to countries other than the EU-27 between 2001 and 2010 principally consisted of wild-sourced trophies, with wild-sourced skins and skulls also traded in notably quantities as hunting trophies (purposes ‘H’, ‘P’ and ‘T’) (Table 24). A number of captive-bred scientific specimens, live animals and bodies were also traded, with a small quantity of scientific specimens from ranched sources also reported in trade. With the exception of the scientific specimens,


21

live animals traded for captive breeding or circuses/travelling exhibitions, and a small number of skins, trophies and specimens traded for educational purposes, all trade was recorded as purpose ‘H’, ‘P’, ‘T’ or reported without a purpose.

Table 24. Direct exports of Panthera leo from Zimbabwe to countries other than the EU-27, 2001-2010 (all purposes).


bodies C Importer

Exporter 2 2

W Importer 1 1

Exporter

carvings W Importer 26 26

Exporter

claws I Importer 49 2 51

Exporter

W Importer 16 16

Exporter 52 52

garments W Importer 1 1

Exporter

large leather products W Importer 1 1

Exporter

live C Importer 10 15 15 20 60

Exporter 11 15 26

W Importer 17 22 2 41

Exporter 25 25

plates I Importer 1 1

Exporter

W Importer 2 1 3

Exporter 1 1

skin pieces W Importer 1 1

Exporter

skins W Importer 12 2 1 3 2 9 5 6 40

Exporter 1 4 1 3 2 11

skulls I Importer 4 4

Exporter

W Importer 7 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 6 27

Exporter 7 5 12

specimens C Importer 20 20

Exporter 36 36 72

I Importer 19 19

Exporter

R Importer 16 16

Exporter

W Importer 23 16 7 46

Exporter

teeth I Importer 5 1 6 12

Exporter

W Importer

Exporter 3 3

trophies W Importer 61 64 72 73 64 43 32 31 48 39 527

Exporter 61 62 62 27 56 37 18 26 18 29 396

- Importer 1 1

Exporter


22

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states

Panthera leo was reported to occur in most sub-Saharan African countries (Wilson and Reeder, 2005; Bauer et al., 2008), with a single population of P. leo persica remaining in Gir Forest National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary in India (Bauer et al., 2008). The extent of occurrence was estimated at 4.5 million km², reportedly representing 22 per cent of its historical range (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a; IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b; Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). While 77 per cent of the species range was reported to lie within eastern and southern Africa, it was noted that information was lacking for large parts of Africa (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a; IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b; Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). The species was reported to occur in all African habitats, with the exception of deep desert and deep rainforest, making it an “important element in many African ecosystems” (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

The species lives in matriarchal prides, with males (single or coalitions) generally holding tenure over 2-3 years (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). Females usually lose their cubs to infanticide after takeovers, as males try to ensure paternity of offspring (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). Although males reach sexual maturity at 26 months, they usually only get the opportunity to breed at 5 years of age and while holding tenure of a pride (Wilson and Mittermeier, 2009). The size of home ranges and pride size was found to be correlated with prey biomass (Sunquist and Sunquist, 2002).

P. leo numbers were noted to have halved since 1950, to as low as 200 000, or less, in the 1970s (Myers, 1975; in Bauer et al., 2008). In 1980, Ferreras and Cousin (1996; in Bauer et al., 2008) estimated a population of 75 800 P. leo, with most animals occurring outside protected areas. “Educated guesstimates” by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group in the early 1990s ranged from 30 000 to 100 000 animals (Nowell and Jackson, 1996). In 2002, Chardonnet (2002) estimated 39 000 animals, with about half of the species’ range in unprotected areas. Also in 2002, Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) estimated 23 000 P. leo, primarily occurring in protected areas. In 2006, the population was estimated at between 29 995 and 36 495 animals (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a; IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b), however later counts in Western Africa found fewer animals than previously estimated, therefore requiring reduction of the 2006 estimates (LionAid, 2011).

At least 17 P. leo "strongholds" of more than 50 000 km² in extent were reported to exist (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). However, while genetic modelling was reported to have shown that large populations (50-100 P. leo prides) and male dispersal were required to conserve genetic diversity and avoid inbreeding (Bjorklund, 2003), such conditions were considered to be met by few wild populations (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). However, reintroductions in reserves were found to be of questionable value to the species’ conservation, due to inbreeding (Trinkel et al., 2010).

P. leo was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, based on a suspected population reduction of approximately 30 per cent over the past two decades (three generations) (Bauer et al., 2008). While the population estimates by Ferreras and Cousin (1996; in Bauer et al., 2008), Chardonnet (2002) and Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) used different methods and comparisons were considered difficult, the species was thought to have substantially declined outside protected areas but populations in protected areas were thought to be stable or possibly increasing (Bauer et al., 2008). Bauer et al. (2008) considered the declines of up to 90 per cent reported by a number of authors in the early 2000s to be “most unlikely”. However, 42 per cent of major P. leo populations were thought to be declining (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008).

Population declines were reported to be primarily due to indiscriminate killing in defence of life and livestock, combined with prey base depletion (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008) and disease (Ray et al., 2005). Some populations were noted to have declined and become isolated due to habitat loss and conversion (Bauer, 2008; in Bauer et al., 2008). The retaliatory or pre-emptive killing of animals was considered to be the greatest threat to the species (Frank et al., 2006) and playing the most important role in its decline outside protected areas (Whitman et al., 2007). While Bauer et al. (2008) considered the economic impacts of stock raiding by P. leo to be significant, LionAid (2011) considered its impact on livestock as well as on human lives negligible, but noted that the species was still killed


23

disproportionally in retaliation, with cultural killing difficult to differentiate from retribution in some countries.

While the suspected declines were not considered to be due to trade-related causes by “many in the cat conservation community”, such as the Cat Specialist Group and African Lion Working Group (Nowell, 2004; in IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b), others considered trophy hunting to be the main driver of population decline in P. leo (e.g. Packer et al., 2009; Packer et al., 2011) and it was reported to be responsible for a higher proportion of P. leo deaths annually than retaliatory killings (LionAid, 2011). Trophy hunting was thought to have significant impacts on reproduction among hunted populations, with increased turnover rates of pride males and reduced cub survival, if prime males were targeted (Whitman et al., 2004) and changes in socio-spatial behaviour (e.g. Davidson et al., 2011).

However, trophy hunting was thought to represent a trivial threat to the species, if breeding biology and social behaviour were considered adequately, with strict restriction of hunting to males of a “safe minimum age” of ≥6 years, potentially making the use of hunting quotas unnecessary (Whitman et al., 2004; Whitman et al., 2007). Loveridge et al. (2009) considered P. leo populations to be “incredibly resilient”, provided that the social structure remained relatively intact and immigration from other populations was possible. While trophy hunting was considered an important management tool for P. leo conservation, concerns were raised over potentially unsustainable offtakes under current management regimes (e.g. Packer et al., 2006).

Furthermore, increased threat status/rarity of wild felid species was found to increase their attractiveness for hunters, while downgrading of the threat status was reported to lead to a reduction in hunting pressure (e.g. Palazy et al., 2011). Concerns were also raised over the likelihood of increasing illegal trade with increasing threat status and the authors considered it an unappreciated threat to those felids subject to hunting quotas, without efficient enforcement (Palazy et al., 2011).

Scientifically established hunting quotas, regulated at an international level, combined with improved protection methods were considered to be urgently required for trophy hunting to be used appropriately as a conservation tool (Palazy et al., 2011). LionAid (2011) pointed out that P. leo population assessments required consideration of population structure and occurrence in protected areas to estimate “available lions” for trophy hunting; according to LionAid (2011), a given population size should therefore be reduced by 40 per cent (proportion of P. leo estimated to occur in protected or non-consumptive areas), of which 15 per cent were estimated to be adult males. LionAid (2011) considered trophy hunting to be highly unsustainable when depending on unknown source populations, and recommended a ban of all P. leo trophy hunting, until independent assessments of all populations within hunting concessions have been made and such populations have stabilized. Lindsey et al. (2012), however, noted that a hunting ban may have negative impacts on the conservation of the species and its habitat, compared to ecologically unfavourable alternatives, and Frank et al. (2006) noted that “benefits of wildlife must outweigh the costs” to ensure conservation of the species. Lindsey et al. (2012) consequently recommended that intervention should focus on reduction of hunting to sustainable levels, combined with improved management. Temporary hunting moratoria though were found to be potentially useful interventions to restore populations in hunting areas (Davidson et al., 2011).

The species was reported to be present in a number of large and well-managed protected areas and was noted to generate significant cash revenue for park management and local communities, providing a strong incentive for conservation (Bauer et al., 2008).

The species had been identified as a possible candidate for the Review of Significant Trade in 2004, based on trade levels in trophies, mainly originating from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe (AC20 Inf. 12). In 2004, the proposal to uplist the species from Appendix II to Appendix I (CoP13 Prop. 6) was withdrawn, with the Conference of the Parties recommending a series of workshops in support of the development of regional conservation strategies. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group consequently published the Conservation Strategy for the Lion in West and Central Africa (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a) and the Regional Conservation Strategy for the Lion in Eastern and Southern Africa, both of which were intended for implementation in the ten years following development (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).


24

LionAid (2011) reported that they were working towards an uplisting proposal of the species and were seeking support from Botswana, Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana and Malawi.

At the 25th meeting of the CITES Animals Committee (July 2011), the Committee acknowledged that Kenya and Namibia had offered to lead the review as a high priority with range State consultation (AC25 summary record). At its 26th meeting (July 2012), the Animals Committee encouraged Kenya and Namibia to continue and finalize their review and submit it as soon as possible to the Animals Committee for its consideration (Doc AC26 WG1 Doc. 2). In February 2012, the Second African Lion Working Group meeting was held in Etosha, Namibia (see Final communiqué in Annex 1). In March 2012, Lion Aid organised a meeting on the conservation needs and status of P. leo (see Annex 2 for reported outcomes).

