Grand Challenges 2014 Background notes from speaker Will Fox INTRODUCTION

This note aims to examine the on going loss of four key large animal species (mega-herbivores and predators) in Africa and considers the effects of those losses on ecosystems and local communities. Its intention is not only to offer information and real life examples, but moreover to stimulate debate on the issues mentioned. Please be aware that some of the images displayed are of a graphic nature and show animals that have been killed by poachers. For the purposes of this report I will focus on four key indicator species: Mega-herbivores Rhino and Elephant Large Predators Lion and Leopard

DEFINITION

Mega-herbivores are bulk feeders and essential to keeping biodiversity levels high and maintain habitat structure.

Large predators are the top of the food chain and help to keep local prey populations under control, which subsequently keeps the entire ecosystem balanced. The loss of large predators within their natural habitat has a complex consequence for the associated ecosystem, resulting in the large-scale growth of prey species populations. In turn the effects of the resulting greater numbers of prey animals (mainly smaller herbivores), influences the rest of the food chain and threatens to exhaust the food supply.

CAUSES

For the purposes of this note I will consider three causes of species losses

Poaching Habitat loss Big Game Hunting

POACHING

Poaching is as severe and widespread an issue today as it has been for the last forty years. Notwithstanding the steps that have been take to curb the poaching of exotic and endangered species; many countries are still faced with a growing incidence of the poaching within their national parks and reserves.

It this context, poaching should be defined as the illegal killing of endangered or protected species. Including shooting, trapping, or taking of game from a place where such practices are specifically forbidden.

The motivation for poaching can be classified into three root causes:

Food - Hunting food by underprivileged communities Cultural - For example the use of animal parts in traditional medicine Economic Removal of animals or parts for significant financial gain, often including

a sophisticated supply chain.

In terms of large species, poaching is principally for economic and cultural reasons. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reports that illegal wildlife trade is driven by high profit margins. The defined motivators often overlap as many animals are poached for economic reasons that are driven by cultural demand.

Some numbers

22,000 African Elephants were poached in 2012 or 7.4% of the known population.

1,004 African Rhino were poached in 2013 or 4% of the known population.

The loss of endangered species due to poaching has a significant impact on the ecosystems in which these animals live. In the event of complete species extinction, these effects pose the threat of being highly detrimental and irreversible.

For the purposes of this note my focus is on terrestrial species, however another prime example of ecosystems that are on the verge of collapse due to poaching and the illegal trade of wildlife are marine habitats. There are evident similarities between the cycle of destruction seen from mammal poaching, and the marine cycle. Which begins with the overfishing of certain fish populations, such as tuna, marlin, cod and shark. The demand for the later results in particularly high returns for the fishermen. In many cases, these species are not fished in sustainable ways and their losses adversely affect delicate and sensitive ecosystems.

THE POACHER

The motives for poaching game/wildlife can be divided into two distinct categories:

1) Those who are taking animals for food (often referred to as bush meat). When considering the overall affects of large scale poaching it would be easy to pay little attention to the smaller operator, who is often motivated by poverty more than cultural reasons and as such invokes sympathetic consideration by the general public. However, the methods used by the bush meat poacher to kill animals are often indiscriminate. Snares set for Antelope can also kill other non-target animals including endangered species. I have removed several leopards from snares that have been set by bush meat poachers.

As can be seen by examining the larger scale poaching that is prevalent in Africa, it is often the case that there is a direct correlation between poverty and poaching.

2) Commercial poaching. Very similar in operation to any other form of organised crime, this form of poaching is not restricted to the operator on the ground, but extends through a sophisticated and profitable distribution network to the end user. The motivation for involvement in this form of poaching is generally straight forward, in that those involved receive payment. Whether that is in providing information on the whereabouts of a particular animal, or shooting and dismembering that animal, or transportation.

However we can also include poaching for traditional medicine (or muti) in this category as the poacher is generally servicing an illegal commercial requirement.

Whatever view or reference one uses in determining if the motivation of the poacher justifies his or her actions, it is also important to understand local perceptions, beliefs and economic realities. Here are some actual instances that are provided to generate debate in this regard:

EXAMPLE 1

In the spring of 2009 I collared a female leopard with a GPS tracking collar as part of the leopard research program I manage. Never an easy task, this involved three weeks work for a team of four people, plus the costs of a GPS tracking collar, vets fees, permits etc. Total cost 14,000. This was carried out, as we desperately need more data on the behaviour of free roaming leopards outside of formally protected areas. Such that we can determine the affects of the current quota of big game hunting permits allowed by CITES i.e. is big game hunting significantly reducing the number of leopards and if so how can we need to challenge CITES using scientific data.

That leopard was named Jennie by one of our sponsors and her GPS collar gave us good data for four months. At which point we noticed that the collar location did not move for three days. When we went to that area which was on a livestock farm, we found the leopard dead in a snare and the poacher (an employee on the farm), admitted setting the snare for bush meat. Law enforcement officers interviewed the poacher but as his stated intent was to snare for bush meat he could not be charged under criminal law and therefore was not arrested. He continues to snare for bush meat and the landowners turn a blind eye to his illegal activity.

EXAMPLE 2

There is a local belief that because a vulture can fly so high (incidentally 747 pilots have seen them at 35,00 feet), they can see into the future. That belief also extends to enable the individuals who consume dried vulture brains to be able to see into the future and therefore determine the Lotto, or soccer results i.e. bet or gamble on the results.

