Assessing potential impacts of trade in trophies imported

Assessing potential impacts of trade in

trophies imported for hunting purposes to

the EU-27 on conservation status of

Annex B species

Part 1: Overview of trade

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

European Commission Directorate General E - Environment

ENV.E.2. – Development and Environment

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

June, 2013

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road

Cambridge

CB3 0DL

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314

Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.unep-wcmc.org

The United Nations Environment Programme

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-

WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment

centre of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost

intergovernmental environmental organisation.

The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years,

combining scientific research with practical policy

advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and

highlight the many values of biodiversity and put

authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre

of decision-making. Through the analysis and

synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the

Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely

information for conventions, countries and

organisations to use in the development and

implementation of their policies and decisions.

UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically

rigorous procedures and services. These include

ecosystem assessments, support for the

implementation of environmental agreements,

global and regional biodiversity information,

research on threats and impacts, and the

development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC. 2013. Assessing potential impacts of

trade in trophies imported for hunting purposes to the

EU-27 on conservation status of Annex B species.

UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

PREPARED FOR

The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of UNEP, contributory

organisations or editors. The designations

employed and the presentations do not imply the

expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part

of UNEP, the European Commission or

contributory organisations, editors or publishers

concerning the legal status of any country, territory,

city area or its authorities, or concerning the

delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The

mention of a commercial entity or product in this

publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP.

© Copyright: 2013, European Commission

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/

Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Overview of trade in Annex B hunting trophies .......................................................................................... 3

Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Reporting issues ................................................................................................................................................ 14

References ............................................................................................................................................................. 15

Annex A ................................................................................................................................................................ 19

Annex B ................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Introduction

2

Introduction

The impact of trophy hunting on species status and the potential conservation benefits from the industry are controversial issues (see, for example, Dickinson et al., 2009; Lindsey et al., 2007; Loveridge and Reynolds, 2006; Lewis and Alpert, 1997; Ginsberg and Milner-Gulland, 1994; Packer et al., 2011). While tightly regulated trophy hunting is recognised as providing revenue and incentives for careful management for a number of species (see e.g. IUCN SSC, 2012; Leader-Williams et al., 2005), concerns have been raised over the distribution of revenue, corruption, transparency of the hunting industry, lack of involvement of communities, and that the effects of hunting on population dynamics and genetics are not entirely understood (Knapp, 2007).

“Based on the belief that well-managed trophy hunting programmes can benefit conservation” (Knapp, 2007), the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations contain provisions for the trade in hunting trophies, under which less strict permit requirements apply to hunting trophies than to other specimens and/or purposes of the same species. Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 and Commission Regulations (EC) No. 865/2006 and (EU) No. 791/2012 lay down the requirements for trade in hunting trophies of Annex B species, which are considered personal effects, if imported into the EU for non-commercial purposes (European Union and TRAFFIC, 2013). Article 7(3) of (EC) No. 338/97 provides derogation for Personal and household effects from the requirements laid down in Article 4 Introduction into the Community, whereby those requirements do not apply to dead specimens and their parts and derivatives, if being imported as personal or household effects. Article 57 of (EC) No. 865/2006 further specifies that the import of personal or household effects, including hunting trophies, shall not require an import permit, provided that export documentation is presented (i.e. either an import or an export permit is needed). The same Article excludes any personal and household effects used for commercial purposes from the derogation in Article 7(3) of (EC) No. 338/97. However, (EU) No. 791/2012 introduces the possibility of authorising specimens of Annex B species introduced as personal and household effects for commercial use, if the specimen was imported at least two years previously and if at that stage the specimen would have fulfilled the conditions for import for commercial purposes.

However, concerns have been raised that hunting trophies for some Annex B species may be traded at unsustainable levels, and that current documentation requirements under EU law for the import of such hunting trophies may be insufficient to prevent subsequent trade. Damm (2008), for example, observed that major hunting operators failed to issue clear warnings where trophy hunting was becoming unsustainable and called upon regulatory and scientific authorities to closely monitor the impact of the industry on game species and immediately act, where required, to ensure that responsible management of trophy hunting outweighs any disadvantages to species conservation.

At the 16th Conference of the Parties to CITES, the EU proposed that Resolution Conf. 13.7 be amended to introduce a requirement for export permits for all hunting trophies, and, although this amendment was not adopted, Parties agreed that export permits would be required for rhino horns and elephant ivory contained in hunting trophies (see CoP 16 Com. II Rec. 8 (Rev.1) and Rec. 12).

Trophy hunting takes place in various ecological, social and political environments and the impact of the industry on target species and the wider context should be monitored and managed accordingly. The EU is an important importer of hunting trophy items globally and is now assessing a possible amendment of the EU provisions, to ensure that the sustainability of trade in hunting trophies into the EU is adequately monitored and that the subsequent use of these items can be better tracked. The introduction of a requirement for import permits for the first introduction of hunting trophies of Annex B specimens (all or selected species/populations) into the EU and other amendments are being discussed in this context (Summary of Conclusions, ManCom May 2013).

This document is the first of a two-part report, which provides information to support SRG decision-making on the regulation of trade in Annex B hunting trophies. The data presented here gives an overview of trade in hunting trophies imported as personal effects with source code ‘H’ into the EU-27, and is the basis for the intersessional selection of species for case studies. The second part of the report, to be prepared for SRG65, will provide a more in-depth analysis of trophy hunting practices for the selected case studies (with particular focus on the present EU Regulations for hunting trophies), detailed trade data (including other purposes, such as commercial trade) and impacts on population status.

Overview

3

Overview of trade in Annex B hunting trophies

This section provides an overview of trade in hunting trophies into the EU-27 for those species that were imported by EU-27 Member States over the ten year period 2002-2011 as personal effects for hunting purposes (‘H’) (see Methods section for details on data included and conversion factors applied to the data). While many of the species traded as hunting trophies were also traded for other purposes, such as commercial trade (‘T’) and personal purposes (‘P’), trade transactions recorded as purpose ‘H’ represented the majority of trade for this group of species (Figure 1), although these proportions will vary substantially for individual species.

