one of us
| This is the script for the demo video: Quote:
The fate of the African Lion
How many lion were there in Africa 10 years ago and how many are there today? How many should there be and why? Is the African lion on the brink of extinction? Complex, emotive questions to which there are no simple answers. Issues that can and have been used to fire up public sentiment for a variety of sometimes questionable motives.
CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an international agreement between Governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.
CITES works by subjecting international trade in specimens of selected species to certain controls. These require that all import, export, re-export and introduction from the sea of species covered by the Convention has to be authorized through a licensing system.
The species covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices, according to the degree of protection they need.
* Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.
* Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival.
* Appendix III contains species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade.
Kenya has proposed that Panthera leo, the African, lion be moved from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I because they believe that the species faces a high risk of extinction. Their conclusion is based on a couple of selective reports as well as the fate of the animal in their own country.
To get an exact lion count is not practically possible as lions are notoriously difficult to count. Even with extensive and expensive research an approximation using theoretical modeling, estimates and projections, is the best that can be hoped for. The first comprehensive attempt to evaluate continental lion populations was only undertaken in 2002 by researcher Chardonnet. It is therefore impossible to know how many lion there were 100 years or even 10 years ago.
The Kenyan proposal admits that a 1996 population figure for the continent was considered to be an educated guess, and that many of the current figures are also guesses.
Using these guesses it estimates that minimum population size today is 45 percent less than that estimated in 1996 (16,500 down from 30,000), while the estimated maximum population size today is 70 percent less than that estimated in 1996 (30,000 down from 100,000).
These are nothing more than speculative guesses and not the results of methodical surveys. The figures cannot be used as a suitable benchmark on which to evaluate lion numbers and it is therefore not possible to draw any conclusions regarding any shifts in lion numbers over the last decade.
The two recent lion surveys by Bauer and Van der Merwe in 2004 and Chardonnet in 2002, suggest that the lion population in Africa is currently about 16 500 � 47 000, with 30 000 being the likely actual number. Bauer & Van der Merwe results are widely recognized as being an underestimate as many areas in East and Southern Africa were not reported on. An example is in the case of Tanzania, home to the largest population of lion in Africa, where a major omission was made. In their survey the only areas that were included were Manyara, Ngorongoro, Selous, Selous buffer zone and Serengeti giving a countrywide estimate of 7,073 (minimum 5,323 and maximum 8793). Every other area in Tanzania where lion occur was excluded.
The report of Chardonnet is more comprehensive and more reliable. Under the auspices of the International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife (IGF) and Conservation Force this survey drew on the expertise of over 40 researchers and authorities through a network that covered the continent. This involved people that had many years of field experience in wildlife conservation and management. His estimates for Tanzania, based on a compilation of research results, are 14,432 (minimum 10,409 and maximum 18,215). In the regions that were covered by both surveys the results were within the same range. The disparity between the two countrywide surveys is 7359 lions. Chardonnet figures show that there are twice as many lion in Tanzania alone compared to Bauer and Van der Merwe�s results. Some field wise authorities such Packer and Rolf believe that Chardonnet�s figures are conservative. They believe that there may be more lion in Tanzania alone than Kenya acknowledges in all of Africa.
The Kenyan proposal to upgrade the African Lion to CITES Appendix I uses the Bauer and Van der Merwe figures to justify the endangered status of the species. The two authors state clearly that they only �present an inventory of available information� which often does not contain much more than a set of educated guesses and leaves out many areas with substantial lion populations. The Kenyan proposal recognizes the inadequacies of their results, but still cites them as if they were perfectly accurate while conspicuously ignoring the more comprehensive Chardonnet report.
According to the CITES guidelines for a species to be placed on Appendix 1 is as follows: a decrease of 50% or more in total within 5 years or two generations, whichever is the longer. A generation in the case of lion is estimated to be 6,5 years. This is a guideline and not a threshold of what constitutes a decline. Chardonnet concludes that the population is generally stable. Even if the decline were true, it could not be due to trade.
But how many lion should Africa have?
It is obvious 200 years ago there may have 500 000 or more lions in Africa but a lot has changed since then. A human population explosion along with expanding agriculture and livestock has forced lion populations to shrink into national parks and other protected areas. According to Kenyan wildlife authorities lion today occur only in 9-12 percent of their former continental range. This may be so but the days of 500 000 or even 100 000 lions in Africa are gone. The continent can no longer accommodate those numbers. Instead of being obsessed with numbers the conservation effort should focus on protecting and maintaining the current range and habitat of the lion and its prey species.
The Kenyan proposal attempts to put a monetary value on individual lions, a radical departure from the normal protectionist philosophy. Using an undisclosed formula, the proposal calculates the tourist value of a male lion in Kenya's Amboseli National Park to be $128,750 annually while claiming that a 21-day lion-hunting safari in Tanzania is only worth about $35,000.
The choice of the Amboseli National Park in Kenya is a good one. In 1990 the total lion population of Amboseli was 2. Systematic poisoning by local communities, apparently in response to a failure by the government to react to stock killing lions, combined with habitat changes and prey availability were the main reasons for the scarcity. Between 1991-1993 the lion population was zero. In 1994, 2 lions entered from neighboring areas, followed later by others. The population has since recovered somewhat and there are presently around 40 lions in the park. They are, however, by no means safe and could be wiped out again for exactly the same reasons which have nothing to do with trade.
The value of a lion whilst resident in the park may be $ 128,750 and 35 cents but the minute it steps out of the park its value is zero as are its chances of survival. There is one positive aspect that Kenyans can take from this and that is the total value of the remaining lions in the park goes up with each one that leaves.