To service this need, the poachers set out a poisoned carcass to attract vultures. The poison is commonly known as two step, because the vulture makes only two steps after eating from the poisoned carcass. It is not uncommon to find the decapitated bodies of a hundred or more vultures at such sites. But it is not only vultures that scavenge from carcasses in Africa. Therefore the poacher (who leaves the carcass in the bush) will often also kill many other species from rodents to lions.

EXAMPLE 3

As will be explained in greater detail later in this note, Rhino poaching is at an epidemic level in South Africa. 1,004 Rhino were reported as been poached for their horns in 2013. Rhino horn is currently fetching around $90,000/kilo on the black market, making it more valuable than gold.

Using local information (often provided by employees of a particular game reserve), the poachers operate in a gang. They track and shoot their prey (although often just disabling the animal) then hack off the horns and upper jaw, often leaving the animal to die at some later point.

A point in case happened in 2011 on a reserve I lived on at that time. At around 18:00 on a Saturday night I heard automatic gunfire in the distance. I quickly drove to that place, arriving at the same time as my neighbour. He fired at the poachers who were busy trying to cut off the Rhinos horn. The poachers thankfully fled (empty handed), however even though we called in a local vet the Rhino died six hours later. I had known that particular bull Rhino for many years, so you can imagine how I felt at that time.

But contrast that with the disappointingly common scene in Mozambican villages sited along the eastern boundary of the Kruger National Park. Here the poachers march in celebration into the village holding aloft the Rhino horn they have poached. The villagers are over joyed at their success and for good reason. If one looks around that village you will see a new schoolroom has been built and an adhoc clinic is now serving the needs of the village. The funds from Rhino poaching mean their children are now getting some education and treatment when they get sick. Such are the realities of Africa. Those villagers have no way of benefiting form that animal being alive.

TACKLING THE PROBLEM

Despite the widespread prevalence of poaching, there are initiatives in place that are working towards the goal of controlling the practice. Individual countries are passing laws and regulating the activities going on within their national parks and nature reserves.

The WWF identifies a number of governments that are cooperating with the global ivory ban. In 1990, when the ban was first implemented, the Kenyan government destroyed its ivory stockpile as an act of good faith and has since cooperated with a number of NGOs to work towards saving its elephant and rhinoceros populations from poachers by cracking down on poaching and constructing wildlife reserves.

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has engaged in a number of global initiatives to educate populations that live in fragile ecosystems prone to poaching. Their goal is to provide information regarding the vulnerability of ecosystems and what will happen if poaching continues unchecked. Furthermore, these programs also seek to educate people about how they can help stop poaching. This includes simple action, such as refusing to purchase illegal wildlife parts. Their claim is that if the demand disappears, there will be no incentive to poach.

Poaching is a serious issue, and one that cannot be diminished overnight. It will require cooperative efforts internationally, tougher legal sanctions on perpetrators and the education of the public on the effects that poaching has on the health of ecosystems. The health of the earths ecosystems is paramount, as so much depends on them, from healthy economies that include ecotourism and industry all the way to general human welfare. Environments will continue to be degraded through poaching and illegal wildlife trade though, unless action is taken now. Whether this will happen, remains to be seen. One thing is for certain is that until local people can see a greater value in these animals being alive; the inducement for them to poach will remain.

HABITAT LOSS

Habitat loss is probably the greatest threat to the variety of life on this planet today and poses the greatest threat to species. The world's forests, swamps, plains, lakes, and other habitats continue to disappear as they are harvested for human consumption and cleared to make way for agriculture, housing, roads, pipelines and the other hallmarks of industrial development.

85% of all species described in the IUCN's Red List (those species officially classified as "Threatened" and "Endangered") are currently at risk as a result of habitat loss.

Increasing food production is a major agent for the conversion of natural habitat into agricultural land. Forest loss and degradation is mostly caused by the expansion of agricultural land, intensive harvesting of timber, wood for fuel and other forest products, as well as overgrazing. Around half of the world's original forests have disappeared, and they are still being removed at a rate 10x higher than any possible level of regrowth. As tropical forests contain at least half the Earth's species, the clearance of some 17 million hectares each year is a dramatic loss.

As the human population and need for resources grows, then the problem of habitat loss and resultant affects on wildlife are accelerated. Of-course this is a subject is very often raised in examining conservation issues. We are all familiar with the deforestation in the Amazon and

its affects, or the land grab for oil exploration. And while it would be easy to consider this as a third world issue (which in general are where the current issue lie), we should also not fail to look a little closer to home.

EXAMPLE 4

On occasion I am called to talk to livestock ranchers and farmers in South Africa, on the subject of habitat use in relation to human conflict with predators. The audience is generally made up of white Afrikaans ranchers who are often not that keen on the idea of listening to an Englishman preaching to them about conservation. When one considers the Afrikaans culture and what some may consider as the less than admirable behavior of the British especially during the Boer war, their initial attitude is very understandable. And so, in order for me to be able to get to the real issues and look for solutions, I first need to win my audience over. Thankfully that is relatively easy to do by a simple statement. It is because I am English that I have the credentials to talk to them about habitat loss and its affects. Because it can be argued that there is no better example of how to destroy a natural environment for human expansion than the United Kingdom. Even if we only look at recent history, the UK once had a large predator (the wolf), which we hunted to extinction. We had forests that we chopped down to support industry and ship building; we changed the landscape by planting arable crops to feed a growing population. And then we explored the world and created an Empire bringing back curious alien species, which then invaded the island. So (as I say to the Afrikaans audience who are now at least listening to me), if you want to know how to screw up a natural environment, then look at Great Britain. Of-course that speech is intended for a purpose, but nevertheless it does make for reflection and perhaps a review of the hypocrisy of dictating to the third world?