While trophy hunting mainly targets wild specimens (95%), a small proportion are recorded in trade under other sources (Figure 2). In order to assess the impact of trophy hunting on the status of wild populations, only trade reported as wild-sourced, source unknown and source unspecified were considered for further analysis. However, a brief overview of trade in taxa from other sources is provided in Annex A.

A wide range of species were imported either directly or indirectly by the EU-27 for hunting purposes; predominantly mammals (96% of direct imports into the EU-27 comprised mammals, involving 51 species and 5 higher taxa); but also some reptiles (5 species and two higher taxa) and three bird species. Direct trade in mammal trophies imported by the EU-27 represented roughly 14% of global direct trade (as reported by importers). Importer and exporter reported trade figures differed between the EU and the trading partners, with exporting countries recording 50% more mammal trophies than the EU reported importing (20 329 versus 30 118 trophies) (Figure 3).

The most highly traded families imported by the EU-27 for hunting purposes included Equidae (21%), Cercopithecidae (16%) and Ursidae (16%), with a range of other families being traded at lower levels (Figure 4).

Figure 3: Annex B mammal trophies imported directly into the EU-27 (EU) and to the rest of the world (RoW) for trophy hunting purposes 2002-2011, as reported by importers and exporters (trophy items that reasonably add up to one individual have been combined).

Figure 2: Proportion of sources of Annex B trophies imported into the EU-27 for trophy hunting purposes (direct trade, N=22 209) 2002-2011, as reported by importers (trophy items that reasonably add up to one individual have been combined).

Figure 1: Proportion of trade transactions (all terms) by purpose code for those species that were imported for trophy hunting purposes by the EU-27 2002-2011. Based on trade transactions for source W, source unknown and source unspecified.

Figure 4: Number of Annex B trophies by Family imported directly by the EU-27 (EU) for trophy hunting purposes 2002-2011, as reported by importers (trophy items that reasonably add up to one individual have been combined).

54%30%

15%

1% 1%

H

T

P

S

Other

95%

3% 2%

W

R

U

C

F

I

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Nu

mb

er o

f m

am

ma

l tro

ph

ies

RoW exporter rep.

EU exporter rep.

RoW importer rep.

EU importer rep.0

500100015002000250030003500400045005000

Nu

mb

er o

f tr

op

hie

s

Overview

4

The main terms imported by the EU-27 over the period 2002-2011 for hunting purposes were trophies, teeth and skins, with a range of other terms also reported (Table 1 for direct trade; Table 2 for indirect trade). Importer and exporter reported trade volumes varied considerably for some of the top ten terms imported by the EU-27 2002-2011 (Figure 5), particularly for countries other than the EU-27, where exporters reported trade in higher numbers of skins, while importers reported larger quantities of trophies, possibly indicating that many importing countries may more closely adhere to the Guidelines for the preparation and submission of CITES annual reports (CITES Notification No. 2011/019) when reporting trade in hunting trophies than some of the exporting countries.

Table 1: Trophy terms imported directly for trophy hunting purposes (‘H’) into the EU-27 2002-2011, and the corresponding quantities imported into the rest of the world (RoW), and the proportion of global trade imported directly by the EU-27 (%EU rounded to the nearest percent). All figures are based on importer reported trade data.

Term (unit) EU-27 RoW %EU

trophies 13554 113947 11%

teeth 4393 4327 50%

skins 4072 2392 63%

skulls 1957 7479 21%

tusks 1573 3490 31%

feet 904 1647 35%

tusks (kg) 744.45 769.3 49%

skin pieces 593 1825 25%

bones 346 396 47%

ears 155 551 22%

tails 153 254 38%

claws 146 876 14%

bodies 130 146 47%

small leather products 91 427 18%

horns 71 183 28%

large leather products 54 310 15%

carvings 21 38 36%

meat (kg) 20 39981.88 0%

Term (unit) EU-27 RoW %EU

garments 17 1168 1%

derivatives 14 17 45%

ivory pieces 12 6 67%

hair 9 532 2%

genitalia 7 27 21%

ivory carvings 4 86 4%

horn products 4

100%

bone pieces 3 10 23%

sides 3 5 38%

plates 2 1238 0%

hair products 2 4 33%

ears (kg) 2

100%

feet (kg) 2

100%

skin pieces (kg) 1.57 9.6 14%

bone carvings 1 25 4%

skeletons 1 2 33%

bodies (kg) 1

100%

teeth (kg) 1

100%

Table 2: Trophy terms imported indirectly for trophy hunting purposes into the EU-27 2002-2011, and the corresponding quantities imported into the rest of the world (RoW), and the proportion of global trade imported into the EU-27 (%EU rounded to the nearest percent). All figures are based on importer reported trade data.

Term EU-27 RoW %EU

trophies 419 2729 13%

skins 163 81 67%

teeth 110 340 24%

tusks 92 356 21%

skin pieces 92 192 32%

feet 26 167 14%

ears 20 73 22%

Term EU-27 RoW %EU

skulls 14 154 8%

small leather products 10 697 1%

large leather products 7 285 2%

bodies 3 21 13%

ivory carvings 3

100%

tails 2 28 7%

bones 1 13 7%

Figure 5: Comparison of importer and exporter reported trade volumes (direct trade) into the EU-27 and to the rest of the world (RoW) for the ten main hunting trophy terms imported for trophy hunting purposes into the EU-27 2002-2011.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000Exporter rep. RoW imports

Exporter rep. EU imports

Importer rep. RoW imports

Importer rep. EU imports

Overview

5

SRG opinions and suspensions do not apply to Annex B species imported for hunting purposes, and hunting trophies can be imported into the EU-27 even if the SRG has raised concerns about the conservation status of a species/population. Table 3 provides an overview of trade in hunting trophy items from countries for which the SRG had either formed negative opinions or applied an import suspension for those purposes which are not covered by a derogation.

