Month: October 2016

Cape Town – CITES CoP17 has dealt what is believed to be a devastating blow to African lions, critically endangered with an estimated 20 000 lions left in the wild.

Nine African nations, namely Niger, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria and Togo wanted to raise protection for lions by uplisting them to Appendix I, the maximum level of protection.

The move was intended to end the lion bone trade.

However Lions remain on CITES Appendix II with a “zero annual export quota for bones, bone pieces, products, claws, skeletons, skulls and teeth removed from the wild and traded for commercial purposes.”

‘A compromise proposal’

The compromise proposal was drafted at CoP17, currently underway in Johannesburg until Wednesday 05 October is said to be an “attempt to appease the fierce opposition from lion bone and body part traders and the hunting for entertainment enthusiasts”.

According to the document prepared by the European Union and Niger in their role as co-Chairs of the Working Group on African Lion,  South Africa has been permitted to set its own export quota for the same body parts and products from their captive breeding operations.

‘You can’t tell the difference between wild or captive bred lion bones’

In response Blood Lions says, ”The trouble is, nobody can tell the difference between wild lion bones and captive bred lion bones. Tragically, it does not include lion skins or parts/derivatives obtained through captive breeding.”

ADI responded by saying, it is deeply dissappointed and believes his move actually “encourages opening markets in lion bone trade”.

“Countries that are not currently trading in lion bones will now want to join the trade. ADI strongly opposes canned hunting, trophy hunting, and all trade in live lions or their parts and derivatives. We urge all ADI supporters to take up this issue and take forward the battle to save the world’s lions.”

The decision is in stark contrast to the recent IUCN call for an end to captive bred lion hunting operations, and the recent recognition by the countries with wild lion populations, that the increasing lion bone trade poses a serious risk to the survival of the species in the wild.

‘Opening markets in lion bone trade’

Blood Lions maintains Lions desperately need Appendix I protection, “Canned hunting operations and commercial lion trade is not conservation, but actually fuels illicit trade.”

Added to the proposal, it states that subject to external funding, the Secretariat shall, in collaboration with African lion range States, the Convention on Migratory Species and IUCN investigate possible mechanisms to develop and support the implementation of joint lion conservation plans and strategies. It must also develop an inventory of African lion populations across its range, as well as develop strategies to reinforce international cooperation on the management of lions by undertaking studies on legal and illegal trade in lions to ascertain the origin and smuggling routes, in collaboration with TRAFFIC.

However, in a Conservation Action Trust piece written by Blood Lions Documentary maker Ian Michler, he says, “Contrary to the promotional claims, much of what takes place behind the fences of South Africa’s predator farms adds up to an industry that cannot be sustainable. Those involved won’t see it, and neither will they listen to words of warning because of the lucrative returns they currently make. And government, a rather odd bed-fellow to this constituency, seem to have been seduced by flimsy short-term economic arguments. “

Michler goes on to say that the notion of ‘sustainability’ has become the most overused and consequently meaningless phrase within conservation and wildlife circles.

“Used in equal measure by those that manage responsibly and the abusers of wildlife, it’s hardly surprising then that the predator breeding and canned or captive lion hunting industry is also invoking the term as a way of trying to sanitize what they do.

But how sustainable will it all be when the ‘wildness’ and the thrill has gone?”

Late Friday night (30th October), lion conservationists were left feeling angry and frustrated at the fate of the once mighty and proud African Lion, when news broke that Lions may NOT be listed as a CITES Appendix I Endangered Species (a listing which would further safeguard lions from extinction).

To decide the fate of the African Lion, CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) established a working group on Thursday to discuss the details, literature and positions of various countries at the convention – currently being held in Sandton – with the purpose of coming to an agreed understanding whereby Lions would either be given improved protection under CITES Appendix I, or see their current listing under Appendix II amended in view of the above.

However conservationists at the event say that unbelievably Lions may not receive the protection they so desperately need, and which the public at large demands.

Lions are currently listed as Appendix II, with their numbers as low as approximately 15,000 – 20,000 throughout the entire African continent!

Last night at CITES CoP17 Ulinzi Africa Foundation posted live updates from discussions with US Fish & Wildlife Service’s Dan Ashe proposing to the lion working group at CITES “a split listing of lions in order to address the interests of South African captive lion breeders”. One conservationist described this as “saddening”.

Another update read: “South Africa willing to consider split listing but notes it should be done based on sub species” (see below) although this now appears to be off the cards.

onservationists are asking: has the African Lion been short-changed at CITES?

Some countries were not even invited into this discussion group to help determine the future of lions. A Burkina Faso spokesperson said: “Burkina Faso delegation notes with concern that they are a range country for lions and were not invited to the meeting in which 28 countries took part in.”