West and Central Africa

The range of the species in West and Central Africa was estimated at 331 749 km2 and 715 482 km2, respectively (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

West and Central Africa were estimated to contain 10 per cent of the African P. leo population (LionAid, 2011) and the population was thought to number between 1000 and 2850 animals (Henschel et al., 2010). The West and Central African populations of P. leo were found to be more closely related to the Asiatic population than to the populations of Eastern and Southern Africa, requiring strategic priorization of genetically distinct lineages to conserve genetic diversity (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

In 2002, the population in West Africa was estimated at 850 (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004) to 1163 animals (Chardonnet, 2002), while in 2006, it was estimated at 1495 to 2530 animals (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). However, in 2011, the population was estimated at between 569 to 1039 animals, based on ground surveys which revealed that only two rather than 13 ‘Lion Conservation Units’ (LCU) actually contained P. leo (LionAid, 2011). The West African populations were reported to be severely fragmented and restricted mainly to protected areas, with the lowest overall number of animals within Africa in two viable populations and a few smaller populations (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

In 2002, the Central African population was estimated at 950 (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a) to 2815 animals (Chardonnet, 2002). A lack of knowledge of the species status in Central Africa was noted, with population estimates showing the highest divergence across assessments (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). However, it was noted that the Central African region was less fragmented and contained two large and viable populations, in addition to a number of smaller ones (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

Most populations were reported to be restricted to protected areas, hunting zones and immediate surroundings (Bertola et al., 2011) and the species’ distribution was estimated to include 35 per cent/10 per cent national parks, 12 per cent/4 per cent reserves, 15 per cent/38 per cent hunting zones and 37 per cent/48 per cent other areas in West/Central Africa, respectively (Chardonnet, 2002).

The main threats to the species were reported to be habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation; decline of wild prey base and human-lion conflicts; as well as the institutional weakness of the region and low capacity for species specific conservation efforts (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). Trophy hunting was reported to be practiced in three LCUs, all of which were considered to be viable; with exceptional hunting permissions issued in one further LCU in Senegal (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). Losses of human life were noted to be fewer than in other parts of Africa (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

The species was considered Endangered regionally (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004), with the populations reported to be isolated, with little or no exchange of breeding individuals (Chardonnet, 2002; Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004). The population trend was considered to be downwards, however it was pointed out that some natural recolonisation had been observed (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).


25

The following issues were considered to need addressing:

a) West Africa:

- Maintaining sufficient habitat to ensure survival of the species; - Ensuring sufficiency of wild prey base; - Sustainability of lion-human cohabitation; - Reduction of factors leading to population viability loss;

b) Central Africa:

- Improvement of P. leo habitat conservation; - Reduction of human-lion conflict; - Ensuring availability of wild prey base;

The Strategy also recommended the consequent development of national action plans for the species (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

Benin: The majority of the population was thought to be concentrated in the Arly-Pendjari ecosystem area [north-western Benin] (Di Silvestre, 2002; in Sogbohossou et al., 2011), with a further population in the Mount Kouffe/Wari Maro area [central Benin] (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) estimated the species’ population in Benin at 65 animals in 2001/2002, while Chardonnet (2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005b) estimated the population at 325 animals. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006a) noted that there was disagreement over the size of the population in the Arly-Pendjari ecosystem [population shared with Burkina Faso, therefore overlap in numbers], with estimates ranging from 100 to 500 and the population was thought to be stable. Density estimates in Arly-Pendjari ranged from 0.67 (Sogbohossou, 2009; in Sogbohossou et al., 2011) to 1.5 (Sogbohossou et al., 2011) animals per 100 km2. The population at Mount Kouffe/Wari Maro area was estimated at less than 50 animals, but with an increasing population trend (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

It was also reported to be threatened by illegal killing, prey depletion, human and livestock encroachment, human resource use in protected areas, problem animal control, trophy hunting and habitat loss (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). LionAid (2011) noted that the population size was unclear and that the species was impacted by illegal offtake and livestock encroachment and concluded that harvest was unsustainable in the absence of population.

Trophy hunting was reported to be practised in five hunting areas in northern Benin, in the periphery of two national parks (Pendjari and W National Park), representing 3.5 per cent of the country’s area (UICN/PACO, 2009). The number of big game hunting permits granted was reported to be increasing, with 89 permits granted in the 2007-2008 season (UICN/PACO, 2009). About 4.2 P. leo were reported to be killed for trophies per year; however, the hunting quota was noted not to be based on a scientific basis and a system to monitor hunting was reported to be absent (UICN/PACO, 2009). The Mt Kouffe/Wari Maro area was considered to be a priority area for P. leo field surveys (Henschel et al., 2010).

However, Benin reported to try to achieve a balance between national parks and hunting areas, was working towards sustainable financing and was reported to communicate about populations and on hunting assessments, which was considered to “bode well for the future” (UICN/PACO, 2009). Big game hunting was not considered to provide any real economic gains to Benin and a reconsideration of conservation strategies was suggested (UICN/PACO, 2009).

Wildlife management was reported to be governed by Loi N° 2002-016 of 18 October 2004 (‘portant régime de la faune en République du Bénin’) (UICN/PACO, 2009).

Burkina Faso: The species was reported to occur in three isolated populations in the south and east of the country (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) estimated the species’ population in Burkina Faso at 100 animals, while Chardonnet (2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005b) estimated the population at 444 animals. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006a) noted that there was disagreement over the size of the population, with estimates ranging from 100 to 500


26

animals in the Arly-Singou ecosystem [population shared with Benin, therefore overlap in numbers]; the population was thought to be stable.

The species was reported to be threatened by illegal killing, livestock encroachment, human resource use in protected areas, poaching of prey species, problem animal control and trophy hunting (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). LionAid (2011) noted that the population size was unknown, but considered it to be overhunted and impacted by illegal offtake and livestock encroachment and concluded that trophy hunting was highly unsustainable.

The species is listed on Appendix II of Décret n° 96-061/PRES/PM/MEE/MATS/MEFP/MCIA/MTT 1996 as a partially protected species, requiring export permits (MECV, 2005).

Big game hunting was reported to be practiced in 14 hunting areas, representing 3.4 per cent of the country’s area, with 201 big game permits granted from 2002 to 2006 and an average of 11.9 P. leo killed for trophies per year from 1996 to 2006 (UICN/PACO, 2009). A lack of population monitoring within hunting concession was noted (UICN/PACO, 2009). Overall, big game hunting was not considered to provide any real economic gains to neither government, the private sector, nor local communities in Burkina Faso and a reconsideration of conservation strategies was suggested to be required (UICN/PACO, 2009).

Cameroon: P. leo was reported to be restricted to two populations, one in Waza National Park and one in the Bénoué basin (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

In 2002, the population in Cameroon was estimated at 260 (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004) to 415 animals (Chardonnet, 2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005b) and in 2006 estimates of 260-360 were reported (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

In Waza National Park, the population had been estimated at 60 animals in 2001/2002 (H. Bauer pers. comm. in Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004), while in 2008 the population was estimated at 14-21 adult individuals (Tumenta et al., 2010). The population in the Bénoué ecosystem was estimated at 200 animals in 2001/2002 (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004) and the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006a) reported a decreasing population trend. The Bénoué complex was thought to potentially be the most important conservation area for the species in Central Africa (Croes et al., 2011).

Concerns were raised about the possibility of extinction of the Waza National Park population in the near future, due to poaching and illegal retaliation killings by livestock owners, in the absence of better protection in the park (de Iongh et al., 2009; Tumenta et al., 2010). Furthermore, the structure of this population was found to indicate a negative growth and the status of the population was considered Critical (Tumenta et al., 2010). An immediate stop of illegal activities was considered to be required to ensure a recovery of this population (Tumenta et al., 2010). In the Bénoué ecosystem, unsustainable levels of trophy hunting were reported to have lowered the population density, altered sex-ratios and ranging behaviour (Croes et al., 2011). A temporary cease of trophy hunting was considered to be required to allow recovery of this population, with consequent reassessment of the hunting system (Croes et al., 2011).

The species was reported to be threatened by high levels of illegal killing and poaching of prey species, human and livestock encroachment, human resource use in protected areas and trophy hunting (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). LionAid (2011) noted that the population was reported to be in significant decline, with high rates of illegal killing and poaching of prey and concluded that trophy hunting was unsustainable.

Forty-five hunting areas were reported to cover 8.4 per cent of the country’s area, with 13 P. leo reported to have been killed for trophies in the savannah area in 2005/06 (UICN/PACO, 2009). Hunting quotas were noted not to be set according to a scientific basis (Croes et al., 2011). Big game hunting was not considered to provide any real economic gains to Cameroon and a reconsideration of conservation strategies was recommended (UICN/PACO, 2009).

Wildlife management is subject to loi 94-01 of 19th January 1994 and décret No 95-466-PM of 20th July 1995.


27

Central African Republic: The species was reported to occur in the northern and north-eastern parts of the country, with populations shared with Chad and Sudan (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

In 2002 the species’ population was estimated at 300 (P. Scholte, pers. comm. in Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004) to 986 animals (Chardonnet, 2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005b), while in 2006 the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006a) reported estimates of 1500 animals and a stable population trend. Henschel et al. (2010) noted that the eastern and northern areas of the Central African Republic were priority areas for field surveys of LCU’s.

The species was reported to be threatened by high levels of illegal killing and poaching of prey species, livestock encroachment, human resource use in the protected area and trophy hunting (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). LionAid (2011) noted that the species’ population size was unknown, but was heavily affected by illegal killing and poaching of prey and concluded that trophy was unsustainable.

Hunting areas were reported to cover 31.5 per cent of the country’s area, with one third of this area being actively exploited and poaching considered having serious impacts (UICN/PACO, 2009). Wildlife densities in general were considered to be extremely low and the hunting system in place [2009] was thought to be unable to preserve wildlife (UICN/PACO, 2009).

Hunting quotas were noted not to be allocated on a scientific basis, based on annual reports, economic interests of the State and those of operators and the sustainability of hunting was not considered to be guaranteed (UICN/PACO, 2009). Furthermore, relevant legal texts were considered to be obsolete and a reconsideration of the management of the sector was recommended (UICN/PACO, 2009).