Table 3: Imports of terms into the EU-27 2002-2011, direct or indirect, for trophy hunting purposes for those species-country combinations for which a negative SRG opinion or an import suspension was in place (years covered by either of these restrictions are highlighted). (Note: Some opinions came into effect part-way through the year or only applied to certain populations.)

Taxon Origin 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Crocodylus niloticus Madagascar 1

Moschus moschiferus Russian Federation 1 1

Odobenus rosmarus Greenland1

1

Panthera leo South Africa2 36 15 11 21 20 15 23 32 36 59

Ursus maritimus Canada3 12 9 7 7 29 26 283 21 19 12

1 negative opinion formed 26/09/2006; 2 negative opinion formed 10/11/2011; 3 only applicable to Baffin Bay and Kane Basin subpopulations

An overview of trade in species imported by the EU-27 for hunting purposes over the ten year period 2002-2011 is provided (Table 4); trade patterns have been analysed for individual taxa to assess whether criteria on high volume (taking into consideration the global conservation status) or increases over time are met (see Methods). The table also includes information on global IUCN Red List status, short overviews of potential impacts of (trophy) hunting on population status and recommendations on whether further analysis may be required.

Small quantities of hybrids of the following taxa were also traded for trophy purposes: Bison bison, Damaliscus pygargus and Ovis spp., and some trophy items were reported at a higher taxonomic level: Bovidae spp., Cephalophus spp., Ovis spp., Cercopithecus spp., Chlorocebus spp. and Crocodylus spp.; all of which have been excluded from Table 4.

In terms of quantity, Equus zebra hartmannae, Ursus americanus, Hippopotamus amphibius, Loxodonta africana and Papio ursinus were the main trophy taxa imported by the EU for hunting purposes 2002-2011. Some of these species have been reviewed relatively recently, either for the SRG or as part of the Review of Significant Trade Process.

Five taxa (Kobus leche, Hippopotamus amphibius Panthera leo, Equus zebra hartmannae and Loxodonta africana) qualified under the high volume of trade criterion; none of the taxa which were traded for hunting purposes showed significant increases in trade for hunting purposes.

Two species are categorised as Endangered globally by the IUCN, Necrosyrtes monachus and Balearica regulorum. Both were traded at very low levels, with two and three trophies imported by the EU-27, respectively.

Other species that may potentially be impacted by trophy hunting, either due to their conservation status, concerns about the trophy hunting regimes or due to their population dynamics, include a number of wild sheep and antelopes.

Based on the global conservation status, trade volume, concerns raised in the literature and the time since last review (see methodology section for more details), the taxa recommended for further review are:

Equus zebra hartmannae

Damaliscus pygargus (incl. ssp. pygargus)

Ovis ammon

Ovis vignei

Kobus leche

Overview

6

Table 4: Overview of direct trade in Annex B trophies into the EU-27 2002-2011, as reported by importers, and associated trade to the rest of the world (RoW) (figures rounded to the nearest percent). Indirect trade, as reported by importers, is indicated in brackets. Trophy terms that reasonably add up to a trophy/animal combined to estimate the number of trophies traded (see conversions in Table 5 of Methods).

Taxon IUCN

Red List

EU-27-reported imports of trophies1

RoW-reported imports of trophies1

EU trade

pattern

Main Country of origin of EU

imports

Last reviewed2

Current SRG opinions/

suspensions

Relevant threats/other considerations Review

Ammotragus lervia VU 41 112.5

(2)

South Africa (int.) - - In its natural range, poaching and hunting are threats (Cassinello et al., 2008); selective trophy-hunting of large-horned individuals thought to reduce horn size over time (Pérez et al., 2011).

No

Bison bison athabascae

NT 13 1 Canada - - Subsistence, commercial and recreational hunting nearly brought it to extinction; now depends on intensive conservation management (Gates and Aune, 2008).

No

Budorcas taxicolor VU 9 13 China - - Overhunting is of concern (Song, et al., 2008). No

Cephalophus dorsalis LC 22 104

(7)

Cameroon - - Hunting for bushmeat is main threat (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008a).

No

Cephalophus ogilbyi LC 1 1 Cameroon - - No relevant concerns identified No

Cephalophus silvicultor

LC 9 56

(18)

Central African Republic

- - Uncontrolled hunting for bushmeat is a threat (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008b).

No

Damaliscus pygargus (incl. ssp. pygargus)

LC/NT (spp./ ssp.)

255*

(majority ssp.);

919*

(majority ssp.);

(5)

South Africa - - The ssp. pygargus is threatened by hybridization with the much more common ssp. phillipsi, which has been widely reintroduced and interbreeding is producing many hybrids on private land (Lloyd and David, 2008).

Yes

Kobus leche (incl. ssp. kafuensis and smithemani)

LC/VU

(spp./ ssp.)

731.3*

(majority spp.);

(17)

3056*

(majority spp.);

(151*)

High volume

South Africa (int.), Zambia

SRG20 - Poaching is threatening the species (Lindsey et al., 2013); poaching is of commercial scale locally (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008c).

Yes

Ovis ammon (incl. ssp. ammon, dalailamae, darwini, karelini, and polii)

NT 203.5

(172)

871

(364.5)

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mongolia

SRG24 - Overhunting is the main threat (Harris and Reading, 2008); trophy hunting lacks public support (Amgalanbaatar et al., 2002; Maroney, 2005) and caused negative effects on populations locally (Rosen, 2012).

Yes

1 Trophy terms that reasonably add up to a trophy/animal combined to estimate the number of trophies traded (see conversions in Table 5 of Methods). In some cases, additional trophy items (e.g. skin

pieces, leather products were also recorded, but could not be converted to individuals). 2 Last review for any range State

Overview

7

Taxon IUCN

Red List



EU trade

pattern


imports

Last reviewed2


suspensions


Ovis canadensis LC 7 522

(3)

Mexico - - Poaching of large trophy males is an issue (Festa-Bianchet, 2008); decline of weight and horn size due to selective harvest (Coltman et al., 2003)

No

Ovis vignei (incl. ssp. arkal and blanfordi)

VU 35 150

(13)

Pakistan, Iran - (b) Uzbekistan (ssp. bocharensis)

Poaching is a major threat throughout most of the range, with horns highly prized as trophies locally (Valdez, 2008).

