Global Cheetah Conservation Policy

15 Pages·2014·0.28 MB·English

C H A P T E R
21
Global Cheetah Conservation
Policy: A Review of International
Law and Enforcement
Kristin Nowell*, Tatjana Rosen**
*Cat Action Treasury and World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List Programme,
Cape Neddick, ME, United States
**Panthera and IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Khorog, GBAO, Tajikistan
INTRODUCTION schedule 5 (Harmful animals desirable to be re-
duced in number, within sufficient limits), the
Influence of the World’s First cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) was given a higher
Environmental Treaty on National level of protection on schedule 4 (Animals to be
Policies for Cheetahs Today protected from hunting and destruction, except
in limited numbers). The cheetah was included
One of the first attempts at international en- under its older common and scientific name “the
vironmental policy for Africa was drawn up in Cheetali (Cynalurus)” in the original London
London in 1900 by colonial powers for African Convention of 1900, but was omitted from the
wildlife, the Convention for the Preservation of updated version of 1933 (Mitchell, 2016a,b).
Wild Animals, Birds, and Fish in Africa (London This level of protection is still evident in na-
Convention). Although it never entered into force tional policies covering the cheetah, which is fully
(as it was not signed by every negotiating party), protected throughout most of its extant range
its principles have resonated through African his- (Durant et al., 2015). However, in practice this pro-
tory and have inspired the establishment of the tection has not prevented widespread offtake—by
first nature reserves, and lists of species subject people seeking to protect livestock (Chapter 13),
to different levels of protection. Although most by direct hunting for their skins or for illegal trade
large predators (lion Panthera leo, leopard Pan- (Chapter 14), or by indirect capture in snares set
thera pardus, spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta, and for wild meat. Several southern African coun-
African wild dog Lycaon pictus) were placed on tries (Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe)
Cheetahs: Biology and Conservation 291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804088-1.00021-6 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
292 21. GLOBAL CHEETAH CONSERVATION POLICY: A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ENFORCEMENT
protect cheetahs but also allow problem animals of financial return for the losses caused, farm-
to be captured or killed by private citizens under ers are now encouraged to utilize the cheetah on
a permit system (Purchase et al., 2007). In Na- a sustainable basis, rather than implement total
mibia, since 1975 cheetahs may be killed or cap- eradication” (Govt. of Namibia, 1992).
tured in defense of life and livestock “whilst the The policy framework of southern African
life of such livestock is actually being threatened” countries differs from that of most other African
without a permit, but the person doing so must range countries in that landowners are granted
report this to the nearest government authority legal ownership of wildlife species occurring on
within 10 days, and must apply for a permit if the their land if certain regulations are met, unlike
skin or live animal is to be retained. In 1996, per- many other countries where wildlife is the prop-
mits issued for cheetah removals were analyzed erty of the government. The increased economic
for a National Namibia Conservation Strategy benefits accruing to landowners from wildlife
(Table 21.1; Nowell, 1996). Table 21.1 shows that can also have negative impacts for cheetahs, in
the level of reported removals has been very high that owners may persecute cheetahs perceiving
in the preceding decades, averaging 827 cheetahs them as a net loss to other more valuable tro-
per year from 1978 to 1985, and declining to an phy antelope species (Johnson et al., 2013). In
average of 297 from 1986 to 1995. These figures Namibia, killing of cheetahs by humans is the
do not include cheetahs killed illegally without top known cause of cheetah mortality outside
permits, or killed legally without application for protected areas (Marker and Dickman, 2004).
a permit to retain the animal or the skin, and thus However, interviews with land owners reveal
may under-represent the true level of removals. that approximately 50% see cheetahs as a desir-
Trophy hunting is allowed, in limited num- able species to have on their land, even though
bers under international (the Convention on 87% reported financial losses to cheetah (Lind-
International Trade in Endangered Species of sey et al., 2013), suggesting that limited legal
Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES) and national offtakes for the export trade can help constrain
law (as envisaged in the London Convention), illegal and unlimited offtake of cheetahs.
in just two countries: Namibia and Zimbabwe.