Eastern and Southern Africa

The known range in Eastern and Southern Africa was estimated at 1.7 million km2, although the inclusion of possible range led to an estimated range of up to 3.9 million km2 (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004). The population in Eastern and Southern Africa (including the Democratic Republic of Congo) was estimated at 29 665 animals in areas covering 61 per cent of known and possible P. leo range (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

Many P. leo populations in this region were reported to have remained stable over the last three decades [1970s onwards], with revenue from hunting and tourism reported to support conservation (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

In East/Southern Africa, the species’ distribution was estimated to include 13 per cent /28 per cent national parks, 12 per cent/39 per cent reserves, 10 per cent/3 per cent hunting zones and 64 per cent/31 per cent other areas (Chardonnet, 2002).

The species range was thought to be limited by human pressure (human and livestock density, illegal killing of P. leo and insufficient prey), unknown factors, problem animal control and physical barriers (habitat transition, water etc) (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

Sixty-six ‘Lion Conservation Units’ (LCU) were identified to be of importance for the species’ conservation, 19 of which were considered viable, 35 potentially viable and 12 significant but with doubtful viability; 32 per cent of these populations were considered stable, 36 per cent decreasing and 24 per cent unknown (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). Sixty-five percent of these LCUs were reported to have more than half of their area under various levels of legal protection and 15 LCUs covered areas of more than 50 000 km2 and were considered P. leo strongholds (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

The most serious threat to the species in this region was considered to be the indiscriminate killing of specimens and the depletion of their prey base (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). Further threats included small population size, habitat conversion and livestock encroachment (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). The root causes of threats were identified to be human population growth and poverty, as well as armed conflict and external developments (e.g. declines in international tourism due to terrorism) (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).


28

Trophy hunting, as carried out at the time [2006], was also considered to have negative impacts on several populations, but was considered to be an important tool for long-term conservation of the species, if managed properly (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). The Regional Conservation Strategy for the Lion in Eastern and Southern Africa therefore emphasized the importance of trophy hunting as a management tool capable of providing benefits to local people and revenues to government conservation authorities, if best practices ensuring sustainability are implemented (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

The Strategy identified that the following issues needed addressing and developed a series of objectives within the Strategy:

- Improved lion population management through national action plans for the species including sustainable trophy hunting, recognizing its importance as revenue generator and management tool; traditional lion hunting required management too;

- Mitigation of lion-human conflict through preventive measures and damage compensation; - Equitable sharing of costs and benefits derived from lion conservation management; - National legal frameworks for the promotion of wildlife-integrated land use; - Better reflection of the regional and national intent in global policies in support of the

sustainable use of lions; and - Best practices in monitoring and trophy hunting management, improved regulation of legal

trade while curbing illegal trade through increased efficiency of enforcement;

The Strategy also recommended the consequent development of national action plans for the species (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

Botswana: P. leo was considered to be relatively widespread in Botswana (Nowell and Jackson, 1996; Haas et al., 2005). The range map by Chardonnet (2002) showed that the species was absent from some areas in eastern and western Botswana. Chardonnet (2002) estimated the total range of P. leo in Botswana to cover 197 234 square kilometers, out of which the majority (73%) was within Reserves.

Along with South Africa, Botswana was considered to hold the largest populations of P. leo within Southern Africa (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004). Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) estimated the population size in Botswana to be 2918 animals in 2001/2002, while Chardonnet (2002) gave an estimate of 3217 individuals. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b) reported population estimates ranging from 2900 to 3500, noting that many populations were shared with neighbouring countries (Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa). The largest population within Botswana was reported to be found in the Okavango Delta, with an estimated 1698 individuals in a range of 14 741 square kilometres (Chardonnet, 2002). The Kgalagadi ecosystem, shared between southern Botswana and northern South Africa, was considered another stronghold with 500-1000 individuals (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

According to the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b), the main populations in Botswana were considered stable; however, Chardonnet (2002) considered the populations in Makgadikgadi National Park to be locally threatened.

The main threats to P. leo in Botswana were considered to include disease, illegal killing, livestock encroachment, habitat conversion, low prey availability, human resource use in protected areas and problem animal control (Gebresenbet et al., 2010; LionAid, 2011). LionAid (2011) considered the threat from trophy hunting to be small. According to Chardonnet (2002), human-lion conflict had led to a decline of the local populations within the Makgadikgadi National Park. A survey in Makgadikgadi by Hemson et al. (2009) showed that local attitudes towards P. leo conservation were generally negative, and that tourism was seen to contribute little to local livelihoods. It was recommended that to control human-lion conflicts in Botswana, the benefits from tourism should be distributed better to the local communities (Hemson et al., 2009).

The Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act of 1992 listed P. leo as a ‘partially protected game animal’ under the Seventh Schedule, Part I, and also as a ‘dangerous animal’ under the Ninth Schedule (Government of Botswana, 1992). The Act specified that P. leo could only be hunted with a licence, and that the licence holder was responsible for showing the skull of the hunted animal to the


29

licensing officer for inspection (Government of Botswana, 1992). It also listed the regulations concerning the export of trophies and compliance with CITES (Government of Botswana, 1992).

A moratorium on P. leo trophy hunting was put in place by the Government during 2002-2004 due to concerns over the management of problem animal control (Loveridge et al., 2009), and was again established in 2008 (Damm, 2007; Lamarque et al., 2008; LionAid, 2011). LionAid (2011) noted that the current moratorium “might be permanent”, as the Government was considered to be investing in non-consumptive wildlife uses.

The Botswana Wildlife Conservation and National Parks (Lions) (Killing restriction) Order of 2005 set the regulations concerning the killing of P. leo causing damage to livestock or property (Government of Botswana, 2005). It specified that P. leo may be killed if it had killed livestock, or threatened human life; however, in the case of a group of animals causing damage, the killing of only one of these was allowed (Government of Botswana, 2005). In the case of damage to livestock or other property, it specified that the damage should be reported to the wildlife office or police (Government of Botswana, 2005). The losses could be claimed from the State unless within a National Park (Hemson et al., 2009), according to the Fauna Conservation (compensation for destruction of livestock and other property) Order of 1980 (Government of Botswana, 1980). However, studies conducted in local communities showed that compensation gained may not be enough to discourage illegal killing of lions seen as problem animals (Gusset et al., 2009; Hemson et al., 2009), and a review of the compensation policy along with changes in livestock husbandry were recommended by Gusset et al. (2009).

Ethiopia: Bauer (2009) noted that the distribution and abundance of P. leo were poorly known in Ethiopia. An endemic subspecies, P. l. abyssincum was previously found in the western parts of the country but was considered extinct in the wild (Tefera, 2011). According to the range maps by the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b) and Chardonnet (2002), the known range of P. leo in Ethiopia was patchy, and Yirga (2009) reported that currently, the species was found “only at few spots”. The range map by Gebresenbet et al. (2009) indicated that the species was mainly absent in the northern and central parts of the country. The largest populations were considered to be found in Gambella-Boma and Greater Omo regions in southwestern Ethiopia (Bauer, 2009). Chardonnet (2002) estimated the total range area to be 404 014 square kilometres, of which 58 per cent was on non-gazetted areas.

Chardonnet (2002) estimated the population size to be 1844 individuals, with a minimum of 1201 and a maximum of 2227. Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) gave an estimate of 1000 individuals, with a minimum of 635 and a maximum of 1365. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b) reported population estimates between less than 250 and 500 individuals (excluding the Boma-Gambella population of 250-500 individuals, which was shared with South Sudan). Bauer (2009) estimated the population size at 1050 individuals.

The main threats to P. leo in Ethiopia were considered to include increased human population pressure, habitat loss, low political priority of the species, weak law enforcement and lack of capacity (Gebresenbet et al., 2009). Bauer (2009) reported that human-lion conflicts had become more common in recent years due to decline in wild prey base, and Yirga (2009) reported livestock predation and attacks on humans in the Awash National Park.

LionAid (2011) considered the levels of trophy hunting to be low, however noting that a population assessment was urgently required to assess any impacts of hunting. Bauer (2009) reported that in Ethiopia, trophy hunting was used in the control of problem animals, contributing to income generation and the sharing of benefits from trophy hunting. Trophy hunting was reportedly practiced mainly in the Mountain Nyala region, and it was noted that hunting areas often overlapped with areas of livestock husbandry (UICN/PACO, 2009).

The Forest and Wildlife Conservation and Development Proclamation No. 541/2007 specified the need for hunting permits for all game animals and prohibited any trade in wildlife and wildlife products without a license (Ethiopia, 2007). It also specified that the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development was responsible for the issuing of permits for the export of wildlife and wildlife products and the issuing of hunting permits to foreign tourists, whereas other hunting permits and problem animal control were the responsibility of each region (Ethiopia, 2007).


30

Mozambique: The range map by Chardonnet et al. (2009) showed that P. leo was relatively widespread throughout Mozambique. They reported that the species was found in over half (54%) of all terrestrial Districts, being absent mainly in the Inhambane Province (southeastern Mozambique), western part of Zambezia Province (central Mozambique) and central Nampula Province (eastern Mozambique) (Chardonnet et al., 2009). The total range of P. leo in Mozambique was estimated to cover approximately 515 000 square kilometres, comprising 66 per cent of the terrestrial surface of the country; the majority (71%) of the range was reported to be found in non-gazetted areas (Chardonnet et al., 2009). The strongholds of the species in Mozambique were considered to include the Niassa National Reserve (northern Mozambique), northern Cabo Delgado Province (northeastern Mozambique), western Tete Province (western tip of Mozambique), Gorongosa National Park/Marromeu National Reserve complex (central Mozambique), and Limpopo National Park (southwestern Mozambique) (Chardonnet et al., 2009).

Chardonnet (2002) reported a population size of 955 individuals, with a minimum of 668 and a maximum of 1242 individuals. Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004) gave a lower population estimate of 400 individuals, with a minimum of 240 and a maximum of 560. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b) estimated the population size at approximately 3000 individuals, with some populations shared with neighbouring countries. In a later estimate by Chardonnet et al. (2009), the population size was estimated at approximately 2700 individuals. The largest population, Niassa National Reserve, was estimated to comprise 800-1000 individuals (Chardonnet et al., 2009). P. leo was reported to be present in 35 out of 40 Conservation Areas in Mozambique; in addition, its absence was attested in two Conservation Areas and suspected in three Conservation Areas (Chardonnet et al., 2009).