Yes

Philantomba monticola

LC 257.5

(4)

857

(75)

South Africa, Cameroon

- (+) Cameroon; CAR, South Africa

Extensively hunted for bushmeat, but may tolerate offtake better than other duikers (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008d)

No

Hippopotamus amphibius

VU 2112.5*

(105*)

4226.5* (462.5*)

High volume

Tanzania, Zambia SRG52; Sig. Trade AC25

(-) Cameroon, Ghana;

(i) Malawi; DRC;

(b) Gambia, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone; Togo;

(+) South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Concerns over illegal and unregulated hunting for teeth and meat (Lewison and Oliver, 2008; Chomba, 2013; Sig. Trade AC25); although hunting and poaching remove fewer animals than culling locally (Chomba, 2012).

No

Moschus moschiferus VU 2 1 Russian Federation

SRG54; Sig. Trade AC16

(b) Russian Federation;

(i) China

Mainly threatened by unsustainable hunting of males for their musk glands (Nyambayar et al., 2008).

No

Pecari tajacu LC 24 27 Argentina SRG62; Sig. Trade AC15

(i) for all range states apart from Peru (+)

Overhunting for meat and skins is one of the main threats (Gongora et al., 2008).

No

Tayassu pecari NT 2 44

(1)

Argentina SRG51; Sig. Trade AC15

(i) for all range states apart from Peru (+)

Under intense hunting pressure; hunted populations are smaller than those without offtake (Reyna-Hurtado et al., 2008).

No

Lycalopex culpaeus LC 4* Argentina SRG51; Sig. Trade AC20

(i) for all range states Hunted for fur in the past, but pressure has declined (Jiménez, et al., 2008a).

No

Lycalopex griseus LC 1 8 Argentina SRG 46; Sig. Trade AC20

(+) Argentina, Chile Commercially hunted in the past, but less in recent years and population is not declining (Jiménez, et al., 2008b).

No

Lycalopex gymnocercus

LC 1 3 Argentina SRG 46; Sig. Trade AC9

(i) Paraguay;

(+) Argentina

Persecution is a threat; may tolerate some pressure (Jiménez, et al., 2008c).

No

Overview

8

Taxon IUCN

Red List



EU trade

pattern


imports

Last reviewed2


suspensions


Caracal caracal LC 911

(4)

2483

(25)

South Africa SRG24; Sig. Trade AC20

(+) Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa

Often persecuted as preying on livestock (Breitenmoser-Wursten, et al., 2008).

No

Felis manul NT 1 Mongolia Sig. Trade AC9

- Large numbers taken in the past for the fur (Ross et al., 2008).

No

Leptailurus serval LC 122

(2)

395

(9)

South Africa, Zimbabwe

SRG24 (+) Ethiopia;

(i) Algeria

No relevant concerns identified No

Lynx canadensis LC 36

(1)

535

(26)

Canada (+) Canada, USA Populations cycle with hare population crashes; trapping is managed accordingly for most pops (Nowell, 2008).

No

Lynx rufus LC 28

(1)

200

(4)

Canada (+) Canada, USA Major fur species in trade; trade considered well managed (Kelly et al., 2008).

No

Panthera leo VU 818.5*

(21)

4349*

(249*)

High volume

South Africa, Tanzania

SRG 59; Sig. Trade AC20

(-) Cameroon, South Africa; (b) Ethiopia;

(+) Namibia, Tanzania;

(iii) Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, CAR, Mozambique, South Sudan, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Trophy hunting impact on reproduction by increasing turnover rates of pride males, reducing cub survival (Whitman et al., 2004) and changing socio-spatial behaviour (e.g. Davidson et al., 2011).

No

Puma concolor (incl. ssp. missoulensis)

LC 549

(3)

1167

(24)

Argentina, Canada

SRG20 (+) Argentina, Canada, USA

Retaliatory hunting is a threat (Caso, et al., 2008); trophy hunting may have led to pop. declines (Packer et al., 2009).

No

Lontra canadensis LC 1 27

(7)

Canada SRG62 (+) Canada, USA;

(i) Mexico

Unregulated trapping led to decline/extirpation in the past (Sefass and Polechla, 2008).

No

Odobenus rosmarus DD 21* 8.5* (5) Canada SRG46 (+) Canada;

(b) Greenland;

(iii) Russian Federation (ssp.)

Low reproductive rate; commercial hunting decimated the species in the past (Lowry et al., 2008).

No

Arctocephalus pusillus

LC 8 Namibia SRG2; Sig. Trade AC20

(+) Namibia, South Africa

High harvest quotas in Namibia retained during population lows (Hofmeyr and Gales, 2008).

No

Overview

9

Taxon IUCN

Red List



EU trade

pattern


imports

Last reviewed2


suspensions


Ursus americanus LC 3203.5* (18) 78481.5;

39334 kg trophy parts* (314.3,

346 kg trophy parts*)

Canada SRG62 (+) Canada;

(i) Mexico, USA

Legal hunting is well controlled (Garshelis et al., 2008).

No

Ursus maritimus VU 147;

276 bones

(2)

618*

(11)

Canada Sig. Trade AC20

(-) Canada (Baffin Bay, Kane Basin);

(+) for other populations;

(iii) Greenland

Vulnerability to hunting may increase with habitat changes due to climate change (Schliebe et al., 2008).

No

Equus zebra hartmannae

VU 4461*

(26*)

5341.8* (127.5) High volume

Namibia SRG52 (i) Angola Commercial harvest may exceed population growth (Novellie, 2008); more than 70% of population on private land in Namibia (van Schalkwyk et al., 2010).

Yes

Ceratotherium simum (incl. spp. simum)

NT 270.8* 592* (19.5) South Africa - - Dramatic increases in poaching levels (Emslie, 2012); trophy hunting helped pop. recovery (Leader-Williams et al., 2005).