Tanzania on the other hand was invited… and aligned themselves with proposals by South Africa and Mozambique, saying “if you look at the sheer numbers of lions in these range states, we are talking about two-thirds of the lion population in Africa. We feel if these populations are listed in appendix I it will affect conservation of the species within these range states – it is going to be ‘counter productive’. We strongly oppose the inclusion of these four key lion populations in appendix I.”

What Tanzania did not mention are the remarks by various lion conservationists and professionals, that Tanzania appears to have high levels of corruption and occasional killing of young male lions which has devastating effects on the lion population.

Captured In Africa Foundation’s Drew Abrahamson explains: “For every one male lion killed, whether hunted by a trophy hunter, poached or killed by local farmers as a ‘pest’, up to seven lions may die as a direct consequence of that one lion being killed for his/her trophy or bones. That’s because that male is likely to be the dominant male of a pride, or perhaps looking to sire cubs of his own.

“The female killed may also be the pride’s protector or main food provider during hunting. So killing just one lion, is actually killing several lions all in one fell swoop”

Drew also recalls: “Poaching of our rhino as well as the trade in body parts escalated at the exact point that South Africa sold a stock pile of ivory. We must take heed of the examples already set with lion, rhino and elephants and pay attention to what’s gone before… that will always be the best evidence to work from when establishing new regulations and laws for the protection of endangered species.”

Guinea contributed to Friday’s African Lion discussion group, stating: “We are convinced that the lion meets criteria for listing on Appendix I on a continental level. We want Africa to speak with one voice. The trade of lion bones is a global threat which affects CITES for nearly 30 years.

“The trade of lion bones has been ongoing and is being exported to Asia… We have asked for stricter rules to stop that illegal trade and to strengthen the institutions of CITES.

“We regret an agreement cannot be reached for the protection of the lion.”

In response to South Africa’s position, Niger said: “With all due respect to South Africa, although we made so many sacrifices, if we cannot keep our position and they cannot accept our position, I’m sorry South Africa should be more flexible to our sacrifices. We cannot do more compromises.”

Earlier this year a documentary – Blood Lions – exposed the ‘canned lion’ hunting industry in South Africa. Up to 8,000 lions are in captivity in South Africa alone, bred to be killed, along with supplying an apparently legal trade in their bones to the Asian market.

Captured In Africa Foundation’s Paul Tully says: “It’s important to note, that when South Africa introduced a legal trade in lion bones in around 1997/98, there was barely no market for lion bones.

“Since then, the Asian market realised they could replace Tiger bones in things like Tiger Cake and Tiger Bone Wine, with Lion bone. This has caused a huge increase in not only trade of lion bones, but captive lion farming in South Africa to supply and cater to this demand.

“On top of the lion farming supplying lion bones, wild lion poaching has increased – with the view that Asian markets often prefer wild specimens as they believe them to be purer. CITES are seemingly quite happy for South Africa’s government to continue making a mockery of lions.”

Tully continues: “I thought CITES was here to stop this kind of trade which threatened species? Increased trade, increased poaching, lawless and unregulated lion hunting, captive lion farming exploiting this species even further, not to even mention the huge deceit towards tourists and wildlife lovers worldwide – what’s protecting the African Lion about that? What we are arguing has all be proven and shows a very worrying trend of exploitation and clear decline populations of lion.”

Drew Abrahamson sums up the feeling from South African citizens and conservationists fighting for wildlife worldwide: “South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe… you have let your continent and the lions down! Listen to those who have no agenda but a passion for wildlife.”

Saturday will see the African Lion discussion group reconvene to finalise their agenda for lions. Conservationists are hoping that sanity prevails and we can finally ensure protection for our heritage. The magnificent African Lion.

On a final note – well done and thank you to those countries speaking up for lions and against the exploitation for profit and greed.

 

Conservationists have reacted with shock, outrage and bitter disappointment as it was announced in South Africa on Sunday evening that the CITES Committee has approved the ongoing trade in lion bone, setting “quotas” for the selling of bones of captive lions.

Consumption of lion bone in Asia has increased over the past few years as it has become a replacement for tiger bone.

Documentary makers from ‘Blood Lions’ (the film which exposed the canned lion hunting industry in South Africa) said tonight: “CITES approves trade in lion bone for consumption in Asia for false medicinal use. Lions not uplisted.”

They added “Shame on those who voted.”

Will Travers, founder and President of Born Free Foundation, tweeted that it is an “APPALLING decision on #lions enshrining, perpetuating captive breeding & bone trade. Threatens ALL lions.”

He said: “Bleak future 4 #lions. #CITES permitting bone trade from captive lions reprehensible” and said it was a “sad day 4 CITES” and that “Bone trade = death = $$$.”

CITES itself tweeted: “Agreement reached today in @CITES #CoP17 Committee on strengthened conservation measures for African #lions.”

Whilst the CITES committee has decided to allow a lion bone quota from farmed lions in South Africa, it has banned tiger farming in China.