Varied population trends were reported, with some populations considered to be decreasing and some increasing (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). Based on interviews with key informants, Chardonnet et al. (2009) reported that many populations of P. leo in Mozambique seemed to be increasing, particularly within Conservation Areas. It was also noted that the civil war of 1976-1992 had had a negative impact of wildlife populations throughout the country (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b; Chardonnet et al., 2009).

The main threats to P. leo in Mozambique were considered to include unintentional snaring or trapping in bushmeat hunting, habitat loss and inefficient management (Chardonnet et al., 2009). It was estimated that most killing of P. leo was illegal, either unintentional or retaliatory killing (Chardonnet et al., 2009). Chardonnet et al. (2009) reported that human-lion conflicts, mainly related to livestock attacks, had been recorded in over half of the Districts where the species occurred. According to Dunham et al. (2010), attacks on humans occurred mainly in the northern parts of the country, whereas livestock predation occurred throughout the range, particularly near Kruger and Limpopo National Parks.

The number of problem animal killings was reported to be increasing (Chardonnet et al., 2009); Chardonnet et al. (2009) noted that in the year 2008 it had been 2.4 times bigger than the number of trophy-hunted individuals. The population impacts of problem animal killing were also considered more significant compared to trophy hunting due to indiscriminate killing in regard to sex and age (Chardonnet et al., 2009).

Chardonnet et al. (2009) considered trophy hunting as a minor threat to P. leo in Mozambique. However, LionAid (2011) considered trophy hunting to have a “medium” impact on populations in the northern parts of the country, and emphasized the need of population assessments and improved record-keeping. The hunting of big game was reported to be expanding in the country, with foreign funding used to reconstruct the sector (UICN/PACO, 2009). Hunting areas were reported to cover 19.6 per cent of the country (UICN/PACO, 2009). Lindsey et al. (2012) noted that the economic significance of P. leo trophy hunting was very high in Mozambique, partly because hunting quotas for other species were relatively low.

The Forestry and Wildlife Law no 10/99 (República de Moçambique, 1999) and its Decree no 12/2002 classified P. leo as a game animal, and specified the need for a hunting permit with the fee payable for each permit (República de Moçambique, 2002). The Decree 12/2002 also included regulations concerning the registration of trophies in possession and transportation by licence holders (República de Moçambique, 2002). Hunting season was reported to be from April to September in Multiple Use


31

Areas and from June to November in other areas (Chardonnet et al., 2009). Chardonnet et al. (2009) reported that all informal harvesting was regarded as poaching, and subject to fines and penalties.

Chardonnet et al. (2009) reported that hunting quotas were established for each hunting area by the Ministry of Tourism (MITUR) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG), and revised annually. The hunting quotas were reported to be based mainly on information received from safari operators, provincial directorates for tourism, forestry and wildlife services, the amount of previous years’ harvest, and the requirements of the safari operators (Chardonnet et al., 2009). It was noted that the national system did not yet incorporate sex and age-specific hunting limits used in many other range countries (Chardonnet et al., 2009).

Tourist hunting was reportedly allowed in Game Reserves, Hunting Blocks and the Niassa National Reserve (Chardonnet et al., 2009). The total annual hunting quotas for the country were reported to vary between 52 and 111 individuals between 2007-2009, with over half of this allocated to Hunting Areas, and the Niassa Province representing 39 per cent of the national hunting quota in 2007 (Chardonnet et al., 2009). According to UICN/PACO (2009), 13 and 17 per cent (9 and 14 individuals, respectively) of the hunting quota had been harvested in 2007 and 2008, respectively. However, Chardonnet et al. (2009) noted that interviewed safari operators reported significantly higher amounts of hunted lions than the official figure; they regarded the system of evaluating hunting quota utilization as insufficient, as only a part of safari operators reported official numbers to the wildlife authorities. Furthermore, the fixed trophy fees that had to be paid whether the animals were hunted or not were said to provide no incentive for age-restricted hunting of males over five years old, and it was recommended that fees should instead be based on the actual quantity of animals killed (Chardonnet et al., 2009).

Problem animal control was reported to be practiced either by special government teams, safari operators authorized by the government, or local communities led by government authorities (Chardonnet et al., 2009).

In addition to problem animal control and tourist hunting, P. leo was reported to be harvested in Mozambique through recreational hunting by national citizens (Chardonnet et al., 2009). In the Mozambican system, areas under community-based natural resources management, and Game Ranches, Multiple Use Areas or non-gazetted areas were reported to be declared to the sole use of the citizens (Chardonnet et al., 2009), and different types of hunting permits were reportedly used for tourist hunting and recreational hunting by nationals (República de Moçambique, 2002).

Namibia: The species was reported to occur in the northwest and northeast of the country, with the latter populations overlapping with Botswana (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

In 2002, the population was estimated at 691 (Chardonnet, 2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005a) to 910 animals (P. Stander, pers. comm. in Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004). The populations were considered to be relatively well known (Bauer et al., 2005a) and in 2006, the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b) reported estimates ranging from 415 to 795 animals and a stable to increasing population trend [eastern population shared with Botswana]. The majority of lions were reported to occur in Etosha National Park (Stander, 2000). The species was reported to be mainly confined to protected areas, apart from the population in Kunene, north-western Namibia (Stander, 2010).

The species was reported to be threatened by disease, illegal killing, poaching of prey species, livestock encroachment, human resource use in protected areas and trophy hunting, with threats varying across populations (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). Stander (2010) considered retaliation killings to be the biggest threat to the species in Namibia. An average of 28 lions were reported to be killed annually as problem animals in the vicinity of Etosha National Park (Stander, 2000). In the Kunene and Caprivi [north west] regions, problem animals were reported to be offered to trophy hunters (Chardonnet et al., 2010).

Hunting pressure on lions was thought to be shifting into Namibia as other countries were considered increasingly overhunted, although numbers in source populations in Namibia were noted to be low, with levels of hunting considered highly unsustainable and the species considered overhunted within concessions (LionAid, 2011). Unsustainable trophy hunting in Kuenene was


32

reported to impact on the social structure and the long-term viability; trophy hunting/selective shooting of male lions was not considered to sustainable (Stander, 2010).

The Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 and its amendments cover hunting and protection of wild animals (MET., 2012). Hunting is regulated through the Directorate of Parks and Wildlife Management together with the Directorate of Scientific Services and hunting permits (including permits for export) were reported to be issued to the hunting guides and not the hunters (MET., 2012). Hunting areas were reported to cover 11.4 per cent of the country’s area and Namibia was noted to be one of the countries which redistributed most of the returns from big game hunting (UICN/PACO, 2009). Communal conservancy was considered to be promising in Namibia, with increases in large predators observed (Chardonnet et al., 2010; Stander, 2010). However, concerns were raised over the practice of allowing problem animals (LionAid, 2011), females and subadults to be hunted for trophies (Packer et al., 2006).

South Sudan: The species was reported to occur across most of South Sudan, with lion populations ranging into neighbouring countries (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b).

Chardonnet (2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005a) estimated the population occurring within the boundaries of former Sudan at 800 animals in 2002, with the estimate considered highly speculative. In 2006, the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b) reported estimates ranging from less than 550 to 1050 animals, with unknown or decreasing population trends. Very little was reported to be known on the population size of the species in the country (Bauer et al., 2005a; Breitenmoser-Wuersten et al., 2009).

The species was reported to be threatened by illegal killing, limited prey availability, livestock encroachment, habitat conversion and human resource use in protected areas, with threats varying across populations (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). Desertification was reported to impact on lions in the Sudanese savannah zone, through reductions of prey availability as well as resulting shifts in livestock husbandry (Chardonnet et al., 2010). The species was also noted to be subject to illegal trade (Breitenmoser-Wuersten et al., 2009).

Hunting licences were reported to have previously been issued by the Government in the North, but were not recognized in the South, where independent licences were reported to have been issued (Chardonnet, 2002). The numbers of lion hunting permits issued was reported to be unclear (Chardonnet, 2002). The Wildlife Conservation Directorate of the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Conservation and Tourism of South Sudan was reported to be responsible for wildlife management, with its structure and capacity considered to be “extremely weak” and wildlife management legislation was reported to be absent (UNEP, 2007).

Fourteen game reserves were reported to exist within South Sudan, governed by the Ministry of Wildlife Conservation and Tourism (Breitenmoser-Wuersten et al., 2009).

The development of an action plan for cheetah, wild dog and lion was reported to have been initiated in 2009 (Breitenmoser-Wuersten et al., 2009).

Sudan: Populations appeared to possibly ranging into the very south of the country (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006b). The species was reported to once have been numerous in northern Sudan, however was targeted by poisoning campaigns (Wilson, 1980). No further information on the species status in Sudan could be located.

United Republic of Tanzania: Tanzania was reported to host the largest population of P. leo in Africa (Mésochina et al., 2010), with an estimated 33-50 per cent of the total population (Packer, 2009), and four out of six largest lion populations found in the country (Packer et al., 2011). Mésochina et al. (2010) estimated the total range to be approximately 749 700 square kilometres, comprising over 90 per cent of the total terrestrial land area of Tanzania. The majority (69%) of this area was considered to be under permanent occurrence (Mésochina et al., 2010).

Packer (2009) noted that unlike in other range countries, significant numbers of P. leo were found outside Protected Areas in Tanzania; according to Mésochina et al. (2010), the majority (55%) of the species’ range was in non-gazetted areas. However, they noted that in most sites outside Protected Areas, the species had been observed rarely, and that approximately 81 per cent of the total population


33

was found within Protected Areas, including National Parks and Hunting Areas (Mésochina et al., 2010). Mésochina et al. (2010) recorded occurrence in 17 out of the 19 Protected Areas with no trophy hunting, and found it to be present in all Protected Areas where hunting was practiced. Packer (2009) noted that out of the five areas with significant populations of P. leo (Serengeti, Masai Steppe, Selous, Moyowosi-Kigosi-Ugalla and Rukwa-Rungwa-Ruaha) in Tanzania, only Serengeti was primarily a National Park, whereas the rest were conserved primarily for hunting purposes. Mésochina et al. (2010) recorded occurrence in 72 out of 97 studied Districts, and noted that it was absent in some areas in northeastern Tanzania, the southern shores of lake Victoria, and the vicinity of lake Malawi. According to TAWIRI (2009), the species was also absent in the Usambara and Pare mountains.