No

Cercopithecus mitis LC 1 17 Ethiopia SRG24 - Hunting is a local threat (Kingdon et al., 2008a). No

Chlorocebus aethiops LC 245* 1284

(12)

South Africa SRG24; Sig. Trade AC13

- No major threats (Kingdon and Butynski 2008). No

Chlorocebus pygerythrus

LC 55 395

(3)

South Africa - (i) Mozambique Persecuted locally, but is no major threat (Kingdon et al., 2008b).

No

Colobus guereza LC 2 98

(1)

Ethiopia SRG11; Sig. Trade AC2

- Hunting is a local threat (Kingdon et al., 2008c). No

Erythrocebus patas LC 5 8 Cameroon, Central African Republic

SRG11 - Sometimes hunted and persecuted (Kingdon et al., 2008d).

No

Papio anubis LC 214

(14)

633

(63)

Tanzania SRG24 (+) Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania;

(i) Libya

Locally persecuted (Kingdon et al., 2008e). No

Papio cynocephalus LC 145* (3) 593

(88)

Tanzania, Mozambique

SRG24 (+) Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania

No major threats (Kingdon et al., 2008f). No

Papio hamadryas (incl. spp. hamadryas)

LC 998* (6) 929* (55) Namibia, South Africa

SRG24 (+) Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe

No major threats; males hunted in Ethiopia for their skins for ceremonial purposes (Gippoliti and Ehardt, 2008).

No

Overview

10

Taxon IUCN

Red List



EU trade

pattern


imports

Last reviewed2


suspensions


Papio papio NT 1 Cameroon (int?) SRG24 (i) Guinea Bissau Species does not occur in Cameroon – misidentification?

No

Papio ursinus LC 1691* (8) 5656.5* (218) Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia

SRG24 (+) South Africa,, Zimbabwe

No major threats (Hoffman and Hilton-Taylor, 2008).

No

Theropithecus gelada LC 2 16 Ethiopia SRG24 (+) Ethiopia Sometimes persecuted (Gippoliti and Hunter, 2008)

No

Galago senegalensis LC 2 1 Togo, South Africa

SRG11 (+) Guinea No major threats (Bearder et al., 2008) No

Loxodonta africana VU 2090.2;

749.5 kg trophy parts,

455 skin pieces*

(109*)

5501.2;

958.5 kg trophy parts,

1534 skin pieces*

(584 440 leather

products, 163 skin pieces*)

High volume

Zimbabwe SRG53 (+) Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe;

(-) Cameroon;

(i) Ethiopia, Mozambique

Poaching is a significant threat (Blanc, 2008); selective offtake for ivory may select for tusklessness (Russell, 2011).

No

Necrosyrtes monachus

EN 3 2 Tanzania SRG18 (+) Guinea Threatened by hunting for TCM and bushmeat (BirdLife International 2012b)

No

Balearica regulorum EN 2 Tanzania SRG52; Sig. Trade AC26

(b) Botswana, Burundi, DRC, Kenya, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe;

(iii) Angola, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Ruanda, Swaziland, Uganda

Threatened by live-trapping, egg-collection and hunting (BirdLife International 2012a)

No

Neotis denhami NT 2 1 Burkina Faso - - Hunting is primary cause of declines (BirdLife International 2012c)

No

Alligator mississippiensis

LR/lc 14

(100)

23

(31)

United States of America

SRG41 (+) USA No relevant concerns identified No

Caiman crocodilus crocodilus

LR/lc (3) 1 Colombia SRG55; Sig. Trade AC9

(+) Bolivia;

Illegal hunting is one of the main threats (Velasco and Ayarzagüena, 2010)

No

Overview

11

Taxon IUCN

Red List



EU trade

pattern


imports

Last reviewed2


suspensions


Crocodylus niloticus LR/lc 841.5*

(55*)

2968*

(235*)

Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Namibia

Sig. Trade AC9

(b) Madagascar Retaliatory killing and uncontrolled hunting for its skin are threats (Fergusson, 2010; Combrink et al., 2011; Gandiwa et al., 2013).

No

Varanus albigularis - 2 7 South Africa SRG51 (+) Kenya, Uganda;

(b) Tanzania


Python sebae - 17 28

(1)

Cameroon SRG46; Sig. Trade AC9

(+) Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Ghana, Mali, Tanzania;

(b) Mauritania;

(iii) Mozambique;

(ii) Benin


*Small quantities of other trophy parts also imported.

Methods

12

Methods:

Trade data for this report were extracted from the CITES Trade Database on the 8 May 2013; this analysis includes the following data:

a) trade data for the period 2002-2011 (units have been converted, as outlined in Annex B)

b) all trade data in all terms reported under purpose ‘H’ (hunting trophy), with the exception of trade in ‘live’, as the derogation only applies to dead specimens traded as hunting trophies

c) Annex B species only

d) sources W, U and unspecified (unless otherwise stated)

e) direct trade, unless otherwise indicated

f) EU to EU trade has been removed

This analysis focuses on trade into the EU-27, as reported by the importers and does not include global trade in species/terms for which there were no imports into the EU-27.

Conversions:

Throughout the analysis, the term “trophies” is used. While trade is often reported as ‘trophies’, there are also other trophy items reported in trade under different terms. To account for this, relevant terms were converted to the term ‘trophies’ when recorded in trade as being traded for hunting trophy purposes (‘H’) to estimate the number of individuals that were traded (Table 5). This conversion may lead to an overestimation of trade, as parts of the same individuals may be traded under different permits (checking of individual permits was not possible for this initial selection, due to the volume of trade).

