No abstract

The African lion is the only big cat listed on CITES Appendix II, and the only one for which international commercial trade is legal under CITES. The trade in lion body parts, and especially the contentious trade in bones from South Africa to Asia, has raised concerns spanning continents and cultures. Debates were amplified at the 2016 CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP17) when a proposal to up-list lions to Appendix I was not supported and a compromise to keep them on Appendix II, with a bone trade quota for South Africa, was reached instead. CoP17 underscored a need for further information on the lion bone trade and the consequences for lions across the continent. Legal international trade in bones to Asia, allegedly to supply the substitute ‘tiger bone’ market, began in South Africa in February 2008 when the first CITES permits were issued. It was initially unclear the degree to which bones were sourced from captive-origin lions, and whether trade was a threat to wild lion populations. Our original assessment of the legal CITES-permitted lion bone trade from South Africa to East-Southeast Asia was for the period 2008–2011 (published 2015). In this paper, we consolidate new information that has become available for 2012–2016, including CITES reports from other African countries, and data on actual exports for three years to 2016 supplied by a freight forwarding company. Thus, we update the figures on the legal trade in lion bones from Africa to East-Southeast Asia in the period 2008–2016. We also contextualise the basis for global concerns by reviewing the history of the trade and its relation to tigers, poaching and wildlife trafficking. CITES permits issued to export bones escalated from ±314y-1 skeletons from 2008–2011, to ±1312y-1 skeletons from 2013–2015. South Africa was the only legal exporter of bones to Asia until 2013 when Namibia issued permits to export skeletons to Vietnam. While CITES permits to export ±5363 skeletons from Africa to Asia from 2008–2015 were issued (99.1% from South Africa; 0.7% from Namibia) (51% for Laos), actual exports were less than stated on the permits. However, information on actual exports from 2014–2016 indicated that >3400 skeletons were exported in that period. In total, >6000 skeletons weighing no less than 70 tonnes have been shipped to East-Southeast Asia since 2008. Since few wild lions are hunted and poached within South African protected areas, skeletons for the legal trade appear to be derived from captive bred lions. However, confirmation of a 116kg shipment from Uganda to Laos, and reports of lion poaching in neighbouring countries, indicate that urgent proactive monitoring and evaluation of the legal and illegal trade is necessary in African lion range states where vulnerable wild lion populations are likely to be adversely affected.

No abstract

In South Africa, animals and plants are commonly used as traditional medicine for both the healing of ailments and for symbolic purposes such as improving relationships and attaining good fortune. The aim of this study was twofold: to quantify the species richness and diversity of traded animal species and to assess the trade in species of conservation concern. We surveyed the Faraday traditional medicine market in Johannesburg and conducted 45 interviews of 32 traders during 23 visits. We identified 147 vertebrate species representing about 9% of the total number of vertebrate species in South Africa and about 63% of the total number of documented species (excluding domestic animals) traded in all South African traditional medicine markets. The vertebrates included 60 mammal species, 33 reptile species, 53 bird species and one amphibian species. Overall, species diversity in the Faraday market was moderately high and highest for mammals and birds, respectively. Evenness values indicated that relatively few species were dominant. Mammal body parts and bones were the most commonly sold items (n = 2453, excluding porcupine quills and pangolin scales), followed by reptiles (n = 394, excluding osteoderms), birds (n = 193, excluding feathers and ostrich eggs) and amphibians (n = 6). Most (87.5%) species traded were of least concern using IUCN criteria, although 17 species were of conservation concern. However, a higher than expected proportion of traders (62.5%) were selling listed species, which is a matter for concern and should be monitored in the future.