Report on Lion Conservation - WildCRU · Report on Lion Conservation ... A.3 If trophy hunting is permissible in principle, what aﬀects this? . . . . . . . . 67 v. Lion Conservation

Report on Lion Conservation

with Particular Respect to the Issue ofTrophy Hunting

A report prepared by Professor David W. Macdonald CBE, FRSE, DSc⇤

ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttDirector of WildCRU, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford

tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

at the request of Rory Stewart OBEttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Under Secretary of State for the Environmenttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

28 November 2016

⇤[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Lion Conservation and Trophy Hunting Report Macdonald et al.

Contributors

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

It benefitted from critical review by:

TTTDr Guillaume ChapronTTTDr Peter LindseyTTTProfessor Craig Packer

It also benefitted from helpful input from:

TTTDr Hans BauerTTTProfessor Claudio SilleroTTTDr Christiaan WinterbachTTTProfessor John Vucetich

Under the aegis of DEFRA the report was helpfully informed by evidence andopinions offered during consultations with the following organisations:

TTTBorn FreeTTTLionAidTTTSafari Club International Foundation (SCIF)TTTThe British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC)TTTThe European Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation (FACE)TTTThe International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)TTTThe Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)TTTThe World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

ii

Contents

Contributors ii

Abbreviations Used in the Text viii

Preface ix

Executive Summary and Recommendations xiii

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

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

1.1.1 What value do lions have? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.2 To what extent have lions declined, in terms of numbers and geographicrange? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.3 What is the current threat status of lions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.1.4 What are the major current threats to lions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

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

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

1.2 Background to lion trophy hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

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

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

1.2.3 Ethical acceptability of lion trophy hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.2.4 Extent of lion trophy hunting and its markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

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

2 Threats and impacts associated with lion trophy hunting 19

iii


2.1 The significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

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

2.1.1.1 Negative population effects associated with the removal offemales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.1.1.2 Negative population effects associated with the removal ofpride males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.1.1.3 Threat to lion populations of trophy hunting relative to otherthreats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 Impacts associated with lion trophy hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.2.1 Ecological impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.2.1.1 Habitat protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

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

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

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

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

2.2.2.3 Trophy hunting and economic incentives for lion conservation 41

iv

2.3 Summary of the impacts associated with trophy hunting . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3 Current and recommended lion trophy hunting practices 45

3.1 Lease length, allocation and fixed quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.2 Restrictions on lions able to be hunted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4 Options to improve the conservation impact of trophy hunting 49

4.1 Possible impacts of maintaining the status quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.2 Possible impacts of a total import ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

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

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

4.3.2 Possible options for stricter conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

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

4.3.2.2 Age-based harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.3.2.3 Interim scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

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

4.3.3 Notes on scale and conditions of import . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

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

4.3.3.2 Verification of hunting practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

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

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

Appendix A Ethics and trophy hunting 64

A.1 The ethical background to trophy hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

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

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

v


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

A.5 What inconsistencies are there in value judgments concerning acceptablereason for killing animals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

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

A.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Appendix B Extent of trade in lion trophies 74

B.1 Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

B.2 Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

B.3 Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

B.4 Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

B.5 Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

B.6 Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

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

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

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

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

Appendix D Example of an Adaptive Age Based Quota System 82

Literature Cited 85

vi

List of Figures

1 International lion trophy trade map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

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

List of Tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Zimbabwe’s adaptive quota points system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

11 Worked examples of an adaptive quota points system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

vii


Abbreviations Used in the Text

TTT

ALWG African Lion Working GroupCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and FloraCMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild AnimalsDAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesDEA Department of Environmental AffairsDEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsFSC Forest Stewardship CouncilISO International Organisation for StandardisationIUCN International Union for Conservation of NaturePAC Problem Animal ControlSCI Safari Club InternationalSCIF Safari Club International FoundationTAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research InstituteUNPD United Nations Population DivisionUSFWS US Fish and Wildlife ServiceWWF World Wide Fund for NatureZPWMA Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority

viii

Preface

This is a scientific report about one aspect of the conservation of wildlife and,specifically, of lions in Africa. That aspect is the trophy hunting of wild lions, andthe remit is to evaluate evidence that trophy hunting has, or could, impact on thedistribution and abundance of lions for better or worse in terms of their conservation.Other considerations beyond this, most obviously ethics (Macdonald et al. 2016b), arerelevant to society’s decisions on whether hunting lions for trophies is an acceptableactivity. These other considerations are very important, and potentially decisive, butthey are not the remit of this report. Indeed, those who have contributed to thisreport have done so strictly from a position of professional neutrality that is neitherpro- nor anti-hunting, although they are united in being pro good evidence and antibad management of lion populations.

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

ix


knowledge. Providing these facts, and identifying important gaps, is one function ofthis report, and it is particularly important insofar as policies applied impulsivelycould have perverse consequences if the intention to improve lion conservation resultedin worsening it. In that case, even those implacably opposed to lion hunting onethical grounds might favour a journey rather than a jump. For example, if societyjudged trophy hunting lions unacceptable, but also concluded that it benefited lionconservation, then this dilemma might be approached via a journey to find ways ofreplacing the benefits of hunting before jumping to end them.

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

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

2. providing recommendations for what the UK, working with the our partnersin the EU and also internationally, could do to assist implementation of bestpractice; and

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

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

Having stated that this report is concerned with trophy hunting in terms onlyof its impact on lion, and other wildlife, conservation, it is worth being clear onthe meaning of conservation as used in this report. It is a highly inter-disciplinaryblend of natural and social sciences that together provide the evidence from which

x

to understand, and thereby to provide the basis for conserving, species and theirdiversity. That evidence is necessary, but not sufficient, to make decisions on policy,because like other political matters good decisions rest upon wise judgement beyondthe facts. Conservation is often characterised as being focused on populations, butinsofar as the behaviour of populations emerges from the behaviour of the individualsthat comprise them, conservation is also concerned with the fates and well-being ofindividuals. Conservation is sometimes characterised as being disinterested in animalwelfare, but that is an error: for example, welfare is one of the factors that wouldbe considered in evaluating different conservation policies. Furthermore, there was atime when conservation was thought to prioritise wildlife over people, but this toois a simplification to the point of error. Modern wildlife conservation strives to findmutual advantage between the well-being of wildlife and the people who live, oftenwith difficulty and in poverty, alongside it.

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

xi


primary aim of this report is to evaluate how trophy hunting impacts lion conservation,where the goal is to maintain or increase the lion estate and the eventual abundanceof lions thereon.

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

t David W. Macdonald

t WildCRU, Oxfordt 28th November 2016

xii

Executive Summary and Recommendations

ttt.Value and Status : Lions are charismatic, widely valued and have the potentialto act as conservation ‘ambassadors’ for biodiversity. As a species, they are not doingwell: lions have disappeared from 92% of their historic range and their numbers havedeclined drastically to approximately just 20,000 individuals.

Grasping the moment to create the movement : Given this rapid decline ofone of the world’s most iconic species, action to conserve lions is urgently needed.Considering this urgency, and from the perspective of conservation, it is unacceptableto tolerate factors worsening the lion’s status where options exist for mitigatingthem. With the world’s attention galvanised by the killing of ‘Cecil’ the lion, there isan opportunity to convert that Cecil Moment into the Cecil Movement for globalconservation. From the perspective of conservation, there is a global responsibility tograsp that opportunity.

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

Extent of lion trophy hunting : Trophy hunting of lions was legal in 18 Africancountries in 2014, is currently practised at a significant level in at least 12 countries,and is an extensive form of land use therein. ‘Canned’ hunting of captive animals islegal in some countries but these are not considered wild lions and so are consideredonly in passing in this report.

Ethical considerations : The ethics of trophy hunting are much debated. Thisreport focuses on trophy hunting’s consequences for lion conservation, while recognisingthat ethics, particularly relating to animal and human welfare, will influence policydecisions.

xiii


Numbers of lions hunted for trophies : Most trophy-hunted lions are bred incaptivity. The number of wild lions trophy-hunted is hard to establish with precisiondue to inconsistencies in the data. Between 2006 and 2015, CITES recorded 4,474‘wild’-sourced lion trophies (which include parts of lions so may not reflect numbers ofindividuals) as imported world-wide, with only 2,429 reported as exported. Between1991 and 2013, CITES records 80 wild lion trophies (not individual lions) exportedto the UK; the UK importation records show 4 trophies.

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

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

Trophy hunting as a contributor to lion conservation : The most funda-mental benefit of trophy hunting to lion conservation is that it provides a financialincentive to maintain lion habitat that might otherwise be converted to non-wildlifeland uses. It has been estimated that trophy hunting areas cover 1.4 million km2

– 22% more land than National Parks – in Africa. How much of that area couldviably be converted to phototourism is unknown, but this certainly could not beaccomplished everywhere.

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

xiv

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

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

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

Recommended criteria for importing trophies to the UK : The criteria forwhether a lion trophy could be imported into the UK should be that the hunting(a) was unlikely to cause detriment to the lion population from which it was taken,and (b) contributes to lion conservation. Therefore, we recommend that the followingessential criteria should be applied to the consideration of lion trophy imports to theUK:

i. That the UK should import trophies only from areas that are sufficiently large tooffer conservation benefit to lions (we suggest 500 km2 or more), and where the lionpopulation is demonstrably well-managed.

ii. Good management requires either adequate monitoring, which allows scientific quota-setting and shows a stable or increasing population, or age-based harvesting. Age-basedharvesting could include either the precautionary approach (0.5 male lions of >7 yearsper 1,000 km2, with rest periods, unless there are good data showing it can withstanda higher level), or adaptive age-based quotas.

iii. Areas that fail to qualify under the foregoing criteria could possibly receive a ‘graceperiod’ of up to 3 years under very strict criteria and annual review in order to allow

xv


them to reach the required standards. During any such period, hunting should beheavily limited, e.g. to a maximum of 0.5 lions 1,000 km-2 aged >7 years. Failure tomeet the required conditions after the grace period would result in a moratorium onUK imports from the area until they are in place.

iv. In areas where lion populations are declining unsustainably under any of the permittedharvesting systems, hunting should be stopped or, if there is a significant risk of losingthat habitat from the wildlife estate, the area should be examined on a case-by-casebasis and any lion hunting kept only at a very minimal level until the situation can beimproved.

v. These criteria should ideally be applied at the level of the hunting area not the country,and exports should be managed by an independent committee of stakeholders in eachcountry. That committee should audit hunting practices, set and monitor quotas,encourage certification of hunters, ensure adequate training of professional hunters,ensure transparency and compliance, and verify the age of hunted lions based on huntreports, photos and tooth X-rays. The costs of operating these national committeeswould normally be met by stakeholders such as the hunting industry, relevant NGOs,international and local governments.

In addition, the likelihood of trophy hunting contributing to lion conservationwould be increased if regulations were designed to maximise the revenue procuredthat was, at least partly, available to conservation. Therefore, this report recommendsthat the following desirable elements should be in place:

i. Short leases, and the short-termism and incentive for over-harvesting that they encour-age, should not be issued to hunting blocks. A suitable minimum would be ten years,with option for extension by the current tenant (assuming conservation requirementshave been met).

ii. Hunting blocks should be allocated according to an open auction system.

iii. Trophy hunting fees should only be applied following successful hunts, thereby reducingthe incentive to kill inappropriate individuals.

Because trophy hunting involves killing a wild animal that, if not killed cleanly,has the potential to suffer, and because human safety is also at risk with the use offirearms, this report recommends reviewing the evidence and codes of practice thatwould ensure:t• that professional hunters are strictly accredited as evidenced by membership of interna-

tionally recognised associations that put standards first and foremost (including those

xvi

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

Finally, broader scale analysis of imports and exports of lion trophies is an essentialelement of monitoring the industry and its impact on conservation. The CITESdatabase is a potentially incomparable resource for doing so. However, ambiguitiesover the muddling of entire lions and parts of lions, and some lack of clarity betweenexports and re-exports, currently confound the data, and lamentably diminish thevalue of the database. Therefore, this report also recommends that:

t• CITES procedures are adjusted so that it is possible to assign various body parts to asingle trophy lion (thereby avoiding the double-counting of, say, the pelt and skull of asingle animal), and to track successive re-exports of that individual.

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

Wider implications for the governance of lion trophy hunting to ensure

it is not detrimental to lion conservation and has the potential to enhance

it : Although this report was commissioned by the then Under Secretary of State toinform decisions on the conditions that might apply to the import of lion trophiesto the UK, the recommendations set out in that context in the foregoing sectionapply equally to the wider question of how the lion trophy hunting industry might beregulated to ensure that it is not detrimental to lion conservation and is best placedto enhance it.

xvii

1. Reasons for examining the issue of trophyhunting with respect to lion conservation

1.1 Reasons for being concerned about lion conservation

1.1.1 What value do lions have?

The African lion is one of the world’smost iconic species, and has played

a rich role in the symbolism and cultureof the United Kingdom. At a wider scale,at least a large part of the global pub-lic assign great existence value to lions(Dickman et al. 2011), and there is vastinternational interest in lion welfare andconservation (Macdonald et al. 2016a).Lions and other big cats are viewed asparticularly charismatic species amongstpeople likely to engage with conservationcampaigns, making them powerful am-bassadors for conservation (Macdonaldet al. 2015a).

As apex predators, lions also havegreat ecological value, and the removalof top carnivores from ecosystems canhave long-lasting negative ecological im-pacts (Ripple et al. 2014). In additionto their cultural and ecological signifi-cance, lions undoubtedly have very higheconomic value, and are one of the topdraws for both photographic tourists andtrophy hunters to the countries where

they remain, generating large amountsof revenue (McNeely 2000; Lindsey etal. 2012b). Lions are a regular part ofthe trophy hunting industry in at least10 African countries and more informa-tion on the specific economic revenue oflion trophy hunting is provided in Sec-tion 2.2.2.

1.1.2 To what extent have lions de-clined, in terms of numbersand geographic range?

The urgency and importance of lion con-servation arises from the fact that lionshave experienced a dramatic decline inboth numbers and geographic range overrecent decades. The latest IUCN esti-mates suggest a population of 23,000 –39,000 African lions (probably closer tothe lower estimate), representing a de-cline of at least 43% between 1993 and2014 (approximately three lion genera-tions) (Bauer et al. 2016). Most alarm-ingly, lions are now considered to havebeen extirpated from at least 92% oftheir historic range1 (Bauer et al. 2016).

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

1

http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/


According to the 2016 Red List Assess-ment, in Africa, lions are now extinct in15 countries (including Western Sahara,which is technically a disputed territory),are possibly extinct in another seven andnow occur in only 24 countries (Baueret al. 2016). Lion decline may be evenmore severe than currently estimated bythe IUCN, due to the assessment be-ing based on data from relatively well-known populations. This is a commonpractice, but well-monitored populationsare also those which are likely to haverelatively high levels of attention, invest-ment and protection, so a possible biasis that they are likely to be less threat-ened than many other subpopulations(Durant et al. submitted).

1.1.3 What is the current threat sta-tus of lions?

The lion is classed as ‘Vulnerable’ by theIUCN (Bauer et al. 2016) based on itsdeclining population size, so is thoughtto be facing a high risk of extinctionin the wild. However, across the ma-jority of its range, the lion meets theIUCN criteria for ‘Endangered’ status,with an inferred rate of decline of over50% across three lion generations, butthe positive trends from southern Africareduce that average decline at a range-wide level (Bauer et al. 2015). Onlytwo African countries (Namibia and Zim-babwe) had substantially increased lionpopulations between 1993 and 2014, andit is of note (given the purpose of this re-

port) that both those countries are oneswhich trophy-hunt lions. Similarly, whilelions in most parts of Mozambique aredeclining, in Niassa Game Reserve wherehunting was tightly regulated, lion pop-ulations increased locally between 1993and 2014. However, trophy hunting isclearly not a guarantee of increasing lionpopulations, as other key trophy huntingcountries such as Tanzania showed de-clines (Bauer et al. 2016), with previousdata from Packer et al. (2009) showinghighest declines in countries with highesttrophy hunting rates.

1.1.4 What are the major currentthreats to lions?

The 2016 IUCN Red Listing for the lionstates that “Among the causes of decline,the most important are indiscriminatekilling in defence of human life and live-stock, habitat loss, and prey base deple-tion. Prey base depletion is partly linkedto habitat loss, but more importantly topoaching and bushmeat trade (Becker etal. 2013). An emerging threat is trade inbones and other body parts for traditionalmedicine, both within Africa and in Asia(IUCN 2006a, b; Riggio et al. 2013).Furthermore, although trophy huntingcontributes positively to Lion conserva-tion, improvements in management prac-tices have been recommended (Hunter etal. 2013; Lindsey et al. 2013; Edwardset al. 2014), as when poorly regulated,it also contributes to population declines(Packer et al. 2009; Croes et al. 2011;

2

Packer et al. 2011; Rosenblatt et al.2014). While attention is currently fo-cused on Lion hunting reforms to ensuresustainability, the leading causes of pop-ulation decline are more difficult to ad-dress and are likely to continue” (Baueret al. 2016).