Blood Lions said thousands of captive lions in South Africa “will be thrown to the lion bone traders”. There are currently approximately 8,000 captive lions in SA… whose lives begin as petting cubs for local and international tourists, before becoming too large to pet and too tame for the wild… and are relocated to farms where hunters pay exorbitant fees to kill them.

Social media users have expressed “devastation” and “disgust” at the decision to allow the export of captive-bred lion bones, with one saying “how the hell can they vote this way? It all comes down to corrupt governments and the greed for the ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR…”

Conservationists had hoped that lions would be moved to Appendix 1 Endangered Species… but will unfortunately now have to wait for CoP18.

In happier CITES news, governments in Committee have agreed to close domestic markets of elephant ivory that contribute to poaching or illegal trade (although legally this may not be as easy to implement); and the African grey parrot, one of the most trafficked birds, has received the vote to be upgraded to the highest level protection via Appendix I listing. If only we could be saying the same for the lion!

CITES CoP17 is currently being held in Sandton, South Africa, and will run until 5 October.

 

‘Dit is net daar om hebsug te bevredig’

Die vonke het die naweek by COP17 gespat oor die toekoms van leeus toe dit blyk die moontlikheid is sterk dat die ernstig bedreigde diere steeds gejag en “uitgebuit” mag word sodat lande soos SuidAfrika met hul liggaamsdele veral hul beendere met Asiatiese lande kan handel dryf.

Animal Defense International (ADI) het gister gese nege Afrikastate (ondersteun deur Botswana en Kenia) het gevra dat die Afrikaleeu op bylae 1 geplaas word, maar trofeejagters soos Safariklub International en SuidAfrika skop hewig daarteen.

“Hierdie teenstanders wil toesien dat die handel in leeubeendere en vel voortgaan.”

Die beendere kom hoofsaaklik van leeus wat in gevangenskap geteel is en dan gejag word in die sogenaamde “geblikte jagtogte”, het Jan Creamer, direkteur van ADI, gese.

Sy het gese die groeiende handel in leeuliggaamsdele het ook ‘n vernietigende invloed op wilde leeus omdat stropers dit op die manier goedkoper kan kry.

Navorsing het gewys ‘n toename in die internasionale vraag na leeubeendere en vel het die afgelope 30 jaar regstreeks bygedra tot die “skokkende” afname van 43% tot 50% in wilde leeubevolkings.

Creamer plaas die blaam vir die groeiende handel in leeuliggaamsdele op die trofeejagters en die “geblikte” leeubedryf, waar die diere in klein kampies in SuidAfrika geteel word.

Volgens haar word plaaslike gemeenskappe “beroof’ van geleenthede wat ekotoerisme bied omdat hul wilde leeus gestroop en gejag word. Nog navorsing het gewys die ekonomiese voordele wat ekotoerisme vir gemeenskappe bring, is tot 15 keer meer as die van trofeejag en die intensiewe teel van leeus.

“Afrika se leeus moet op bylae 1 van Cites gelys word. Geblikte leeujag en die intensiewe teel van leeus en die kommersiele handel in hul liggaamsdele het geen plek in bewaring nie.” ADI meen die bedrywighede is net daar om die onwettige handel in leeubeendere te stimuleer en om diegene wat daarby betrokke is se hebsug te bevredig.

‘n Onlangse sensus wys daarop daar is net tussen 15 000 en 20 000 wilde leeus in Afrika oor.

Volgens die nieregeringsorganisasie (NRO) Blood Lions is daar sowat 8 000 leeus in SuidAfrika in gevangenskap wat geteel word om op kort afstand doodgeskiet te word sodat hul beendere na Asie uitgevoer kan word.

Paul Tullly van die NRO Captured in Africa het gese toe SuidAfrika in 1998 wetgewing ingestel het dat met leeubeendere handel gedryf mag word, was daar byna geen mark in die Ooste daarvoor nie.

“Sedertdien het die Asiate besef hulle kan tierbeendere met die van leeus vervang in produkte soos tierbeenwyne. Dit het ‘n geweldige toename in die teel van halfmak leeus in SuidAfrika tot gevolg gehad.”

Die stemproses oor die toekoms van leeus sou na verwagting vanoggend vroeg begin.

Lande kan self besluit oor ivoor

Die konvensie oor die internasionale handel in fauna en flora (Cites) en Afrikalande het ‘n kompromis bereik oor binnelandse handel in ivoor en die vernietiging van opgepotte ivoor.

Lande kan self daaroor besluit, se die Internasionale Fonds vir Dierewelsyn (Ifaw) in ‘n verklaring.

Tien Afrikalande het die lidlande van Cites vroeer die dag versoek om hul markte te sluit en hul opgepotte ivoor te vernietig, se Grace Gabriel, Ifaw se streeksdi rekteur in Asie.