A gross amount of around US$ 27 million is generated annually by the hunting industry across the border in Tanzania of which approximately US$ 10 million is paid to the government Wildlife Division. Lion hunting is a crucial component, one of the main draw cards in bringing tourist hunters to the country. It is difficult to put an exact value of lion to the industry because without lion on quota many hunters would not go to the country to hunt. Without lion hunting the industry would not be as viable.
The loss of revenue to a poverty stricken country such as Tanzania would be significant. Tourist hunting is one of the few industries that brings economic incentives to the remote rural areas of the country. It is the major source of revenue that sustains the game reserves and game controlled area network in the country. These represent 70% of the protected area network with an area of over 200,000 km2. It pays for the conservation of the lion and other species, and it works.
Hunting and photographic tourism are not competitive but rather complementary forms of wildlife use. Lions are important to the photographic tourist industry but most are never even seen by tourists. Hunting safaris normally take place in areas with little or no tourism potential. Hunting is comparatively more lucrative than photographic tourism and has a lower impact on the ecology of the area, as little infrastructure is required. Camping in the bush is part of the experience, so large tourist hotels and extensive road networks are not necessary. As a result, negative environmental and cultural impacts associated with more intensive forms of mass tourism are minimized.
A crucial aspect to tourist hunting is the concept of buffer zones. In most of Africa�s major hunting destinations such as Tanzania the national parks are surrounded by or have boundaries with hunting areas. Some of these areas are government controlled safari areas where others are traditional tribal areas. These areas are vitally important, as not only is an extended habitat for the wildlife afforded, but also a buffer zone is created between the people and the national parks. Human encroachment on protected wilderness areas is held in check. In these tribal areas, wildlife has a value to the community and pressure on the individual not to poach is increased tremendously. This is in stark contrast to an area such as the Amboseli National Park in Kenya where there is zero value to a lion outside of the park and it�s chance of survival, minimal.
The Kenyan proposal charges that there is an over hunting of lion by tourist hunters. It is generally accepted that a 2-4% per annum off-take of trophy male lions has little overall effect on populations. If Tanzania�s lion population is 14 000 a 2% off-take would be 280 lions and 4 % would be 560. If there were only 10,500 lions then the comparable figures would be 210 and 420. The actual number of lions taken and exported between 1992 and 2002 was 2,791 lions or 254 lions per year. Between 1996 and 2003 only 51 % of the quota, on average, was taken annually in the Selous game reserve. The proposal insinuates that quotas and the number of animals taken are one in the same, deliberately clouding the issue.
Tanzania has more lions than any other country in the world, and the majority of these animals live outside the national parks. If lion trophy hunting were stopped, they would have no economic value and there would no longer be any incentive to conserve them. Opponents of trophy hunting have provided no alternative mechanism for equal funding of the large-scale conservation efforts required to protect not only lion but also other wildlife species.
Lions are deadly adversaries to the rural African and his livestock and confrontation is inevitable. Lions are trapped, speared or poisoned with agricultural chemicals in order to protect life and limb as well as livestock. Sometimes they are killed simply on principal. The number of lions killed in this way each year is far greater than from any other cause. Where there is no lion-derived income for local people, there is little incentive to tolerate lions or to adopt expensive and time-intensive protection strategies.
Snaring is another major cause of lion fatalities. Wire snares set by meat poachers for other animals sometimes catch lion. This is generally unintentional as there is no significant market for lion products although the body parts are sometimes sold for traditional medicines and witchcraft.
The Kenyan proposal claims that lions are being decimated by FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus) and distemper. Extensive studies in the Serengeti, by far the most exhaustive investigations on lion health, found no evidence that FIV causes significant health effects. A wholly unrelated Canine Distemper Virus did cause a 35% decline in the Serengeti lions in 1994/95. Their numbers dropped from 3000 to under 2000. But lion are prolific breeders and have a potential growth rate of over 20% per year. Within 5 years the population recovered completely and today the population is back to an all time high of around 3,800 in that ecosystem.
The reasons which have led to a decline in lion populations in Kenya or in West-Africa are not connected to international trade or tourist hunting. To upgrade the lion to CITES Appendix I as proposed by Kenya would not address any of the issues that adversely affect lion populations., i.e. loss of habitat to agriculture, problem animal control, poaching and killing of lions by pastoralists. It would however, make the hunting of lions by tourist hunters more difficult or even impossible in most instances. Controlled tourist hunting is sustainable. Giving a value to a species is one major element in a range of conservation tools that has and must continue to be successfully applied to protect the future of the lion.
The Kenyans have manipulated statistics to reflect a desired result. Through omissions, additions along with a portion of double-speak, their hypothesis is presented as fact, served up to an uninformed and unsuspecting public and devoured by a sensationalist media. Unfortunately this is a process that is all too common in the ideological disputes that occur in wildlife conservation.
Kenya, rather than leading the way in lion conservation, provides a perfect example of how not to manage lion and indeed any wildlife population. There has been no trophy hunting of lion in Kenya for 27 years. Outside of protected areas lions are considered worthless which has led to high levels of lion-human conflict and the ultimate demise of the species.
CITES brief is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. There is no substantial international market for lion or lion products as with elephant ivory.
Banning the imaginary trade in lion is not going to kill any black market. All that this proposal sets out to do is to give exposure to Kenyan wildlife authorities as the supposed leaders of African wildlife conservation. This is a fantastic way to generate money for their various organizations and agendas, much as the burning of the ivory scam was. The Kenyan proposal is a direct attack on the tourist hunting industry and is aimed squarely at undermining it with little regard to the damaging effects to genuine conservation efforts throughout the continent.
|