Ikanda (2008) stated that mainly due to the high cost and inefficiency of aerial surveys, the total population size of P. leo in Tanzania had not been accurately determined, and Mésochina et al. (2010) reported that the status of populations outside Protected Areas was particularly poorly known. Ikanda (2008) estimated the size of eight known populations in National Parks and Game Reserves at 13 000 individuals, and after combining this to data collected from other suitable habitats by Chardonnet (2002), concluded the minimum population size to be 18 215 individuals. A considerably lower estimate, 7073 individuals in 2001/2002 was given by Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004), although they noted that some important range areas were omitted. Mésochina et al. (2010) estimated the population size to be 16 800 individuals, and the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b) reported a population estimate of less than 15 400 individuals, including some cross-border populations. Some Tanzanian populations of P. leo were considered to be connected with Kenya, Rwanda, Malawi, Mozambique and possibly Zambia (Mésochina et al., 2010).

Average densities calculated in different regions were reported to vary between 0.01 to 0.38 individuals per square kilometre (TAWIRI, 2009).

Ikanda (2008) noted that although the past abundance of P. leo in Tanzania was poorly known, “historical tribal tales and legends suggest fewer lions survive today than did in the past 50 years”. In a study based on questionnaire surveys, Mésochina et al. (2010) reported that the majority of informants considered the recent population trend to be decreasing outside the Protected Areas but increasing or stable within the Protected Areas. Similarly, Chardonnet (2002) considered the populations in Protected Areas generally stable, however the populations outside Protected Areas were considered to be decreasing mainly due to livestock competition. The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006b) reported varying increasing and decreasing trends for different populations in Tanzania. More recently, Packer et al. (2011), reported a decreasing population or hunting trend in 9 out of 12 areas where photo-tourism or hunting occurred.

The main threats to P. leo in Tanzania were considered to include habitat loss and illegal killing (TAWIRI, 2009; Mésochina et al., 2010). Increasing human population was reported to have caused habitat loss particularly outside Protected Areas (Ikanda, 2008). Decreasing wild prey base and increasing human population were seen as a main cause to human-lion conflicts, which were considered to form a particular problem in Tanzania (Mésochina et al., 2010; Nyahongo and Røskaft, 2011). Mésochina et al. (2010) recorded conflicts in the majority (82%) of studied Districts, with livestock depredation most commonly recorded in central and northern Tanzania and human casualties in southern and central parts of the country. Retaliatory killing was most often linked to livestock depredation, but also to human casualties (Mésochina et al., 2010). According to Kushnir et al. (2010), lions attacked over 1000 people in Tanzania during 1990-2007. Ikanda (2008) noted that the impact of retaliatory killing was difficult to measure, as it typically took place in remote areas and was rarely reported to wildlife authorities. P. leo was also reported to be illegally hunted as part of rituals (Kissui, 2008; Ikanda, 2008). In a study conducted in the Tarangire ecosystem, Lichtenfeld (2009) found that the Maasai killed approximately 6.4-8.8 per cent of the P. leo population annually. In addition to retaliatory killing and cultural killing, P. leo was also reported to be poached for commercial purposes, traditional uses or due to accidental catching in bushmeat snares (Mésochina et al., 2010). Illegal harvesting for the trade of body parts was considered rare (Ikanda, 2008; Packer et al., 2011).

In the CITES non-detriment report, Ikanda (2008) considered trophy hunting to have a minimum impact on the populations of P. leo in Tanzania. Comparing hunting quotas with the amount of


34

harvested individuals, he found that for the period 2000-2007, approximately 63 per cent of the set quotas were used, and noted that although the quotas were relatively high, there was a positive relationship between hunting quotas and offtake levels, which was considered to indicate that the hunting was not detrimental to the populations (Ikanda, 2008). However, with approximately 200-250 individuals harvested annually as trophies, Tanzania was reported to have the highest rates of lion trophy hunting in Africa (Loveridge et al., 2009; Mésochina et al., 2010), and Lindsey et al. (2012) noted that recent studies indicated a notable negative impact of trophy hunting on populations of P. leo in Tanzania. Packer et al. (2011) recorded significant declines in four out of the seven hunting areas studied, with particularly steep declines in hunting areas with highest harvest levels, concluding that the current hunting quotas of approximately 500 individuals were on an unsustainable level. LionAid (2011) considered the quotas allocated to be excessive, with the species overhunted in concessions and concluded that trophy harvest levels were unsustainable. Kiffner et al. (2009) found evidence to suggest that the intensity of hunting outside park boundaries had an impact on the abundance of P. leo within Protected Areas.

Due to the high returns of trophy hunting, P. leo was considered to be economically the most important species to Tanzania (TAWIRI, 2009); according to Mésochina et al. (2010), the annual income from P. leo hunting was approximately 6-7 million US$. The prices for P. leo hunting packages in Tanzania were higher compared to the other range countries, and the majority of hunting blocks were considered economically viable (Lindsey et al., 2012).

The Tanzania Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009 (United Republic of Tanzania, 2009) listed P. leo under the First, Third (Big Game) and Fourth (Dangerous Animal) Schedules, specifying the need of a permit for hunting or capture. The Hunting Regulations of 2002 specified that harvesting was only allowed in designated Hunting Areas, with hunting permits issued by the Director of Wildlife (Ikanda, 2008). Ikanda (2008) reported that P. leo may be harvested in Game Reserves, Game Controlled Areas and Open Areas or Wildlife Management Areas, only in the presence of a Government Wildlife Officer, whose role is to ensure that hunting quotas are not exceeded and Regulations are followed (Ikanda, 2008). The hunting season was reported to last from the 1st of July to the 31st of December (Ikanda, 2008; Mésochina et al., 2010). All informal harvesting was reported to be treated as poaching, with fines and penalties involved (Mésochina et al., 2010).

P. lion hunting quotas were reported to be established by the Wildlife Department separately for each Hunting Area and each hunting season (Mésochina et al., 2010). Ikanda (2008) reported that these quotas were based on i) information from Project Managers and District Game Officers, ii) aerial survey data (where available) and iii) past hunting records and the opinion of professional hunters and outfitters. Hunting companies were reported to be responsible for reporting the number of individuals shot each hunting season, and these figures were then verified by local Park managers and District Game Officers (Ikanda, 2008). Between 2005 and 2009, Mésochina et al. (2010) reported that most hunting areas had quotas under 5 lions per 1000 square kilometres, and estimated that the annual realized hunting levels comprised approximately 1.2 per cent of the existing population. However, LionAid (2011) noted that there was corruption involved in the assignment of hunting areas and the lack of assessment of hunting pressure. Lindsey et al. (2012) considered the five-year leases of hunting concessions to potentially discourage incentives to invest in wildlife protection, and Mésochina et al. (2010) considered the introduction of a longer lease period as a key issue in improving the management of P. leo hunting in Tanzania.

Due to the decrease in P. leo populations within the country, Packer et al. (2011) and Lindsey et al. (2012) suggested a reduction in the hunting quotas to a maximum of 0.5 individuals per 1000 square kilometres (with a slightly higher quota of one individual per 1000 square kilometres within the Selous Game Reserve). Alternatively, Lindsey et al. (2012) suggested a short-term moratorium followed by reduced hunting quotas. Due to the high income of lion trophy hunting, Lindsey et al. (2012) considered Tanzania to be economically highly vulnerable to a ban or reduced hunting quota of P. leo hunting. Furthermore, as the majority of P. leo habitat was found within Hunting Areas (Packer, 2009), which were mainly sustained for the purposes of trophy hunting (Ikanda, 2008), Mésochina et al. (2010) cautioned that a ban could lead into significant habitat loss. It was also noted that it could reduce the overall competitiveness of wildlife-based land uses and lead into increased poaching (Lindsey et al., 2012).


35

Ikanda (2008) reported that in the Tanzanian system, only male P. leo, preferably over six years of age, could be harvested as trophies. This system was considered to guarantee minimum impacts on the harvested populations (Packer, 2009; Loveridge et al., 2009). The age-limited system was also considered beneficial due to the lack of reliable population data within the country and the large fluctuations in lion populations within a short time, due to e.g. disease outbreaks (Packer, 2009). Mésochina et al. (2010), however, noted that the age restrictions were not in all cases strictly applied by hunting companies, and Packer (2009) and LionAid (2011) reported that the hunted trophies had been shown to include subadult males. Packer et al. (2011) and Lindsey et al. (2012) recommended that the implementation of stricter age minimums would be important to help the populations to recover. Furthermore, Mésochina et al. (2010) noted that trophy fees were paid based on the fixed hunting quota, even if the animals were not hunted, which may act as an incentive for hunting younger individuals.

It was noted that the centralized system of collecting hunting profits gave insufficient incentive for communities to conserve wildlife (Lindsey et al., 2012). Furthermore, the lack of a compensation scheme or insurance system for human-lion conflicts was seen as problematic for lion conservation in Tanzania (Mésochina et al., 2010).

Zambia: The species was reported to occur in central to southern Zambia, with populations also in the western parts of the country (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

In 2002, the population was estimated at 1500, based on a survey conducted for the inventory by Bauer and Van Der Merwe (C. Stuart and T. Stuart, pers. comm. in Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004), to 3199 animals (Chardonnet, 2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005a). The IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006a) reported estimates ranging from 800 to 1980 animals and a stable or unknown population trend for the individual populations, including populations substantially overlapping with neighbouring countries. However, lion numbers were noted to be uncertain, with the population in Liuwa, for example, reported to contain only three lions (LionAid, 2011), rather than the <50 estimated previously (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

The overall status of wildlife was noted to be critical in a number of hunting areas, with natural habitats being diminished at considerable rates (UICN/PACO, 2009). The species was reported to be threatened by disease, illegal killing, limited prey availability, livestock encroachment, habitat conversion, resource extraction from protected areas, removal of problem animals and trophy hunting, with levels of threat varying across populations (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a). Excessive trophy hunting was reported to have had negative impacts on the population density in South Luangwa National Park, and to have altered sex-ratios and ranging behaviour (Yamazaki, 1996; in Lindsey et al., 2012). LionAid (2011) noted that the population size was uncertain, with high pressure from trophy hunting and concluded that the sustainability of harvest was “highly questionable”.

