Systematic review of the impact of restrictive wildlife trade measures on conservation of iconic species in southern Africa.

Trade restrictions are often advocated and implemented as measures to protect wild species threatened by overexploitation. However, in some instances, their efficacy has been questioned, notably by governments in the southern African (SADC) region, which tend to favor a sustainable use approach to wildlife management. We conducted a systematic review of published literature guided by the PRISMA process to examine the effectiveness of trade restrictions and directly related control measures in addressing threats to species conservation in the SADC region, with a focus on elephants (Loxodonta sp.), rhinoceroses (Ceratotherium simum, Diceros bicornis), lions (Panthera leo), and pangolins (Manis sp.). We focused in particular on the direct conservation impact of trade restrictions at species or population level, indirect conservation impact at human behavior or attitude level, and socioeconomic impact on rural livelihoods and well-being and on national economies. Research on these topics was uneven and focused strongly on the effects of trade restrictions and law enforcement on crime-related behavior. Research gaps include socioeconomic impacts of trade restrictions, including effects of international restrictions on local livelihoods and consequent secondary conservation impacts, and evaluations of attempts to disrupt criminal networks. Based on the reviewed impact evidence, the effectiveness of international trade restrictions depends on a range of fully aligned measures in countries of origin, transit, and consumption. For example, our results suggest positive ecological short-term but negative or unknown long-term socioeconomic impacts of domestic restrictions. Based on these findings, key policy requirements include more nuanced approaches to incorporate a range of appropriate measures in range, transit, and consumer countries, that focus on capacity development for early detection and apprehension of incursions inside protected areas; measures for constructive engagement with relevant local communities outside protected areas; and future research to improve understanding of the socioeconomic contribution of wildlife.

Revisión sistemática del impacto de las medidas restrictivas de comercio de vida silvestres sobre la conservación de especies icónicas en el sur de África Resumen Las restricciones comerciales a menudo se promueven e implementan como medidas para proteger a las especies silvestres amenazadas por la sobreexplotación. Sin embargo, en algunas instancias, su eficacia ha sido cuestionada, en particular por gobiernos de la región del sur de África (SADC), que tienden a favorecer un enfoque de uso sustentable para el manejo de la vida silvestre. Realizamos una revisión sistemática de la literatura publicada guiada por el proceso PRISMA para examinar la efectividad de las restricciones comerciales y las medidas de control directamente relacionadas para enfrentar las amenazas a la conservación de especies en la región de la SADC, con un enfoque en elefantes (Loxodonta sp.), rinocerontes (Ceratotherium simum, Diceros bicornis), leones (Panthera leo) y pangolines (Manis sp.). Nos centramos en particular en el impacto directo sobre la conservación de las restricciones comerciales a nivel de especie o población, el impacto indirecto sobre la conservación a nivel de comportamiento o actitud humana, y el impacto socioeconómico en los medios de vida y el bienestar rurales y en las economías nacionales. La investigación sobre estos temas fue desigual y se centró principalmente en los efectos de las restricciones comerciales y la aplicación de la ley en el comportamiento relacionado con el delito. Los vacíos a investigar incluyen los efectos de las restricciones internacionales sobre los medios de vida locales y los consiguientes impactos secundarios en la conservación, y evaluación de los intentos de desarticular las redes criminales. Con base en la revisión de la evidencia del impacto, la efectividad de las restricciones de comercio internacional depende de una gama de medidas totalmente alineadas en los países de origen, tránsito y consumo. Por ejemplo, nuestros resultados sugieren impactos socioeconómicos ecológicos positivos a corto plazo, pero negativos o desconocidos a largo plazo, de las restricciones nacionales. Con base en estos hallazgos, los requisitos clave para la definición de políticas incluyen enfoques más matizados para incorporar una variedad de medidas apropiadas ­ en los países de origen, tránsito y consumidores ­ que se centren en el desarrollo de capacidades para la detección temprana y la detención de incursiones dentro de áreas protegidas; medidas para un compromiso constructivo con las comunidades locales relevantes fuera de las áreas protegidas; e investigaciones futuras para mejorar la comprensión de la contribución socioeconómica de la vida silvestre.

Beyond banning wildlife trade: COVID-19, conservation and development.

One of the immediate responses to COVID-19 has been a call to ban wildlife trade given the suspected origin of the pandemic in a Chinese market selling and butchering wild animals. There is clearly an urgent need to tackle wildlife trade that is illegal, unsustainable or carries major risks to human health, biodiversity conservation or meeting acceptable animal welfare standards. However, some of the suggested actions in these calls go far beyond tackling these risks and have the potential to undermine human rights, damage conservation incentives and harm sustainable development. There are a number of reasons for this concerns. First calls for bans on wildlife markets often include calls for bans on wet markets, but the two are not the same thing, and wet markets can be a critical underpinning of informal food systems. Second, wildlife trade generates essential resources for the world's most vulnerable people, contributing to food security for millions of people, particularly in developing countries. Third, wildlife trade bans have conservation risks including driving trade underground, making it even harder to regulate, and encouraging further livestock production. Fourth, in many cases, sustainable wildlife trade can provide key incentives for local people to actively protect species and the habitat they depend on, leading to population recoveries. Most importantly, a singular focus on wildlife trade overlooks the key driver of the emergence of infectious diseases: habitat destruction, largely driven by agricultural expansion and deforestation, and industrial livestock production. We suggest that the COVID-19 crisis provides a unique opportunity for a paradigm shift both in our global food system and also in our approach to conservation. We make specific suggestions as to what this entails, but the overriding principle is that local people must be at the heart of such policy shifts.