The CITES/CMS meeting of all lionrange states in May 2016 summarisedthat: “...the main threats (listed in noparticular order) for lions in Africa are:(1) Unfavourable policies, practices andpolitical factors (in some countries); (2)Ineffective lion population management;(3) Habitat degradation and reductionof prey base; (4) Human-lion conflict,(5) Adverse socio-economic factors; (6)Institutional weakness; and (7) Increas-ing trade in lion bones.” The two 2006IUCN regional reports for lions notedthat the major factors affecting lion via-bility were availability of wild prey, indis-criminate killing of lions, size and extentof the lion population, and loss, degrada-tion and fragmentation of lion habitat,with increasing human populations andpoverty acting as key underlying rootcauses of decline, as well as institutionalweakness and poor management (IUCN2006a, b). A 2016 report by Panthera,WildAid and WildCRU named human-lion conflict and bushmeat poaching ascritical threats to lions, while human en-croachment was a high threat and trophyhunting and lion poaching were deemedmedium threats (Panthera et al. 2016).

In short, experts agree that the primarythreats to lions (which vary to some ex-tent by region; see Section 2.1.4) arehabitat loss and degradation, loss of preybase and conflict with people over live-stock depredation.

1.1.5 Future considerations for lionconservation

There are significant global challengesfacing lions and other biodiversity, par-ticularly the impacts of human popula-tion growth and climate change. Humanpopulations are set to swell over the 21st

century, as is their demand for resourcesincluding land. Africa, with a currentpopulation size of ⇠1.2 billion (UNPD2015), has the fastest population growthrate in the world, with projections esti-mating a population tripling across 27African states by 2100, leading to a conti-nental estimate of ⇠4 billion. Eight lionrange states2 (as well as Mali, where li-ons are possibly extinct, and Burundi,where they are extinct) are estimatedto have a five-fold increase in humanpopulation by 2100 (UNPD 2015). Atcurrent rates of population growth, bythe end of the century the population ofTanzania will be two-thirds that of theUnited States of America (USA) but inan area ten times smaller. Worse still,Nigeria, also with a surface area roughlyone-tenth that of the USA, is projected

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

3


to have a population that will be doublethat of the USA (European Commission2015). The impact of this human popu-lation growth on the lion estate dependson many variables, but even supposingfavourable economic development andland-use transitions were to occur (whichseems unlikely in many places), it is ex-pected that pressure on lion habitat andprey will increase substantially. Live-stock numbers are expected to grow con-comitantly, leading to intensified human-lion conflict. Changes in human pop-ulations may also be associated withchanges in patterns of tourism, whichmight affect both photographic and hunt-ing revenues for lion range states.

Regarding climate change, undermoderate emissions scenarios, globalmean temperature is expected to reach2� above pre-industrial levels by 2050.More likely, and given the reticence orincompetence with which governmentshave faced climate change, these tem-perature scenarios will be exceeded. Amore likely prediction is 2.5–3� warmingby 20503. Climate changes are likely tohave pervasive effects such as reducedand more erratic rainfall (Fields 2005;Toulmin 2009). Although lions havebroad habitat tolerance within the savan-nah biome, the predicted drying trendis likely to affect lions through declinesand changes in prey species communi-

ties. The implications of changing cli-mate for lions are not limited to directeffects: it could also feasibly alter thepotential human land-uses. There is un-certainty about how increasing ariditymay affect land conversion and the im-plications for the lion estate. However,there is likely to be increasing pressureon water-rich regions from growing hu-man populations, increasing demand forland and increasing pressure on currentlyprotected areas.

1.1.6 Summary of reasons for beingconcerned about lion conserva-tion

Lions have great value at national andinternational scales, including significantexistence, ecological and economic value.Furthermore, lions hold both symbolicmeaning and widespread affection in theUK, making their conservation impor-tant for the British populace. Ruralpopulations in many African countriesoften take a different view of animalsthat can and do kill their stock and evenmembers of their families, and to them,lion killing can be not only ethical butoften desirable (Hazzah et al. 2009; Dick-man 2015). Furthermore, governmentsin lion range countries, often affected bypoverty and all the attendant pressures,will have different priorities from West-

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

4

ern audiences. Over only a few decades,the lion estate has shrunk strikingly, ashave numbers of lions occupying parts ofit, so to those who value it, the conserva-tion of this iconic species is now more ur-gent than ever. With perhaps not manymore than 20,000 free-ranging lions re-maining, and in the light of increasingpressure on lion populations, there is apressing requirement for effective conser-vation, and anything that might imperil

it necessitates careful scrutiny. Therehave been vociferous arguments that tro-phy hunting is one of the factors thatimperils lions, while others state equallyvigorously that restricting trophy hunt-ing would be a larger danger factor forlion conservation. Therefore, it is urgentthat this issue is examined impartially,in order to develop suggestions for policythat would minimise negative impactsfor lion conservation.

1.2 Background to lion trophy hunting

1.2.1 What is lion trophy hunting?

According to the IUCN, “Trophy huntinggenerally involves the payment of a feeby a foreign or local hunter for a huntingexperience, usually guided, for one ormore individuals of a particular specieswith specific desired characteristics (suchas large size or antlers). The trophy isusually retained by the hunter and takenhome” (IUCN 2016). Trophy huntingis also known as ‘safari hunting’ and isoften referred to as a type of ‘sport’ or‘recreational’ hunting (and justificationsare clearly distinct from those when hunt-ing is primarily for pest control or subsis-tence; Loveridge et al. 2007b). Regard-ing lions, the trophy is normally the ani-mal’s skull and skin (and clavicle, hyoidbone and claws). The mane is the promi-nent feature of the skin, with longer,thicker and darker hairs signifying a bet-ter quality of trophy, although ultimately

Safari Club International (SCI) definetrophy quality by skull size (Safari ClubInternational 2005). Trophies are usu-ally mounted for display and associatedkudos and nostalgia.

Although an important part of thepursuit, trophies themselves are not usu-ally the sole motivation for hunting. Mo-tivations may include engagement in out-door pursuits, an enthusiasm for collec-tion, social status and owning ‘bigger’trophies (as evidenced by the empha-sis on trophy size in SCI Awards andrecord book). Surveys of over 600 inter-national trophy hunters who had huntedin South Africa between 1999 and 2003revealed that spiritual or emotional mo-tives (particularly the enjoyment of be-ing in nature), were the most commonlymentioned reasons for hunting, followedby ‘emotional’ aspects such as enjoyingthe challenge of the hunt, although col-

5


lection of the trophy was an importanttheme for many people (Radder 2005).

In Africa, government or wildlifemanagement agencies make hunting con-cessions available, usually on leasehold,and normally issue trophy hunting li-cences that are available to the huntingclient through hunting outfitters, alsoknown as safari operators4, for a fee.The overall cost to the hunting clientcovers the direct costs of the hunt (e.g.trophy fees, per diem rates [which dif-fer between species and are significantlylarger for dangerous species], concessionfees, accommodation, subsistence, staffand travel costs). It also usually coversa levy that goes to the Government, partof which may be used by the Governmentto provide funds for wildlife areas andlocal communities (see Section 2.2.2.3).The motivation of the lion range statesfor permitting trophy hunting is, as forother forms of tourism, to generate rev-enue and jobs; this has the consequenceof financing a wildlife economy on landwhere in some cases alternative forms ofland-use are less profitable or practical.

The hunting operations are usuallyrun by outfitters (although sub-leasingand external marketing complicates the

system and the task of regulating it);outfitters are responsible for all huntingrequirements in-country, such as obtain-ing the correct licences, permits, liaisingwith landowners, and organising all otherlogistics. Outfitters also provide accessto a professional hunter (which may bethe outfitter themselves), whose respon-sibility it is to accompany the client andensure that the hunt is conducted to therequired standard. Professional huntersare variously accredited by national hunt-ing bodies or wildlife management au-thorities. The exact mechanisms of liontrophy hunting vary by country, but oncethe lion has been killed, the outfitter orprofessional hunter is responsible for thefield preparation and care of the trophy,and ensuring that all the relevant per-mits are in place for the client to exportthe trophy to its final destination.

1.2.2 Legality of lion trophy hunting

The global outcry over the trophy hunt-ing5 of Cecil the lion in July 2015 (Mac-donald et al. 2016a) revealed widespreadsurprise amongst the public, particularlyin more developed countries, that tro-phy hunting remains a legal practice

4Hunting outfitters or safari operators have the legal rights to hunt on a defined piece of land (eitherprivate land, government concession, or community land) for which they may be issued a hunting quota forparticular species. Professional hunters are contracted by the safari operators to guide paying tourist huntersin their pursuit of quarry; doubling up as instructors, first aiders, bodyguards etc.

5All legal charges relating to the hunting of Cecil were dropped in November 2016. A Zimbabwe courtruled that they were too vague for a proper defence to be mounted (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37948866). Most trophy hunting is legally practiced.

6

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37948866


(and an expansive land use) in manyAfrican countries. Trophy hunting (ofcertain wildlife species, not just lions) iscurrently practiced at a significant levelin approximately 12 African countries(historically at least 33 African countriespermitted trophy hunting; CITES data:http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/[accessed 2016-07-12]). A summaryof which African countries historicallyhunted and currently hunt lions, accord-ing to CITES data, is shown in Table 1.

As of December 2015, trophy hunt-ing was banned in six African lionrange countries that are still thought tohave lions – Angola, Botswana, Kenya,Malawi, Niger and Nigeria (U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service 2015). While someof these bans are long-standing (e.g.Kenya banned all trophy hunting in1977), some are recent bans – for ex-ample Botswana enforced a ban on alltrophy hunting in public areas fromthe start of 2014 (following a morato-rium on lion hunting between 2001 and2004, and successive restrictions there-after). Trophy hunting is also banned inCongo, Gabon and Mauritania, wherethe lion is regionally extinct, in Ghanawhere they are possibly extinct, and inRwanda where a small number of lionswere reintroduced in 20156 (U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service 2015; Bauer et al.2016).

The US Fish and Wildlife Servicefound that as of May 2014, 18 Africancountries in Africa legally permitted lionhunting: Benin, Burkina Faso, CentralAfrican Republic, Democratic Republicof the Congo, Ethiopia, Côte d’Ivoire,Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal,Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanza-nia, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zim-babwe (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2015). However, lions are thought tobe extinct in three of those countries(Côte d’Ivoire, Mali and Togo), and inEthiopia and Uganda, trophy huntingis restricted to problem or dangerousanimals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2015), with some similar restrictions inplaces in Namibia. However, they alsofound that as of 2013, lion trophy hunt-ing was only documented to occur ineight countries, namely Benin, BurkinaFaso, Central African Republic, Mozam-bique, Namibia, Senegal, Somalia, SouthAfrica, Tanzania and Zimbabwe – Zam-bia imposed a moratorium on the trophyhunting of big cats in 2013, but liftedit for the 2015/16 hunting season forleopards, and announced the lifting ofthe ban on lions for the following year(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015).Swaziland has no legal protection forlions (similar to Guinea Bissau, wherelions are possibly extinct, and Burundiand Lesotho where they are regionallyextinct) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service2015; Bauer et al. 2016). There have

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

7



also been some restrictions on lion hunt-ing within countries – for example, Zim-babwe imposed a regional moratoriumon lion hunting between 2004 and 2008(Loveridge et al. 2010).

As with any other form of wildlifemanagement, permitted trophy huntingactivities are legislated by the relevantnational government and wildlife author-ities, and the specifics of that legisla-tion (as well as how well it is enforced)vary considerably. In some countries(most notably South Africa) lions canbe shot within very small enclosures, apractice known as ‘canned’, ‘captive’ or‘put-and-take’ hunting. As long as thelandowner complies with the relevant na-tional and provincial legislation regard-ing minimum standards for fencing andenclosure sizes, it is legal to breed li-ons and hunt them within those smallfenced areas (although trophies fromthese captive lions from South Africacan no longer be imported into the USas a result of the October 2016 evalu-

ation by the USFWS). Most lion hunt-ing in South Africa is from captive an-imals: Lindsey et al. (2012a) reportedthat South African hunting operators es-timated that only 0.9% – 1.1% of lionshunted in 2009 and 2010 were wild. TheCITES Scientific Authority for SouthAfrica have given a slightly higher esti-mate, with wild lions accounting for 5%of total successful lion hunts, but thevast majority of hunting in South Africais clearly from captive animals (Williamset al. 2015). There is widespread oppo-sition to the practice of canned or cap-tive hunting on ethical and animal wel-fare grounds (IUCN 2016) and it hasbeen condemned by the IUCN, whichstates: “Canned hunting...raises very dif-ferent issues from trophy hunting of free-ranging animals, and is condemned by ex-isting IUCN policy” (IUCN Recommen-dation 3.093, ‘Application of the IUCNSustainable Use Policy to sustainableconsumptive use of wildlife and recre-ational hunting in southern Africa’, 2004;IUCN 2016).

Table 1: Summary of the historic extent of trophy hunting practice across Africa,including information on the recent export of trophies from that coun-try. The current lion conservation status for each country is summarisedas per Bauer et al. (2015). The relative scales as a proportion of 1for both general trophy hunting and lion hunting are provided for thedecade 2006 and 2015. Data were extracted from the CITES database(http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/ [accessed 2016-07-12]) for the years1975 to 2015 and for the purpose of ‘H – Hunting trophy’. The data werethen subset by ‘W’ (wild) source and term ‘ trophies’. As there may be alag in exporting trophies and updating the records, the ‘Recently exported’columns consider data from 2014 to 2015.

8


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

9


Across Africa, there is also a bias to-wards hunting captive lions rather thanwild ones7: CITES export records docu-ment more than twice as many captivelion trophies as wild ones, with a ratioof 2.35 to 1 (5,715 ‘captive’ versus 2,429‘wild’), although the importers record aslightly different ratio, of 1.89 captivetrophies for every wild one (4,474 ‘cap-tive’ versus 2,367 ‘wild’).

In South Africa at least, captive lionsare bred for the purpose of supplying thedemand for lion trophies, with this in-dustry regulated by the Department ofEnvironmental Affairs (DEA) and theDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries (DAFF)8; however these lionsare generally neither considered as wildor contributing to lion conservation9.

The African Lion Working Group(ALWG) in 2016 stated that “the sporthunting of lions that are captive bredand reared expressly for sport hunting,and/or sport hunting of lions that occurin fenced enclosures and are not self-sustaining, does not provide any demon-strated positive benefit to wild lion con-servation efforts and, therefore, cannotbe claimed to be conservation... Theestimated 8,000 lions in South Africa

currently being maintained and bred ongame farms as part of this industryshould not be included in any assess-ments of the current status of wild lions.”

As this report is focused on wild lionconservation, canned or captive huntingdoes not fall within its remit, and willtherefore not be considered further, ex-cept insofar as it might indirectly affectlion conservation.

1.2.3 Ethical acceptability of liontrophy hunting

There has been more than a century ofconcern over the ethics of hunting (e.g.fox hunting in the UK: Burns Inquiry2002; Macdonald and Johnson 2015a),against which background the killing ofCecil the lion triggered widespread out-rage over the perceived ethical unaccept-ability of trophy hunting (Macdonald etal. 2016a). The motivation for that out-rage varied, but tended to centre aroundthe unacceptability of killing an animalpurely for sport, particularly when thatanimal is a threatened species.

However, views regarding trophyhunting (and indeed the killing of an-imals in general) vary markedly across

7Similar systems of put-and-take hunting are familiar in the West, for example, in the UK the shootingof reared game birds or angling in stocked trout lakes

8https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/lionmanagementinSA_questions_answers20159http://www.repository.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/2263/19272/Lindsey_Possible(2012).pdf

10

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/lionmanagementinSA_questions_answers2015.pdf

http://www.repository.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/2263/19272/Lindsey_Possible(2012).pdf?sequence=1

the world (Macdonald et al. 2016b). Inmany African communities, the killing ofa lion is often something to be celebrated(Hazzah et al. 2009; Dickman 2015), andthere is a commonly-held view that itwas unethical for foreigners to care somuch about the killing of one lion (or in-deed lions in general), particularly whenlions themselves kill people and endan-ger their livelihoods (Nzou 2015). It wasalso noted that much of the demand forbanning trophy hunting in Africa camefrom the United States, which has one ofthe largest domestic trophy hunting mar-kets in the world (Sharp and Wollscheid2009). The ethical debates around tro-phy hunting are important and meritconsideration (Macdonald et al. 2016b),but they are beyond the scope of thisreport, which is focused specifically onthe role of trophy hunting with regard toconservation. Conservation action doesnot of course take place in an ethicalvacuum – Vucetich and Nelson (2012)provide an accessible account of appliedconservation ethics. An exploration ofthe specific issues raised by trophy hunt-ing is provided in Appendix A. Somepeople find any form of lion huntingmorally unjustifiable, regardless of thesustainability question, particularly ifit is done in ways that involve animalsuffering. This report focuses on con-servation. But welfare and other ethicalissues (which dominated the much of thepublic discourse following Cecil’s death)

are inextricably part of the process thatshapes conservation policy.

1.2.4 Extent of lion trophy huntingand its markets

It is surprisingly hard to determine ex-actly how many lions are trophy huntedacross Africa each year, because theCITES database (which records importsand exports of such trophies) recordsthe number of trophies (i.e. individ-ual parts moved) and not the numberof animals killed. One trophy-huntedlion could result in multiple trophies,for example if the skin, skull and clawswere counted separately. This is anissue which is clearly highlighted byCITES itself, which states that “Because‘specimens’ include parts and derivatives,the numbers of specimens do not reflectnumbers of individual animals” (CITES2014). In addition, the records of ex-ported trophies often do not match thenumber imported, partly because of de-lays in the system and partly becauseof inconsistencies in the ways differentcountries record their data. Despite this,many reports publish the number of tro-phies as if it was the number of lionshunted, which is misleading. Bearing inmind these caveats, the CITES databasegives an overall idea of trends and com-parative numbers, and a summary ofthe number of wild-sourced lion trophies

11


(using data from the CITES database,http://trade.cites.org/) is given in Ta-ble 2, with more information on the inter-

national extent of trade in lion trophiesby country is given in Appendix B.