Zambia was reported to have banned lion hunting from 2001 to 2002 in response to concerns over the species’ conservation status (Packer et al., 2006).

Hunting zones were reported to be managed by the Zambian Wildlife Authority, based on the 1998 Zambia Wildlife Act (ZAWA, 2012), and cover 22 per cent of the country’s area (UICN/PACO, 2009). The hunting zones were reported to be able to support trophy hunting, while the rest was considered to be depleted (Lewis and Alpert, 1997). Hunting zones were noted to be impacted by economic, sociological and ecological degradation, and were not considered to provide a suitable basis for a sustainable wildlife tourism industry (UICN/PACO, 2009). Nevertheless, Zambia was reported to be one of the countries with the highest mean percentage of overall income generated through lion trophy hunting (Lindsey et al., 2012). Lindsey et al. (2012) considered that a lion hunting ban would impact on all trophy hunting across a large area, while a reduction of off-take would not have any such impact (Lindsey et al., 2012). However, big game hunting was not considered to provide any real economic, social nor conservation gains to Zambia (UICN/PACO, 2009). Natural resources management policies were considered to be inadequate (Simasiku et al., 2008), with for example lease lengths of hunting blocks considered too short to provide incentives for wildlife protection (Lindsey et al., 2012). Furthermore, Zambia was reported to allow the trophy hunting of problem animals, subadults males and females, with the impact of the latter practice considered difficult to assess in the


36

absence of records on the sex ratio of trophies taken (Packer et al., 2006). Furthermore, concerns were raised over the motivation of this more recent inclusion of females, possibly indicating an inability to fill hunting quotas with male lions (Packer et al., 2006). A revision of conservation strategies was suggested (UICN/PACO, 2009), including measures such as the decentralization of earnings from hunting (Lindsey et al., 2012) and a permanent ceasing of hunting of females and subadult lions (Packer et al., 2006).

Zimbabwe: The species range was reported to extend along eastern Zimbabwe to the south, with populations also in the western and northern parts of the country (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

In 2002, the population in Zimbabwe was estimated at 1037 (Bauer and Van Der Merwe, 2004) to 1686 animals (Chardonnet, 2002; recalculated by Bauer et al., 2005a). In 2006, the IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group (2006a) reported estimates from 4850 to 5400 animals, including populations substantially overlapping with neighbouring countries. The population was considered to be “reasonably known” (LionAid, 2011).

The species was reported to be threatened by disease, illegal killing, low levels of prey availability, livestock encroachment, habitat conversion, human resource use in protected areas, problem animal removal and trophy hunting, with levels of threat varying across populations (IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group, 2006a).

Excessive trophy hunting in areas adjacent to Hwange National Park [western Zimbabwe] were found to have negative impacts on the population density and sex structure, and to have altered ranging behaviour and increased rates of infanticide, following replacement of territorial males with new male coalitions (Loveridge et al., 2007; Davidson et al., 2011). High levels of trophy hunting were also reported to threaten two of the smallest populations in the north (LionAid, 2011). LionAid (2011) noted that the species was “grossly overhunted” within concessions, with animals reported to be lured out of protected areas, raised concerns over corruption and concluded that hunting levels were highly unsustainable.

Hunting areas were reported to comprise 16.6 per cent of the country’s area (UICN/PACO, 2009), with hunting regulated by the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority of Zimbabwe, governed by the Parks and Wild Life Act (Chapter 20:14).

Zimbabwe was reported to have harvested 2-3 times more lions than most other countries from 1977 to 2004 (Packer et al., 2006) and hunting quotas were reported to have been exceeded for many years (Loveridge et al., 2009). Furthermore, Zimbabwe was reported to have allowed the trophy hunting of problem animals and females, with the impact of the latter practice considered difficult to assess in the absence of records on the sex ratio of trophies taken (Packer et al., 2006). Concerns were raised over the motivation of the inclusion of females, possibly indicating an inability to fill hunting quotas with male lions (Packer et al., 2006). The majority of trophies (65%) were reported to originate from western Zimbabwe, 19 per cent from the Zambezi valley and the remainder from the Zambezi escarpment and the South East Lowveld (Safari Club International, 2005; in Packer et al., 2006). A lion hunting ban was reported to have been imposed from 2005 to 2008 in north-west Zimbabwe (Packer, 2009), in response to concerns over the species’ conservation status and recognition of unsustainable hunting quota levels (Packer et al., 2006; Lindsey et al., 2012). The hunting of females was reported to have been banned since 2005 (Packer, 2009). A consequent rapid recovery of lion populations was considered to be a result of the moratorium and the implementation of new, sustainable hunting quotas (Lindsey et al., 2012) and to demonstrate the resilience of lion populations, “if [problems are] addressed soon enough “(Loveridge et al., 2009).

The majority of hunting areas in Zimbabwe were considered to be viable and the species was considered to be relatively unimportant for the viability of the hunting industry in Zimbabwe, due to the abundance of, and high hunting quotas for, other species (Lindsey et al., 2012). It was estimated that, while a lion hunting moratorium would affect the viability of trophy hunting across about 3310 km2, a hunting quota reduction to sustainable levels would affect 2800 km2 (Lindsey et al., 2012). Levels of off-take were noted to be unsustainable (Balme et al. unpublished data in Lindsey et al., 2012) and a revision of conservation strategies was recommended (UICN/PACO, 2009), including


37

permanent ceasing of hunting of subadult lions (Packer et al., 2006). Loveridge et al. (2007) found that sexual maturity was reached later in southern African lion populations than in eastern ones, and they recommended that the minimum age at harvest of six years, as suggested by Whitman et al. (2004), would need to be between seven and eight years in southern populations.

REFERENCES:

Bauer, H. 2008. Synthesis of threats, distribution and status of the lion from the two lion conservation strategies, in Croes, B. et al., (eds.), Management and conservation of large carnivores in west and central Africa. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden. 13-28.

Bauer, H. 2009. Carnivore conservation in Ethiopia. A summary of the presentation, Proceedings of the National Lion Conservation Workshop, Addis Ababa, 12 June 2009, F. Gebresenbet et al., eds., pp. 5-8.

Bauer, H., Chardonnet, P., and Nowell, K. 2005a. Status and distribution of the lion (Panthera leo) in east and southern Africa. Background paper for the East and Southern African Lion Conservation Workshop January 2006, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Bauer, H., Chardonnet, P., Nowell, K., and Crosmary, W. 2005b. Conservation of the lion in West Africa and Central Africa. Background working paper for the Workshop of Conservation of the Lion of West Africa and Central Africa October 2005, Douala, Cameroon.

Bauer, H., Nowell, K., and Packer, C. 2008. Panthera leo. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 20-1-2012.

Bauer, H. and Van Der Merwe, S. 2004. Inventory of free-ranging lions Panthera leo in Africa. Oryx, 38 (1): 26-31.

Bertola, L., van Hooft, W., Vrieling, K., de Weerd, D., York, D., Bauer, H., Prins, H., Funston, P., de Haes, H., Leirs, H., van Haeringen, W., Sogbohossou, E., Tumenta, P., and de Iongh, H. 2011. Genetic diversity, evolutionary history and implications for conservation of the lion (Panthera leo) in West and Central Africa. Journal of Biogeography, 38 (7): 1356-1367.

Bjorklund, M. 2003. The risk of inbreeding due to habitat loss in the lion (Panthera leo). Conservation Genetics, 4 (4): 515-523.

Breitenmoser-Wuersten, C., Durant, S., and Dickman, A. 2009. National Conservation Action Planning workshop for cheetah, wild dog and lion. Oasis Camp, Juba, Southern Sudan.

Chardonnet, P., Mésochina, P., Renaud, P.-C., Bento, C., Conjo, D., Fusari, A., Begg, C., Foloma, M., and Pariela, F. 2009. Conservation status of the lion (Panthera leo Linnaeus, 1758) in Mozambique. SCI Foundation, Campfire Association, DNAC/MITUR & IGF Foundation.

Chardonnet, P., Soto, B., Fritz, H., Crosmary, W., Drouet-Houget, N., Mesochina, P., Pellerin, M., Mallon, D., Bakker, L., Boulet, H., and Lamarque, F. 2010. Managing the conflicts between people and lion. Review and insights from the literature and field experience. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. Wildlife Management Working Paper 13.

Chardonnet, Ph. 2002. Conservation of the African lion: Contribution to a status survey. International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife, France & Conservation Force, USA.

Croes, B., Funston, P., Rasmussen, G., Buij, R., and Saleh, A. 2011. The impact of trophy hunting on lions (Panthera leo) and other large carnivores in the Benoue Complex, northern Cameroon. Biological Conservation, 144: 3064-3072.

Damm, G. R. 2007. Botswana: lion hunting suspended again. African Indaba e-Newsletter, 5(6): 8. Davidson, Z., Valeix, M., Loveridge, A. J., Madzikanda, H., and Macdonald, D. W. 2011. Socio-spatial

behaviour of an African lion population following perturbation by sport hunting. Biological Conservation, 144 (1): 114-121.

de Iongh, H., Tumenta, P., Croes, B., Funston, P., Bauer, H., and de Haes, H. U. 2009. Threat of a lion population extinction in Waza National Park, North Cameroon. Cat News, 50: 26-27.

Di Silvestre, I. 2002. Dénombrement des grands carnivores au niveau de la Réserve de Biosphère de la Pendjari. Project Pendjari. Cotonou, Benin. Unpublished Report to CEMAGREF/GTZ.

Dunham, K. M., Ghiurghi, A., Cumbi, R., and Urbano, F. 2010. Human-wildlife conflict in Mozambique: a national perspective, with emphasis on wildlife attacks on humans. Oryx, 44 (2): 185-193.