Namibia is the main exporter; trophy hunting The Current Role of International
of cheetah was legalized there under national
Environmental Agreements in Cheetah
law in 1982 (Nowell, 1996), and Namibia has ar-
Conservation
gued that legally taking a regulated number of
wild cheetahs for export (so that national policy Several aspects of cheetah ecology lead in-
thus enters the realm of international law un- ternational law to have a particularly impor-
der the CITES treaty which regulates wildlife tant role in conservation of the species. As the
trade between nations) benefits their conserva- most wide-ranging of the big cats (Chapter 8),
tion on private lands. “In Namibia the cheetah viable cheetah populations require large areas
is viewed as the single most important preda- of habitat, which in many cases are most read-
tor on livestock on both commercial and com- ily provided when governments put together
munal farms[…]. Trophy hunting and export of transboundary protected areas. Such areas re-
live cheetah have been encouraged in Namibia quire communication and cooperation for their
in an attempt to curb the number of cheetah shot effective management. Cheetahs typically oc-
as predators of livestock, and to change the at- cur at lower densities than sympatric large car-
titude of the farmers toward the cheetah from nivores, thus lending them an intrinsic rarity.
‘kill at all cost’ to one where cheetah would be The diplomacy involved in the functioning of
tolerated and accepted. By providing some form international wildlife treaties is an important
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS
INTRODUCTION 293
TABLE 21.1 Number of Permits Issued to Citizens to Remove Cheetahs by the
Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 1978–95 (Nowell, 1996)
No. of cheetah removal permits
Permit categorya
Year 2 3 4 5 Total
1978 234 0 711b 0 945
1979 125b 1 711b 0 836
1980 125b 0 623 0 748
1981 125b 0 669 0 794
1982 125b 0 907c 0 1032
1983 88 0 725c 12 825
1984 107 0 633c 7 747
1985 117 0 552c 21 690
1986 79 0 318 17 414
1987 84b 0 317 12c 413
1988 95 0 272 20 387
1989 132 21 271 17 441
1990 84b 2 301 24c 411
1991 54 1 145 40 240
1992 95 0 34 35 164
1993 44 0 105 20 169
1994 32 0 111d 20 146
1995 50 0 116 20 186
Total 1795 25 7521 265 9588
aSince 1975, the Permit Office of the government agency now known as Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism
has issued permits for removal of cheetahs over the years under the following categories:
1. Capture, keeping, and selling of game by game dealers. (Permit category 1 is not included in Table 21.1
to eliminate the possibility of double-counting, as game dealers would more frequently purchase and keep
cheetahs captured by farmers rather than run their own capture operations for this species.)
2. Capture, keeping, and selling of game by nongame dealers.
3. Shooting of game in communal areas and other State land.
4. Possession of skins of protected and specially protected game.
5. Trophy hunting of cheetah.
A new system was put in place in 1994. Category 4 is subsumed into category 2, but it is still possible to
distinguish between the two as the notation “live” versus “skin” is usually appended. Data on cheetah
permits issued under these categories were collected from Permit Office annual reports and computerized
databases. For category 5 more permits may have been issued than cheetahs actually removed, but
for other categories the number of cheetahs removed likely exceeds the number of permits issued
(Nowell, 1996).
bPermit category data are not broken down by species in this year’s annual government Permit Office report; figure given
is an average for the previous, surrounding or consecutive 5-year-period as appropriate.
cNumber in the Permit Office annual report differed from figure given in Namibia’s CITES Appendix I proposal
(Govt. of Namibia, 1992); figure given is an average of the two.
dFigure given is an average of years 1993 and 1995.