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

The UK was recorded as having 80wild lion trophies exported to it (from9 source countries) during the 22 yearsfrom 1991–2013, with the importationrecords showing 4 trophies10. Figure 1provides an overview of the movementsof lion trophy across the globe, and high-lights the significance of the US and Eu-ropean markets for such trophies.

1.2.5 Reason for the UK Govern-ment examining this issue now

Wildlife conservation has been a concernin Britain for centuries, and remains astrong interest of the UK public (Suther-land 2008).

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

12

http://trade.cites.org/

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



For the roots of modern conserva-tion some might look to 1066 when KingWilliam I set aside forests, such as NewForest, Sherwood and Forest of Dean asroyal hunting reserves (others trace theroots of conservation to concerns overUK forests in the 1660s). John Muir,a Scotsman, inspired the movement topreserve wilderness in the USA, includ-ing Yosemite National Park. In 1892, hefounded the Sierra Club, one of the firstorganisations devoted to environmentalconservation.

The roots of conservation in Europeand the USA are inextricably bound tohunting, initially by protecting wild ani-mals for it and latterly more often pro-tecting them from it. In 1903, Britishnaturalists helped found another pio-neering conservation society (the Societyfor the Preservation of the Wild Faunaof the Empire, which has evolved to-day into Fauna and Flora International)(Loveridge et al. 2007b). As a group theywere known as ‘The Penitent Butchers’because all were former sportsmen ortrophy hunters who became concernedby the wide-scale decimation of wildlifethrough unregulated hunting particu-larly in Africa (Loveridge et al. 2007b).Their aim was to safeguard Africa’s largemammals from over-hunting and habitatencroachment. The Society worked withGovernments, land-owners and hunters

to pass legislation which restricted hunt-ing across large swathes of East andsouthern Africa, and which ultimatelyled to the creation of some of Africa’smost iconic parks, such as the SerengetiNational Park.

In short, hunting and conservationhas long been a preoccupation withinBritish society. There has long been ademand to examine and reform trophyhunting, but public awareness of the is-sue reached a peak in July 2015 over thekilling of Cecil the lion (Macdonald et al.2016a). Much of the reaction to Cecil’skilling focused on pressing for bans ontrophy hunting, or at least of the carriageand import of trophies to countries suchas the USA and the UK. As of August2016, 32 airlines, including British Air-ways, have instigated complete bans oncarrying trophies. Seven more refuse tocarry ‘Big Five’ trophies, and a furtherfive have implemented specific embar-goes, from a ban on CITES Appendix Ispecies by Emirates to a much broaderban on dead/processed/research animalsby Turkish Airlines. In total, 44 air-lines now refuse to carry lion trophies11,with pressure on other carriers to do thesame12.

As a measure of feeling (although itfloundered), in January 2016 a group ofmembers in the European Parliament

11http://www.hsi.org/news/news/2015/08/airlines-shipping-hunting-trophies12http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/trophies-back-board-south-african-airways-cans-its-ban13http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc

14

http://www.hsi.org/news/news/2015/08/airlines-shipping-hunting-trophies-080315.html?credit=mr_082615

http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/trophies-back-board-south-african-airways-cans-its-ban

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WDECL&reference=P8-DCL-2016-0003&format=PDF&language=EN

called for the signing of a declarationrestricting trophy imports13, while theUK Government is actively consideringits position on the importation of liontrophies, including asking for this reportto be produced to inform its thinking.

As of August 2016, several countrieshave already banned lion trophy imports,including the Netherlands, France, Aus-tralia and Costa Rica. Whilst the USAhas refrained from an outright ban, liontrophies had been made illegal in Wash-ington State and New Jersey14, althoughin late August 2016, the New Jersey banwas deemed illegal by US authorities15.

Moreover, in December 2015 theUS Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)listed the lion in southern and east-ern Africa, Panthera leo melanochaita,as threatened under the EndangeredSpecies Act (the lion in west, central,northern Africa and India, P. l. leo,was listed as endangered). Althoughthis threatened listing comes with an ad-dendum permitting the import of sport-hunted trophies, the conditions underwhich a permit may be granted are rig-orous, perhaps prohibitively so, requir-ing that exporting countries address con-cerns over “evaluating population lev-els and trends; the biological needs ofthe species; quotas; management prac-

tices; legal protection; local communityinvolvement; and use of hunting fees forconservation” (Federal Wildlife Service,201616). This evaluation has now takenplace for South Africa17 (with the con-clusion that only trophies from wild orwild-managed lions could be importedto the US); evaluations will follow forother relevant countries.

A proposal (CoP17 Prop 4) for con-sideration at the 2016 Conference ofthe Parties (CoP) to CITES was madeby nine countries (Chad, Côte d’Ivoire,Gabon, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger,Nigeria and Togo) for all African popu-lations of Panthera leo to be transferredfrom Appendix II to Appendix I. How-ever, it should be noted that only threeof those countries (Chad, Niger and Nige-ria) are still thought by the IUCN tohave any extant lions (Bauer et al. 2016),and the proposed listing was met withsignificant opposition by many of thekey lion range countries, particularly thesouthern African lion hunting countrieswhere lion populations are stable.

In fact, the first CITES/CMS (Con-vention on International Trade in En-dangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora / Convention on the Conservationof Migratory Species of Wild Animals)meeting of all lion range states, which

14http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/christie_signs_law_banning_trophy_animals_in_nj15http://www.africahunting.com/threads/victory-for-new-jersey-hunters-in-the-anti-trophy-law.30930/16https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/pdf/Lion_FL_FAQs_Final.pdf17http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-major-step-forward-for-lion-conservation-in-

africa_us_5808f6ffe4b099c434319294

15

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/christie_signs_law_banning_trophy_animals_in_nj.html

http://www.africahunting.com/threads/victory-for-new-jersey-hunters-in-the-anti-trophy-law.30930/

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/pdf/Lion_FL_FAQs_Final.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-major-step-forward-for-lion-conservation-in-africa_us_5808f6ffe4b099c434319294



took place in 2016, highlighted the im-portance of trophy hunting under certainconditions, stating: “[We] Highlight thebenefits that trophy hunting, where it isbased on scientifically established quotas,taking into account the social position,age and sex of an animal, have, in somecountries, contributed to the conserva-tion of lion populations and highlight thepotentially hampering effects that importbans on trophies could have for currentlystable lion populations”.

Regarding the 2016 proposal tolist lions on CITES Appendix I, theCITES/CMS report states that “LionRange States have different views on theinclusion of all African populations ofPanthera leo in Appendix I, with somearguing that the populations in West andCentral Africa are fragmented and highlythreatened; and others arguing that thespecies does not meet the listing criteriaand is threatened by factors other thanthose CITES can address”.

The 2016 CITES CoP (CoP17) even-tually decided not to list lions on Ap-pendix I, but did state they would worktowards lion conservation in a more ac-tive way, including helping to developand support the implementation of jointlion conservation plans and strategies(CITES 2016). CoP17 did add an amend-ment which prohibited the export ofbones, bone pieces, bone products, claws,skeletons, skulls and teeth from wild li-ons for commercial purposes, althoughit remained possible for these parts to

be exported from captive-bred lions inSouth Africa (CITES 2016).

This decision, and the subsequent Oc-tober 2016 evaluation by the USFWSwhich banned the import to USA of tro-phies from ‘canned’ lions, interact toraise two new questions of relevance tothe conservation of wild lions. First, in-sofar as the majority of farmed lion tro-phies would hitherto have been importedto the USA, will this prohibition causea proportion of the American hunterswho might formerly have hunted farmedlions to turn to wild lions, thereby af-fecting the demand on the wild sector?Second, and considering the report byWilliams et al. (2015) on the exportfrom South Africa of farmed lion prod-ucts aside from trophies, with the loss oftheir income from trophies destined forAmerica, will the farmers flood the mar-ket with lion body parts with the possi-ble result, through predatory pricing, ofincreasing the subsequent demand?

In terms of lion conservation, ban-ning the importation of trophies to theUK would have little significant directeffect because the numbers of lions in-volved are so few (<4 lions yr-1 between1991 and 2013 exported from Africa toBritain; CITES data; see Section 1.2.4).However, the cascading indirect effectsof UK policy are difficult to predict andpossibly wide-reaching. The UK mayhave impact beyond its borders throughthe influence of the evidence it is able topresent (e.g. this report) and through ad-

16

vocating for greater alignment of NorthAmerican and European positions.

Even if the UK doesn’t change policy,the status quo will not be maintained,as international policy developments willbring about change. For example, it hasbeen proposed that lions should be up-listed to CITES Appendix I, most re-cently in 2016 and previously by Kenyato the CoP in 2004 (although that wassubsequently withdrawn) – such uplist-ing has not been passed but similar pro-posals could be submitted again in thefuture. It is very likely that any suchlisting would lead to increased regulationand/or limitation of trophy exports toall Parties, including the UK. Althoughstrictly tangential to the issue of trophyhunting, the UK’s influence on the clas-sification of lions under CITES is likelyto be influenced by lobbying motivatedby opposition to hunting. Listing lionson CITES Appendix I would preventcommercial trade in wild specimens buthunting trophies are currently consideredpersonal effects. It is not necessary tohave specific Resolutions (cf black rhinosand leopards) to permit future trade.

Although the CITES uplisting hasnot passed to date, there has been a sig-nificant recent change in internationalpolicy regarding lions, when in 2015 theUS listed them as Endangered in West

and Central Africa and as Threatened inEast and southern Africa on the annexesof the Endangered Species Act. As a con-sequence, imports of lion trophies intothe large and lucrative American mar-ket are no longer allowed from West andCentral Africa, and the industry in otherregions is forced to demonstrate that tro-phy hunting is of net benefit to lion con-servation. Many trophy hunting areasare now setting up monitoring systemsto be able to demonstrate net positiveeffect in order to maintain access to theUS market, and the US is currently con-sidering whether those areas do provideenhancements for the species. The US-FWS announced their first finding, forSouth Africa, in October 2016, statingthat it would not permit the importa-tion of trophies from captive-bred lionsas they did not meet the criteria for con-servation enhancement, but would per-mit the import of trophies from wild andwild-managed lions on a case-by-case ba-sis18. Some possible consequences forwild lions of this prohibition on the im-port to the USA of farmed lion trophiesare mentioned above.

In another policy development, manyParties to the Convention on MigratorySpecies are arguing that the lion shouldbe listed under that Convention19 – theimplications would depend on which Ap-pendix they were added to, but this

18http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-major-step-forward-for-lion-conservation-in-africa_us_5808f6ffe4b099c434319294

19https://cites.org/eng/news/sg/Lion_Range_State_Meeting_Joint_statement_by_CITES_CMS_300516

17



https://cites.org/eng/news/sg/Lion_Range_State_Meeting_Joint_statement_by_CITES_CMS_300516


could facilitate management of trans-boundary lion populations. The UKplays an active role in these internationaldevelopments, but that doesn’t precludefurther domestic policy development.

Given the intensity of global interestin this subject, and the wide range of

views and stakeholders involved, the UKgovernment has recognised the need forcomprehensive and impartial advice onhow possible trophy hunting might af-fect lion conservation, as well as how theUK Government can best support lionconservation in a wider context.

1.3 Summary of reasons for examining trophy hunting withregard to lion conservation

Lions are one of the world’s mosticonic species, and are under increasingthreat. The degree to which trophy hunt-ing plays either a negative or positiverole in lion conservation is hotly debatedand will be covered in more detail be-low, but it is clear that there is a longhistory of polarised views over trophyhunting. Recently – and particularly no-tably since the killing of Cecil the lion – a

large section of the global public appearsto have concluded that lion trophy hunt-ing in particular, is unethical. However,this contrasts strikingly with the viewsof many people in the African countrieswhere lions occur, and it is important toconsider how any actions taken by theUK and its partners would affect thoserange countries with regard to wild lionconservation.

18

2. Threats and impacts associated with liontrophy hunting

2.1 The significance of trophy hunting as a threat to lions

2.1.1 Significance of trophy huntingas a threat to lions at a popu-lation scale

Trophy hunting can have marked im-pacts at a population scale, par-

ticularly when harvest rates are high(Loveridge et al. 2007a; Caro et al. 2009;Creel et al. 2016). Trophy hunting tendsto be particularly negative when it is ad-ditive to other threats – and the magni-tude of those other threats also dependsstrongly on how well the hunting areais managed. For example, lion popu-lations are declining across the Benouecomplex in Cameroon, thought to bedue to a combination of high poachingpressure and excessively high lion trophyoff-takes (Croes et al. 2011). However,there are strong underlying pressures inCameroon – large mammal populationshave declined steeply since the 1970sdue to habitat destruction and poaching,and are particularly precarious due tothe small size and fragmentation of pro-tected areas, as well as poor managementof those areas (Croes et al. 2011). Mod-elling by Creel et al. (2016) suggestedthat in the presence of additional (andstable) threats such as human encroach-ment, poaching and prey depletion, the

addition of any hunting produced somedegree of population decline and an in-creased probability of local extirpation,although conservative limits on hunting(see Section 3.2), resulted in situationswith relatively stable dynamics and lowprobability of extirpation over a 25 yearperiod.

In some populations, hunting aloneexplains lion declines – Packer et al.(2009) found that within Tanzania’sSelous Game Reserve (the largest liontrophy hunting landscape in the world),the hunting blocks with the highest lionofftakes per 1,000 km2 had the steep-est declines in lion populations, unre-lated to the impact of habitat loss. Inwestern Zimbabwe lion populations re-bounded by 50% when lion hunting wassuspended, suggesting that previouslyhigh quotas were a cause of populationdecline (Loveridge et al. 2010; Loveridgeet al. 2016). In Zambia, trophy huntingwas the major factor behind declininglion populations (Rosenblatt et al. 2014).Poorly calculated and/or enforced quo-tas are thus perilous for lion populations(Caro et al. 2009; Packer 2015). Theseverity of impacts at a population leveldepends upon both the number and de-

19


mography of the animals removed, andthis is covered in more detail below (seeSection 3.2).

2.1.1.1 Negative population effectsassociated with the removal of fe-males ttt

Currently, only male lions are nowhunted in most countries, but femaleswere hunted in Zimbabwe until 2004(Packer et al. 2006) and are still huntedin Namibia (Lindsey et al. 2013), aswell as South Africa20 (although manyof those lionesses are in canned huntingoperations). The number of females in apride has a strong effect on per capita re-productive success, with the lowest cubproduction in prides with fewer females(Packer et al. 1988).

Larger prides have greater survivalof all cub age-classes, benefitting fromcollective defence and possibly from syn-chronous breeding and communal nurs-ing (Packer et al. 2001; Loveridge etal. 2010). Therefore, the removal ofadult females is particularly damagingto populations of lions and other long-lived species.

2.1.1.2 Negative population effectsassociated with the removal of pridemales ttt

Loss of male lions from a pride facili-tates pride takeover by other males, andinfanticide of dependent cubs (Loveridgeet al. 2007a; Loveridge et al. 2010).Rapid turnover of males also resultsin premature eviction and subsequentdeath of sub-adults (Elliot et al. 2014).The difference in male turnover betweenhunting/non-hunting periods was evi-dent from cub survival rate, with only66% of cubs surviving to 1 year of ageduring the trophy hunting period, whichincreased to 80% in the absence of hunt-ing (Loveridge et al. 2010 ). Similarly,cubs in protected core areas experienced>40% greater survival than did cubsin edge prides, presumed as a result ofreduced male turnover (Loveridge et al.2010).

Moreover, the consequences forhunted populations are not limited tothose individuals on hunting concessions:there can be knock-on effects even acrosscore protected areas, as a result of the va-cation of territories. In Hwange, removalof territorial males from the adjoininghunting zone resulted in a ‘vacuum ef-fect’ where the availability of territoryand lack of competition drew individu-als from the safe area into hunting zones(Loveridge et al. 2010). Thus, removalof males within hunting areas adjacentto protected areas can have pervasive ef-fects at a population scale when huntingofftake is high (Whitman et al. 2004;Loveridge et al. 2007a; Loveridge et al.

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

20

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

2010). That excessive levels of trophyhunting can negatively impact lion popu-lations is illustrated by Hwange NationalPark. Sport hunting of lions over the pe-riod 1999–2004 greatly reduced the num-ber of males in the population, result-ing in sex ratios heavily skewed towardsfemales. However male densities andsex ratios recovered quickly once trophyhunting levels were reduced (Barthold etal. 2016a; 2016b; Loveridge et al. 2016a).Similarly, the number of male coalitionsacross the population was lower and theaverage coalition size smaller than inthe absence of hunting (Loveridge et al.2010). The number of adult females alsoincreased when hunting was absent orlight, probably as a response to increasedadult and cub survival (Loveridge et al.2016b). In the absence of hunting, therewas an average reduction in male lion ter-ritory size of 421 km2 in Hwange, whichwas probably due to a resultant increasein lion density from the lack of harvestofftake (Davidson et al. 2011).