EXAMPLE 5

I regularly visit a wildlife rehabilitation center in South Africa that provides tours to tourists in an effort to raise some funds for their work. At the start of every tour they give a 30 min briefing on their work and local wildlife conversation. One question they always ask the audience is how many of them are vegetarians. As you might expect normally around 20% put their hands up, probably imagining that they will be congratulated. But that isnt the intent. In fact the speaker will then go on (in a tongue in cheek way) to castigate vegetarians as the destroyers of habitat. Their point being that in order to plant vegetables, one has to destroy the natural bush, but if you eat meat i.e. venison, then you keep the bush in tact. Moreover they (still with tongue firmly in cheek) suggest that if you are a vegetarian for animal welfare reasons, then maybe thats not working the way you planned. Sure its simplistic, but the intent is to raise awareness of the responsibility for habitat loss and stimulate debate in an entertaining way.

EXAMPLE 6

Burning grassland is an all too familiar picture in many parts of Africa. Of-course naturally occurring bush fires are part of nature, but there is also a need to deliberately set controlled fires as a direct result of habitat loss for wildlife. The greater landmass of Africa is no longer the domain of bulk grazers such as Rhino, Elephant and Buffalo. These bulk grazers played an integral part in keeping grass growth to acceptable levels. Where bulk grazers are present the natural fires that occur are often defined as cold fires. In that as a result of grazing there is a low concentration of fuel for a fire, which moves quickly across the ground and in real

terms causes no harm to trees and bushes, indeed often that fire is part of the regeneration process. However in the absence of bulk grazers, grasses often become moribund and as a result provide fuel for hot fires. Which burn more slowly and more intensely, causing damage to trees and bushes, which is an ecological disaster. To avoid this many landowners have to force burn their grassland in controlled sections to avoid the risk of hot fires and to stimulate new growth. This is an expensive and labour intensive activity.

BIG GAME HUNTING

Big Game, or Tourist hunters kill around 1,520 elephants, 3 800 buffalo, 650 lions and 2,600 Leopards, 125 Rhino per year.

The annual turnover for big game hunting in Africa is estimated at $US200 million, half of which is generated in South Africa and the rest in the other countries of Sub Saharan Africa. The contribution to the countries' GDP is 0.06% for the 11 main big game hunting countries.

Today in sub-Saharan Africa, very large areas are used for big game hunting (approximately 1.4 million km), which is 22% more than all national Parks of the region. Therefore, it is an important component of African rural landscapes.

The economic results of big game hunting are low. Land used for hunting generates much smaller returns than that used for agriculture or livestock breeding. In most circumstances the local people who are involved in big game hunting are employed as labourers or trackers and do not share the profits that are enjoyed by the outfitters and tour operators who have organized the hunting package. Returns for local populations are insignificant, and cannot prompt them to change their behaviour regarding poaching and agricultural encroachment. The number of salaried jobs generated (15,000 all over Africa) is low considering that 150 million people live in the eight main big game hunting countries, and that hunting takes up 16.5% of their territory.

It is probably true to say that the subject of big game hunting is one that readily invokes an emotional response from many people who in turn are provided with an identifiable target i.e. the hunter who kills for sport to put a trophy on the wall of his/her home back in the USA or Europe. While I personally struggle with the motivation and methods used in big game hunting (not to mention the effects of species loss), big game hunting is legal, is regulated, and it would be fair to say that many hunting organizations also contribute towards conservation in terms of wildlife management. Specifically those who cull Antelope where over grazing or over browsing occur and natural predation is not maintaining the correct balance.

As the manager of a leopard research project I have particular difficulty with big game hunters who hunt leopards. That industry is regulated by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). CITES grant around 2,654 leopard hunting permits each year, a number that is difficult to understand when we dont know the number of leopards there are in the wild. Taking aside the wish to kill such a magnificent creature for sport, if we dont know how many Leopards there are, then how can we determine how many can be harvested?

There is however evidence to support big game hunting in extreme circumstances. For example dangerous game that kills humans, in some cases threats to livestock from rouge animals and culling to reduce over population and pressure on a system.

EXAMPLE 7

A good example of this would be the Kruger National Park. Estimates vary on the capacity of Elephants that the Kruger Park can sustainably manage. But the current generally accepted figure is 7,000-9,000. Although I should mention that there is an alternate body of opinion that suggests that could be much higher.

There are currently around 17,500 Elephants in the Kruger Park. Which although a big area, is fenced and surrounded on most of its boundary by human habitation in one form or another. Elephants are particularly destructive animals in terms of there browsing and to some extent grazing behavior. And so an over population of Elephants can upset the ecological balance.

So this induces the following question:

Would the Kruger Park authorities be justified in culling 8,000-10,000 Elephants by enabling controlled big game hunting for profit, thus raising funds for other conservation projects and research for the overall good of the Park?

Its key to note that as much as some people would see the killing of an Elephant as sacrosanct, the opposite can often be said for local communities who dont always hold the same emotional view and often just see the Elephant as a source of meat.