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS
294 21. GLOBAL CHEETAH CONSERVATION POLICY: A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ENFORCEMENT
element in motivating range country govern- from Namibia and Zimbabwe because it has not
ments to prioritize conservation actions for rare found that current hunting and management
and threatened species. Because monetary val- programs enhance the survival of cheetahs, al-
ues for cheetahs are highest outside Africa (as though the United States did support the grant-
trophies, zoo animals, and, illegally, as exotic ing of an export quota for cheetah trophies in
pets), a functioning international framework is 1992 under CITES (Nowell, 1996).
necessary to regulate legal export and import, As shown in Table 21.2, there are eight interna-
alongside international law enforcement coop- tional environmental agreements which directly
eration to detect and combat illegal trade. affect cheetah conservation. Five are concerned
International legal agreements bring signa- primarily with in situ conservation; the other
tory national governments (legally described as three exclusively with wildlife trade controls
contracting Parties) together to address global and their enforcement. This chapter describes
and regional problems. Once national govern- their general nature briefly, focuses on provi-
ments ratify an international treaty by officially sions which pertain to cheetah conservation,
recognizing their participation in it in their do- and suggests ways they could be employed for
mestic law, its contents become binding upon greater effect. The most space will be devoted to
them (although of all the agreements reviewed CITES, the international forum which has devot-
here, only CITES is considered binding in that ed the greatest amount of attention to the chee-
there are consequences for noncompliance, in- tah specifically, and is currently of the most di-
cluding trade sanctions). At regular meetings rect relevance to cheetah conservation, through
(Conferences of the Parties, or COPs), a huge (1) regulating legal trade in wild cheetahs, thus
array of annexes, initiatives, decisions, and rec- facilitating national policies of consumptive sus-
ommendations have been adopted around the tainable use in both Namibia and Zimbabwe;
international environmental treaties. Implemen- (2) regulating legal trade in captive cheetahs,
tation and enforcement of internationally agreed thus facilitating global ex situ conservation; and
policy depends entirely upon the contracting (3) working to stop illegal trade in cheetahs (a
Parties, which means that international policy problem discussed in detail in Chapter 14).
solutions are only as effective as national gov-
ernments make them. National governments are
often motivated to action at the behest of a wide INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
range of non-governmental organization (NGO) PRIMARILY RELEVANT TO IN SITU
stakeholders which follow the regular meetings CHEETAH CONSERVATION
and documents of the international conventions
quite closely, and lobby governments to intro- The African Convention on the
duce strengthened policy and to enforce these Conservation of Nature and Natural
policies. In some cases, national policies take
Resources
precedence over international ones, such as the
United States' stricter domestic measures for The African Convention has been described
cheetah (which is listed as Endangered under as “the youngest and most modern among the
the United States' Endangered Species Act) pre- oldest environmental conventions” (IUCN, 2004)
cluding the import of hunted trophies (which because its roots trace back to the 1900 Lon-
for some species listed as Endangered may be don Convention, while it has been extensively
allowed if shown to enhance its conservation). revised to reflect contemporary environmental
Specifically, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has stewardship practices. As African nations
not allowed the import of sport-hunted cheetahs gained independence, the need for a new nature
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS PRIMARILY RELEVANT TO IN SITU CHEETAH CONSERVATION 295
TABLE 21.2 International Environmental Agreements of Relevance to Cheetahs
Cheetah range countries
which have ratified or
Name and primary nature Known as Commencementa acceded to the agreementb Reference
Conservation agreements
African Convention on the African 2017c Angola, Benin, Burkina AU (2017)
Conservation of Nature and Convention Faso, Chad, Mali, Niger,
Natural Resources (Revised, and South Africa
2003)
Convention on Biological CBD 1992 All cheetah range countries CBD (2016)
Diversity
Convention on the CMS 1983 dAlgeria, Angola, Benin, CMS (2016a,b)
Conservation of Migratory Burkina Faso, Chad,
Species of Wild Animals Ethiopia, Iran, Kenya,
Mali, Mozambique, Niger,
Somalia, South Africa,
Tanzania, Uganda, and
Zimbabwe
Southern African Development SADC 2003 Botswana, Mozambique, Ecolex (2016b)
Community Protocol on Protocol Namibia, South Africa,
Wildlife Conservation and Tanzania, Zambia, and
Law Enforcement Zimbabwe
Convention concerning the World 1972 All cheetah range countries Ecolex (2016c)
Protection of the World Heritage except Somalia
Cultural and Natural Convention
Heritage
Trade agreements
Convention on International CITES 1975 All cheetah source, transit, CITES (2016c)
Trade in Endangered Species and destination countries
of Wild Fauna and Flora except South Sudan
Lusaka Agreement on Co- Lusaka 1994 Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ecolex (2016d)
operative Enforcement Agreement and Zambia
Operations Directed at Task Force
Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna
and Flora
African Common Strategy African 2015 Endorsed by the Executive TRAFFIC
on Combatting Illegal Common Council of the African (2016)
Exploitation and Trade in Strategy Union at its 27th meetinge
Wild Fauna and Flora in
Africa
aDenotes the year the agreement was accepted by the United Nations as having legal force.