Trophy hunting was the primarycause of death in Zambia’s South Lu-angwa landscape between 2008 and 2012,with 46 males harvested (Rosenblatt etal. 2014). This was linked to a declin-ing population, low recruitment, low sur-vival of sub-adult and adult males, de-pletion of adult males and an ageingpopulation of adult females (Rosenblattet al. 2014). Similarly, Loveridge etal. 2016b show that trophy hunting ar-eas form ‘attractive sinks’ for male lions,in that they represent areas with intact

habitat and available prey and thus at-tractive to lions. The risk of mortality inthese areas is however very high with fewcues available to the lions to facilitateavoidance.

These strong negative impacts asso-ciated with the removal of pride malesforms the biological basis for stipulatinga minimum age limit where only older(and ideally post-reproductive) malescan be hunted, as this should theoret-ically limit these ‘cascading effects’ ofpride male removal. The principle be-hind restricting trophies to older malesis that their tenure in the pride shouldhave overseen the raising of at least onegeneration of cubs to adulthood. Follow-ing early models setting the minimumage at 5 years or older (Whitman etal. 2004), age limits set within coun-tries have traditionally been set at >6years. However, more recent modelling(Creel et al. 2016) has suggested thatit would be prudent to raise this to >7years (see Section 3.2 for more detail),while Packer et al. (2006) suggest thatbecause the ‘6-year rule’ was developedin Tanzania and male lions seem to ma-ture later in southern Africa, it mightbe prudent to use a 7 year minimumin southern Africa. Nonetheless, it hasbeen evident that in some populations,e.g. in Hwange National Park, almostall trophy males, even very old ones suchas Cecil, were reproductively active in apride when hunted. Old males evictedfrom prides in Hwange National Parkrarely survive long enough to be hunted,

21


and even elderly males in prides seemto be reproductive, meaning that theirdeaths are followed by perturbation inthe same way as those of younger pridemales.

2.1.1.3 Threat to lion populationsof trophy hunting relative to otherthreats ttt

It is important to view trophy hunt-ing within the context of all threatsfacing lion populations. Trophy huntingis usually only one of several threatsfacing lions, and the relative magnitudeof those threats varies between sites. InSouth Luangwa, Zambia, trophy huntingwas indeed the major threat at the pop-ulation scale – although snaring was asignificant concern, 87% of known snaredlions were immobilised and successfullytreated for their injuries, so this hadlittle impact on lion dynamics (Rosen-blatt et al. 2014). The snaring of prey islikely to contribute to the declining lionpopulation as well, but the magnitudeof this threat had not been quantified,and trophy hunting was the only obvi-ous cause of the severe male depletionseen in the population (Rosenblatt et al.2014).

In western Zimbabwe, trophy hunt-ing was the primary source of recordedmortality for adult lions (mostly males),followed by snaring bycatch and retalia-tory killing. Natural annual mortalityrates were only 0.11 for males and 0.30

for females, compared with trophy hunt-ing mortality rates of 0.65 and 0.30 formales and females respectively, which un-derlines the profound effect that anthro-pogenic factors can have on populationdynamics (Loveridge et al. 2016b). InTanzania’s Selous Game Reserve, trophyhunting is thought to also pose one of thelargest threats to lions (Creel and Creel1997), but this is Africa’s largest pro-tected area, where other anthropogenicthreats are likely to be relatively small.

In some other populations, trophyhunting is an additional (and often im-portant) factor but not the major rea-son for any lion decline. In Tanzania’sRuaha landscape, another major trophyhunting landscape, there is an extremelyhigh level of lion killing to protect live-stock or to fulfil cultural roles (Dickman2015), and it is likely that the impact oftrophy hunting is dwarfed by these otherthreats. In that landscape, 37 lions weredocumented as killed through conflictwith pastoralists in an area of less than500 km2 in one year – which equates toover 100 times the recommended maxi-mum offtake if that was a hunting area(Dickman pers. comm.). That level oflion killing across just a few rural villages(which is likely to be an underestimate ofthe real level of killing), exceeds the num-ber of lions imported as trophies into theUS (the major importer) in 2013 fromBotswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Zam-bia and Tanzania combined (U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service 2015). Similarly,in the Niassa National Reserve, 12 lions

22

were trophy hunted in 2014–15, while atleast 42 lions were killed by local people.Across Africa, the number of lions killedillegally has been estimated as perhaps 5times as many as those killed by trophyhunters, with the level of illegal killingbeing up to 10 times higher in some pop-ulations (Panthera et al. 2016).

We are not aware of any documentedcase of trophy hunting being the primarydriver of lion population extirpation –Tanzania’s Katavi National Park is onecase where lions have apparently beenextirpated, according to the latest IUCNlisting (Bauer et al. 2016) and anthro-pogenic mortality is a likely driver ofthat decline, but that includes both un-sustainable trophy hunting and tradi-tional killing (Kiffner et al. 2009).

However, it should be noted thatthere is considerable debate aboutwhether lions have truly been extir-pated from Katavi – in communicationwith the EU CITES Scientific Author-ities, Tanzanian authorities maintainthat “there are substantial numbers oflions remaining in Katavi ecosystem anda significant proportion of prime agemales are still present, suggesting a bal-anced age pyramid and population struc-ture (despite trophy hunting in the area)”(Sigsworth pers. comm.).

2.1.2 Significance of trophy huntingas a threat to lions at a na-tional scale

There are several guidelines for the per-centage of a hunted lion population thatcan be sustainably harvested. Creel andCreel (1997) and Greene and Mangel(1998) suggest sustainable offtakes of5% and 10% of adult males respectively.Caro et al. (2009) recommend harvestsof 5% of total population, which if onlymales are hunted (as is the norm) wouldresult in a higher proportion of males inthe population being hunted than Creeland Creel (1997) or Greene and Mangel(1998) recommend. But few lion popu-lations are adequately surveyed at thepopulation level, so using a percentageharvest to determine sustainable offtakesis generally unworkable. If the aboveguidelines are accepted then at the cur-rent scale, trophy hunting offtake in mostof the countries where it currently oc-curs is relatively conservative with nomore that 2–4% of lions hunted annually(Loveridge et al. 2009)21.

However, in the past, offtakes haveoften been considerably higher (e.g. inZambia, offtakes occasionally reached 8–9% of the population per year, while inZimbabwe historically offtakes reached20–30% (Packer et al. 2006). Although,in a review for the Eastern and Southern

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

23


African regional lion plan, Packer andcolleagues concluded that “quota sizeshave probably been too small in almostevery country to contribute to any de-cline in lion numbers in the past 20–30yrs...[with] one exceptional country, Zim-babwe, there is some evidence that trophyhunting can have a significant effect at anational scale, as over the past 25 yearsthe steepest declines in lion harvests oc-curred in countries with the highest hunt-ing intensities” (Packer et al. 2009).

Next, we examine the potential signif-icance of trophy hunting as a threat tolions in the six most significant coun-tries for lion conservation (includingBotswana as the ban is very recent, andexcluding South Africa as the vast major-ity of its hunting involves captive lions).

2.1.2.1 Significance of trophy hunt-ing as a threat to lions in Botswanattt

Our latest data suggest that Botswanaholds approximately 2,800 free-ranginglions22 in an estimated lion range of237,000 km2 (Dickman in prep.). Thelatest Red List assessments compileddata from three populations in Botswana(none of which were hunting areas), andfound they had undergone an overalldecline of 26% between 1993 and 2014,although this was heavily biased by

the 46% decline in the Okavango, whileKwando/Chobe had an increase of 84%and Magkadikgadi had an increase of121% (Bauer et al. 2016). Di Mininet al. (2016) estimated that 37.2% ofthe country was in terrestrial protectedareas, while 23.0% was in hunting areas,although Botswana has banned all liontrophy hunting since 2008 and all tro-phy hunting in public areas since 2014.Botswana does not have a national ac-tion plan for the lion, but did adopta 6-year minimum for trophy males inMarch 2005. Botswana has imposed var-ious temporary bans on trophy hunting –after the ban of 2001–2004 there was anexpectation of high quality trophy lions,which pushed the price per lion huntfrom US$25,000–US$30,000 pre-ban, toUS$85,000–US$115,000, and meant thatthe country was able to generate moreincome with half the quota (Winterbachpers. comm.). Before the most recentcessation of lion trophy hunting thecountry had an annual quota of 30 lions,of which 13–18 trophies were exported(Winterbach et al. in prep.). Due to thislow offtake, lion trophy hunting in therecent past may have been sustainablein Botswana.

2.1.2.2 Significance of trophy hunt-ing as a threat to lions in Mozam-bique ttt

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

24

Our latest data suggest that Mozam-bique holds approximately 1,500 free-ranging lions in an estimated lion rangeof 247,000 km2 (Dickman in prep.). DiMinin et al. (2016) estimates that 17.6%of the country is in protected areas,while 10.5% is covered by hunting areas.Lions have declined substantially acrossMozambique (with some areas, such asthe Niassa National Reserve, apparentlyshowing population increases; Bauer etal. 2016), and the key causes for thereduction in lion distribution and arethought to be declining prey numbersand conflict with livestock-rearing pas-toralists (Fusari et al. 2010). The IUCNRed List obtained population trend datafrom only one population (Niassa Na-tional Reserve, where hunting occurs),which showed a 246% increase between1993 and 2014 (Bauer et al. 2016).Although Niassa might not be represen-tative of the whole country, as it hashad relatively high conservation invest-ment, it does hold perhaps two-thirds ofMozambique’s lions (Dickman et al. inprep.), so this trend is significant for thecountry’s overall population.

The lion trophy hunting quotas inMozambique have been criticised as be-ing too high, as well as being issuedwithout any scientific basis (Fusari etal. 2010). The annual quota was 50animals in 2007, 111 in 2008 and 60 in2009 (Fusari et al. 2010), but the ac-tual offtake appears to be significantlylower than that. Many wildlife areas

have been depleted in Mozambique, dueto factors including government cullingof wildlife (including lions) during the1960s and 1970s, and extensive poach-ing for meat during and after the civilwar (Fusari et al. 2010). Due to thiswildlife depletion, most hunting areascurrently generate negative returns oninvestment, with hunting operators in-vesting in unprofitable concessions onthe assumption that wildlife populationswill recover. Age-based export regula-tions have now been developed and en-forced in Niassa National Reserve, with a6-year minimum implemented in Septem-ber 2006, limiting the negative impactsof trophy hunting (and leading the EU toconclude a positive opinion for lion tro-phies from Niassa only rather than thewhole of Mozambique; Sigsworth pers.comm.). The small number of lions tro-phy hunted per year in Mozambique rel-ative to its population size suggests thattrophy hunting unlikely to have a signifi-cant negative impact at a national scale,with bushmeat pressure, growing humanpopulations and pastoralist-lion conflictmore significant threats.

2.1.2.3 Significance of trophy hunt-ing as a threat to lions in Namibiattt

The 2008 draft Namibian national lionconservation strategy suggested that,based on data collected within the twoprevious years, Namibia had fewer than1,000 lions, including between 615 and

25


799 free-ranging lions (as termed in thereport) and an additional 100 to 125 an-imals on private land (MET 2008). Ourlatest data suggest that Namibia holdsapproximately 750 free-ranging lions inan estimated lion range of 170,000 km2

(Dickman in prep.).

The draft national lion conservationstrategy states that lions are subject toextreme human pressure, with nearly 900lions destroyed over the past 20 years,mainly due to conflict with livestockkeepers (MET 2008). Di Minin et al.(2016) estimated that 43.2% of Namibiawas covered by protected areas, with11.4% covered by game ranches. Aswell as state protected areas and pri-vate game ranches, by the end of 2014,Namibia had 82 communal conservan-cies (including 36 in Kunene region, men-tioned below), which covered over 17%of the country and encompassed 184,000people, around 8% of the national pop-ulation and around one in four ruralNamibians (NACSO 2011, 2015). Sus-tainable use of wildlife (including tro-phy hunting), with devolved power andbenefits to local communities, are a cor-nerstone of the conservancies – abouthalf the conservancies benefit solely fromhunting, and the revenues from trophyhunting totalled US$1.6 million in 2013(NACSO 2015). This community-basedconservation model is thought to be oneof the key factors behind Namibia’s ex-panding population of free-roaming lions(NACSO 2011, 2015). The latest RedList assessment of Namibian lion popula-

tions, based on three areas (one of whichhad hunting) showed an overall increaseof 41% between 1993 and 2014. However,this was strongly influenced by the hugeincrease in lions in Kunene (the areawhere trophy hunting occurred), whichhad an increase of 3,933%, going froman estimated 6 lions in 1993 to 242 lionsin 2014 (Bauer et al. 2016).

At least as of 2008, Namibia had noannual national-level lion quota. Tro-phy hunting permits are allocated to killproblem lions (males only) on conser-vancy land. 38 lions were hunted thisway between 1998 and 2008, with anaverage offtake of less than 4 a year.In addition, trophy hunting is permit-ted on free-roaming lion populations inhunting concessions, which may be con-servancies or protected areas (exclud-ing Etosha National Park) (MET 2008).Most lions shot as trophies in Namibiaare from hunting concessions, mostly inthe Kunene and Caprivi regions (MET2008).

The draft national lion conservationstrategy revealed that some illegal tro-phy hunting was occurring along thesouthern boundary of Etosha NationalPark, making the allocation of quotasand maintenance of trust with landown-ers very difficult (MET 2008). The draftnational lion conservation strategy setout some key activities for improvingtrophy hunting in Namibia, specificallythat efforts should be made to:

t• Develop and implement an approved

26

quota setting methodology rigorouslyand consistently across all hunting ar-eas

t• Review and analyse annual quotas andofftakes to ensure these are adaptiveand responsive to population changes,trophy quality and levels of PAC overtime

t• Allocate quotas at a scale reflective oflion ecological and biological functional-ity which invariably acts across differentand/or smaller land units or uses

t• Develop and implement standardisedhunt return forms and trophy huntingdatabases and review annually there-after

t• Ensure centralised database and cost-effective system for data collection fromhunting areas and subsequent collation,entry, analysis, reporting and feedbackto key stakeholders in the wildlife in-dustry (MET, NAPHA, NAU, NNFU,Conservancies, conservation NGOs andresearchers etc. as appropriate)

t• Provide training to MET, Conservancyand NAPHA personnel and other rel-evant field staff in the approved quotasetting methodology

t• Review trophy fees to maximise benefitand generate additional revenue

Overall, trophy hunting does notseem to pose a threat to lions in Namibia,and is in fact (particularly in the conser-vancy areas) thought to be one of the

reasons why Namibia’s lion populationhas increased over recent years (NACSO2011, 2015). However, Namibia is anunusual case in having relatively goodgovernance and very low human popu-lation density, so it is unlikely that thesuccesses seen here could easily be repli-cated across many other African coun-tries. More generally, governance andinfra-structural capacity, of which cor-ruption is a factor, are relevant to thedelivery of felid conservation as docu-mented by (Dickman et al. 2015), andgovernance has been highlighted as a keyissue with regard to the sustainability orotherwise of trophy hunting operations(Packer 2015).

2.1.2.4 Significance of trophy hunt-ing as a threat to lions in Tanzaniattt

Our latest data suggest that Tanzaniaholds approximately 9,900 free-ranginglions in an estimated lion range of380,000 km2 (Dickman in prep.). Tanza-nia has around 32.2% of its land coveredby protected areas, and 26.4% in gamereserves (Di Minin et al. 2016). Tanza-nia contains about half of the continent’sremaining lion population (Riggio et al.2013), but the IUCN found significantdeclines, based on an analysis of fivepopulations, one of which had trophyhunting (Bauer et al. 2016). There was

27


an overall decline of 66% in the lion pop-ulations between 1993 and 2014 – onlyone population (the Serengeti) increased,while the population with trophy hunt-ing (Katavi) was apparently extirpatedduring that period, according to theIUCN data (Bauer et al. 2016; althoughthis is disputed – see Section 2.1.1.3).

Tanzania has long hosted the largestlion trophy hunting industry, with 100–300 lions hunted per annum (Packer etal. 2010). The Selous Game Reserve isthe largest uninhabited protected area inAfrica (55,000 km2) and is a premier des-tination for lion trophy hunters. Lionsare considered to be declining in a signif-icant proportion of Tanzanian huntingareas, with trophy hunting considered tobe the primary driver of this decline out-side (and inside some) protected areas(Packer et al. 2011). Lion harvests de-clined by 50% across Tanzania between1996 and 2008, and hunting areas withthe highest initial harvests suffered thesteepest declines; the intensity of trophyhunting was the only significant factorin a statistical analysis of lion harvesttrends (Packer et al. 2009).

Tanzania introduced a 6-year ageminimum for lion trophies in 2012 (basedon the recommendations of Whitman etal. 2004); lion offtakes have further de-

clined in the past few years, with only 40lions exported in 2014; it is not clear ifthis recent drop has resulted from hunt-ing clients restricting their offtakes tolions aged 6yrs or older or from a contin-uation of the trend reported by Packer etal. (2009). Leader-Williams et al. (2009)and Packer (2015) note that Tanzaniahas a poor record of hunting governance,and the recent scandal over Green MileSafaris (whose clients posted evidenceof multiple trophy hunting and animalwelfare infractions online, but who nev-ertheless were apparently permitted tocontinue hunting in Tanzania23) is oneclear example of very poor managementof the country’s trophy hunting indus-try. Similarly, a recent report from EastAfrica has raised concerns that corruptofficials in Tanzania and Kenya in par-ticular, have been compromised throughbribes to allow the killings of wildlifeand the illegal export of trophies24.

