Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Molewas lion bone quota sends the wrong conservation message

The Minster of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, has permitted an


annual sale of 800 skeletons of captive bred lions. Conservation organisations
say the quota has been instituted without proper scientific investigation into
the potential negative impact on wild lion populations, writes ADAM CRUISE

Minster of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, announced last week that a


quota of 800 skeletons of captive bred lions has been set for 2017, allowing
for the continued international trade in lion bones, which may be used as a
substitute for tiger bones in Asia.
The announcement has received widespread condemnation, primarily
because the quota has largely been instituted without proper scientific
investigation into the potential negative impact of the trade on wild lion
populations. The minister was also accused of failing to adequately consult
stakeholders before moving ahead.
The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) believes that the sales of
skeletons from captive-bred lions will reduce the Asian appetite for wild lion
parts in a growing market for exotic products such as tiger-bone wine and
jewelry. Lion bones have lately been sold off as substitutes for tiger bones
since the latter have become extremely rare due to the increase in demand.
Molewa says the export will only be from captive-bred lions and is legal under
the Convention in the Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). Lions in South
Africa are listed under Appendix II which means their products can be traded
internationally but only if the trade will not be detrimental to the survival of
the species in the wild.
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red
Data list, the numbers of African free-range lions have declined by 43% over
the last two decades. It is believed by many accredited conservation NGOs
such as Panthera, the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), the EMS Foundation
and many others that the sale will further exacerbate the decline.
In the media release last week, Molewa stated: The decision on the annual
export quota was reached following an extensive stakeholder consultation
process during which the Department considered all variables, including
scientific best practice. It cannot be said, therefore that this determination
was made arbitrarily or in a non-transparent manner.
Yet, the DEA was accused by the stakeholders of not doing any of that. The
process did not follow extensive stakeholder consultation, nor do they seem to
consider any variables, especially those that werent in favour of trade. In fact,
the Department initially made the decision without any public consultation in
January but were forced to hold a stakeholder meeting to comply with CITES
quota conditions. The meeting, publicly announced on 25 January and held
just one week later, left virtually no time for public comment, submissions or
intervention.
One or the primary objections from many stakeholders is that the impact of
the bone trade has not been adequately determined. According to a statement
put out by a group of South African conservation NGOs, lion bone trade
quotas should be evidence-driven and not determined purely on economics
without proper research into the impact the trade will have on wild lions.
The statement further said the NGOs do not support the commercial captive
breeding of carnivores because it does not contribute to the sustainable,
responsible use of our wildlife resources and, in some cases, may have
negative impacts on the conservation of these species in the wild.
The DEA maintain that the quota was determined following consideration of
scientific research information but this research has been labelled as weak
and inadequate particularly because it conceded that our understanding of
the captive lion breeding industry, and the lion bone trade in South Africa is
limited and that it is not known how the proposed trade quota will affect wild
lion populations The research team was also accused of being biased by the
EMS Foundation, which has submitted formal recommendations against the
quota. The team apparently consisted of someone from SANBI (South African
National Biodiversity Institute), a person from the National Zoological
Gardens, an academic and an economist known for his vociferous support for
the rhino horn trade and farming of tigers.
The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), severely criticized the quota in a
statement last week citing numerous flaws including:
Potential impacts on wild lions
Failure to contribute to sustainable use of wildlife
Links between lion bone and other wildlife crime networks
Lack of community benefit from the captive lion industry
Lion bone trades potential to damage Brand South Africa
Captive breeding is contrary to international trends
Increasing trend towards intensive use of wildlife in SA
DEAs support for captive breading when their mandate is biodiversity
conservation
DEAs failure to conduct a proper public participatory process
DEAs failure to address scientific concerns
The criticism includes whether the government has the capacity to effectively
monitor and enforce trade regulations including permitting, inspections and
export controls; or how the quota will be allocated by province and by
breeder, and what systems will be in place to avoid corruption and bribery.
Michele Pickover, director of the EMS Foundation, says the DEA does not
know how the industry operates, nor do they know who the breeders that sell
bones are and how many bone traders are in operation. Essentially, she
says, the DEA have left it to the lion breeding industry to police itself.
The EMS Foundation submitted a PAIA Request (Request for Access to
Record of a Public Body) for access to the permits, documents and records of
lion breeders and agents. They received three boxes and are currently picking
through the data. Its a big mess, said Pickover, who added theyve already
discovered permits that were issued this year before the DEA had even set the
quota.
Other concerns from EWT and EMS Foundation include whether lion bones
from captive lions will be distinguished from those of wild lions and what
processes need to be in place to prevent leakage from illegal sources to legal
ones. Also, what are the current and predicted future dynamics of consumer
markets and what impact will they will have on the future demand for, and
prices of, lion bones?
The EWT says if these questions cannot be adequately investigated and
addressed, then it is evident that the practice of captive breeding for lion bone
trade should not be considered a viable component of South Africas wildlife
economy. DM

Вам также может понравиться