Ethiopia. 2007. Development Conservation and Utilization of Wildlife Proclamation No. 541/2007. Negarit Gazette No. 51, 20 August 2007, pages 3734-3745.


38

Ferreras, P. and Cousins, S. H. 1996. The use of a Delphi technique with GIS for estimating the global abundance of top predators: The lion in Africa. International Eco Technology Research Centre, Cranfield University. UK. Unpublished report.

Frank, L., Hemson, G., Kushnir, H., and Packer, C. 2006. Lions, Conflict and Conservation in Eastern and Southern Africa. Background paper for the eastern and southern African lion conservation workshop, Johannesburg, SOuth Africa, 11-13 January 2006.

Gebresenbet, F., Bauer, H., Hunter, L., and Gebretensae, K. 2009. Proceedings of the national lion conservation workshop, Addis Ababa, 12 June 2009.

Gebresenbet, F., Bauer, H., Hunter, L., and Gebretensae, K. 2010. Lion conservation workshop in Ethiopia. Cat News, 52: 30.

Government of Botswana. 1980. Fauna Conservation (compensation for destruction of livestock and other property) Order under the Fauna Conservation Act (Cap. 38:01).

Government of Botswana. 1992. Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act. Chapter 38:01 URL: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/bot4728.pdf Accessed: 22-12-2011.

Government of Botswana. 2005. Wildlife conservation and National Parks (Lions) (killing restriction) Order. Section 90. 22nd April, 2005.

Gusset, M., Swarner, M., Mponwane, L., Keletile, K., and McNutt, J. 2009. Human-wildlife conflict in northern Botswana: livestock predation by Endangered African wild dog Lycaon pictus and other carnivores. Oryx, 43 (1): 67-72.

Haas, S. K., Hayssen, V., and Krausman, P. R. 2005. Panthera leo. Mammalian Species, 762: 1-11. Hemson, G., Maclennan, S., Mills, G., Johnson, P., and Macdonald, D. 2009. Community, lions, livestock

and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human-carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biological Conservation, 142 (11): 2718-2725.

Henschel, P., Azani, D., Burton, C., Malanda, G., Saidu, Y., Sam, M., and Hunter, L. 2010. Lion status updates from five range countries in West and Central Africa. Cat News, 52: 34-39.

Ikanda, D. K. 2008. Non-detriment report under CITES regarding the export of African lions Panthera leo from the United Republic of Tanzania. Mexico. NDF Workshop Case Studies WG 5 - Mammals, Case Study 1.

IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group 2006a. Conservation strategy for the Lion in West and Central Africa. Yaounde, Cameroon, IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group.

IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group 2006b. Regional conservation strategy for the Lion Panthera leo in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group.

Kiffner, C., Meyer, B., Muehlenberg, M., and Waltert, M. 2009. Plenty of prey, few predators: what limits lions Panthera leo in Katavi National Park, western Tanzania? Oryx, 43 (1): 52-59.

Kissui, B. 2008. Livestock predation by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas, and their vulnerability to retaliatory killing in the Maasai steppe, Tanzania. Animal Conservation, 11 (5): 422-432.

Kushnir, H., Leitner, H., Ikanda, D., and Packer, C. 2010. Human and ecological risk factors for unprovoked lion attacks on humans in southeastern Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15: 315-331.

Lamarque, F., Anderson, J., Chardonnet, P., Fergusson, R., Lagrange, M., Osei-Owusu, Y., Bakker, L., Belemsubgo, U., Beytell, B., Boulet, H., Soto, B. and Tabi Tako-Eta, P. 2008. Human-wildlife conflict in Africa. An overview of causes, consequences and management strategies. Working paper. FAO and IGF. Rome, Italy.

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

Lichtenfeld, L. 2009. The risk of living with lions: Human-lion conflict in the Tarangire ecosystem, in The Tanzania lion and leopard conservation action plan. Pages 64-111 in Tanzania carnivore conservation action plan. Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Arusha, Tanzania. 77-79.

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

LionAid. 2011. Summary Report: Trophy hunting and lion population status in eastern, western and central, and southern Africa.

Loveridge, A., Searle, A., Murindagomo, F., and Macdonald, D. 2007. The impact of sport-hunting on the population dynamics of an African lion population in a protected area. Biological Conservation, 134 (4): 548-558.


39

Loveridge, A. J., Packer, C., and Dutton, A. 2009. Science and the recreational hunting of lions, in Dickson, B., Hutton, J., & Adams, W. M., (eds.), Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods. Wiley-Blackwell, 108-124.

MECV. 2005. Ministère de l'Environnement et du Cadre de Vie -Burkina Faso. Guide d'Informations Pratiques / Chasse Sportive URL: http://www.environnement.gov.bf/SiteEnvironnement/guide/sportive.html Accessed: 31-1-2012.

Mésochina, P., Mbangwa, O., Chardonnet, P., Mosha, R., Mtui, B., Drouet, N., Crosmary, W., and Kissui, B. 2010. Conservation status of the lion (Panthera leo Linnaeus, 1758) in Tanzania. SCI Foundation, MNRT-WD, TAWISA, IGF Foundation. Paris, France.

MET. 2012. Republic of Namibia Ministry of Environment & Tourism. Regulate Hunting URL: http://www.met.gov.na/Directorates/Parks/Pages/Regulatehunting.aspx Accessed: 1-2-2012.

Myers, N. 1975. The Silent Savannahs. International Wildlife, 5 (5): 5-10. Nowell, K. 2004. The Cat Specialist Group at CITES COP13. Cat News, 41: 34-35. Nowell, K. and Jackson, P. 1996. Wild cats status survey and action plan. IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group,

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Nyahongo, J. W. and Røskaft, E. 2011. Perception of people towards lions and other wildlife killing

humans, around Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 3 (4): 110-115.

Packer, C. 2009. "Best practices" for trophy hunting of African lions, in The Tanzania lion and leopard conservation action plan. Pages 64-111 in Tanzania carnivore conservation action plan. Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Arusha, Tanzania. 69-77.

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

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

Packer, C., Kosmala, M., Cooley, H. S., Brink, H., Pintea, L., Garshelis, D., Purchase, G., Strauss, M., Swanson, A., Balme, G., Hunter, L., and Nowell, K. 2009. Sport Hunting, Predator Control and Conservation of Large Carnivores. PLoS ONE, 4 (6).

Palazy, L., Bonenfant, C., Gaillard, J. M., and Courchamp, F. 2011. Cat Dilemma: Too Protected To Escape Trophy Hunting? PLoS ONE, 6 (7).

Ray, J. C., Hunter, L., and Zigouris, J. 2005. Setting conservation and research priorities for larger African carnivores. Wildlife Conservation Society. New York, U.S.A. WCS Working Paper No. 24. 216 pp.

República de Moçambique. 1999. Lei no 10/99 de Florestas e Fauna Bravia. Boletim da República - Publicação oficial da República de Moçambique. I Série - Número 27.

República de Moçambique. 2002. Decreto no 12/2002, aprova o regulamento da Lei no 10/99, de 7 de Juhlo, Lei de Florestas e Fauna Bravia. Boletim da República - Publicação oficial da República de Moçambique. I Série - Número 22.

Safari Club International. 2005. SCI Record Book of Trophy Animals: Africa Field Edition (XI edn.). Safari Club International. Tucson, Arizona.

Simasiku, P., Simwanza, H. I., Tembo, G., Bandyopadhyay, S., and Pavy, J.-M. 2008. The Impact of Wildlife Management Policies on Communities and Conservation in Game Management Areas in Zambia: Message to Policy Makers. Natural Resources Consultative Forum (NRCF).

Sogbohossou, E. A. 2009. Dénombrement des lions dans la Réserve de Biosphère de la Pendjari. Rapport Technique. Cotonou, Benin. Unpublished Report to DPNO/ProCGRN.

Sogbohossou, E. A., de Iongh, H. H., Sinsin, B., de Snoo, G. R., and Funston, P. J. 2011. Human-carnivore conflict around Pendjari Biosphere Reserve, northern Benin. Oryx, 45 (4): 569-578.

Stander, P. 2000. Conservation of lions and other large carnivores in the Kunene Region, Namibia. Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Namibia. Quarterly Report, May 2000.

Stander, P. 2010. The impact of male-biased mortality on the population structure of desert-adapted lions in Namibia. Desert Lion Conservation. Research Report - 2010.

Sunquist, M. E. and Sunquist, F. 2002. Wild cats of the world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.


40

TAWIRI. 2009. The Tanzania lion and leopard conservation action plan. Pages 64-111 in Tanzania carnivore conservation action plan. Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute. Arusha, Tanzania.

Tefera, M. 2011. Wildlife in Ethiopia: Endemic large mammals. World Journal of Zoology, 6 (2): 108-116. Trinkel, M., Funston, P., Hofmeyr, M., Hofmeyr, D., Dell, S., Packer, C., and Slotow, R. 2010. Inbreeding

and density-dependent population growth in a small, isolated lion population. Animal Conservation, 13 (4): 374-382.

Tumenta, P., Kok, J., van Rijssel, J., Buij, R., Croes, B., Funston, P., de Iongh, H., and de Haes, H. 2010. Threat of rapid extermination of the lion (Panthera leo leo) in Waza National Park, Northern Cameroon. African Journal of Ecology, 48 (4): 888-894.

UICN/PACO. 2009. La grande chasse en Afrique de l'Ouest: quelle contribution à la conservation? (Big Game Hunting in West Africa. What is its contribution to conservation? IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom.

UNEP. 2007. Sudan. Post-conflict environmental assessment. UNEP. Nairobi, Kenya. 273 pp. United Republic of Tanzania. 2009. Wildlife Conservation Act (No. 5 of 2009). Whitman, K., Starfield, A. M., Quadling, H. S., and Packer, C. 2004. Sustainable trophy hunting of

African lions. Nature, 428 (6979): 175-178. Whitman, K. L., Starfield, A. M., Quadling, H., and Packer, C. 2007. Modelling the effects of trophy

selection and environmental disturbance on a simulated population of African lions. Conservation Biology, 21 (3): 591-601.