Table 5: Terms converted to ‘trophies’, including conversion factors used Term (unit) Converted to

shells trophies

bodies trophies

carapace trophies

skeletons trophies

skins trophies

skulls trophies

tusks trophies (divided by 1.88 for elephants (Parker and Martin, 1982), other taxa by 2)

sides trophies (divided by 2)

ears trophies (divided by 2)

horns trophies (divided by 2)

feet trophies (divided by 4)

legs trophies (divided by 4)

teeth trophies for Hippos only (divided by 12)

bodies (kg) trophy parts (kg)

bones (kg) trophy parts (kg)

derivatives (kg) trophy parts (kg)

ears (kg) trophy parts (kg)

Term (unit) Converted to

feet (kg) trophy parts (kg)

hair (kg) trophy parts (kg)

ivory carvings (kg) trophy parts (kg)

meat (kg) trophy parts (kg)

oil (kg) trophy parts (kg)

skin pieces (kg) trophy parts (kg)

skins (kg) trophy parts (kg)

skulls (kg) trophy parts (kg)

specimens (kg) trophy parts (kg)

teeth (kg) trophy parts (kg)

trophies (kg) trophy parts (kg)

tusks (kg) trophy parts (kg)

specimens (l) trophy parts (l)

large leather products (m2) trophy parts (m2)

skins (m2) trophy parts (m2)

Methods

13

High volume

Trade was considered to be ‘high volume’ if imports during 2002-2011 exceeded pre-determined thresholds based on taxa-wide assumptions of general reproductive biology and used as part of the CITES Review of Significant Trade selection methodology (Table 6). These ‘high volume’ thresholds were adjusted for those species categorised as Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) or Near Threatened (NT) in the 2013 IUCN Red List.

Table 6: Minimum number of wild, source ‘unknown’ and source unspecified individuals imported by the EU-27 over the ten year period 2002-2011 required to qualify for selection on the basis of high trade volume.

Taxonomic group IUCN RedList classification

EN, VU, NT* other/not assessed

Mammals 50 individuals x 10 years = 500 5000 x 10 = 50 000

Birds 50 x 10 = 500 5000 x 10 = 50 000

Reptiles 50 x 10 = 500 25000 x 10 = 250 000

* EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened

Overall increase or decrease

General trends in trade for each species over the ten-year period 2002-2011 were identified by calculating the slope of a best-fit linear function to the trade data. For the purpose of comparison between species, the value of the slope was divided by the mean level of trade (for the ten-year period in question) for each species. Values greater than +0.15 and lower than –0.15 were considered large slopes. The goodness of fit of the trend-line was also taken into consideration; only species with R2 values greater than 0.75 were retained in the final selection.

Species that, despite an overall increase in trade, were only traded in very low volumes (i.e. less than 5% of the high volume thresholds not taking into account threat status (Table 6), were not selected on the basis of this criterion. In addition, where it is clear that a species qualified artificially on the basis of an overall decrease due to a taxonomic change (e.g. a species split into two or more separate species), these species were also excluded after closer scrutiny.

Species selection

Taxa are recommended for further consideration if:

a) They meet the CITES Review of Significant Trade high volume criterion (see above) or if

they were traded into the EU in relatively high levels in relation to their conservation status

during the ten-year period (over 2000 trophies for LC species and over 200 trophies for NT,

VU and EN species); individual bones were not counted towards the total;

b) Particular concerns related to hunting have been identified in the literature;

c) They have not been reviewed within the last three years for the main countries of origin of

EU imports;

d) The populations in the main countries of origin of EU imports are not introduced.

NB. Elephants and rhinos are subject to a different process following revision at CoP16 of Resolution

Conf. 13.7, and so were excluded from selection.

Reporting issues

14

Reporting issues

The considerations most relevant to the reporting of hunting trophies are highlighted below.

Consistent reporting of hunting trophies: Parties should report hunting trophies in accordance with the Guidelines for the presentation and submission of CITES annual reports (CITES Notification No. 2011/019). In particular, all the parts that reasonably add up to one animal (e.g. horns, skull, cape, backskin, tail and feet) should be reported as one trophy when shipped together. The same rule applies where at least two trophy parts of an animal are shipped together (e.g. skin and skull). When any one of these parts are shipped alone, however, the trade should be recorded individually on permits (e.g. one skin).

Use of terms and unit combinations: Whenever possible the recommended preferred term and unit combinations, as described in Annex VII of (EC) No 865/2006, should be used. This helps standardise the data and allows for more meaningful analyses of the trade.

Use of appropriate terms: Live specimens and eggs have been reported as hunting trophies, which appears to be in contradiction with this purpose. The legislation on personal or household effects applies to dead specimens and their parts and derivatives; trade in live specimens is covered elsewhere in the regulations.

Use of appropriate source code: Trade in introduced species was reported inconsistently, with trade being reported as wild-sourced, captive-bred, captive-born etc. This appears to be associated with the (re-)introduction of species into private land for hunting purposes.

References

15

References

Amgalanbaatar, S., Reading, R., Lhagvasuren, B. and Batsukh, N., 2002. Argali sheep (Ovis ammon) trophy hunting in Mongolia. Pirineos, 157, pp.129–150.

Bearder, S., Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y. 2008. Galago senegalensis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

BirdLife International 2012a. Balearica regulorum. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

BirdLife International 2012b. Necrosyrtes monachus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

BirdLife International 2012c. Neotis denhami. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Blanc, J. 2008. Loxodonta africana. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Breitenmoser-Wursten, C., Henschel, P. and Sogbohossou, E. 2008. Caracal caracal. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Caso, A., Lopez-Gonzalez, C., Payan, E., Eizirik, E., de Oliveira, T., Leite-Pitman, R., Kelly, M., Valderrama, C. and Lucherini, M. 2008. Puma concolor. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Cassinello, J., Cuzin, F., Jdeidi, T., Masseti, M., Nader, I. and de Smet, K. 2008. Ammotragus lervia. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Chomba, C. 2013. Does shore length influence population size and density distribution of hippopotamus? Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 4(5), pp.56-63.

Chomba, C. 2012. Factors affecting the Luangwa (Zambia) hippo population dynamics within its carrying capacity band – Insights for better management. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 5(3), pp.109-121.

Coltman, D.W. O’Donoghue, P., Jorgenson, J. T., Hogg, J. T., Strobeck, C. and Festa-Bianchet, M. 2003. Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. Letters to Nature 426, pp.655–658.