“Die voorstel is deur die dag verwater, in so ‘n mate dat lande waar Afrikaolifante voorkom, versoek word om hul opgepotte ivoor strenger te reguleer. Dit sluit wel die vernietiging van opgepotte ivoor in, mits die politieke wil bestaan.”

Gabriel se opgepotte ivoor is ‘n teiken vir misdadigers en Ifaw meen daarom dit moet vernietig word.

Die Wereldnatuurfonds het in ‘n verklaring gese China moet gelukgewens word omdat hy die voorstel steun dat binnelandse markte vir ivoor vernietieg word. “Dit is ‘n massiewe stap.” Die land moet egter ‘n duidelike tydraamwerk opstel en bekend maak.

Ron Thomson, president van die True Green Alliance, het gese: “So lank as wat SuiderAfrika se olifantegetalle so groot soos nou is … is die diere nie bedreig nie. Uitwissing staar hulle ook nie in die gesig nie.”

Thomson het die uitspraak gemaak kort nadat pres. Ian Khama van Botswana gese het hy steun nie SuidAfrika, Zimbabwe en Namibie se voorstel om weer in ivoor handel te dryf nie.

‘n Video van Amerikaanse jagters wat halfmak leeus op ‘n plaas in Noordwes op ‘n kort afstand skiet, het gister op die COP17beraad skokgolwe deur die bewaringsgemeenskap gestuur.

Volgens die fotograaf Derek Gobbett, wat die video gemaak het, het die jagters binne sewe dae tien leeus op die plaas De Klerk Safari’s doodgeskiet.

Hy het die jag aanvanklik meegemaak om ‘n video as aandenking vir die jagters te skiet, maar het die video later aan die BBC gegee wat dit vertoon het onder die opskrif: “Skiet leeujagters mak diere in SuidAfrika?”

Van die jagters skiet leeus uit hul voertuie dood.

Op een van die snitte kan duidelik gesien word hoe ‘n leeu van die jagters probeer wegkom en in ‘n boom klim. Die jagters loop onder die boom deur, draai om en skiet twee skote op die leeu.

‘n Ander snit wys hoe ‘n leeuwyfie in ‘n vlakvarkgat kruip en probeer wegkom van die jagters.

Hulle skiet haar binnein die gat dood, lag en wens mekaar geluk met die “goeie jag”.

Bob Vitro, ‘n jagter en taksidermis van New York, skiet by een geleentheid ‘n leeumannetjie dood en stap opgewonde nader terwyl hy vir die karkas vertel hoe graag hy hom wou skiet, maar hy se ook hy is jammer daaroor.

Will Travers, direkteur van Born Free, het gister gese die video het hom tot in sy siel geskok.

“Ek het gedink ek het alles gesien, maar hierdie is die ergste. Die SuidAfrikaanse regering sal daadwerklik iets aan hierdie onetiese bedryf moet doen.”

Karen Trendler van Four Paws het gese hierdie video wys net “die oortjies van die seekoei” van hierdie verskriklike bedryf.

“Dit is waarom ons hier by COP17 so hard werk om die bedryf te smoor en leeus op Bylae 1 gelys te kry,” het sy gese.

Ian Michler, vervaardiger van die dokumentere rolprent Blood Lions, het die departement van omgewingsake uitgedaag om die bedryf te sluit en ‘n behoorlike definisie te gee van die gonswoord “volhoubare benutting”.

Verskeie nieregeringsorganisasies Skok oor video van blikleeujag in SA Elise Tempelhoff het daarop gewys dat die Wereldbewaringsunie (IUCN) SuidAfrika onlangs in Hawaii versoek het om die teel van leeus in gevangenisskap te staak en die bedryf te sluit.

Edna Molewa, minister van omgewingsake, het gister gese die teel van wild in aanhouding is nie onwettig in SuidAfrika nie.

“Wie is die IUCN? Ons is ‘n soewereine staat. Die IUCN is nie bewus van die wetenskap van die bewaringsaspekte in SuidAfrika nie.”

Sy het gese die welsyn van die diere is vir haar ‘n groot bron van kommer, maar dat die departement besig is om standaarde daarvoor op te stel.

Volgens Molewa was die jag vier jaar gelede en sal die regering nou niemand daarvoor kan vervolg nie.

Carla van der Vyfer, uitvoerende hoof van die SuidAfrikaanse Roofdiertelersvereniging, het gese die feite in die video is nie korrek nie.

James Quin, die professionele jagter wat die jagtog gereel het, het gese die jag was wettig en alle permitte was reg. Hy het hierna die telefoon neergesit.

Die video is deur die nieregeringsorganisasie Blood Lions en Captured in Africa in sosiale media versprei.

Imagine you live in the UK. You’ve just finished your studies, and are eager to have your first adult adventure – somewhere exotic. But this isn’t just a case of itchy feet. Raised in the ‘woke’ era, you also have a social conscience. More than simply satisfying your curiosity about the world, your trip will be a chance to ‘give something back’.