While there is evidence that trophyhunting has had negative impacts onTanzania’s lion populations (Packer etal. 2011), other threats are more sig-nificant. Tanzania’s National ActionPlan for lions and leopards concludedthat prey availability, land use and landcover change, anthropogenic killing, in-adequate management and disease may

23http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abusive-safari-company-tanzania_us_57769240e4b04164640fbba824http://allafrica.com/stories/201608291000.html

28

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abusive-safari-company-tanzania_us_57769240e4b04164640fbba8

http://allafrica.com/stories/201608291000.html

pose threats to those species, with re-taliatory killing, land use change andproblems arising from inadequate man-agement the most important factors(TAWIRI 2007).

2.1.2.5 Significance of trophy hunt-ing as a threat to lions in Zambia ttt

Our latest data suggest that Zambiaholds approximately 1,200 free-ranginglions in an estimated lion range of135,000 km2 (Dickman in prep.). TheIUCN examined only one population inZambia (Luangwa) for the IUCN RedListing – this population was huntedfor trophies and had declined by 28%between 1993 and 2014 (Bauer et al.2016).

Di Minin et al. (2016) estimatedthat 37.8% of Zambia was covered byterrestrial protected areas, with 21.3%in hunting ranches. However, it is no-table that despite this extensive cover-age of hunting areas, which is secondonly to Tanzania and Botswana (beforethe ban), Zambia generates very littlerevenue from trophy hunting (see Ta-ble 3 for comparison of estimates). Thisconcurs with the findings of Lindsey etal. (2012b), who stated that most Zam-bian trophy hunting concessions appearto be running at a loss, probably as a

result of the depletion of prey popula-tions due to human settlement and thebushmeat trade in Game ManagementAreas (Lewis and Alpert 1997; Simasikuet al. 2008). Quotas of lions have beenexcessive, are established arbitrarily andthere is a lack of monitoring of wildlifepopulations or of trophies. Per annum,39 lions are hunted, while 13–18 trophiesare exported (Lindsey et al. 2007). Thislevel of hunting is approximately 3.4%of the estimated population, so is a rela-tively high level compared to many othercountries.

Zambia’s national authorities ap-peared to consider trophy hunting as asignificant threat to lions (hence the banon big cat trophy hunting implementedin 2013) but later reversed the decision(with some adjustments to quotas andregulations), mainly because of concernsover a lack of revenue25.

The Zambian lion management strat-egy highlights poor management of thetrophy hunting process, and states thatthere is inconsistency in the collection ofdata at temporal scale and in terms ofmeasurable variables making it difficultto assess trophy quality trends in thecountry. The management plan statesthat it is focusing on the “promotionof age-based harvesting of lions and set-ting of hunting quotas based on empiri-

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

29



cal biological data in addition to the on-going collection of trophy measurements”(Zambia Wildlife Authority 2009). Thenational lion management strategy alsohighlights the following issues relevantto improving trophy hunting within thecountry:

t• Standardization of lion survey methodsand conducting baseline survey of lionnumbers

t• Setting of sustainable lion off take quo-tas

t• Monitoring and evaluation of the lionpopulation in the context of existingconservation and tourism programmes

t• Preparation and implementation offield age determination techniques

t• Development of area-specific lion man-agement strategies especially for GameManagement Areas (GMAs)

However, that strategy was devel-oped in 2009 and it is unclear how muchprogress, if any, has been made sincethen towards improving the manage-ment of lion trophy hunting in Zam-bia. Therefore, it is still possible thatpoorly-managed trophy hunting could bea threat to Zambia’s lion populations.

2.1.2.6 Significance of trophy hunt-ing as a threat to lions in Zimbabwettt

Our latest data suggest that Zimbabweholds approximately 1,500 free-ranginglions in an estimated lion range of 57,000km2 (Dickman in prep.). The IUCN RedListing used data from five populationsin Zimbabwe, four of which had trophyhunting. All populations showed a sig-nificant increase (the lowest level was inHwange, but even that was 86%) so over-all, there was a very impressive 1,252%increase in lion numbers across thoseareas between 1993 and 2014, mainlydue to increases in relatively small popu-lations (Bauer et al. 2016). The largestincrease was in Gonarezhou, the non-hunted population, which had a 7,900%increase (from 1 lion to 80), and thiswas closely followed by Savé Valley Con-servancy, with a 6,967% increase (3 lionsto 212) (Bauer et al. 2016).

Di Minin et al. (2016) estimated that27.2% of the country was covered byterrestrial protected areas, with gameranches covering 16.6%. From the 1970slion trophy hunting harvests in Zim-babwe were some of the highest in re-lation to population size in Africa, withannual offtakes of between 90 and 141lions between 1992 and 2002 (Loveridgeet al. 2009; Packer et al. 2009), butquotas were reduced to 75 individuals in2015 (ZPWMA 2015) and lion numbersare now increasing in several populations(Bauer et al. 2016). Since the elephanttrophy import ban in the US, there is

30

anecdotal evidence that lion have be-come relatively more important to thenational hunting industry economically.

Zimbabwe introduced a 5-year agelimit on hunted lions in January 2006,and has used an adaptive age-basedquota system with evidence of success.This calculates a fluid quota per areabased on the previous season’s perfor-mance in terms of hunting only oldermales. The Zimbabwean adaptive sys-tem has been associated with a risingage of hunted lions, a desirable outcomeillustrating the role of quotas and age-based restrictions in influencing popula-tion demographics (ZPWMA 2015). Thegoal of the Zimbabwean system of inbuiltfeedbacks is to discourage outfitters fromhunting lions that are too young, therebyminimising negative impacts on the lionpopulation whilst maximising the sus-tainable yield, and therefore the eco-nomic incentive to conserve lions. Withthese lowered quotas and age-based sys-tems, there is little evidence that tro-phy hunting is negatively affecting Zim-babwe’s lion population at a nationalscale.

2.1.3 Factors mediating the threatposed by trophy hunting

Despite the threats posed by trophyhunting to individual populations, tro-phy hunting has never (to our knowledge)been implicated as a significant factorin the extirpation of lions from a coun-try. While Chardonnet’s (2002) estimatethat 32 African countries supported wildlions may have been optimistic, by 2015seven of them no longer did so (Baueret al. 2016); however, none of thesecountries had exported a lion trophyover that period [CITES trade database:http://trade.cites.org/en/cites_trade/(Accessed 11 July 2016)].

It seems as if where trophy hunt-ing is well-regulated, transparent andhas a significant amount of power de-volved to the landowners (for examplein Namibia; Naidoo et al. 2016a), ithas the potential to deliver significantconservation benefits in terms of pro-tecting habitat and allowing lion popu-lations to persist (NACSO 2011, 2015;Naidoo et al. 2016a). However, in manycountries, poor governance26 and weakenforcement of hunting regulations in-creases the threat posed by trophy hunt-ing; indeed, Packer (2015) argues thatcorruption within the hunting industry

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

31


www.transparency.org


and wider frameworks is the reason whylion hunting often fails to deliver the ben-efits to lion conservation that might beexpected in principle, and Dickman et al.(2015) consider corruption as a limitingfactor in delivering felid conservation insome countries.

According to the IUCN in 2009, goodgovernance was absent from almost theentire trophy hunting sector in manycountries, with those currently in con-trol of the system not prepared to sharepower and undertake adjustments thatwould mean relinquishing control; a posi-tion that IUCN (2009) concludes servesindividual interests, but not those ofconservation, local communities or goodgovernance (UICN/PACO 2009). How-ever, even poor national governancedoes not always preclude relatively well-managed trophy hunting: Zimbabwe hasrecently implemented an age-based adap-tive quota strategy (see Section 2.1.2.6),which has resulted in the reduction ofhunting under-age animals (ZPWMA2015).

Similarly, despite weak governanceacross much of Mozambique, age-basedadaptive management of trophy hunting(and work to address other threats tolions) has been implemented effectivelyin the Niassa National Reserve, and lionpopulations are increasing there despitehunting (Bauer et al. 2016).

2.1.4 Significance of trophy huntingas a threat to lions at a re-gional scale

The IUCN 2006 regional conservationStrategies for lions (in West and Cen-tral Africa, and in Eastern and SouthernAfrica), considered possible threats tolions, and ranked them using a points-based system (IUCN 2006a, b).

The top five threats (i. prey deple-tion, ii. conflict with humans, iii. smallpopulation size, iv. livestock encroach-ment and v. habitat loss) were the samein each region, albeit in slightly differentorders (see Figures 2a and 2b).

Trophy hunting was not ranked byexperts as one of the top three threatsto any lion populations across Westand Central Africa (IUCN 2006a). Tro-phy hunting emerged as a higher threatacross Eastern and Southern Africa thanin West and Central Africa, but was notranked as a high level threat.

2.1.5 Summary of the significance oftrophy hunting as a threat tolions

Poor quota management and unregu-lated hunting of lions, in particular thatof dominant males and pride females, canresult in significant negative impacts ata population scale (e.g. Loveridge et al.

32

2007a; Packer et al. 2009; Croes et al.2011; Packer et al. 2011; Becker et al.2013). These negative impacts could beameliorated (either in whole or in part,depending on the population) by restrict-ing offtake to males of >7 years, whichshould have reproduced, and in some ar-eas by combining this with an area-based

hunting quota. However, when assessedat either a national or a regional level,the negative impacts on lions from tro-phy hunting are deemed by experts to besubstantially smaller than other threats,particularly those of human-lion conflictand loss of prey (IUCN 2006a, b).

Prey

dep

letio

n

Smal

l pop

ulat

ion

size

Live

stoc

k en

croa

chm

ent

Illeg

al k

illin

g (c

onfli

ct)

Hab

itat c

onve

rsio

n

Res

ourc

e ex

tract

ion

Dis

ease

Trop

hy h

untin

g

Prob

lem

ani

mal

con

trol

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Thre

at S

core

a. West and Central Africa

Illeg

al k

illin

g (c

onfli

ct)

Prey

dep

letio

n

Smal

l pop

ulat

ion

size

Hab

itat c

onve

rsio

n

Live

stoc

k en

croa

chm

ent

Trop

hy h

untin

g

Res

ourc

e ex

tract

ion

Prob

lem

ani

mal

con

trol

Dis

ease

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Thre

at S

core

b. East and Southern Africa

Figure 2: Threat ranking for lions in (a) West and Central Africa, and (b) East andSouthern Africa, as assessed by experts at the 2006 IUCN Lion ConservationStrategy meetings (note that the y-axes are different scales as the magnitudeof threats was considered higher in East and Southern Africa). The mapsshow the countries assessed in the strategies, with the colour showing therelative lion population in the range country, with darker colour showing alarger population.

33


2.2 Impacts associated with lion trophy hunting27

2.2.1 Ecological impacts

2.2.1.1 Habitat protection ttt

The protection of wildlife habitat is theprimary benefit associated with trophyhunting, as it reduces the major threatof habitat loss – conversion to otherforms of land use such as agriculture isoften irreversible. In 2007, Lindsey et al.estimated that a total area of at least1,394,000 km2 was conserved for trophyhunting in sub-Saharan Africa, whichexceeded the area of national parks inthose countries by 22%. In 2013, it wasestimated that lions were hunted acrossat least 558,000 km2, which comprised27–32% of the lion range in countrieswhere trophy hunting of lions was per-mitted (Lindsey et al. 2013), and atleast 16% of the total lion distributionin Africa (Riggio et al. 2013). Given thedates of those studies, the extent of thishunting range will now have declinedslightly since Botswana imposed its liontrophy hunting ban in 2014.

Many of the areas that are (or re-cently were) hunting zones are not cur-rently suitable for photographic tourism(e.g. even in Botswana, which is one of

Africa’s premier destinations for photo-graphic tourists, over three-quarters ofhunting land in the Northern Conserva-tion Zone had low potential for photo-tourism; Winterbach et al. 2015), sohunting enables this land to be main-tained under a wildlife-based land use.This maintenance of habitat (even if li-ons themselves are negatively affected atsome level) is by far the most significantbenefit provided by trophy hunting of li-ons, particularly given the fact that habi-tat loss and degradation is such a signif-icant threat to lions at all scales (IUCN2006a, b; Fusari et al. 2010; Henschel etal. 2010; Henschel et al. 2014). Particu-larly in West and Central Africa, trophyhunting maintains lion habitat in areaswhere photographic tourism and philan-thropy are absent – and those land usesare much less developed than in other re-gions. This is evident from the fact thatlions have been extirpated from mostprotected areas in the region (Henschelet al. 2014) whereas the last two remain-ing substantial populations (>250 lions)are both within large complexes of Na-tional Parks interconnected and bufferedby hunting zones that appear to be atleast partially effective at reducing live-stock encroachment, with hunting not

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

34

appearing to significantly affect the lastremaining lion stronghold in West Africa,the W-Arly-Pendjari (WAP) ecosystem(Bouché et al. 2016).

Although lions are one of the maindraws of trophy hunting areas and in-crease their financial viability, these ar-eas are also very important for manyother species, including some highlythreatened ones. For example, in thecase of the critically endangered blackrhino (Diceros bicornis), only 10 ‘IUCNKey 1’ populations remain (i.e. popu-lations that are crucial to the survivalof the species), and three of those oc-cur on private hunting conservanciesin Zimbabwe where lions are also keyhunted species (N. Anderson, Interna-tional Rhino Foundation, pers. comm.).

However, not all the ecological im-pacts of trophy hunting are positive.In areas managed predominantly for li-ons, high densities have negative impactson the populations of smaller competi-tors, such as cheetahs (Acinonyx juba-tus) and African wild dogs (Lycaon pic-tus). Where provided with adequate re-sources and protection (even where theyare hunted), lion populations can achievevery rapid growth rates (e.g. Groom andWatermeyer 2015; Miller et al. 2015; duPreez et al. 2016a). High lion densities(particularly within fenced reserves, in-cluding non-consumptive photographicareas) can lead to significant ecologicaland social problems such as severe re-ductions in prey populations and intra-

specific lion killing (Ferreira and Funston2010; du Preez et al. 2015). The asso-ciated management issues (overpopula-tion and overpredation) may necessitatelethal control of the lions (Miller et al.2015), or intensive management strate-gies such as contraception or transloca-tion.

2.2.1.2 Reduction of other threatsto lions and other wildlife ttt

At least within well-managed trophyhunting areas, it is common to havesignificant anti-poaching patrols, whichwould reduce threats of human encroach-ment, such as the loss of lion preythrough bushmeat hunting. For ex-ample, in Cameroon, where bushmeatpoaching is a major conservation issue,observations between 2005 and 2010 sug-gested that anti-poaching efforts werehigher in the hunting zones than Na-tional Parks, due to economic incentivesto reduce poaching in hunting areas, anda lack of government funding to conductsimilar anti-poaching efforts in Parks(Croes et al. 2011). Even in poorly-managed areas, funds from hunting canstill play a major role in funding anti-poaching operations. For example, inTanzania’s Selous Game Reserve (whichis allegedly beset by high levels of corrup-tion), the ‘Selous Retention Scheme’ hasrecently been re-established, where 50%of hunting revenues from the Reserveare re-invested into conservation andanti-poaching (IUCN 2016). The Re-

35


serve’s chief warden from 1994–2008 and2012–2015 has raised serious concernsabout the impacts of trophy import banson the capacity of the reserve to suc-cessfully conduct anti-poaching efforts(IUCN 2016). However, anti-poachingefforts run by hunting operators varyconsiderably between countries and op-erators, and they tend to be seasonalrather than year-round.

2.2.2 Impacts of economic benefitsgenerated from trophy hunt-ing

There are several reasons for consider-ing the economic contributions of trophyhunting, not least because of its possi-ble role in the economic development ofAfrican nations and as a source of incometo local people (though the significanceof trophy hunting revenue is debated forboth those factors). However, withinthe remit of this report, we focus on theconnection between the economic impactof trophy hunting and conservation out-comes.

2.2.2.1 Level of trophy hunting rev-enue generated ttt

There are a range of estimates of thedegree of economic revenue generatedby trophy hunting, but there is a lackof rigorous, independent data on theeconomics of trophy hunting. A re-port commissioned by Safari Club in-

ternational, an organisation that isexplicitly in favour of hunting, con-cluded that across eastern and southernAfrica (Botswana, Ethiopia, Mozam-bique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanza-nia, Zambia and Zimbabwe) huntersspend US$326.5 million annually whenaccounting for all in-country expendi-ture, including not only the cost of thehunt and associated fees but also othercosts such as transportation, food andsouvenirs (Southwickes Associates 2015).They found the value-added contribu-tion to GDP (using multipliers derivedfrom World Travel and Tourism Coun-cil) to be US$426 million (SouthwickesAssociates 2015). They also found thattrophy hunting supports 53,400 jobs,when including supporting sectors. How-ever, in 2009 the IUCN criticised thelow proportion of jobs created by thehunting industry in comparison to theproportional area of land it occupies –it cited figures of 15,000 salaried jobsacross Africa, compared to a humanpopulation of 150 million in the eightmain trophy hunting countries, wheretrophy hunting takes up 16% of theirland (UICN/PACO 2009). However,this must be considered in the context ofnaturally low human density in wildlifeareas, and the general incompatibility of(or inverse relationship between) largehuman populations and maintenance ofwildlife populations.