Its a complex picture and as with most wildlife conservation matters, is affected by emotion and politics, which while of possible benefit to an individual animal may not always be for the benefit of the species as a whole.

CANNED LION HUNTING

One aspect of big game hunting that in particular has come under some recent scrutiny is that of canned lion hunting. This is the practice of holding captive bred lions in fenced enclosures to be shot by paying customers as a trophy. I will deal with some of the facts surrounding this practice later in this note, however in terms of understanding the motivation of some hunters and the associated industry that feeds on that motivation it may be worth adding some more information at this point. In essence the canned lion hunt takes away any doubt or risk for the hunter (client). He/she is guaranteed a kill and can even select which lion they would like to kill before arriving in the country form a catalogue of photographs. One may easily condemn that practice but one should then also condemn the industry that supplies lions for canned hunting.

Around Africa a significant number of petting zoos and animal sanctuaries provide paying tourists and paying volunteers with the chance to cuddle lion cubs and even walk with tame adolescent lions. Of-course there is an obvious attraction in wanting to hold a cute lion cub, but the bottom line is that in most cases this can only result in the lions demise. As has been seen in South Africa over the last few years, once those lions grow to be a size which is unmanageable i.e. no longer safe to be to close to paying guests, they become economically unviable to keep. As they cant be rewilded, they are moved to canned lion hunting establishments. Imagine how the paying guest would feel if he/she knew the outcome of their visit to the petting zoo.

Furthermore it is an interesting exercise in understanding our behavior towards wildlife conservation to examine the motives, justification and resultant effects of both the tourist (who enjoys cuddling a lion cub while in Africa), and the hunter (who wants a trophy for his/her wall at home).

HUNTING FOR CONSERVATION

It is also important to examine the use of hunting in conservation. A recent comprehensive study ordered by the IUCN on big game hunting as a tool for conservation in Africa,

determined that hunting used to have, and in certain cases still has, a key role to play in African conservation. Although it is not certain that the conditions will remain the same. As a general statement, the protection of the environment is increasingly seen as for the global good and therefore it cannot be used exclusively for individual interests or those of a minority.

In modern protected areas, hunting areas still have an important role to play in conservation i.e. that of financing and maintaining the peripheral areas around conservation blocks. Those who are doing the best in terms of maximizing the economic value from hunting are Namibia and Botswana. And yet, Botswana decided that better value would be obtained from running safaris and they closed down hunting in the Okavango in 2009. This option should be at minimum studied in more depth by other countries. The socio-economic contribution and the contribution to development of big game hunting are virtually nil. Therefore, the main overall interest of big game hunting lies in its value as a conservation tool. It is this value that should be increased by better integrating hunting into conservation strategies.

RHINOS

As of the 2012/2013 consensuses there are 5,055 Black Rhino and 20,400 white rhino left. Rhinos were once abundant throughout Africa and Asia with an approximated worldwide population of 500,000 in the early twentieth century. However, despite intensive conservation efforts, poaching is dramatically increasing. The Western black rhino was declared extinct by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) in 2011, with the primary cause identified as poaching. In fact, all five remaining rhinos species are listed on the IUCN Redlist of threatened species, with three out of five species classified as critically endangered.

Mega-herbivores such as the rhinoceroses are essential to keeping biodiversity levels high, in areas where these large seed-dispersing animals have disappeared; research has found that biodiversity declined. Other herbivores can't replace these large grazers.

South Africa is home to 83% of Africas rhinos and 73% of all wild rhinos worldwide. However rhino poaching has reached a crisis point, and if the killing continues at current rates it is likely that we could see rhino deaths overtaking births in 2016-2018, meaning rhinos could go extinct in the very near future. In 2013 poachers killed a staggering 1,004 Rhinos in South Africa. This poaching is by no means isolated to South Africa; rhino poaching is surging across the entire African continent, and is a constant threat to the smaller rhino populations in Asia.

Illegal trade in rhino horn predominantly fuels this poaching. Globalisation and economic growth has made it easier to establish illegal trading routes. The current poaching crisis is attributed to the growing demand for rhino horn in Asian countries, mainly China and Vietnam, where horn is believed to have medicinal properties.

As with many forms of handling wildlife products, local people involved with rhino poaching do not normally see the rich rewards that are claimed by the illegal wholesaler and retailers. However the rewards are significant enough to induce local people to become involved, even if they are taking the highest risk in terms of the sometimes-deadly results of being caught by anti poaching units.

To put some figures to this, as previously stated rhino horn is fetching around $90,000/kg on the Asian black market. However, although the local ground operators see only a fraction of this, in real terms even those rewards are significant. For example, an individual who tips off the poachers with real time data on the whereabouts of a rhino can expect to be paid around $1,000, which equates to about four months wages for many unskilled labourers. Payments to the guys who shoot and dismember the rhino are less easy to determine, but I heard recently of one poacher who bragged he had bought a new .458 rifle, with a value of $2,000. Considering an average rhino horn is around 3.5kg or 315,000 in Asia.

As a side issue, but one that goes someway to highlighting the assumed racial demographic of rhino poachers, was that a small number of white veterinarians have also been arrested in connection with assisting in Rhino poaching.

DEMAND

The common perception that Rhino horn is used as an aphrodisiac is not actually correct.