So what do you do? Hop on a website and find the most interesting voluntourist package available, of course. Maybe you spend two weeks helping out in an orphanage in the Transkei: you go there every day, feed the kids and cuddle them. Your feel a twinge in your heart every time you look into their big-eyed faces, and when the time comes to leave, you can’t stop yourself from crying. But you know that you have made their world just a little brighter, a memory that warms your heart all the way back to Heathrow.

Now picture what’s going on in the lives of those orphans. For two weeks, you’ve been a part of their every day. At first, they were reluctant to open up to you – they’ve already been let down so many times. But because you showed up consistently, they let their guard down a little. They came to look forward to your visits, and valued your time together just as much as you did. But then you were gone – suddenly and inexplicably. How would you feel if you were in those children’s shoes: comforted and loved, or let down and betrayed?

No one wants to think that their attempt to help causes more harm in the long run, but often, this is precisely what ‘voluntourists’ unwittingly end up doing. And, while packages targeting orphans and vulnerable people have sparked a type of ‘poverty tourism’, the impact of voluntourism on conservation has also raised grave concerns.

This might seem hard to believe. After all, how could an institution established specifically to boost conservation be working against it?

Lions, legislation – and bullets

The documentary Blood Lions, which investigates South Africa’s canned lion-hunting industry, provides some disturbing answers to that question. In fact, the film uncovered realities so harsh that Fair Trade Tourism, an organisation which promotes fair and responsible tourism practices by tourism players, saw fit to review its stance regarding voluntourism.

Sharon Gilbert-Rivett, marketing manager at Fair Trade Tourism, explains the film’s harrowing revelations: “Essentially, lions used by certain voluntourist organisations are exploited at every stage of their lives,” she says. The industry isn’t dissimilar to puppy farming: a new litter of cubs is born every three months, and the female goes back into oestrus just a few days later, ready for the next litter. The cubs are taken away from their mothers, but tourists are told that their mothers rejected them and that they’re being readied to be released back into the wild. “What they don’t know is that there has yet to be a successful case study where lions are reintroduced to the wild,” Gilbert-Rivett says.

The tourists, meanwhile, are so moved by the cubs’ plight that they can’t wait to hand over their dollars to have a cuddle, believing that they’re helping to nurture the juvenile cubs. And, when the cubs get a little bit bigger, they’ll be just as eager to have a ‘walk with lions’ experience. But what happens when the lion is about four years old, and no longer able to participate in this kind of activity? Well, then it’s off to a hunting farm, where it will be shot by another tourist seeking a ‘typically South African’ experience. The sad journey doesn’t end there. Lion carcasses are then sold on to the Far East (at an average of R20 000-R30 000 per carcass) for use in ‘tiger bone’, an ancient Chinese remedy. “The reality is that these animals are being expressly raised to be killed,” Gilbert-Rivett states.

Viewed in this light, it’s perfectly understandable why Fair Trade Tourism has decided to clamp down on organisations purporting to offer wildlife interaction activities.

Look, don’t touch

Gilbert-Rivett explains that the crux of the new criteria, which came into effect from 1 June, is that any establishment wishing to be certified by Fair Trade Tourism may not allow any physical interaction between tourists or volunteers and captive animals. Similarly, no interaction is allowed between orphans and other vulnerable people unless under the supervision of a qualified adult.

Fair Trade Tourism development manager Manuel Bollmann explains the thinking behind these criteria: “So-called ‘poverty or orphanage tourism’ has been a topic of hot debate in Europe for some time. People have been concerned about the impact of tourists, who have no qualifications or credentials in childcare, looking after children in orphanages. This first sparked our awareness of the need to tighten our credentials.”

Then came Blood Lions. Gilbert-Rivett explains that the organisation’s peripheral involvement in the making of the film brought matters to a head. “It was a pivotal moment for the voluntourism industry, raising awareness of unscrupulous players whose operations have little to do with conservation. Given concerns of the voyeuristic element of orphanage tourism, we saw the time was right to take action.”

Fair Trade Tourism’s concerns aren’t only for the animals and children being exploited by dodgy players; tourists, too, are being duped. “Voluntours pay huge amounts of money for activities they believe are helpful but which actually perpetuate circumstances,” she points out.

A potential loss?

True enough – but isn’t there the possibility that we’re creating another casualty here: the tourism industry? After all, if the interactive element is removed from voluntourism, what’s the point to it? Make no mistake: this segment is a lucrative one. Gilbert-Rivett reveals that tourists, usually aged between 18 and 35 and hailing from markets like the UK, USA, Brazil and Norway, are willing to drop around £2 500 on a two-week stint. She admits that, already, some businesses have had to make tough decisions in the wake of the Blood Lions release. One lodge known to be heavily involved in lion breeding programmes has been put up for sale, while the Johannesburg Lion Park put an end to cub interaction. Given this sort of pressure, can the industry afford to adopt the new criteria? And if it does, is our tourism industry at risk of facing major losses as would-be voluntourists flock to countries with less rigorous regulation?