There is variation in estimates givenin the peer-reviewed literature regard-ing the level of trophy hunting revenue,

36

and those estimates usually do not pro-vide value-added estimates or accountfor revenue to supporting sectors etc.Lindsey et al. (2007) estimated thattrophy hunting generated gross revenuesof at least US$201 million per year insub-Saharan Africa, although this es-timate has been criticised in a reportprepared for The African Lion Coali-tion, which is composed of animal wel-fare groups, for relying on unreliablesources of data (Economists at Large2013). Booth (2010) estimated grossrevenues of at least US$190 million forSouth Africa, Namibia, Botswana (thepaper was published prior to Botswana’strophy hunting ban that entered intoeffect in 2014), Zambia, Mozambique,Zimbabwe and Tanzania. Di Mininet al. (2016) estimated total annualhunting revenue to be approximatelyUS$217.2 million in those same coun-tries (see Table 3 for a summary of esti-mates of the revenue generated by tro-phy hunting per country). However, thereport prepared for the African LionCoalition argues that that the contri-bution of trophy hunting to nationaleconomies is insignificant because it con-stitutes only a small percentage of GrossDomestic Product (GDP) (Economistsat Large 2013). The IUCN estimatedtrophy hunting revenue to contribute0.19% of GDP in Botswana, 0.03% inMozambique, 0.45% in Namibia, 0.04%in South Africa, 0.22% in Tanzania,0.05% in Zambia and 0.29% in Zimbabwe

(UICN/PACO 2009). Though small on anational scale, income from trophy hunt-ing can be a significant source of incomefor the government bodies responsiblefor managing wildlife. For example, theWildlife Division in Tanzania makes 60%of its income from trophy hunting licencefees (Estes 2015). The IUCN stated thata definite positive aspect of trophy hunt-ing is that conservation results are fi-nanced completely by the hunters, with-out drawing from donors or requiringgovernment commitment (UICN/PACO2009).

Most of the figures discussed aboveconcern trophy hunting as a whole, andonly part of these are generated by tro-phy hunting of lions specifically. Lind-sey et al. (2012b) estimated that lionsgenerate 5–17% of gross trophy huntingincome on national levels among Mozam-bique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia andZimbabwe, but lions were not the speciesthat generated the largest proportion oftrophy hunting income in any of thesecountries.

2.2.2.2 The economic contributionof lion hunting and its impact onland-use ttt

From a conservation perspective, theoverriding concern is how the economicprofitability of trophy hunting of lionsaffects land-use.

37


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

⇤ Figure for revenue from lion hunting only

If a ban on the import of lion trophies(or other policies) impacted the prof-itability of trophy hunting operations tothe extent that it becomes less profitablethan alternative land-uses due to re-duced demand, then it is likely that therewill be a transition to more profitableland-uses. The type of the land-use thatreplaces trophy hunting is important topredict the effect on the conservation

of lions and wildlife in general. Transi-tion to agriculture or livestock grazingis a serious threat to the survival of thelion populations (Loveridge et al. 2007b)and is the likely alternative to trophyhunting across much of Africa, becauseit is profitable for land-owners, or in thecase of government-owned land, becausethere is strong political pressure to turnthese areas over to livestock production

38

(Loveridge et al. 2007b).

To consider the effect of curtailmentof hunting of lions on land-use, informa-tion on the specific contribution of lionsto the viability of trophy hunting oper-ations is required. There is a paucityof information on this, but Lindsey etal. (2012b) estimated the significanceof lions for the financial viability of tro-phy hunting in Mozambique, Namibia,Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Theyfound that the trophy hunting indus-try is not dependent on lions to remainviable in most areas, and that otherspecies are more important in financialterms. However, they conclude that iflion hunting was precluded, trophy hunt-ing could still become unviable acrossat least 59,538 km2, which constitutes11.5% of the area lions are hunted inthe countries included in the analysis.Lion hunting was found to be importantfor financial viability of trophy huntingin Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia,but of minor importance in Namibia andZimbabwe. Lindsey et al. (2012b) fur-ther noted that had Benin, Burkina Fasoand the Central African Republic beenincluded in the analysis, the estimatedsize of the area where trophy hunting willbe lost is likely to increase significantlyas these countries have low numbers anddiversity of other key trophy species.Crucially, trophy hunting becomes un-favourable as a land-use option not onlyif a trophy hunting business becomes un-profitable, but also if it becomes less prof-itable than the alternative land-use from

the perspective of the owners/custodiansof a piece of land, so the extent of habi-tat loss could be greater than 59,538km2. In some areas, the net returns fromlivestock is similar to those from trophyhunting (Lindsey et al. 2012b)so theremight be a transition to livestock pro-duction even with only relatively smalldecreases in profitability of trophy hunt-ing. Estimates of the profitability oftrophy hunting per hectare differ. IUCN(2009) reported US$1.1 ha-1, Lindsey etal. (2012b) estimated net earnings to bebetween US$0.24 to US$1.64 ha-1 year-1

depending on the country, and du Preezet al. (2016b) calculated that hunting inZimbabwe’s lowveld was worth approxi-mately US$16.4 per hectare per year forall species and US$5.57 for lion hunt-ing alone. Net returns from livestockin semi-arid African rangelands (US$0.1–US$0.3 per hectare per year in areas with400–800 ml of annual rainfall (Cumming2004) are similar to those from trophyhunting in some areas, so these areasare at risk of conversion (Lindsey et al.2012b).

In the most attractive and accessibleareas, land-use could shift from trophyhunting to non-consumptive wildlife use,e.g. photo-tourism, such that habitatis maintained without lions being killed.This could be the ideal outcome fromconservation and welfare perspectives, aslion populations would be secured with-out the damaging ethical, ecological andwelfare impacts of trophy hunting. In-deed, Barnes (2001) concluded that pho-

39


tographic tourism has greater benefitsthan consumptive use over about one-third of the wildlife estate in Botswana,finding that “consumptive wildlife usesare relatively unimportant in terms ofeconomic contribution”, whilst consump-tive wildlife use is the only possibilityacross the “ less well-endowed two-thirdsof the wildlife estate”.

However, only a subset of the areasthat are currently used for trophy hunt-ing are likely to be suitable for photo-graphic tourism (Lindsey et al. 2006).For example, they might contain lim-ited numbers of charismatic species, lackphotogenic scenery, or be located in ar-eas with high risk of tropical disease,poor infrastructure or political instabil-ity (IUCN 2016). Trophy hunters areless discouraged by these conditions thanmost tourists: during the first year ofland-seizures in Zimbabwe, the tourismsector was reduced by 75% while prof-its from trophy hunting only dropped12% (Booth 2002). Also, it is unknownwhether there exists enough unsatisfieddemand for photographic tourism tosupply clients if current trophy hunt-ing areas are converted to photographictourism, or whether this would simplydivert visitors from current protected ar-eas. Across Africa, a large number ofprotected areas with high levels of biodi-versity receive very few visitors (Balm-ford et al. 2015). This is not consistentwith there being significant unsatisfieddemand for photographic tourism oppor-tunities, which suggests that the creation

of new photographic tourism areas mightdivert visitors from existing protected ar-eas, some of which are already operatingat a loss.

Even where photographic tourism isfinancially viable, there is evidence forinterdependence between this form oftourism and trophy hunting. In Namibia,trophy hunting was shown to be impor-tant for the establishment of conservan-cies because it generates benefits soonerthan photographic tourism after estab-lishment of a conservancy, so it can al-low conservancies to remain financiallyviable while its photographic tourism isdeveloping (Naidoo et al. 2016a). Fur-thermore, simulations show that a signif-icant number of community-led Namib-ian conservancies would not be able tomeet their operational costs if there wasa ban on trophy hunting, which wouldremove both the incentive to maintainthese protected areas and the financialmeans to manage them (Naidoo et al.2016a).

However, where the land-ownersvalue wildlife beyond their economicvalue they might be willing to toleratelow returns from their land in order tomaintain wildlife habitat, if they havesufficient wealth to do so. In these cases,reductions in profitability of lion trophyhunting may not affect the conservationof lion habitat. It is uncertain to what ex-tent land-owners perceive intrinsic valueof wildlife, and considering that the hostcountries of lion hunting are developing

40

nations, the ability to absorb financiallosses or reduced returns is likely to below.

Although there is anecdotal evidencefrom such countries as Botswana andZambia after recent trophy hunting bans(see text box below), there is no pub-lished literature on the specific impactsof the ban in terms of protecting lions,and very little information on actual landuse changes. At present, we are lim-ited to inference: Williams et al. (2016)documented substantial decreases in thedensity of lion, leopard, cheetah, Africanwild dog, spotted hyaena (Crocuta cro-cuta) and brown hyaena (Hyaena brun-nea) as land was converted from hunt-ing conservancies to agriculture, follow-ing land reform in Zimbabwe. Directevidence demonstrates that local peo-ple are often unsupportive of a ban,and that significant loss of revenue tohunting zones occurs when lions can nolonger be utilised (Hann 2015). Hann(2015) highlights the huge knowledgegaps regarding hunting and its associ-ation with wildlife declines. The IUCNnotes that “Revenues from trophy hunt-ing are also important for conservingthreatened species that are not hunted.Populations of Black Rhino and WhiteRhino and of the African Wild Dog onthe Savé and Bubye Conservancies inZimbabwe are not hunted, but proceedsfrom trophy hunting support their con-servation” (IUCN 2016).

2.2.2.3 Trophy hunting and eco-nomic incentives for lion conservationttt

Another way that the economic impactof lion trophy hunting is connected toconservation outcomes is through therevenue generated by trophy huntingthat goes towards implementing conser-vation efforts and incentivises tolerancefor lions and the maintenance of habi-tat for wildlife – reductions in the in-come generated from lion hunting couldreduce these incentives among govern-ments, local communities and privateland-owners.

Governments require funds forwildlife management and income to jus-tify the maintenance of land as gamereserves/wildlife management areas inthe face of increasing human populationsand demand for land. Some of the fundsgenerated by trophy hunting accrue togovernments. For example, in Tanzania,direct and indirect tax flows to the gov-ernment is approximately 44% of the es-timated gross income of the trophy hunt-ing industry (Booth 2010), and, basedon data from 2008, 22% of the grossrevenue generated by hunting is allo-cated to the Wildlife Division (Di Minin2016). However, much of the incomegenerated by the industry never entersthe country, accruing instead to externalparties (Booth 2010). In Namibia, 21%of the income generated is captured bythe government through fees and taxes(Humavindu and Barnes 2003). Lewis

41


and Alpert (1997) report that in Zam-bia: ADMADE (Administrative Designfrom Game Management Areas) receivesaround 67% of all revenue generatedby sport hunting activities in Zambia’sGame Management Areas. Over half(53%) of ADMADE revenue is allocateddirectly to local wildlife managementand the remainder to community devel-opment. However, is usually unclearhow much of the revenue captured bygovernments across lion range countriesis channelled into conservation efforts,especially in the context of high levelsof corruption.

From the viewpoint of lion conserva-tion, generating benefits for local com-munities from trophy hunting of lions isimportant because it incentivises localcommunities to tolerate lions despite thethreat they can pose to livestock and hu-man lives (Loveridge et al. 2007b) andthe opportunity costs that they can of-ten impose by restricting resource use.These benefits can be in the form offinancial/material contributions to com-munity development, employment or in-come for local producers and serviceproviders. Before Botswana’s ban ontrophy hunting, 75% of the gross incomegenerated by hunting tourism remainedin the country, and of this 49% remainedat the district level. This equated toapproximately US$5 head-1 when trans-lated to an income per capita at the na-tional level but when attributed to themain hunting districts, the per capita

income was US$48.5 head-1. In Tanza-nia, 3.1% of estimated gross expenditureby hunting companies is spent on com-munity development and fees paid tothe community and 11.9% on wages andwelfare (Booth 2010). In Namibia, agree-ments between conservancies and oper-ators specify the portion of income theconservancy receives, typically 8–12% oftotal lodge revenue and 30–75% of tro-phy price (Naidoo et al. 2016a). Hu-mavindu and Barnes (2003) found thatin Namibia, 24% of the income accruesto poor segments of society in the formof wages and rentals/royalties, whileSamuelsson and Stage (2007) estimatedthat 40% went to local communities andlow income wage earners.

If trophy hunting became unviable,thousands of Zimbabwean householdsthat benefit from the CAMPFIRE pro-gramme would lose a combined US$1.7million per annum, and the programme’srevenue has already been significantlyreduced following the US ban on ele-phant trophy imports from Zimbabwe (C.Jonga, quoted in IUCN 2016)28. How-ever, despite some successes and good ex-amples of benefit-sharing, local commu-nities rarely benefit from trophy huntingactivities (Lindsey et al. 2006) and tro-phy hunting frequently occurs withoutmeaningful community involvement orconsultation, which in many countries isfurther complicated by corruption, lackof transparency and weak rule of law(IUCN 2009).

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

42

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

Case study: Botswana after the hunting ban in 2014

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

Furthermore, lions generate only partof the total trophy hunting revenue con-sidered in the above figures. However,if there was no income generated by li-ons, communities could potentially wishto eradicate them from trophy hunting

areas because they pose a threat to live-stock in surrounding areas, and privateland-owners might want to remove lionsfrom their trophy hunting concessionsbecause they predate other valuable tro-phy species (Funston et al. 2013).

43


2.3 Summary of the impacts associated with trophy hunting

Trophy hunting can have marked neg-ative impacts on the ecology of lions at apopulation scale, and can also have neg-ative impacts on other species when anarea is managed primarily for lions. How-ever, these impacts are generally smallin comparison to other threats at a na-tional and regional scale, and perhapscounter-intuitively, trophy hunting couldin some areas be reducing some of theprimary threats to lions, namely habi-tat loss and loss of prey. For example,across Africa, approximately ⇠1.4 mil-lion km2 has been estimated to be con-served for trophy hunting purposes. It islikely that without trophy hunting, partsof this vast area of land would becomeeconomically unviable if maintained asecologically intact wildlife areas, andcould well be converted to agriculturaluse with strong negative impacts on li-ons and other wildlife. Governmentsrequire incentives to justify the main-tenance of wildlife habitat, local com-munities and private landowners requireincentives to maintain wildlife habitat

instead of converting the land to otheruses, such as agriculture, and to toleratethe presence of lions, which can pose athreat to livestock and human life. Somerevenue from trophy hunting accrues togovernments and to local communities,but information is lacking for most ar-eas and in many places benefit-sharingwith communities is inadequate. Fur-thermore, only a small portion of totaltrophy hunting income is attributableto lions. However, without the incomefrom lion hunting, trophy hunting is esti-mated to become unviable across 59,538km2 in five sub-Saharan countries alone,and a transition to alternative land-usesis likely. Photographic tourism is an al-ternative land-use that would allow lionpopulations to remain, but is likely onlyto be viable in a subset of current tro-phy hunting areas. The likely outcomefor many areas would be conversion toagriculture or livestock grazing, whichwould seriously threaten the survival ofthe lion populations in those areas.

44

3. Current and recommended lion trophyhunting practices

Many of the detrimental effects onlion conservation associated with

trophy hunting are to do with failure toestablish and enforce regulatory systemsbased on now well-established scientificprinciples, and within those regulatorysystems, failure to follow a good codeof conduct. The UK can only affect a

few of these issues directly, for examplepotentially through specific import reg-ulations, but it would be good to putpressure on the hunting industry to en-sure that best practices are met, withstrict regulations both imposed and ef-fectively implemented.

3.1 Lease length, allocation and fixed quotas

Short leases on hunting concessionsare not conducive to conservation goals(Damm 2005). The argument is thatwhen short leases are issued with no guar-antee of a long-term stake, then thereis no incentive to invest in conservation,and the maximum quota is always takenso as to maximise return on the cost oflease, even if this means that wildlife areover-exploited as a result. With greatersecurity in the future of a concessioncomes greater incentive to invest in theresource, and thus conservation goals aremore likely to be achieved.

As an illustration, multiple use con-cessions in Botswana were awarded on15-year leases. Evaluation of tender doc-uments included a Technical Manage-ment Plan, financial plan and financialbid, which all contributed to a total pointscore, which determine the winner of the

tender. This provided the opportunityto have wildlife monitoring, corporatesocial responsibility, environmentally re-sponsible camp management etc., andthe management plan became part of thelease agreement. Biannual site visits byDepartment of Tourism, Department ofEnvironmental Affairs and Departmentof Wildlife and National Parks were con-ducted to ensure compliance, and opera-tional licences could be revoked if peoplewere not adhering to the lease agreement.This carefully regulated system contrastswith the shortcomings of patronage, andassociated over-harvesting, documentedby (Packer 2015) as a major impedimentto hunting delivering conservation bene-fits to lions.

Hunting blocks should also be allo-cated according to an open auction sys-tem (Dickson et al. 2009) that recognizes

45


the extent of past investments in eachblock while encouraging access by well-capitalized businesses or individuals andallows options for long-term leases in thecase of well-managed tenure. In somecountries (e.g. Tanzania), the outfitterhas to pay a mandatory fee for the li-ons they are allocated to hunt, even ifthey are not shot. Packer et al. (2006)noted that that ‘fixed’ quotas do notprovide any incentive for hunting oper-ators to reject lions that are too young,leading to reduced trophy quality andunsustainable harvesting. In 2013, Lind-sey et al. reported that Mozambique,Benin, Burkina Faso and Cameroon had

no fixed quotas, with hunters only pay-ing for the animals they shot, but othercountries did have some mandatory feesregardless of the actual offtake (Lindseyet al. 2013). This fee (regardless of ac-tual offtake) was apparently set at 30%of the quota in Zimbabwe, 40% in Tanza-nia, 50% in the Central African Republic,60% in Zambia and 100% in Namibia,where concession rights are based on thesale of the quota rather than lease of theland (Lindsey et al. 2013). Best practicewould be to have no fixed quotas, withhunters only paying trophy fees for theanimals that are actually shot.

