Monitoring compliance of CITES lion bone exports from South Africa

Abstract

From 2008 to 2018, South Africa permitted the export of captive-bred African lion (Panthera leo) skeletons to Southeast Asia under CITES Appendix II. Legal exports rose from approximately 50 individuals in 2008 to a maximum of 1,771 skeletons in 2016, and has led to ongoing concerns over possible laundering of non-lion, multiple-source and wild-sourced bones. South Africa is required under its obligations to CITES to employ mechanisms for monitoring and reporting trade, and to limit the potential for illegal trade and laundering of lion and other large felid bones. Monitoring tools for legal trade are critical to compliance with CITES. Here we evaluate the CITES-compliance procedure implemented by South Africa for export of lion bones and identify six essential general points for consideration in the implementation of animal export quota compliance protocols. We provide specific insight into the South African lion bone export monitoring system through: i) outlining the protocols followed; ii) assessing the utility of cranial morphology to identify species; iii) evaluating skeleton consignment weight as a monitoring tool; and iv) presenting molecular (DNA) species assignment and pairwise-comparative sample matching of individuals. We describe irregularities and illicit behaviour detected in the 2017 and 2018 lion bone quotas. Notably, we report that the compliance procedure successfully identified and prevented the attempted laundering of a tiger (P. tigris) skeleton in 2018. We emphasise the utility of mixed-method protocols for the monitoring of compliance in CITES Appendix II export quota systems.

The hunter and the hunted: Using web‐sourced imagery to monitor leopard (Panthera pardus pardus) trophy hunting

“…The latter of which has many shortcomings (i.e., fundamentally, it is a record of permit applications and not actual exports) and is often misrepresented as a trade monitoring tool (Challender et al, 2021; Chan et al, 2021); instead what it monitors, is what people wanted to export when they applied for a permit. Outside of the PHR of South Africa, there is no way of knowing what leopard trophy hunting and trade actually occurred, except that actual legal import numbers will be less than the numbers indicated on the CTD (Bertola et al, 2022; Williams et al, 2021). This finding is particularly revealing as it suggests that overapplication for CITES permits, the administrative lag in reporting, and ultimately the fundamental application record, not trade monitoring purpose of the CTD limits the use of this international trade repository in this context.…”

“…These issues and associated controversies can seriously compromise the potential role trophy hunting could play as an effective tool for biodiversity conservation (Leader‐Williams, 2001; Lindsey et al, 2007; Saayman et al, 2018). These issues are amplified due to incomplete demographic, ecological, and genetic monitoring data on harvested populations and concerns around ethical and transparent quota compliance (Bunnefeld et al, 2013; Di Minin et al, 2021; Wanger et al, 2017; Williams et al, 2021). Opportunities for sizeable financial gain may foster corruption within the industry (Lindsey et al, 2007; Palazy et al, 2011), impacting decisions on land allocation for hunting concessions and leading to quotas being exceeded, potentially driving the overexploitation of targeted species (Lindsey et al, 2007; Palazy et al, 2011).…”

Guidelines for evaluating the conservation value of African lion (Panthera leo) translocations

“…The use of captive-bred or captive-raised lions (including orphaned cubs) for reintroduction in southern Africa has been extensively analyzed and rejected (Hunter et al, 2013). There are considerable risks associated with such reintroductions, including potential inbreeding deficits (Boakes et al, 2007;Leberg and Firman, 2007), a lack of clarity regarding the genetic origin of captive animals (Williams et al, 2021), elevated risks that they are habituated to humans and thus create hazards for local people (Shepherd et al, 2014), and evidence that they are poorly equipped to life in nature compared to their wild-born counterparts (Jule et al, 2008). As summarized by Hunter et al (2013), "for every objective criterion by which reintroductions are planned and evaluated, wild lions are better candidates for increasing the likelihood of success".…”

“…An array of anthropogenic factors has driven these dynamics (Bauer et al, 2020); thus, integrated, and comprehensive conservation actions are needed to address these declines. Common causes of decline include the loss of habitat, prey depletion due to bushmeat poaching, inappropriate hunting quota setting, mortalities of lions due to persecution associated with humanlion conflict, snaring by-catch and increasingly, targeted poaching of lions for their body parts (Henschel et al, 2014;Bauer et al, 2015;Williams et al, 2015;Williams et al, 2017;Lindsey et al, 2017;Everatt et al, 2019;Jacobsen et al, 2020;Williams et al, 2021). However, when lions, as well as their habitat and prey are well-protected, the species recovers rapidly (Riggio et al, 2013;Miller and Funston, 2014;Lindsey et al, 2017;Mweetwa et al, 2018).…”

Contemporary Cultural Trade of Lion Body Parts

“…Although bone trade to Southeast Asia has dominated considerations of lion body-part trade for a decade [ 5 , 7 , 8 ], within Southern Africa, lion derivatives are also acquired and traded domestically for cultural purposes, including: zootherapeutic or traditional medicines, clothing, ornamentation, bushmeat, and curios, involving intra-continental supply chains [ 5 , 7 , 9 ]. Despite the prevalence of domestic trade and use of lion body parts [ 10 , 11 ], ‘traditional’ and ‘local’ uses are typically over-looked and neglected as potential deterministic factors driving wild lion exploitation, poaching and even population decline in regions of low density [ 4 , 7 , 12 ], presumably because of cultural-political sensitivities linked to the policing of traditional practices [ 13 , 14 ].…”