Wilson, D. E. and Mittermeier, R. A. 2009. Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. I. Carnivores. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

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

Wilson, R. T. 1980. Wildife in Northern Darfur, Sudan: A review of its distribution and status in the recent past and at present. Biological Conservation, 17: 85-101.

Yamazaki, K. 1996. Social variation of lions in a male-depopulated area in Zambia. Journal of Wildlife Management, 60 (3): 490-497.

Yirga, S. 2009. The ecological role of lions. The case of lions and some savannah mammals in Awash National Park and Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve.. A summary of the presentation, Proceedings of the National Lion Conservation Workshop, Addis Ababa, 12 June 2009, F. Gebresenbet et al., eds., pp. 5-8.

ZAWA. 2012. Zambia Wildlife Authority. Research - Management URL: http://www.zawa.org.zm/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=3 Accessed: 2-2-0012.


41

Annex 1. Final Communiqué of the 2nd African Lion Working Group Meeting, 10-11 February 2012, Etosha National Park, Namibia The African Lion Working Group (ALWG), www.african-lion.org, is dedicated to all aspects of conservation, research, and management of free-ranging lion populations in Africa. The ALWG meeting in Etosha was attended by 30 members and a number of observers (Namibian authorities, media and park staff). The first day consisted largely of presentations on various relevant topics as defined in online forum discussions beforehand. The second day consisted of group discussion, facilitated by David Macdonald. Minutes were taken by Hanlie Winterbach, Jonathan Scott and Hans Bauer. The ALWG delegates endorsed the following synopsis: Synergy between groups The ALWG acknowledges that the lion is an emblematic and charismatic species with its own intrinsic value, but most members view the importance of their actions at a larger scale, i.e. large carnivore guild and/or biodiversity in general. ALWG thus supports an interdisciplinary understanding of conservation and embraces the concepts of umbrella, keystone, flagship and indicator species and encourages the use of the lion to gain leverage with decision makers for biodiversity conservation in Africa. Financial instruments The lion conservation community need to find the most effective ways to both make and spend money for lion conservation, finance is a crucial driver (although non-monetary motivations are sometimes at least equally important). Innovative financial instruments can play an important role in conservation (e.g., carbon credits, insurance, corporate contributions). Since lion conservation is expensive, ALWG can act as platform for information exchange in this field. Land use planning Considering that habitat encroachment is still a primary threat to lions, attention was given to land use planning as an instrument to mitigate this threat by increasing transparency and by explicitly looking for synergies where possible and making sensible trade-offs between all legitimate forms of land use, including wildlife, agro-industry, subsistence and mining. After discussing some element of good practice, the delegates emphasised the importance of increasing lion-related benefits and mitigation/compensation in case of land conversion. Translocation Translocation of large carnivores is often based on good intentions, but with little or no idea of the impact on translocated animals or source populations. Simply moving the problem along with the animal to another area is not sufficient argument for translocation. Proactive mitigation strategies may be more effective; concentrate efforts first on changing the perception, understanding and attitude of farmers towards predators and coexistence, and finding innovative solutions to address conflict. The IUCN has policy documents on their website regarding translocation and guidelines for reintroduction, with three revised position statements. The group agreed that ALWG will do a synthesis of available data on translocation attempts of large carnivores together with a systematic review of the literature and published this information in a scientific journal. Captive breeding Captive breeding of lions in South Africa is now a huge industry and this will have regional, continental and global effects – some of them possibly devastating. In the general context of conservation biology, captive lion breeding is not useful as lions can breed in situ perfectly well if threats are mitigated. While captive breeding can be potentially useful for preserving a species’ genetic diversity, it was felt that the captive breeding that South African breeders are presently undertaking is not conducive to deliver that goal. Canned lion hunting Delegates agreed that canned lion hunting has direct and indirect relevance to conservation of wild lions; consensus was that it is unattractive no matter how it is regulated and it should actively be


42

discouraged. Delegates felt it is not out of place for conservationists to take a moral stance against canned lion hunting, since ethics run through everything we do. CITES uplisting of lions to Appendix 1 The discussion on this point avoided an unfruitful moral pro/con hunting debate but looked at practical implications. The majority of delegates felt that well-regulated hunting could potentially contribute to lion and habitat conservation, but at present such a contribution is thought to be insufficiently substantiated. The IUCN lion conservation strategies have also been insufficiently implemented and, short of a formal evaluation, consensus was that goals are not being met at all. The merits and problems of up-listing were discussed as follows: 1. Uplisting would appear attractive as it aims at reducing international trade, while allowing for well-regulated trophy hunting. 2. However, due to domestic legislation of the USA, an unintended effect of uplisting might be an import ban on trophies to the US, thus potentially reducing demand for lion trophy hunts. The trophy hunting industry claims that this will have an adverse effect on economic viability which may lead to conversion of large tracts of natural land currently used for hunting (and benefitting biodiversity conservation) to agriculture. 3. Uplisting of lions will demand better monitoring of lion populations and non-detrimental finding reports for export permits. However, it would also mean pressure for more funds for range countries for lion population monitoring programmes. 4. A relatively limited number of lions is hunted for trophies, a far larger numbers of lions get killed for other reasons. 5. Range countries might turn to captive breeding because these animals will be on Appendix 2 and in doing so fuel the canned hunting industry. Use of lion body parts and associated local and international trade is not trophy related, but may further stimulate captive breeding and canned hunting. 6. Uplisting, or split-listing of West & Central Africa lions, will not address the main problems faced by lions in that region, such as local trade, poaching and conflict with people. As ALWG members value the arguments above differently there is no unanimous stand by this group in relation of CITES uplisting of lions, but there is unanimity that these are the main issues on which to focus the discussion. West and Central African Regional Strategy The lion conservation strategies are available, but implementation on the ground has lost momentum. In order to offer effective lion conservation the W&C Africa regional strategy needs to move forward, and national action plans put in place, possibly in conjunction with current efforts on African wild dog and cheetah in the region. Closing The group thanked Sarel van der Merwe as a dedicated chairman of ALWG, and Tammy Hoth for her hard work to organise the meeting. Delegates are grateful to the Namibian authorities, and especially management of Etosha National Park, for hosting this event.


43

Annex 2. The LionAid Conference on the conservation needs and status of African

lions - Action Plans

Following a very successful and landmark LionAid conference on the conservation needs and status

of African lions in Johannesburg on the 29th and 30th March, we are delighted to now publish the

Action Plans agreed by the delegates.

The Management and Scientific Authorities of seven African lion range States attended as follows:

Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria and Senegal.

We now very much look forward to working with all these African lion range States to initiate

regional and pan-African lion conservation measures to halt current catastrophic population declines

in this iconic species.

We would like to thank Defra and the UK Government for granting us the funds without

preconditions to hold this conference.

LionAid has been asked develop National Lion Conservation Plans with all these lion range States.

This places us in the responsible position of coordinating and facilitating overall lion conservation

and management programmes, and we will soon proceed to responsibly address this remit.

ACTION PLANS

All lion range States that have not developed their National Lion Action Plans for lion conservation

and management in a structured and coordinated way, to urgently do so by April 2013. Such

coordination of the Action Plans to be undertaken and facilitated by LionAid.

1. The lion range States that practise consumptive utilisation of lions (e.g. trophy hunting) to

ensure adherence to best practices of sustainability and transparency, and shall regularly

monitor utilized populations.

2. The lion range States to propose to the IUCN to review the listing of the African lion with a

view to upgrading the species to “endangered” status. LionAid to facilitate.

3. The lion range States to request UNESCO to consider the lion as a World Heritage Species,

once the criteria and process has been established and a proposal for listing has been

submitted. LionAid to facilitate and inform.

4. The lion range States to share intelligence with regional law enforcement agencies on illegal

trade, e.g Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF) and INTERPOL.

5. The lion range States to establish a database along the lines of the Monitoring of Illegal Killing

of Elephants (MIKE) programme of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the illegal killing of lions, and keep accurate

records on legal killing of lions associated with problem animal control measures and trophy

hunting. Such records about legal killing to be made available by approval from and on

request to the individual lion range State.


44

6. The lion range States to develop standardized data collection methods for lion population

monitoring; currently it is difficult to accurately compare among methods utilized by the

range States and results obtained thereby.

7. The lion range States to continue to engage in discussion regarding the correct and

appropriate listing of lions on CITES (whether Appendix 1 or 2) as new information

regarding the impact of trade becomes available.

8. The lion range States that have not yet done so are urgently encouraged to provide input into

the ongoing CITES Lion Periodic Review process being led by the CITES’ Animals Committee

representatives for African region.

9. Cognizant of current trans-boundary conservation plans, the lion range States to collaborate

fully on trans-boundary lion conservation programmes/initiatives for shared lion

populations, and to incorporate trans-boundary lion population needs in their National Lion

Action Plans.

10. The lion range States to regularly assess progress of current lion research programmes within

their countries as to their relevance to national needs and priorities, and to engage in a tender

process to invite specific research on lions within subjects identified by the range states.

11. The lion range States to encourage data collection in research areas of feline disease and

genetics in addition to the ecological and human/livestock conflict dimensions of lion

conservation.

12. The lion range States and LionAid to pursue urgent mobilisation of resources to achieve the

above resolutions. The lion range States to identify national and trans-boundary programmes

according to their identified priorities for funding submissions facilitated by LionAid.

13. The lion range States to engage with neighbouring range States/regional range States to

constructively collaborate on best ways forward to ensure the long-term survival of lions.

Consideration to be made by range States to hold a series of small scale conferences among

neighbouring range States to develop and implement regionally cohesive and regionally

appropriate lion conservation strategies facilitated by LionAid.

14. The lion range States to call for regular pan-African conferences to report progress on the

above Action Plans, identification of new needs based on emerging data, and to determine

overall continental best ways forward to ensure the conservation and management of the

species. The next of these to be held in April 2013.

Documents

Review of Panthera leo from trading range States - rev 1...To date, the SRG has only discussed the lion ( Panthera leo ) populations of Ethiopia, Namibia, Tanzania and South Africa,