Ground rhino horn is used to cure many things but not sexual inadequacy. It is probable that this misconception stems from western writers who had only a passing acquaintance with Chinese traditional medicine.

However, even without aphrodisiacal properties, rhino horn is one of the mainstays of Chinese Traditional Medicine (CTM). Those people who use rhino horn to cure medical ailments really believe it works. That being said it is not clear that rhino horn serves any medicinal purpose, but it is a testimony to the power of tradition that millions of people believe that it does.

Since 2007 the demand for rhino horn has significantly increased. Indeed there were only 17 reported incidents of Rhino poaching in South Africa in 2007 compared with 1,004 in 2013. One theory for this sudden increase in demand is the rumours that started in Vietnam suggesting that rhino horn is an effective cure for cancer. However, it is more likely that the surge in demand is simply a realignment of market supply and demand factors.

Since the 1990s Asian countries such as Vietnam and China have experienced rapid economic growth and one would expect the demand for status-related products such as rhino horn to increase with higher levels of disposable income.

We know that poachers are motivated by the prospect of profit. It is fair to say that the greater the expected profit from poaching, the greater the incentive to poach. The same principles apply to illegal traders. Therefore, the extent of poaching and illegal trade will ultimately be determined both by the price that the end user is willing to pay and the expected costs of engaging in illegal activity.

PROTECTIVE MEASURES

In examining the need for protective measures it is worth noting that currently poachers and smugglers typically focus on potential immediate income and in general discount the possibility of getting caught and incurring a penalty sometime in the future. If this probability of being caught is sufficiently low, then even very severe penalties (including death) may be insufficient to deter poachers. Sadly evidence suggests that currently the rhino horn markets shows that the ultimate probability of punishment is indeed typically very low.

Undoubtedly there is a need for increased enforcement effort. Measures to physically protect live rhinos act as a far better deterrent than after-the-fact law enforcement measures such as pursuing poachers, smugglers and illegal traders. Unfortunately, effective physical protection of rhinos tends to be costly.

Measures such as increasing penalties (fines and prison sentences) have been seen to backfire, as judges typically demand better evidence to successfully prosecute more serious cases. The current case backlog and low prosecution rate in South Africa typifies the limitations of this approach.

On the consumer side, the Vietnamese market appears to present a serious enforcement challenge, given the alleged permeating involvement of high-ranking officials. However, even if global political pressure did succeed in forcing Vietnam to adopt and enforce far tighter domestic regulations, the deeply embedded belief in traditional medicine is likely to take consumer precedence.

Conventional wisdom suggests that demand for CTM should decline with increasing affluence and the gradual global pressure on Asian governments and society i.e. convince Asian consumers that the use of rhino horn cannot be scientifically proven to work as medicine and it is unethical to poach or farm rhinos. However this assumes that rhino horn has no medicinal value, a fact that is not universally accepted in Asia and does not negate deeply held cultural beliefs

A general publicity campaign may have an impact on some consumers, but is unlikely to reach those paying the extraordinary high prices that are driving the poaching problem. Those people are determined to acquire horn for reasons based on deeply held convictions about medicinal value.

Establishing an appropriately structured legal trading regime for rhino horn may provide a more effective and lasting solution to the rhino-poaching problem.

Finally, I was asked recreantly why we should conserve rhinos. While I found this a somewhat peculiar question it is nonetheless worthy of at minimum consideration.

As detailed earlier, rhinos help to preserve a balanced ecosystem and that importance is contingent on no other animal being able to fulfil the same role in the ecosystem and the ecosystem being unable to adapt to the loss of rhinos. We cannot know what the negative consequences of the loss of a species on an ecosystem will be. However, whilst we might not know the precise risks to an ecosystem that the loss of a species carries, it is that very uncertainty that provides the requirement to conserve. And if were looking for another reason rhinos as instrumentally valuable they are a means by which we gain enjoyment, much as we would from viewing an aesthetically pleasing artwork or a beautiful sunset, which in turn provides a value in terms of sustainable tourism.

ELEPHANTS

African elephants are found in 37 countries in Africa. Being the largest land animal, a healthy adult elephant has no natural predator. Unfortunately, because of poaching (for its ivory), the number of African elephants is steadily decreasing. As can be seen in the table below (provide by IUCN) it is difficult for an accurate estimate but the IUCN suggested figures are that there are remaining between 470,000 and 690,000 African elephants. In 1930, around 5-10 million elephants roamed the plains of Africa. Now, less than 1% of this figure remains.

2012 SUMMARY TOTALS FOR AFRICA

Data Category Definite Probable Possible Speculative

Aerial or Ground Total Counts 61,683 0 0 0

Direct Sample Counts and Reliable Dung Counts 355,476 25,599 25,599 0

Other Dung Counts 450 64,371 12,081 0

Informed Guesses 13,324 0 17,009 8,382

Other Guesses 5,412 0 0 97,288

Totals 2012 436,345 89,970 54,689 105,670

Totals 2007 472,134 82,913 84,543 51,704

Land use pressure, habitat loss; human elephant conflict, and illegal killing for both meat and ivory continue to pose threats to the long-term survival of elephant populations across Africa. Recent research also points to climate change and the increasing frequency of droughts as a

major threat to elephant populations. Human-elephant conflict in particular continues to pose a serious challenge across much of the range. Long-term land use planning and cooperative management of elephant populations with local communities are required to provide sustainable solutions. A ban on ivory trade was imposed by the CITES in 1989, resulting in populations recovering well until 2008. Since then, countries with elephant populations have twice been allowed to sell stockpiled ivory taken from elephants that died naturally. This is often sited as the reason for the renewed increase in demand for ivory, which is obviously a subjective view.