The Department of Tourism’s stance is that Fair Trade Tourism’s revised criteria are in line with various pieces of legislation, including the Animal Protection Act South Africa, the Children’s Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation. Looking at the tourism industry specifically, it supports the objectives of the National Minimum Standard for Responsible Tourism. All told, says NDT spokesperson Trevor Bloem, it’s a shield to protect all involved in the programmes – volunteers, children and wildlife – from exploitation and abuse.

Bloem says that in spite of the acknowledgment that voluntourism is a significantly growing sector, and that Africa – and South Africa specifically – is emerging as a focus for the industry, there hasn’t been much research into the phenomenon beyond looking at the motivations of voluntourists and the impact of their actions. “That stated, tourism is regarded as a modern-day engine of growth and contributes positively to the GDP as well as to direct and indirect employment. It creates opportunities for skills development and encourages entrepreneurship, which voluntourism certainly contributes to.” Apart from the financial boost – one travel agent said that between 10-15% of the total of a package ultimately flows to the project or community – participants may also benefit from the transfer of skills and knowledge.

In spite of these benefits – and the massive growth the industry is expected to experience within the next few years – the Department of Tourism hasn’t implemented specific policy around the segment; something which may add impetus to Fair Trade Tourism’s criteria. “We are considered one of the leading responsible tourism destinations globally,” Bloem says. “Similarly, responsible voluntourism is now also underpinned by standards that aim to ensure valuable input from volunteers and deliver tangible benefits for the communities involved.” Although there is no standalone policy for voluntourism, the Minimum Standard for Responsible Tourism applies; this aims to establish a baseline standard for operators to aspire to and encourages the involvement of local communities in planning and decision-making, among other activities.

Against this backdrop, the new criteria are a welcome addition to the regulation surrounding the industry. As for Bloem’s concerns that they may deter voluntourists, causing us to lose out on those appealing voluntourism dollars – they simply don’t exist. “Consumers around the world are increasingly aware of the potential impact of tourism,” he points out – and, after all, isn’t that what’s driving the interest in voluntourism? Look at the popularity of socially responsible and environmentally sustainable tourism, now leading market segments globally, if you need further confirmation. Added to this, volunteers are generally ethical people who care about conservation and the protection of children. “If anything, the new criteria supports legislation and should enhance the country’s positioning as a leading responsible tourism destination. It is in our interest to promote ethical and authentic volunteer experiences.”

What the stakeholders say

Interestingly, some of the most vocal supporters of the criteria are groups offering voluntourism themselves.

Bollmann reveals that their involvement was instrumental in the establishment of the criteria, with key players invited to play a part in an extensively consultative process. It’s perhaps not surprising, then, when Bollmann says that the only backlash has come from those operators of dubious repute.

All other stakeholders have given the criteria a firm thumbs-up – African Impact, one of the largest voluntourism operators in South Africa, included. Andrew Procter, the organisation’s director, reports that he’s been in dialogue with Fair Trade Tourism for three years, as the lack of standards and complete absence of industry regulation was – in his view – a major bugbear. “We need to make sure that we’re meeting clients’ expectations while contributing to long-term positive change, and too many operators don’t tick either of these boxes,” he says.

Procter notes that the creation of standards has been something of a tricky exercise. Voluntourists may be soft-hearted and socially aware, but they also want to have a good time, and it’s critical that operators are able to get this balance right. Nor does he think that implementation of the criteria will be without its challenges. Using his own organisation as an example, he points out that large operators may struggle to achieve certification according to the new criteria, especially if they have businesses active in different provinces, and even different countries, which may operate at varying levels.

He adds that it’s not only in South Africa that the industry’s reputation has taken a beating; globally, travellers are becoming suspicious of operators that don’t live up to their promises.

That’s why David Youldon, director of the African Lion and Environmental Research Trust (Alert), says he’s also in favour of stricter regulation. “There are many captive animal facilities that claim a conservation or animal-welfare benefit to justify maintaining and breeding those animals in captivity but, sadly, not all of those claims stand up to scrutiny.” He points out that there are many times when interaction with an animal is not only unavoidable, but necessary (for example, when the animal is in need of veterinary care); similarly, there are entirely valid reasons for keeping and breeding an animal in captivity. “We support guidance that enables tourists to recognise legitimate organisations with which they might choose to become involved, and to ensure that animal interactions are in the best interests of the animals. The criteria presented are not perfect, but are a good start in providing that guidance and in protecting wild animals in captivity,” Youldon says. His view is that if the criteria do indeed deflate the industry’s growth somewhat, it’s probably a good thing because those entities most likely to be affected are the ones with questionable ethics.