3.2 Restrictions on lions able to be hunted

The negative consequences of remov-ing females from a population have beendetailed above (see Section 2.1.1.1), sobest practice would be to import onlymale lions.

To ensure that the benefit to lion con-servation from trophy hunting (throughhabitat protection) outweighs the coststhat may be imposed, it is important toestimate how many lions can be huntedfrom a particular management unit with-out imperilling the population, and inorder to import any lions, national regu-lators should have some confidence thatthe country concerned is making theircalculations based on good science. Cal-culations of ‘safe’ harvests would be dif-

ficult for most species because of thepractical challenges of counting animalnumbers and working out their popula-tion dynamics, but in the case of lionsit is made much more difficult becausetheir social system is such that the deathof a pride male can trigger a perturba-tion effect with cascading consequencesreducing recruitment (Loveridge et al.2007a). To avoid the hazard of over-harvest, two broad approaches have beenproposed by experts on lion populations,one area-based and the other age-based.Both these approaches involve huntingonly adult males and there is now anemerging case for, in some circumstances,combining them (Creel et al. 2016).

46

The area-based approach recom-mends capping the number of huntedmale lions at a sufficiently low numberthat there is minimal risk that this off-take causes a decline in the population.In most populations, the offtake has beenrecommended as no more than 0.5 lions1,000 km-2 (Packer et al. 2011), althoughthere might be local variation – high-density populations such as the Selouscould probably sustain an offtake of 1lion 1,000 km-2 (Packer et al. 2011),as could well-managed and increasingpopulations such as those in Bubye Val-ley Conservancy (ZPWMA 2015), whilein particularly low-density populations,the cap may have to be adjusted down-wards. Lindsey et al. (2012b) presentdata showing that the introduction ofa recommended quota of lion offtakesof 0.5 lions 1,000 km-2 would allow lionhunting to be sustainable, while retain-ing conservation incentives from trophyhunting. They conclude such a policywould result in only 7,005 km2 of existinghunting estate potentially become finan-cially unviable (representing ⇠1% of the516,738 km2 where lions are currentlyhunted in the main lion hunting coun-tries), and argue sustainability would beenhanced further if age-based regulationswere also implemented.

The age-based approach recommendsharvesting only older males that havehad the opportunity to reproduce suc-cessfully and whose deaths will thereforehave fewer repercussions for recruitmentof cubs into the population. The as-

sumption behind this approach is thatthe harvest of those males can be sus-tainable irrespective of population sizeor numbers taken, and has no deleteri-ous effect on population genetic diversity(Whitman et al. 2007).

However, these general rules involvecomplications. The original computermodels by Whitman et al. (2004 & 2007)indicated that so long as only males olderthan >5 years were hunted, the num-bers taken had little impact on the via-bility of the remaining lion population.However, as Whitman et al. (2004) cau-tioned, this model was based on datafrom a well-protected and growing lionpopulation with an increasing prey base:conditions that may not apply to themajority of lion populations in huntingareas. Furthermore, a practical difficultyis aging the candidate trophy lions ac-curately under challenging field condi-tions, although new guidelines (and anassociated training website) publishedby Miller et al. (2016) help with this,as well as the field guide produced byWhitman and Packer (2007). Revisit-ing Whitman et al.’s (2007) pioneeringwork, Creel et al. (2016) offer more pre-cautionary guidelines to minimise therisk of a hunted population being ex-tirpated, and advocated the hunting ofonly males aged 7 years or more (alongwith other measures such as recovery pe-riods from hunting and area-based quo-tas). Indeed, these recent models con-clude that even this strengthened age-based criterion does not necessarily en-

47


sure that the hunted population will notdecline if other threats such as bush-meat poaching are present. However,the models show that the contributionof trophy hunting to population decline,within the suite of all the threats facinglions, will be minimised if only males of7 years or older are removed. This is atleast partly because setting the age limithigher reduces the impact of misjudgingage in the field by a year or so (Creelet al. 2016). Individual lion age charac-teristics may vary regionally (Kays andPatterson 2002; West and Packer 2002;Patterson 2007; West and Packer 2013),and lion aging techniques differ pre- andpost-mortem, with pre-mortem aging be-ing less accurate and precise (Miller et al.2016), and thus enforcing minimum agerequirements in the field is often difficult.However, Miller et al. (2016) have shownthat a suite of lion age traits, in com-bination with training workshops, maybe used to improve significantly field as-sessment of lion age, and could thus beused to improve sustainability of harvestby reducing levels of underage offtake.Post mortem monitoring of age is possi-ble (Winterbach et al. in review) but notwithout problems (White et al. 2016).

Therefore, and as a failsafe regulationunder conditions (which often prevail)where threats such as human encroach-ment, poaching and prey depletion arepresent (but not increasing) Creel et al.(2016) suggested that a combined age-and area-based method be used. They

determined that an age limit of >7 yearsAND a maximum offtake of ⇠0.5 lion1,000 km-2 AND interspersing fallow pe-riods of recovery, in combination reducedthe risk of population extirpation within25 years to less than 10% (Creel et al.2016). Although some people may viewany risk of population extirpation as un-acceptable, this level of risk is low com-pared to the risk implied by recent de-clines in lion populations (43% decline in21 years), and should be weighed againstthe benefit of protecting lion habitat,the degradation of which has been a pri-mary cause of rapid lion decline at acontinental scale (Bauer et al. 2016).However, Creel et al. (2016) recognisethat for some responsible operators thisstringency could reduce current offtakestenfold; they suggest a compensatoryrise in trophy fees to maintain the samelevels of economic return from the land(Creel et al. 2016), which would only befeasible in certain areas or markets. Howthe demand for lion trophies would beaffected by the price is a significant gapin current knowledge.

We suggest that in order to be eligi-ble to export trophies, countries shouldbe able to demonstrate that they are ef-fectively implementing a quota systembased on this best available science, withhunting restricted to older males, possi-bly with an additional area-based com-ponent. More information on how thismight feed into conditions for any im-ports is provided in Section 4.3.2.

48

4. Options to improve the conservation impactof trophy hunting

Regarding the importation of lionsinto the UK, an option for the

UK Government is to maintain the sta-tus quo, which is conditional import,with those from some countries bannedand others subject to assessment againststrict criteria. Options are thus to makethe judgment that trophy hunting has nopart in conservation, which might leadto a ban on all imports, or whether toenhance existing criteria to give greater

confidence of conservation benefit (andby working with other countries have agreater impact). When considering theimpacts of banning trophy imports, weacknowledge that if the decisions madeby the UK Government are only adoptedby them, then the impacts will be neg-ligible, but we are assuming that theapproach decided on by the UK Govern-ment could influence the development ofpolicies more widely.

4.1 Possible impacts of maintaining the status quo

Maintaining the status quo wouldprobably anger elements of the UK pub-lic, who have been vociferous in theirdemand for the Government to take ac-tion to restrict the importation of tro-phies from lions (as well as from otherspecies29), and would put the UK atodds with the US and two EU coun-tries, Netherlands and France (as well asAustralia and Costa Rica) with regard

to their positions on trophy hunting. Itwould also miss the opportunity to in-centivise for the trophy hunting industryto improve its performance, as is clearlyneeded, in delivering benefits to conser-vation and reducing its negative impactson threatened lion populations. Thisis therefore probably the least desirableoption for the UK Government.

4.2 Possible impacts of a total import ban

Another option would be for the UKto impose a total ban on all lion trophyimports, and this would please a vocal

section of the British public. If such aban was done in partnership with othercountries then it would reduce the eco-

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

49

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

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


nomic viability of trophy hunting, whichmight encourage land-owners to switchto non-consumptive forms of wildlife use.This would be more ethically acceptableto large numbers of people, althoughthe degree to which this would or couldhappen is uncertain. The degree towhich trophy hunting can be substitutedby photographic tourism is debatable(see Section 2.2.2.2), and in many ar-eas such a substitution seems unlikely,particularly in countries that are lessappealing to photographic tourists suchas Cameroon and the Central AfricanRepublic, and even large sections of well-visited countries such as Tanzania orBotswana.

The major risk of a total import banwould be the removal of economic in-centives to maintain the land in lionhunting areas under a wildlife-based landuse, and this could have significant detri-mental impacts on lions. In 2012, Lind-sey et al. judged that in Mozambique,Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zim-babwe, trophy hunting was not depen-dent on lions for viability, with otherspecies being financially more impor-tant. They also judged that trophyhunting could nonetheless become unvi-able across at least 59,538 km2 in these5 countries, representing 11.5% of the516,738 km2 where lions are currentlyhunted in these countries. Even where asafari area remained viable despite the

loss of lion hunting this could affect theoverall profitability of trophy huntingand thus reduce its competitiveness rela-tive to alternative land uses that dimin-ished the lion estate.

To predict the impact of a ban onthe import of lion trophies it is also nec-essary to consider what further policiesit is likely to give rise to. It is possiblethat a ban on lion hunting will precipi-tate pressure for restrictions on leopardhunting as well, and other charismaticthreatened species, such as the elephant.There are already calls for such bans30,and as these species are some of themost sought-after for hunters, their col-lective removal would certainly reducethe economic viability of trophy huntingareas quite significantly. This is partic-ularly true regarding potential restric-tions on leopard and elephant hunting;the leopard appeared as one of the topthree most-hunted species in Tanzania,Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zim-babwe, while the elephant was amongstthe top three in Tanzania, Botswana,Mozambique and Zimbabwe (Di Minin etal. 2016). Unless an alternative wildlife-based land use was implemented at thesame time as hunting was stopped, orthe land was managed under conserva-tion philanthropy, there is a significantrisk that a considerable area of currenthunting land could be converted to non-wildlife based land uses, with the con-

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

50

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

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

comitant increases in lion habitat lossassociated with that.

Popular disdain for lion trophy hunt-ing appears widespread in North Amer-ica and Europe, but this mood is notuniversal. If adopted more widely, onespeculation is that a ban on importsto North America and Europe could in-crease uptake of trophies by hunters fromother countries instead, for example theMiddle East and Asia, with possible un-intended consequences for conservationand animal welfare. Similar shifts inthe market have been seen with otherimport bans, such as with Asian gianttortoises (Manouria emys), where an im-port ban was well implemented by theEU and was associated with a two-year

decrease in global imports before newmarkets were found – however, four yearsafter the import ban, global imports ap-proached twice the volume of the yearof ban (Hann 2015). There is also a riskthat if countries feel that external viewsare being continually imposed on them(for example through trade restrictions)then they may decide to opt out of agree-ments such as CITES, which would beextremely damaging for the future valid-ity and operation of such internationalagreements. There were some calls inthe African media for African nationsto withdraw from CITES in the run-up to CoP 17 and “reject the power ofrich elites in Europe or America to dic-tate how they manage their affairs”31,although no countries actually did so.

4.3 Possible impacts of stricter controls on the import of liontrophies to the UK

4.3.1 Reasons for consideringstricter controls

It is clear that poorly managed trophyhunting of lions can have serious nega-tive impacts at a population scale (seeSection 2.1.1), and potentially some im-pacts at a national or regional scale(IUCN 2006b). Where they occur, al-lowing these negative consequences tocontinue is unacceptable from the view-

point of lion conservation, particularlyconsidering the species’ deteriorating sta-tus (Bauer et al. 2016). However, it isalso clear that trophy hunting is cur-rently the reason for a large percentageof the lion estate being maintained asland for wildlife – it has been estimatedthat four times as much of that estateis in hunting areas than Parks (Packer2015). A central dilemma is that impos-ing total import bans on lion trophieswould, in the absence of alternative in-

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

51

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


centives to conserve lions, risk perverseconsequences that may worsen the con-servation of lions (as well as everythingcovered under their conservation um-brella). Principally, this might occurby reducing the economic incentives forwildlife-based land uses, which increasesthe likelihood of land conversion out ofthe lion estate and exacerbates the mainthreats to lions (namely the degradationof habitat, poaching of prey and conflictwith people; IUCN 2006a, b).

With the intention of creating thestrongest possible incentive for the tro-phy hunting industry to take responsibil-ity for improving its practices and regula-tions in ways that maximise the benefitsto lion conservation, one solution to thisdilemma would be to impose stricter con-ditions linked to conservation gain forthe issuance of any lion trophy importpermits to the UK. There are, of course,already strict conditions in CITES as im-plemented by the EU CITES ScientificAuthorities through the Scientific Re-view Group (SRG). CITES conditionsrequire that the trophy lion had beenhunted according to regulations thatavoided a significant detrimental impacton the lion population from which itcame, so evidence of this, and encour-agement to enhance conservation, couldbe strengthened. These dual goals, rec-ommended to the UK government, align

with those of the US Fish and WildlifeService, which deem that, amongst otherconditions, the import of any lion tro-phy to the USA should be contingentupon the management of lions benefit-ing the species in the wild (US Fish andWildlife Service 2015). Under this sce-nario, the UK acts directly by permittingthe importation of lion trophies only ifstringent conditions that benefit lion con-servation are met, and acts indirectly byconvincing other nations to adopt thosesame conditions.

The main positive conservation en-hancement associated with trophy hunt-ing is securing habitat for both lions andother wildlife; that benefit is likely to besignificant to lion conservation only inlarger areas. Therefore, this report rec-ommends setting a minimum size for ar-eas from which trophy imports can evenbe considered; as a practical threshold,we suggest 500 km2 to ensure that it isdelivering conservation enhancements32.

4.3.2 Possible options for stricterconditions

Current CITES requirements are thattrophies can be approved for importwhere, at a minimum, it is demonstratedthat hunting has no detrimental impacton the sustainability of the lion popula-

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

52

tion; however, insofar as trophy huntinghas been associated with over-harvesting,and declines in lion numbers, it is cleareither that these requirements are not al-ways properly applied, or the evidence tomeet them has been inadequate. A sec-ond requirement could be added, namelythat trophy hunting delivers conserva-tion enhancement. A fundamental ele-ment of that enhancement is the main-tenance of ecologically functional areasof lion habitat.

Although not necessarily pre-requisites for trophy importation, UKgovernment should also encourage ad-ditional benefits to conservation, e.g.anti-poaching patrols and/or wider co-benefits such as contributions to com-munity wellbeing. This responsible cus-todianship of the wildlife estate mightbe considered appropriate requirementsof any responsible business that reliesupon wildlife use, whether that is con-sumptive (such as trophy hunting) ornon-consumptive (such as eco-tourism).

The criteria for whether a lion trophycould be imported into the UK should bethat its hunting (a) was unlikely to causedetriment to the lion population fromwhich it was taken and (b) contributesto lion conservation. Although in CITESterms the burden of proof rests with theCITES exporting authority, there is astrong case that the requirement shouldbe made of the industry to prove thatlion trophies are from populations where(a) lion offtake is strictly regulated to

levels that minimise the risk of extirpa-tion and (b) 500 km 2 or more of wildlifehabitat is maintained within the hunt-ing zone. These conditions should sitalongside other requirements of a highcode of professional practice, ensuringfor example that robust animal welfarestandards are met.

However, lions are hunted from popu-lations with different conservation status,and under widely different conditions,in countries facing variously punishingpoverty and infrastructural challenges,so these general principles need to betuned accordingly. We propose categoris-ing hunting operations into three cate-gories, with varying import conditions.We propose that the UK takes the lead inan international effort to categorise hunt-ing operations according to the sustain-ability of their practice as set out below,and applies concomitant import regimeswith an effective import ban from theleast sustainable operations.

We strongly recommend a best-practice approach based on robust andon-going surveys of lion populations andlong-term population trends and threats,to obtain precise data from which a safeofftake can be calculated, and on the con-sequences of trophy hunting and otherthreats. However, due to constraintssuch as funding, there is a need to con-sider other methods, at least in the short-term, for ensuring that offtake is notdetrimental.

53


It is incumbent upon the huntingarea management to demonstrate thatits lion hunting operations are sustain-ably managed. We would recommendaccepting these methods of demonstrat-ing appropriate levels of sustainability:

t• Monitoring data to show that lion pop-ulations are sustainably managed (thiswould be considered best practice)

t• Data to show that the population ismanaged using age-restricted hunting,aiming for an ideal threshold of >7 yearold males

4.3.2.1 Best-practice: Lion popu-lations are sustainably managed, asdetermined by professional-standardscience-based monitoring ttt

In order to establish directly that trophyhunting of lions is sustainable, a pre-requisite is that reliable, standardised,and independently verifiable surveys areconducted in the hunting area. Possi-ble methods could include spoor counts(Funston et al. 2010), camera-trapping(Cusack et al. 2015) or by individuallion recognition depending on local cir-cumstances. Once the lion populationhas been surveyed the information canbe fed into a harvest rate model, such asthat proposed by Caro et al. (2009), tocalculate an appropriate, scientifically-based quota. Assuming the populationis well managed and no external factors

are jeopardising it, the harvest modelshould ensure that the hunted popula-tion increases or remains stable.