What can be taken from the most recent analysis from the Elephant Trade Information System is that illicit trade in ivory has greatly increased, reaching the highest level in at least the last 16 years. The frequency of large-scale ivory seizures (more than 800 kg) has also increased, indicating a highly organized illegal ivory supply chain.

A recent report estimates that 22,000 illegally killed elephants were killed in 2012, at a poaching ratethe proportion of illegally killed elephants measured against total populationof 7.4%. Thats much higher than the natural African elephant population increase, which doesnt exceed 5% a year.

The majority of ivory sold illegally (estimated as up to 70%) finds its way to China where there demand from consumers who are willing to pay for illegal ivory, where spikes in poaching trends are strongly related to patterns in consumer spending in that country.

LIONS

Most lions are now found in eastern and southern Africa, where numbers there are rapidly decreasing. Lions have vanished from over 80% percent of their historic range and are extinct in 26 countries. Numbers in the wild have crashed and a census in 2007 recorded less than 18,000. Compare this against figures from 1950 that estimated 400,000 and then in 1990 estimated at 100,00.

Only seven countries, Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe are believed to each contain more than 1,000 lions.

The primary causes of the decline include disease and human interference. In the early 1990s Lions in the Kruger National Park were found to be suffering from Tuberculosis, which was

probably picked up from eating Buffalo that in term had become infected from cattle. The particular disease is unfortunately of European origins. Habitat loss and conflicts with humans are considered the most significant threats to the species. The remaining populations are often geographically isolated from one another, which can lead to inbreeding, and consequently, reduced genetic diversity. Therefore the lion is considered a vulnerable species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),

Following the discovery of the decline of lion population in Africa, several coordinated efforts involving lion conservation have been organised in an attempt to stem this decline. Lions are one species included in the Species Survival Plan, a coordinated attempt by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums to increase its chances of survival. The African lion plan started in 1993, focusing especially on the South African subspecies, although there are difficulties in assessing the genetic diversity of captive lions, since most individuals are of unknown origin, making maintenance of genetic diversity a problem.

An associated element in determining the decline in Lion number in many areas of Eastern Africa is the scarcity of wild prey due to over-hunting by humans. When wild prey is over-hunted, lions are forced to feed on livestock. This drives further conflict with humans in which the lion ultimately loses.

Lions are a vital centre point in many ecosystems. Without them it is reasonable to anticipate the eventual collapse of eco-systems, right down to the water systems, as prey shifts or migrations stop, and species overgraze and destroy the integrity of important vegetation, especially along rivers.

CANNED LION HUNTING

I mentioned canned lion hunting in a previous section, but given the nature of this subject I feel it is worthy of further details. Canned hunting was first exposed in 1997, by the British investigative TV program, the COOK REPORT, since which time it has mushroomed into a big industry with international links. It is the somewhat controversial practice of holding a captive bred lion in a fenced enclosure to be shot by international hunters, who subsequently export the skin/carcass as a trophy.

It is estimated that 6,000 lions are held in the canned lion hunting industry. As detailed earlier, many tourists who enjoy holding a cute lion cub at a lion sanctuary or petting zoo will return home proudly showing off their photographs. What they dont know is that it is likely

that the cute cub in their photograph will eventually be killed in a canned hunt. Only 4 years ago hunters killed an average of 400 captive bred lions, last year an alarming 1,200 lions were killed in legal and illegal hunts. An increase of 200% in just four years! Trophy prices paid for male lions are much higher than that of a lioness. Hunting prices range from about 2,000 - 45,000 for a full maned white lion. In South Africa a number breeding projects still exist with some of them holding as many as 400 lions in a single breeding project.

In the five years to 2006, 1,830 lion trophies were exported from South Africa. However in the five years to 2011, 4,062 were exported, a 122%, and the vast majority captive-bred animals.

In Asia, lion bones have become a popular commodity for healing and traditional purposes. The market is increasing for lion bones for use in CTM to provide medicinal remedies,

LEOPARDS

I have spent much of the last ten years working in leopard research and the resultant elements of conservation in South Africa. So it will come as no surprise that I am no doubt biased towards the conservation of this species.

The leopard, Panthera pardus, is a member of the felidae family. They are the last of the so-called big five to still roam free in South Africa. The other members of that infamous group being Lion, Rhino, Buffalo and Elephant can (with rare exceptions) only be found in formally protected areas (privately owned game reserves and national parks).

Leopards were once distributed across eastern and southern Asia and Africa. But are now found mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and fragmented populations in Asia. The ecological importance of this animal lies in its position at the top of the food chain in most ecosystems.

Little is known about the conservation status of leopards in South Africa and although it is thought that the leopard can survive and adapt to a variety of habitat types it is listed as near threatened by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature).

Leopard numbers in South Africa remain questionable with no true value. In 2005, concerns were raised by the IUCN Population Habitat Viability Assessment workshop that found that leopard populations were smaller than previously thought, that is most definitely a result of

growing human population, and therefore loss of habitat, persecution and hunting.

It is probably the leopards ability to adapt to its surroundings that enables it to survive outside of formally protected areas.