The final word

But what about the voluntourists themselves? How do they feel about having an abridged adventure? Eulogi Rheeder, a journalist who volunteered at a marine research organisation in Plettenberg Bay, has a thought-provoking answer: “When I signed up, I thought my days would be spent swimming with dolphins. As it was, one of the first things I had to do was cut up a beached whale so that its parts could be used for research. It was harrowing.” It was also one of the only times Eulogi came close to a sea animal; on each other occasion that she or any other volunteer spotted, for instance, a seal, the programme managers made it clear that there was to be no touching. “The experience wasn’t how I imagined it would be, but it was better. It taught me so much; actively participating in research was more meaningful than diving with dolphins could ever have been.”

Gilbert-Rivett says that with the new standards in place, Fair Trade Tourism’s goal is to help people find experiences that are memorable in the same way – and to avoid those that are part of the problem, rather than the solution. But, she says, it’s important to remember that there are other ways to help. “Rather than paying for a costly voluntourism package, you could contact an NGO active in the area you wish to visit, and see if they could use your services in any way,” she points out.

Bollmann has the last word to offer: “We must remember that the people we are targeting through voluntourism are affluent, future decision-makers. Is this really the image we want them to have of South Africa – or would we rather they experience our country as it truly is?”

 

The 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP17) is currently taking place in Johannesburg, September 24 to October 5, 2016 at the Sandton Convention Centre.

CITES #CoP17,  attended by approximately 2 500 delegates, which includes representatives of 180 countries, is busy considering 62 proposals to change CITES trade controls affecting close to 500 species put forward by 64 countries from every region.

Its secretary-general, John E. Scanlon, has described the conference as ‘one of the most critical meetings in the 43-year history of the Convention’.
Changes to trade controls for the African elephant, white rhinoceros, lion, pumas, pangolins, silky and thresher sharks, devil rays, nautilus, peregrine falcons, African grey parrot, crocodiles, flapshell turtles, the Titicaca water frog and psychedelic rock gecko, as well as the Grandidier’s baobab tree and many species of rosewood, and other animals and plants are some of the conservation issues being discussed.

Some of the other challenges to be tackled are:

A review of the implementation of the Convention relating to captive bred and ranched species;
Tackling corruption as it affects illegal wildlife trade;
Scaling-up efforts to counter cybercrime in relation to illegal wildlife trade;
Strategies to reduce demand for illegally traded wildlife animals and plants;
Improving controls on the international trade in hunting trophies;

Rhinos
The 12 African rhino range states and ex-range states have agreed on an overall strategy to tackle poaching and increase the population of the animals in the coming five years. And after two years of discussions the African Rhino Range States’ African Rhino Conservation Plan was launched on the sidelines of the conference on September 25, by Edna Molewa, minister of Water and Environmental Affairs.

The African rhino range states and ex-range states are Angola, Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. This plan will not supersede each country’s national plans and it ‘focuses on general principles of conservation on which all states could agree’, according to CITES’ website.
“[It] seeks to complement [national plans] by providing an overarching higher-level umbrella plan under which all the national plans can fit,” Molewa adds. “The continental plan also seeks to identify and focus on areas where collectively and co-operatively there may be opportunities for range states to work together to enhance rhino conservation.”

Some of the plan’s key points are:
1.Protection, law enforcement, investigations and intelligence: to implement legislation and strengthen law enforcement actions between both countries and different departments of government; improving investigation and collectively sharing knowledge, skill and state of the art technology;
2. Biological management: to achieve the envisioned growth rate to sustain, and manage the rhino population and to conserve genetic diversity through standardised monitoring;
Co-ordination: to improve co-ordination between range states by active involvement on an international scale;
3. Socio-economic: creating support for conservation by tapping into the local population through empowerment of people;
4. Political support: to boost collective continental political support for rhino conservation;
Communication and public support: to garner understanding and support from the public and all stakeholders involved in rhino conservation through targeted communication;
5. Capacity: to make certain there are enough human resources used wisely, and make sure they are appropriately trained and equipped; and,
6. Adequate financing: to explore and develop financing mechanisms and structures to make sure efforts are sustainable.

Ivory and Elephants
These are some of the ongoing issues to be discussed regarding ivory and elephants:
1.The interrelationship between illegal trade in elephant ivory and legal trade in mammoth ivory;
2. A decision making mechanism for a process of future international trade in elephant ivory, or draw the process to an end;
3. Restricting the legal trade in live elephants;
4. Managing the destruction of government-held ivory stockpiles;
5. Closing domestic markets for commercial trade in raw or worked ivory;
6. Parties will soon be able to freely access the world’s largest ivory database compiled using state of the art forensic techniques developed by Germany.