A review of critical perspectives on private land conservation in academic literature.

In recent years, private land conservation has increased in profile among policymakers and academics. Conservation initiatives on privately owned land help to mitigate global biodiversity loss and introduce new actors to conservation. However, they have also been the subject of numerous critical accounts. This review catalogs issues that emerge in critical literature, identifying 25 themes, classified into three groups: Implementation Effectiveness, Value Conflict, and Economic Inefficiency. Gaps in the literature include the need for broader geographic coverage; assessment of the issues' specificity to private land conservation; and evaluation of the extent to which issues in the literature reflect broader societal values. The literature's strong emphasis on value conflict suggests that greater attention to governance effectiveness may steer private land conservation toward practices that are more just, equitable, and representative and lead to increased societal support. We recommend further research to address identified gaps, with a greater orientation toward inclusive governance.

Born captive: A survey of the lion breeding, keeping and hunting industries in South Africa.

Commercial captive breeding and trade in body parts of threatened wild carnivores is an issue of significant concern to conservation scientists and policy-makers. Following a 2016 decision by Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, South Africa must establish an annual export quota for lion skeletons from captive sources, such that threats to wild lions are mitigated. As input to the quota-setting process, South Africa's Scientific Authority initiated interdisciplinary collaborative research on the captive lion industry and its potential links to wild lion conservation. A National Captive Lion Survey was conducted as one of the inputs to this research; the survey was launched in August 2017 and completed in May 2018. The structured semi-quantitative questionnaire elicited 117 usable responses, representing a substantial proportion of the industry. The survey results clearly illustrate the impact of a USA suspension on trophy imports from captive-bred South African lions, which affected 82% of respondents and economically destabilised the industry. Respondents are adapting in various ways, with many euthanizing lions and becoming increasingly reliant on income from skeleton export sales. With rising consumer demand for lion body parts, notably skulls, the export quota presents a further challenge to the industry, regulators and conservationists alike, with 52% of respondents indicating they would adapt by seeking 'alternative markets' for lion bones if the export quota allocation restricted their business. Recognizing that trade policy toward large carnivores represents a 'wicked problem', we anticipate that these results will inform future deliberations, which must nonetheless also be informed by challenging inclusive engagements with all relevant stakeholders.

Underperformance of African protected area networks and the case for new conservation models: insights from Zambia.

Many African protected areas (PAs) are not functioning effectively. We reviewed the performance of Zambia's PA network and provide insights into how their effectiveness might be improved. Zambia's PAs are under-performing in ecological, economic and social terms. Reasons include: a) rapidly expanding human populations, poverty and open-access systems in Game Management Areas (GMAs) resulting in widespread bushmeat poaching and habitat encroachment; b) underfunding of the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) resulting in inadequate law enforcement; c) reliance of ZAWA on extracting revenues from GMAs to cover operational costs which has prevented proper devolution of user-rights over wildlife to communities; d) on-going marginalization of communities from legal benefits from wildlife; e) under-development of the photo-tourism industry with the effect that earnings are limited to a fraction of the PA network; f) unfavourable terms and corruption which discourage good practice and adequate investment by hunting operators in GMAs; g) blurred responsibilities regarding anti-poaching in GMAs resulting in under-investment by all stakeholders. The combined effect of these challenges has been a major reduction in wildlife densities in most PAs and the loss of habitat in GMAs. Wildlife fares better in areas with investment from the private and/or NGO sector and where human settlement is absent. There is a need for: elevated government funding for ZAWA; greater international donor investment in protected area management; a shift in the role of ZAWA such that they focus primarily on national parks while facilitating the development of wildlife-based land uses by other stakeholders elsewhere; and new models for the functioning of GMAs based on joint-ventures between communities and the private and/or NGO sector. Such joint-ventures should provide defined communities with ownership of land, user-rights over wildlife and aim to attract long-term private/donor investment. These recommendations are relevant for many of the under-funded PAs occurring in other African countries.

The Zambian wildlife ranching industry: scale, associated benefits, and limitations affecting its development.

The number and area of wildlife ranches in Zambia increased from 30 and 1,420 km(2) in 1997 to 177 and ∼6,000 km(2) by 2012. Wild ungulate populations on wildlife ranches increased from 21,000 individuals in 1997 to ∼91,000 in 2012, while those in state protected areas declined steeply. Wildlife ranching and crocodile farming have a turnover of ∼USD15.7 million per annum, compared to USD16 million from the public game management areas which encompass an area 29 times larger. The wildlife ranching industry employs 1,200 people (excluding jobs created in support industries), with a further ∼1,000 individuals employed through crocodile farming. Wildlife ranches generate significant quantities of meat (295,000 kg/annum), of which 30,000 kg of meat accrues to local communities and 36,000 kg to staff. Projected economic returns from wildlife ranching ventures are high, with an estimated 20-year economic rate of return of 28%, indicating a strong case for government support for the sector. There is enormous scope for wildlife ranching in Zambia due to the availability of land, high diversity of wildlife and low potential for commercial livestock production. However, the Zambian wildlife ranching industry is small and following completion of field work for this study, there was evidence of a significant proportion of ranchers dropping out. The industry is performing poorly, due to inter alia: rampant commercial bushmeat poaching; failure of government to allocate outright ownership of wildlife to landowners; bureaucratic hurdles; perceived historical lack of support from the Zambia Wildlife Authority and government; a lack of a clear policy on wildlife ranching; and a ban on hunting on unfenced lands including game ranches. For the wildlife ranching industry to develop, these limitations need to be addressed decisively. These findings are likely to apply to other savanna countries with large areas of marginal land potentially suited to wildlife ranching.