Up until very recently prescribed thinking dictated that a male leopard had a home range or approximately 15,000 hectares (note a home range is different to a territory, the former being an area that the leopard patrols for food and the later being an area the leopard breeds and defends). Furthermore it was assumed that each male leopards home range also held two or more female leopards, which having much smaller home ranges stayed within the 15,000 hectares.

Research over the last ten years has proved this assumption to be incorrect and that leopards will adapt home ranges and territory sizes to the environment and considering the density of the species in an area. For example, I have studied one male leopard (collared with a GPS tracking collar) whose moves on 230,000 hectares, whilst another has a home range of just 600 hectares. The former being a nomadic male that roamed across farmland and even in and out of the Kruger National Park, while the later was a male restricted to a small home range due to a high density of other leopards in the area coupled with a high density of prey species.

An unfortunate result of having insufficient knowledge of leopard numbers and status is that leopards are not protected from hunting. CITES allow 2,654 permits each year for big game hunters to kill leopards. However this is just the visible tip of the iceberg in terms of leopard losses, as they are often shot as vermin by livestock owners. The more law abiding of whom take out a damage causing animal permit with their provincial authority to shoot a certain number of leopards both male and female.

I will detail more about big game hunting of leopards later in this note, but first I think it worthy of examining the livestock owners position in taking out leopards.

Although many livestock ranches cover vast areas compared with United Kingdom farms that have similar numbers of head, they are first and foremost businesses. With many people relying on those business for employment and lifestyle. Any threat to that business (in this case a leopard taking livestock) is often dealt with in an unemotional way, resulting in the need to destroy that threat. While it would be easy to condemn the livestock farmer for his/her actions, in terms of not finding alternate conservation solutions, that is (in my experience) not the way to proceed. If one creates barriers and distrust between the

landowners and conservationists then the chances of conservation success (I would argue for both parties) are greatly reduced. The much preferable and pragmatic route to leopard conservation is to work with the farmers to find solutions to the problem. Those solutions can come in many forms, but the net result must be to protect the predator against the livestock owner while at the same time protecting the livestock owner from the predator.

In examining protection methods here are some key points:

As a general rule the leopard is the apex predator and key element in the food chain. The presence of leopards indicates a healthy ecosystem. Leopards are a density dependent species. If a territorial male is taken out of a system, then the resulting vacuum causes

significant disruption in terms of incoming males causing territorial fights and infanticide.

In terms of cattle ranching, leopards will usually only take young calves up to three months old, after which they are generally too big to warrant the risk.

We have shown that even though a farmer assumes a leopard is responsible for killing livestock, it is not always the case. In 73% of the cases we examined a dead calf (assumed to be killed by a leopard) has died of natural causes or from another predator. The farmers assumption is often based on seeing leopard tracks going to and from the carcass and observations of the eating patterns. However a quick field autopsy of the calf often shows that there are no bite marks or associated scares to the throat and indeed the calf had died naturally and was later scavenged upon by the leopard.

Leopard losses due to big game hunting are controlled by CITES. As stated around 2,654 permits are issued annually for the international export of leopard skins/carcasses for taxidermy. Without sufficient knowledge of leopard numbers it is not possible to accurately determine if this so called harvest is causing an irreparable depreciation of leopard numbers. However it would seem logical to suggest that without understanding the number of leopards it is not reasonable to allocate a quota to be shot under license for sport.

The IUCN classification for the species states:

Leopards have a wide range and are locally common in some parts of Africa and tropical Asia. However, they are declining in large parts of their range due to habitat loss and fragmentation, and hunting for trade and pest control. These threats may be significant enough that the species could soon qualify for Vulnerable under criterion A.

Therefore it would be reasonable to suggest that big game hunting of leopards requires stringent review by CITES.

LEOPARD HUNTING

However, we should also recognized that big game hunting of leopards offers economic benefits to a small but nevertheless determined, number of people. The total revenue for a leopard hunting safari is somewhere between $15,000 and $35,000, depending on factors such as the size of the hunting group, length of stay in the country etc. And in practical terms those loss of earnings need to be replaced by alternate income sources. It is incumbent on conservation organizations to (at minimum) enable these alternate measures.

In terms of understanding the nature of this form of big game hunting, it is worth understanding the standard method for leopard hunting. A bait (leg of an Antelope) is placed in a tree that provides good access for a shot. Indeed a number of baited trees will probably be used by the hunting outfitter in preparation for the hunters arrival to increase the probability of success.

When the time is judged to be right, the hunters lie in wait in a hide (during dark hours) until a male leopard visits that bait. The hunters then have an opportunity to illuminate the cat using a high-powered spot light and take the shot.

As more high tech equipment becomes available then leopard hunting has evolved to increase the chances of success for the hunter. Night vision equipment and advanced microphones that can detect a leopards movement are in some cases being used.

PROTECTION

The need for data on the numbers of leopards is self-evident. Without scientifically generated data to model leopard numbers, we cannot reasonably expect the authorities to address leopard management in a different way. There is also the need to work in parallel in understanding the issues faced by livestock owners and coming up with solutions to support them in living alongside leopards, indeed all predators. Much work is already been done on this element and initiatives such as the use of Anatolian guard dogs to protect livestock have had good success.