Within an appropriate monitoringsystem, successive surveys will revealtrends in the lion population, and shoulddemonstrate sustainability. If it is in-creasing or stable within the huntingarea (without causing negative impactson any adjacent area), then there shouldbe no grounds for significant concernthat hunting is detrimental. Huntingareas that have achieved these ‘ideal’conditions of an independently stableor increasing lion population would beeligible for best-practice hunting status,and could be advertised as such to re-sponsible hunters.

4.3.2.2 Age-based harvesting ttt

Two methods have been proposed for im-plementing age-based lion trophy hunt-ing. One model would be to limit hunt-ing to Creel et al.’s (2016) conservativeprescription (i.e. only harvesting >7year old males at a level not exceeding0.5 males per 1,000 km2 – unless there isclear scientific evidence that the popula-tion can sustain a higher offtake withoutsupplementation – with resting periods.As described above, this should carry alow risk of population extirpation and

54

still keep land in the lion estate33).

Alternatively, an option would bethe implementation and enforcementof an adaptive age-based quota sys-tem. Such systems have been trialledin Mozambique’s Niassa National Re-serve and adopted in Zimbabwe, withapparent benefits to lion conservation.Each hunted lion results in points be-ing awarded to (or taken away from) theoutfitter based on the age of the lion,with the aim of rewarding hunters forhunting older males (ideally of >7 years)and penalising them for hunting youngermales.

An example of a possible points-based system (which may have to beadapted depending on the lion popula-tion) is shown in Appendix D.

4.3.2.3 Interim scenario ttt

If a hunting block failed to qualify underthe suggested criteria above, then thearea would not be considered suitablefor importing trophies into the UK untilit qualified for one of them. Mindful ofthe risk of such land being lost from thelion estate, this disqualification might,at the discretion of the UK importing

authorities, be postponed for a graceperiod of up to 3 years under very strictcriteria and annual review by the na-tional committee. For continuation ofthe grace period within those 3 years, themanagers should demonstrate at eachannual review that significant progresshas been made towards implementingthe necessary criteria. While it takestime for changes to take full effect, Zim-babwe has seen marked improvementswith benefits for lion conservation withinthree years so that should be a sufficientperiod for change. During any graceperiod, lion trophy hunting should belimited to a minimum area and age-based quota, such as a maximum of 0.5lions 1,000 km-2 aged >7 years, or sim-ilar precautionary figure calculated tobe locally appropriate. Failure to meetthe required conditions after the graceperiod would result in a moratorium onUK imports from the area until theyare in place. In these circumstances,every effort should be made to ensurethat the land was not lost from the lionestate. This scenario is intended to en-sure minimal detrimental impact on thelion population during the grace period,while incentivising improved manage-ment that will benefit lion conservation.

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

55


4.3.2.4 Dealing with areas which donot meet the desired conditions ttt

Trophy hunting areas whose manage-ment does not meet the conditions setout in the three systems described abovewould not usually be able to importtheir trophies into the UK. In the highlyundesirable event that a hunted lion pop-ulation is declining unsustainably, underany of these systems, and thus thathunting further lions would risk additivemortality and worsening the conserva-tion of lions, then no import permitwould normally be issued. Indeed, undercircumstances where a hunted popu-lation is declining unsustainably besthunting practice would normally notcountenance further hunting until thepopulation was stable, and the strongestpressure should be applied to the opera-tor to remedy the situation. However, weare mindful of a scenario that, althoughperhaps uncommon, could perverselydamage lion conservation. That is, ifthe cessation of lion hunting caused thefinancial viability of the hunting oper-ation to collapse and thereby the landto be converted to agriculture and lost,effectively irretrievably, from the wildlifeestate. Where the risk of this outcomewas imminent, the local auditing com-mittee should look assiduously, on acase-by-case basis, for any interim stepsto forestall the loss of land from thewildlife estate – this being the ultimate

disbenefit to conservation. A judgementwould have to be made, with lion con-servation as the criterion, on whethera short, interim period of grace, per-haps involving a very low quota, wasjustifiable on the grounds of providingsufficient respite to enable the situationto be remedied and the lion populationreturned to a sustainable state and thearea retained for wildlife.

4.3.3 Notes on scale and conditionsof import

4.3.3.1 Recommended scale atwhich criteria are applied ttt

The foregoing criteria should ideallybe applied at the scale of the hunt-

ing area and not the national level .This is because, while exports and im-ports are legally conducted at a na-tional scale, allowing imports only froma country where all operators have im-plemented best-practice hunting woulddisincentivise good operators withina poorly-regulated country and wouldtherefore risk damage to lion conserva-tion. There is already precedent for thisscale of operation – for example, the EUapproved trophy imports from Niassadue its good management rather thanthe whole of Mozambique (Sigsworth,pers. comm.). The exporting coun-try should, via an independent panel

56

of stakeholders, transparently assess itshunting areas and report (with requi-site proof) which ones fulfil the criteriaabove, and the UK Government coulddetermine the scale of imports depend-ing on the extent of compliance.

4.3.3.2 Verification of hunting prac-tices ttt

Each lion-hunting country should havean independent, competent and inclusivecommittee that is tasked with regulatingand enforcing hunting practices. Ideallycommittees of this sort would be over-seen by an independent internationalorganization such as International Or-ganisation for Standardisation (ISO).Their remit should involve the followingcomponents, some of which have alsobeen recommended by Di Minin et al.(2016):

i. Auditing to ensure that lion monitor-ing practices (where they are in place;e.g. for the gold standard scenario)meet the required standards

ii. Setting quotas where necessary, i.e.based on the results of the popula-tion monitoring (for the gold-standardblocks) or based on the adaptive pointssystem

iii. Ensuring that minimal quotas (e.g. of0.5 lions 1,000 km-2 or less for low-density areas) are adhered to, unlessthere is clear scientific evidence that

the population can sustain a higherlevel

iv. Encouraging certification of hunting-block operators modelled after a well-defined system such as FSC, etc., andwhich should ideally require consider-able investments by the operator inanti-poaching, community benefit pro-grammes etc.

v. Facilitating training of ProfessionalHunters regarding field assessment oflion age (e.g. Miller et al. 2016)and helping set formal appropriatestandards for lion hunts, particu-larly with regard to welfare concerns(e.g. demonstrating adequate evi-dence of competence in shooting andother necessary skills, rapid dispatchof wounded animals, using large-borerifles, no night-hunting, etc.)

vi. Ensuring transparency of the process:there should be full disclosure to thepublic of results and reasons for blockallocations (which should be allocatedin order to maximise the funds avail-able for conservation), results of lionsurveys, results of trophy age verifica-tion trophy inspection, offtake levelsand other relevant information, and allrecords (e.g. of samples for lion age-ing) must be kept for any later inspec-tion

vii. Ensuring compliance, so that the samecriteria are imposed on all block hold-ers, enabling independent observers tobe placed without advance warning on

57


trophy hunts, and ensuring that tro-phies and permits are confiscated ifillegal practices are discovered, andthat operators who break the laws arebarred from future hunting

viii. Verifying the age of trophy hunted an-imals before export. This should bebased on the following information:

t• Hunt report forms confirming in-formation such as the date and lo-cation of the hunt. These formsare also required to be completedfor blocks even if no successful lionhunt is completed in that area thatyear in order to encourage completeinformation and discourage under-reporting.

t• Photos of the lion immediately post-mortem, to allow inspection of arange of indicators of age, e.g.mane development, facial markings

and scars, nose and teeth colour.The photos must be stamped withthe date and time or they would beconsidered ineligible.

t• X-rays of the upper premolar PM2and examination the degree of pulpclosure in that tooth, as this hasbeen shown to be a very accuratemeasure of lion age (White et al.2016). Both the upper premolarsshould be presented to the inspec-tion team to reduce the chance offraud. Presentation of the skull willalso allow wear on the premolarsand canines to be easily judged –this could be an alternative methodof age estimation if an X-ray isnot possible, but all efforts shouldbe made to obtain the X-rays. Itwould also be desirable to take andbank DNA from all hunted lions.

58

5. An overview: Framing trophy hunting inthe context of wider lion conservation

Although many of the topics cov-ered in this report are hotly de-

bated – such as the amount of revenuegenerated by trophy hunting, or its re-placeability with photo-tourism – somepoints are beyond debate. Key amongstthose is that the lion – one of the world’smost iconic species – has undergone se-vere declines in numbers and range overthe past few decades. Lions now re-main in only 8% of their historic range,with fewer wild lions now thought to ex-ist in Africa than rhinos (Bauer et al.2016). Nobody knows how many lionsthere were in Africa a century ago, butthe widely quoted speculation that therewere about 200,000 is a tenfold contrastwith current estimates closer to 20,000(Bauer et al. 2016).

African lion populations are likely tobe to be declining everywhere, exceptin four southern countries (Botswana,Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe;Bauer et al. 2015). The contrast be-tween countries in southern Africa andthe rest of the continent is related totheir lower human population densities,better management budgets and theless damaging impacts on prey abun-dance and lion by-catch of unsustainableand increasingly commercialized bush-meat trade. Furthermore, Packer et al.(2013b) showed that presence of wildlife-

proof fencing, which is more common insouthern Africa, was an important deter-minant of short-term population trends.Awkwardly, the populations that seemto be declining fastest are also those thatare least well-monitored (and probablyhave the least conservation effort), soinadequate data may be shrouding aneven worse situation. However, Bauer etal.’s (2015) population models suggestthat the chance of populations decliningby half over the next two decades is 67%in West and Central Africa and 37% inEast Africa. So it is indisputable thateffective, range-wide lion conservationstrategies are urgently needed to haltthis precipitous decline.

The overarching priority is to se-cure and better manage existing pop-ulations of lions – although there isa pressing need for more surveys oflion populations to assess numbers andtrends. Dickman et al. (in prep.) usedthe latest available data and concludedthat there are only six remaining popu-lations (Selous-Niassa, Serengeti-Mara,Kavango-Zambezi, Greater Limpopo,Katavi-Ruaha and Kgalagadi) with morethan 1,000 lions. These 6 are amongst60 priority areas where lions are far fromsecure, over half of them with fewer than100 lions left. An apt conservation slo-gan, and call to arms, would therefore

59


be: secure the six, and save the sixty.

Rising to this challenge will requireus to secure and better manage existingprotected areas (which form the core oflion populations), establish and moni-tor lion presence and population trendsacross lion range, improve the economicsecurity of local people to reduce theintensity of bushmeat poaching, and en-sure that people have some power overwildlife on their land and receive suffi-cient economic benefits from their pres-ence to outweigh any costs and incen-tivise their protection.

These steps cannot be taken by con-servationists alone – they will requireeffective collaboration across a huge di-versity of stakeholders, including pro-tected area managers, development ex-perts, economists, national and localgovernments, and those people who livewith lions on their land every day. Mostimportantly, enacting real change ata range-wide scale will require a levelof funding that is orders of magnitudehigher than that allocated to wildlifeconservation today. For example, Pan-thera et al. (2016) estimate that justeffectively managing all protected areaswithin current lion range would requirean annual budget of at least US$1.25 bil-lion – and many lions live outside thoseprotected areas, very many of them ontrophy hunting concessions.

Especially because constellations ofthreats may interact, and because the

impacts of each threat may often be dif-ficult to measure, it is hard to be precisewhen ranking them, and the ranking any-way varies from place to place. Nonethe-less, overall the major threats to lionsare the loss and degradation of habitat,the loss of prey, and conflict with peo-ple over livestock, and those pressuresare exacerbated when the lion popula-tions being affected are small, isolatedand poorly managed, as is often the case(IUCN 2006a, b; Henschel et al. 2014).Experts agree that – certainly at a na-tional and regional scale – trophy hunt-ing ranks low amongst the threats tolion populations (IUCN 2006a, b), andthat it can, perhaps counter-intuitively,have positive impacts through habitatprotection and funding national wildlifeagencies (Di Minin et al. 2016; IUCN2016). The fact that trophy hunting oc-curs in an area does not necessarily makeit a threat to the lion population there,although it can be.

So, trophy hunting can be a locallyimportant threat to lion conservation,and should be fiercely regulated to avoidthis. A broader perspective, however,ranks trophy hunting generally not inthe first division of threats to lion conser-vation. Scanning the horizon, the great-est threats over the next few decadesare likely to descend from the increas-ing footprint of a human population setto double, or more, by 2050. With thisperspective, the real challenge for theUK Government, and the community ofthose concerned for this iconic species

60

(and all the species for which it is an am-bassador), is to develop holistic conserva-tion strategies likely to require long-termpartnerships with stakeholders across

the world, chiefly the Governments andlocal people in countries that still man-age lions.

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

So, finally to take stock, why is tro-phy hunting of lions a topic of concern toconservation? Because lions are charis-matic top predators, already classifiedas threatened or endangered (dependingon the area) by the IUCN and demon-strably declining fast in parts of theirrange, and trophy hunting is an obviousconcern because it involves killing them.There are two categories of reasons whythis may attract the attention of con-servationists and wider society. First,the killing of individuals of a threatenedspecies for sport may be ethically unac-ceptable to some people and for thosethat hold this as a moral absolute, tro-phy hunting of wild lions (and, obviously,farmed lions) will be ruled out. Sec-ond, for those who could countenance

sport hunting of a threatened species,perhaps on utilitarian grounds of secur-ing a greater good to conservation suchas habitat protection (Macdonald et al.2016b), the killing of lions nonethelessraises two obvious fears of over-harvestand thus unsustainability. First, lionsare difficult to count and therefore har-vests may be miscalculated and, anyway,there is an incentive to over-harvest forshort-term profit, and documented ev-idence shows that this happens (some-times with dire consequences that havedrawn a comparison with strip-mining;Packer 2015). Trophy hunting is moststraightforwardly34 acceptable to conser-vation if it is demonstrably sustainable(it should also adhere to high standardsof animal welfare), and demonstrating

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

61


its sustainability requires adequate dataon lion numbers and their ages, ergotrophy hunting is straightforwardly ac-ceptable only where lion numbers aremonitored – and there are direct andindirect methods of doing this.

The most strongly evidenced benefitof trophy hunting to lion conservation isthat it gives lions monetary value, whichcan provide a marginal economic advan-tage to keeping some land under wildlifeuse that would otherwise more profitablybe converted to other uses and therebylost from the lion estate (at a time whenthis is already shrinking perilously). Allelse being equal, there might be no dif-ference in the conservation outcome iflions are given the necessary monetaryvalue by trophy hunting or by some othermeans (for example, some form of inter-national payment to encourage coexis-tence; Dickman et al. 2011). However,all else is often not equal; killing ani-mals that are members of complex soci-eties where they will be survived by sen-tient companions capable of behaviouraland psychological perturbation, may con-tribute to a mood in at least some sec-tions of society that, even if sustainableand a benefit to conservation, huntinglions for sport is a recreation that is notcompatible with 21st-century civilization.A plausible speculation is that this opin-ion will soon prevail (notwithstandingclear cultural differences between Eastand West, North and South). Insofar asthis creates pressure for a ban on trophyhunting it also risks unintended conse-

quences for lion conservation if it causesthe marginal value of land previouslyretained under wildlife use for huntingto fall below that for non-wildlife uses(such as farming), and thus the lion es-tate to be diminished. Anticipating thatpossibility, there is an urgent imperativeto find alternative means of giving thosethreatened parts of the lion estate suf-ficient monetary value to prevent theirdegradation. Indeed, the report stronglyre-emphasises Bauer et al.’s (2015) con-clusion that unless political and fundingcommitments are scaled up to addressmounting levels of threat, lions may dis-appear from most of Africa.

It seems that public opinion, in manyplaces, is strongly against trophy hunt-ing, particularly of threatened species(Macdonald et al. 2016a). This createspressure for a ban on trophy hunting,but also risks unintended consequencesfor lion conservation. This report ac-knowledges that where there is evidenceof scientifically-based regulation that isstrictly enforced, lion hunting can con-tribute to lion conservation, and thatthis constitutes a good reason to tolerateit at least on land that might otherwisebe lost to the lion estate. However, so-cietal pressure may stop this recreation;were this to happen before some alterna-tive means of giving lions monetary valuewere in place (where photo-tourism can-not do so), there are grounds to be fear-ful of serious detriment to the lions’ al-ready deteriorating conservation status.In this regard, Macdonald et al. (2016a)

62

contrast the consequences of a jump ver-sus a journey: a precipitate jump toending lion trophy hunting might riskgrave unintended consequences for thespecies’ conservation, consequences thatcould be avoided by a carefully plannedjourney to that end. An obvious, andperhaps the only plausible, mechanismto achieve this would be some form ofinternational payment to encourage co-existence with lions; to the nearest or-der of magnitude, and considering onlythe costs of substituting other land usesfor trophy hunting, this could cost asmuch as the US$1.25 billion estimatesby Panthera et al. (2016) adequately to

safeguard current protected areas for li-ons. For perspective, and while mindfulthat society may face parallel expensesin funding custody of other global com-mons, the amount needed seems lessdaunting when we realise that US$12billion is spent annually in Europe andthe US on perfume alone35. Until sucha mechanism is in place, the risk to lionconservation of a complete ban on tro-phy hunting is too great to take, butin the meantime the establishment ofstrictly enforced regulations to ensurethat trophy hunting does benefit lionconservation is a priority.

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

63

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

Documents

Report on Lion Conservation - WildCRU · Report on Lion Conservation ... A.3 If trophy hunting is permissible in principle, what aﬀects this? . . . . . . . . 67 v. Lion Conservation