Combrink, X., Korrûbel, J. L., Kyle, R., Taylor, R. and Ross, P. 2011. Evidence of a declining Nile crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus) population at Lake Sibaya, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 41(2): 145–157.

Damm, G.R., 2008. Recreational trophy hunting: What do we know and what should we do? Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting, pp.5–11.

Davidson, Z., Valeix, M., Loveridge, A. J., Madzikanda, H. and MacDonald, D. W. 2011. Socio-spatial behaviour of an African lion population following perturbation by sport hunting. Biological Conservation, 144(1), pp.114–121.

Dickinson, B., Hutton, J. and Adams, W. M. 2009. Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods. Conservation Science and Practice No 4. Wiley-Blackwell.

Emslie, R. 2012. Ceratotherium simum. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

European Union and TRAFFIC, 2013. Reference Guide to the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations. Brussels, Belgium.

Fergusson, R.A., 2010. Nile Crocodile Crocodylus niloticus. In: S.C. Manolis and C. Stevenson, eds., Crocodiles. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Darwin: Crocodile Specialist Group, pp.84–89.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 2008. Ovis canadensis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Gandiwa, E., Heitkönig, I. M. A., Lokhorst, A. M., Prins, H. H. T., Leeuwis, C. 2013. Illegal hunting and law enforcement during a period of economic decline in Zimbabwe: A case study of northern Gonarezhou National Park and adjacent areas. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21, pp.133– 142.

Gates, C. and Aune, K. 2008. Bison bison. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

References

16

Garshelis, D.L., Crider, D. and van Manen, F. (IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group) 2008. Ursus americanus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Ginsberg, J.R. and Milner-Gulland, E.J., 1994. Sex-Biased Harvesting in Dynamics Population for Implications Ungulates: Use and Sustainable Conservation. Conservation Biology, 8(1), pp.157–166.

Gippoliti, S. and Ehardt, T. 2008. Papio hamadryas. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Gippoliti, S. and Hunter, C. 2008. Theropithecus gelada. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Gongora, J., Reyna-Hurtado, R., Beck, H., Taber, A., Altrichter, M. and Keuroghlian, A. 2011. Pecari tajacu. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Gippoliti, S. and Ehardt, T. 2008. Papio hamadryas. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Harris, R.B. and Reading, R. 2008. Ovis ammon. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Hoffmann, M. and Hilton-Taylor, C. 2008. Papio ursinus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Hofmeyr, G. and Gales, N. (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group) 2008. Arctocephalus pusillus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2008a. Cephalophus dorsalis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2008b. Cephalophus silvicultor. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2008c. Kobus leche. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2008d. Philantomba monticola. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

IUCN SSC, 2012. IUCN SSC Guiding Principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives. Ver. 1.0. Gland, Switzerland, pp.1–11.

Jiménez, J.E., Lucherini, M. and Novaro, A.J. 2008a. Pseudalopex culpaeus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Jiménez, J.E., Lucherini, M. and Novaro, A.J. 2008b. Pseudalopex griseus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Jiménez, J.E., Lucherini, M. and Novaro, A.J. 2008c. Pseudalopex gymnocercus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Kelly, M., Caso, A. and Lopez Gonzalez, C. 2008. Lynx rufus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Kingdon, J., Gippoliti, S., Butynski, T.M., Lawes, M.J., Eeley, H., Lehn, C. and De Jong, Y. 2008a. Cercopithecus mitis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Kingdon, J. and Butynski, T.M. 2008. Chlorocebus aethiops. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Kingdon, J., Gippoliti, S., Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y. 2008b. Chlorocebus pygerythrus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Kingdon, J., Struhsaker, T., Oates, J.F., Hart, J. and Groves, C.P. 2008c. Colobus guereza. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Kingdon, J., Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y. 2008d. Erythrocebus patas. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Kingdon, J., Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y. 2008e. Papio anubis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Kingdon, J., Butynski, T.M. and De Jong, Y. 2008f. Papio cynocephalus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

References

17

Knapp, A., 2007. A review of the European Union’s import policies for hunting trophies. TRAFFIC Europe report for the European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.

Leader-Williams, N. Milledge, S., Adcock, K., Brooks, M., Conway, A., Knight, M., Mainka, S., Martin, E. B., and Teferi, T. 2005. Trophy hunting of black rhino Diceros bicornis: proposals to ensure its future sustainability. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 8, pp.8–11.

Lewis, D.M. and Alpert, P., 1997. Trophy hunting and wildlife conservation in Zambia. Conservation Biology, 11(1), pp.59–68.

Lewison, R. and Oliver, W. (IUCN SSC Hippo Specialist Subgroup) 2008. Hippopotamus amphibius. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Lindsey, P., Roulet, P. and Romanach, S., 2007. Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation, 134, pp.455–469.

Lindsey , P. A., Balme, G., Becker, M., Begg, C., Bento, C., Bocchino, C., Dickman, A., Diggle, R. W., Eves, H., Henschel, P., Lewis, D., Marnewick, K., Mattheus, J., McNutt, J. W., McRobb, R., Midlane, N., Milanzi, J., Morley, R., Murphree, M., Opyene, V., Phadima, J., Purchase, G., Rentsch, D., Roche, C., Shaw, J., van der Westhuizen, H., Van Vliet, N., Zisadza-Gandiwa, P. 2013. The bushmeat trade in African savannas: Impacts, drivers, and possible solutions. Biological Conservation, 160, 80–96.

Lloyd, P. and David, J. 2008. Damaliscus pygargus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Loveridge, A.J. and Reynolds, J.C., 2006. Does sport hunting benefit conservation  ? Macdonald/Key Topics in Conservation Biology, pp.224–240.

Lowry, L., Kovacs, K. and Burkanov, V. (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group) 2008. Odobenus rosmarus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Maroney, R.L., 2005. Conservation of argali Ovis ammon in western Mongolia and the Altai-Sayan. Biological Conservation, 121(2), pp.231–241.