SOCIAL MEDIA A TOOL FOR CONSERVATION

The advent of social media has provided another valuable tool for conservation. If not at a local level then with the authorities that determine wildlife management policy. I was involved with a great example of the use of social media four years ago when one of the leopards we researched was shot by a big game hunter under CITES license.

I should state that the hunter was operating legitimately and even sent us a fax picture of the leopard that was killed.

We knew that leopard quite well and had named him Warrior, due to all the scars he had on his face from many territorial battles over the years. You might understand that I was incensed not only at the loss of another leopard, but that the provincial authorities had endorsed the hunt. Remonstrating at a local level met with no success, and so I turned by attention to CITES.

At first CITES were fairly dismissive of my complaint (after all this had been a legal hunt), it was only after I mentioned that our leopard project had a significant following on social media, most of whom were ladies in the USA, that I gained the upper hand. The ladies on Facebook had formed a group of outraged citizens who were determined to create a scene and stated that they would phone CITES every 5 mins, every day, until we had some action. That threat got the reaction we hoped for. The complaint was referred by CITES back to the South African government department and in turn back to our provincial authority. Who in turn, Im informed, held an emergency workshop to consider the matter and as a result an informal ban was put in place for leopard hunting in our area. Since then we have noted a resurgence in leopard numbers with leopards frequently been referred to as being relaxed when seen by the general public. So in short if you need help in conservation go to Marge Simpson.

THE WAY FORWARD

In February 2014, Governments from around the world met for the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade. Where they vowed to take action on the illegal trade in wildlife.

At the conference at Lancaster House, delegates from 46 different countries and 11 UN organisations signed The London Declaration.

This outlines the steps that need to be taken to stop animal poaching, which governments agreed needs to be treated as a serious crime. The illegal trade in wildlife is worth about $19bn dollars a year. The London declaration states that investigating the links to corruption and organised crime needs to be made a priority.

The 46 countries have also committed to improving cross border cooperation and to strengthening laws and policing.

Speaking at the conference, the UK's Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "The illegal wildlife trade is a global problem and it matters deeply to all of us gathered here today.

"We need to show the world our political commitment at the highest level across the globe to addressing this before it is to late."

Actions from the meeting include:

Treat wildlife trade as a serious crime within the UN convention against transnational organised crime

Address problems of corruption and money laundering related to wildlife crime with legislation - a zero tolerance policy

Strengthen legal frameworks and help law enforcement Better cross-agency mechanisms to deal with wildlife crime Endorsing governments which are destroying wildlife products Renounce governments, which use products from species threatened with extinction

Alongside governmental policies and enforcement, we need also to recognize that conservation organizations have a responsibility to ensure the general public is informed of the facts, if possible without emotion.

We are where we are in terms of habitat loss. With very few acceptations there is no going back. The increases that are expected in the global human population, coupled with the emergence of developing nations as economic powers, will undoubtedly raise more challenges for wildlife conservation in the future.

And therein lies one of the biggest challenges facing wildlife conservation. That of public perception. By its very nature, wildlife conservation induces emotional responses that are often unhelpful in developing pragmatic solutions. Especially when conservationists need public support.

When one works in conservation and especially when dealing with the media and documentary makers there are many issues which are thought to be too real for the general public to accept. As such they are brushed over and watered down to sooth the viewer, it is after all entertainment. From Attenborough to Disney the raw truth of nature has sometimes needed to be sanitized for human consumption. Disney in particular anthropomorphized

animals to the extent that a cartoonist influenced generations as to whether an animals character and behavior is nice or nasty. How many children have watched the Lion King and determined their views on African wildlife from a cartoon?

I recently wrote an article for a travel journal in whose title I used Jack Nicholsons line from the film a few good men. When he shouts from the witness box You cant handle the truth. In a world linked by social media and high-speed communications, we all need to at least understand the truth, because therein lies informed answers.

Poverty in African countries is undoubtedly the key motivator for the operatives on the ground to be involved in poaching. As much as it would be easy to condemn local people for killing animals that are under threat, perhaps even to the point of extinction. Try to put your self in their shoes. In most cases, they consider that that animal serves them no purpose when alive; indeed it is more than likely a threat. So why should they want to keep it alive? And if they can benefit from its death, then why not? Its a win win.

I was discussing this very subject with a local guy the other day; over a glass of what he promised was beer! He looked me in the eye and said, You people came here and killed thousands of our animals for snooker balls and piano keys. And now you tell us we cant take our animals to feed our children. Did my ancestors come to your country and kill your animals? Part of understanding the local culture that he was referring to, is to recognize that that ancestors play a large part in local thinking and decision making.

We must understand that for wildlife to survive it needs a value. Each animal needs a monetary value set against it. That value has to be not only understood by the local people who share that environment, but also they must benefit from the conservation of that animal or species in a meaningful way. Sustainable tourism must evolve further to ensure that local people receive real value form that animals presence. But this is not a one-way street. Local people must also understand that if their future is in sustainable tourism, they must adapt to those changes. Tourism is a service industry that requires a professional approach towards service for the customer. Regardless of race or gender the service provider needs to develop that service professionally, based on sound business principles. Tourism and conservation must work hand in hand for mutual benefit. The role of wildlife tourism must be two fold. To provide an immersive quality experience for the guest. But equally it must support local sustainable tourism initiatives that are developed and managed by local people. If we can get that right, then well all be okay.

Written by Will Fox

Twitter @will_fox

Email: will@pawct.org

Join us in Africa www.researchcam.co.uk