A roaring trade? The legal trade in Panthera leo bones from Africa to East-Southeast Asia

Abstract

The African lion is the only big cat listed on CITES Appendix II, and the only one for which international commercial trade is legal under CITES. The trade in lion body parts, and especially the contentious trade in bones from South Africa to Asia, has raised concerns spanning continents and cultures. Debates were amplified at the 2016 CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP17) when a proposal to up-list lions to Appendix I was not supported and a compromise to keep them on Appendix II, with a bone trade quota for South Africa, was reached instead. CoP17 underscored a need for further information on the lion bone trade and the consequences for lions across the continent. Legal international trade in bones to Asia, allegedly to supply the substitute ‘tiger bone’ market, began in South Africa in February 2008 when the first CITES permits were issued. It was initially unclear the degree to which bones were sourced from captive-origin lions, and whether trade was a threat to wild lion populations. Our original assessment of the legal CITES-permitted lion bone trade from South Africa to East-Southeast Asia was for the period 2008–2011 (published 2015). In this paper, we consolidate new information that has become available for 2012–2016, including CITES reports from other African countries, and data on actual exports for three years to 2016 supplied by a freight forwarding company. Thus, we update the figures on the legal trade in lion bones from Africa to East-Southeast Asia in the period 2008–2016. We also contextualise the basis for global concerns by reviewing the history of the trade and its relation to tigers, poaching and wildlife trafficking. CITES permits issued to export bones escalated from ±314y-1 skeletons from 2008–2011, to ±1312y-1 skeletons from 2013–2015. South Africa was the only legal exporter of bones to Asia until 2013 when Namibia issued permits to export skeletons to Vietnam. While CITES permits to export ±5363 skeletons from Africa to Asia from 2008–2015 were issued (99.1% from South Africa; 0.7% from Namibia) (51% for Laos), actual exports were less than stated on the permits. However, information on actual exports from 2014–2016 indicated that >3400 skeletons were exported in that period. In total, >6000 skeletons weighing no less than 70 tonnes have been shipped to East-Southeast Asia since 2008. Since few wild lions are hunted and poached within South African protected areas, skeletons for the legal trade appear to be derived from captive bred lions. However, confirmation of a 116kg shipment from Uganda to Laos, and reports of lion poaching in neighbouring countries, indicate that urgent proactive monitoring and evaluation of the legal and illegal trade is necessary in African lion range states where vulnerable wild lion populations are likely to be adversely affected.

Of cowboys, fish, and pangolins: US trade in exotic leather

“…Substitution of wildlife products has been reported previously, and published examples include: tiger bone being replaced with lion bone (Williams et al, 2017;Williams, Newton, Loveridge, & Macdonald, 2015); captive-bred crocodile skins being substituted for wild-caught animals (MacGregor, 2006); or, more broadly, fish being substituted by bushmeat when the F I G U R E 5 Trade activity per state for the different leather products (arapaima or pangolin) and the different datasets (LEMIS or eBay). Arapaima leather trade has increased significantly since 2011, and the increase in arapaima trade occurred after the decline of pangolin leather products.…”

“…These findings, combined with the fact that the two types of leather have such obvious similar physical patterns, are consistent with arapaimas acting as a substitute for pangolin leather products in the US. Substitution of wildlife products has been reported previously, and published examples include: tiger bone being replaced with lion bone (Williams et al, 2017;Williams, Newton, Loveridge, & Macdonald, 2015); captive-bred crocodile skins being substituted for wild-caught animals (MacGregor, 2006); or, more broadly, fish being substituted by bushmeat when the F I G U R E 5 Trade activity per state for the different leather products (arapaima or pangolin) and the different datasets (LEMIS or eBay). The darker the color, the more trade activity per state fish supply is low (Rowcliffe et al, 2005).…”

“…However, less availability does not necessarily reduce the demand for wildlife, and reduced availability can even stimulate trade and increase consumer demand (Courchamp et al, 2006;Rivalan et al, 2007). This includes substitution from other populations (including captive-breeding) (Broad & Burgess, 2016;Rowcliffe, Milner-Gulland, & Cowlishaw, 2005), or by a different species with similar utility (Broad & Burgess, 2016;Tensen, 2016;Williams, Loveridge, Newton, & Macdonald, 2017). This includes substitution from other populations (including captive-breeding) (Broad & Burgess, 2016;Rowcliffe, Milner-Gulland, & Cowlishaw, 2005), or by a different species with similar utility (Broad & Burgess, 2016;Tensen, 2016;Williams, Loveridge, Newton, & Macdonald, 2017).…”

“…When a taxa declines, or becomes unavailable through either overexploitation or increased enforcement, wildlife products can be substituted. This includes substitution from other populations (including captive-breeding) (Broad & Burgess, 2016;Rowcliffe, Milner-Gulland, & Cowlishaw, 2005), or by a different species with similar utility (Broad & Burgess, 2016;Tensen, 2016;Williams, Loveridge, Newton, & Macdonald, 2017). Here, we investigate the potential substitution of leather products of a threatened group of mammals, by an entirely different taxonomic group.…”

Engaging local communities in tackling illegal wildlife trade: A synthesis of approaches and lessons for best practice

“…We are aware that there are other key species that are common targets for IWT beyond those identified here. For example, lions are increasingly targeted for bone trade (Williams, Loveridge, Newton, & Macdonald, ). However, the species listed here are the only ones for which we found documentation of community‐based initiatives to tackle IWT.…”