Novellie, P. 2008. Equus zebra. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Nowell, K. 2008. Lynx canadensis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Nyambayar, B., Mix, H. and Tsytsulina, K. 2008. Moschus moschiferus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Packer, C., Kosmala, M. Cooley, H. S., Brink, H. Pintea, L., Garshelis, D., Purchase, G., Strauss, M. Swanson, A. Balme, G., Hunter and L., Nowell, K., 2009. Sport Hunting, Predator Control and Conservation of Large Carnivores. PLoS ONE, 4(6).

Packer, C. Brink, H., Kissui, B. M., Maliti, H., Kushnir, H. and Caro, T. 2011. Effects of Trophy Hunting on Lion and Leopard Populations in Tanzania. Conservation Biology, 25(1), pp.142–153.

Parker, I. S. C. and Martin, E.B., 1982. How many elephants are killed for the ivory trade? Oryx, 16(3), pp.235–239.

Pérez, J. M., Serrano, E., González-Candela, M., León-Vizcaino, L., Barberá, G. G., A de Simón, M., Fandos, P., Granados, J. E., Soriguer, R. C. and Festa-Bianchet, M. 2011. Reduced horn size in two wild trophy-hunted species of Caprinae. Wildlife Biology, 17(1), pp.102–112.

Reyna-Hurtado, R., Taber, A., Altrichter, M., Fragoso, J., Keuroghlian, A. and Beck, H. 2008. Tayassu pecari. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Rosen, T. 2012. Analyzing gaps and options for enhancing Argali conservation in central Asia within the context of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Report prepared for The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, Germany and the GIZ Regional Program on Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Central Asia.

Russell, E., 2011. Evolutionary history: uniting history and biology to understand life on Earth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

References

18

Schliebe, S., Wiig, Ø., Derocher, A. and Lunn, N. (IUCN SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group) 2008. Ursus maritimus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Sefass, T. and Polechla, P. 2008. Lontra canadensis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Song, Y.-L., Smith, A.T. and MacKinnon, J. 2008. Budorcas taxicolor. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

Valdez, R. 2008. Ovis orientalis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. URL: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 09 June 2013.

van Schalkwyk, D., McMillin, K. W., Witthuhn, R. C. and Hoffman, L. C. 2010. The Contribution of Wildlife to Sustainable Natural Resource Utilization in Namibia: A Review. Sustainability, 2, pp.3479-3499.

Velasco, A. and Ayarzagüena, J., 2010. Spectacled Caiman Caiman crocodilus. In: S.C. Manolis and C. Stevenson, eds. IUCN SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, pp.10–15.

Whitman, K., Starfield, A.M., Quadling, H.S. and Packer, C., 2004. Sustainable trophy hunting of African lions. Nature, 428(6979), pp.175–178.

Annex A

19

Annex A Table 1: Taxa imported directly into the EU-27 2002-2011 for hunting purposes from sources other than wild, unknown and unspecified, and corresponding imports to countries other than the EU-27, as reported by the importers.

Taxon Source Term EU RoW EU%

Ammotragus lervia C trophies 2 15 11.8%

F trophies 107.5 58 65%

Damaliscus pygargus hybrid F trophies 1

100%

Damaliscus pygargus pygargus F trophies 27 20 57.4%

Kobus leche F trophies 95 61 60.9%

Ovis canadensis C trophies 3

100%

Hippopotamus amphibius C trophies 1 2.3 30%

Canis lupus C trophies 4 8 33.3%

Caracal caracal C trophies 1 2 33.3%

F trophies 45 18 71.4%

Lynx canadensis C trophies 2 3 40%

Panthera leo C bones 92 59 60.9%

claws 36 19 65.5%

derivatives 2

100%

teeth 30 2 93.8%

trophies 574 772 42.6%

F trophies 43 2 95.6%

Puma concolor F trophies 2

100%

Ursus americanus C trophies 2 6 25%

Equus zebra hartmannae F trophies 8 16 33.3%

Ceratotherium simum simum C trophies 2 1 66.7%

F trophies 2

100%

Chlorocebus aethiops F trophies 1

100%

Papio hamadryas F trophies 5.3

100%

Papio ursinus F trophies 9 5 64.3%

Loxodonta africana I trophies 1 33.2 2.9%

Crocodylus niloticus C teeth 18 1 94.7%

trophies 52 593 8.1%

R trophies 8 12 40%

Annex B

20

Annex B Table 1: Purpose of trade

Code Description

B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation

E Educational

G Botanical gardens

H Hunting trophies

L Law enforcement/judicial/forensic (e.g. evidence for use in court, specimens for training)

M Medical (including biomedical research)

N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild

P Personal

Q Circuses and travelling exhibitions

S Scientific

T Commercial / Trade

Z Zoos

Table 2: Source of specimens

Code Description

A Annex A plants artificially propagated for non-commercial purposes and Annexes B and C plants artificially propagated in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

C Annex A animals bred in captivity for non-commercial purposes and Annexes B and C animals bred in captivity in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

D Annex A animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes and Annex A plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes in accordance with Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

F Animals born in captivity, but for which the criteria of Chapter XIII of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 are not met, as well as parts and derivatives thereof

I Confiscated or seized specimens3

O Pre-Convention specimens

R Specimens originating from a ranching operation

U Source unknown (must be justified)

W Specimens taken from the wild

Table 3: Conversion factors

Converted from Converted to

Grams; milligrams Kilograms (kg)

Millilitres Litres (l)

Centimetres Metres (m)

Items Whole values

Pairs Whole values [1 pair = 2 items]

Sides Whole skins [2 sides = 1 skin]

Table 4: Country name abbreviations

Full name Abbreviated name

Central African Republic CAR

Democratic Republic of the Congo DRC

Plurinational State of Bolivia Bolivia

United Republic of Tanzania Tanzania

United States of America USA

Table 5: No opinion abbreviations

Code Opinion

i No opinioni – no significant trade anticipated

ii No opinionii – decision deferred

iii No opinioniii – referral to the SRG

3 To be used only in conjunction with another source code.

Documents

Assessing potential impacts of trade in trophies imported