A new positive development is the IvoryID database, which German minister for the environment, Barbara Hendricks, symbolically handed over  to CITES Secretary-General John Scanlon, who said: “The use of modern forensics is a game changer in the fight against illegal wildlife trade. We are deeply grateful to Germany for developing a forensic technique that can determine the age and origin of ivory. Criminals illegally trading in ivory can no longer hide behind false claims of where and when they got their ivory”.

Accoding to the Cites website, the database – which can be accessed through a dedicated website – contains more than 700 reference samples from 30 African countries using data obtained from elephant ivory, with proven origin, provided by countries of origin, museum, hunters and others.

The African Grey Parrot
The African grey parrot has practically disappeared from many African countries. In Benin, Burundi, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Togo, populations of the species have declined 90% to 99%. In many more countries, the populations have declined more than 50% in the last three generations (46.5 years). In other nations, the bird is essentially extinct in the wild. If the capture for the pet trade is not stopped, we will see the African gray parrot succumb to extinction in most of the countries in West and Central Africa. Eventually, population declines became so severe that the majority of the countries in the African grey parrot’s range stopped all legal exports of the bird, except for Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2007, CITES recommended a two-year export ban from Cameroon for noncompliance with the regulations. And in January of this year, they recommended that all CITES Parties suspend all trade of African grey parrots from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
But now, several African countries have come together to present a proposal to save the Grey parrot from extinction.
The countries of Angola, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, European Union and United States of America presented a proposal to move the African grey parrot from Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES. Where species listed under Appendix II have their trade carefully regulated, for those listed under Appendix I, all international trade of wild-caught specimens is forbidden. Another nine African countries have joined in support of this proposal: Burundi, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo and Rwanda. It is extremely encouraging to see such a wide show of support for these much stronger measures to protect this native African bird says www.defendersblog.org

Sharks and Manta Rays
South Africa, home to one quarter of the world’s 400+ shark species, will this month host the triennial meeting of the World Wildlife Conference where strengthened protection for sharks and rays will again be high on the agenda.

Delegates from over 180 countries attending the meeting – also known as CITES #CoP17 – will receive updates on actions taken following CoP16 in Bangkok, where five shark species, namely the oceanic white tip, porbeagle and three species of hammerhead, and all manta rays were given protection under CITES Appendix II, with trade in these species now being regulated to prevent over-exploitation. software has been developed for port inspectors, custom agents and fish traders to recognize shark species from a picture of the fin. iSHarkFin was the result of a collaboration between the FAO the University of Vigo and CITES, with financial support from the Government of Japan and the European Union (through the CITES project).

There are currently ten species of sharks and rays listed under CITES Appendix II, including the Basking shark, Great White Shark and Whale Shark, as well as the five shark and two manta species added to CITES Appendix II at CoP16.

Seven species of Sawfishes fall under Appendix I, which includes species threatened with extinction. Commercial trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. At CITES #CoP17 Parties will be asked to consider three more proposals to bring sharks and rays under CITES trade controls, namely to include:

Lions -another species marked for attention.

Although South Africa’s lion population is stable, its captive lion breeding industry remains a serious concern. A motion was recently approved at the World Conservation Congress calls for South Africa to review legislation and terminate the practice of ‘canned’ hunting and captive lion breeding.

“From a South African perspective, one of the most relevant issues to be discussed at CoP 17 is uplifting lion to Appendix I,” says Andrew Venter CEO of wildlands and executive producer of the documentary about canned lion trade – Blood Lions. “But moving lion to Appendix I may not stop the captive predator breeding trade. In practise, it may strengthen the industry as CITES encourages captive breeding of Appendix I species as a conservation tool, arguing that this takes the pressure off wild populations.”
The re-listing of the African lion form CITES II to CITES I, meaning a downscale in the species’ protection, will also be considered, while the global call to place a ban on canned lion hunting will also be addressed.
Although South Africa has 7 000 lions in captivity, leading global conservation groups do not attribute any conservation value to these.

Pangolins
While many people don’t even know what a pangolin is and have never seen one, it is now the most poached animal on our planet, with millions being killed in the last 10 years. Now the pangolin range states have agreed to transfer all eight species to an Appendix I listing.
“There are rigorous measures up for debate that would enhance the international response to the trafficking of pangolins and are essential to ensuring the proper implementation the new listings. We strongly support these additional measures and hope that they will also be overwhelmingly endorsed,” says a WWF statement.

The Convention
‘CITES is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. States that have agreed to be bound by the Convention are known as Parties. Although CITES is legally binding on the Parties – in other words they have to implement the Convention – it does not take the place of national laws.
Annually, international wildlife trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars and to include hundreds of millions of plant and animal specimens. The trade is diverse, ranging from live animals and plants to a vast array of wildlife products derived from them, including food products, exotic leather goods, wooden musical instruments, timber, tourist curios and medicines. Wildlife and forest crime is not limited to certain countries or regions, but is a truly global phenomenon.’