bAccession has the same legal effect as ratification, and refers to when a country accepts the opportunity to become party to a treaty already signed by other
nations.
cOfficial confirmation from the African Union regarding the Revised Convention’s apparent entry into force in March 2017 had not been received by the
time this chapter went to press.
dRange countries which have included some information about cheetah in their triannual national reports are in italic.
eThe Strategy is a nonbinding Declaration of the African Union not requiring ratification by member countries.
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS
296 21. GLOBAL CHEETAH CONSERVATION POLICY: A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ENFORCEMENT
conservation treaty was recognized, one that identified by competent international organiza-
moved away from protecting animals and plants tions for the preservation of threatened species.
for utilitarian purposes and toward a shared The Revised Convention is seen as being much
African responsibility for sustainable develop- stronger than the original and having great poten-
ment. Under the auspices of the Organization of tial for African wildlife conservation (Erinosho,
African Unity (now the African Union, AU), the 2013; IUCN, 2004; Lubbe, 2015; Van der Linde,
African Convention entered into force in 1969 2002). However, after adoption by the African
and was ratified by 31 countries as of December Union in 2003, it has taken much longer than
2001 (Van der Linde, 2002). It is credited with anticipated to receive the minimum number of
motivating the writing and adopting of national ratifications by African countries (15) for it to take
environmental legislation in a number of African effect. The Revised Convention appears to have
countries (Lyster, 1993). There were significant finally awoken from its “sleeping treaty” status
omissions in the document; however, among in March 2017 with little fanfare: the AU provides
them provisions for institutional structures to fa- this date for adoption of the Revised Convention
cilitate implementation by Party nations, as well (AU, 2017), but this likely refers instead to entry
as mechanisms to encourage compliance and into force (A. Lukacs, Ecolex, and N. Lubbe, North-
enforcement. Through a series of meetings and West University, South Africa, personal communi-
consultations, the treaty was extensively revised, cation), with 16 signatories including six cheetah
and adopted by the AU in 2003 (Ecolex, 2016a). range countries as shown in Table 21.1. The con-
Among the notable changes is the exclusion of servation community must now partner with and
reservations, thus requiring Parties to formulate motivate signatory governments to undertake the
common solutions to common problems, with treaty’s long-awaited implementation, including
no opting out by individual countries. encouraging the participation of the remaining
Article IX of the revised convention requires cheetah range countries.
Parties to adopt legislation ensuring that all
forms of taking or harvest of flora and fauna
Convention on Biological Diversity
are sustainably managed, and to employ scien-
tific monitoring of populations. Article X com- The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
pels contracting governments to identify and aims broadly at the conservation and sustainable
eliminate the factors causing the depletion of use of biological diversity. Although its text does
threatened species. These are suggested (but not identify any species of particular concern,
not prescribed) to be defined according to the many of its obligations are relevant to the chee-
IUCN Red List criteria, which would include the tah and other large carnivores, but its language
cheetah. Article XI requires Parties to regulate has been described as insufficient to establish “in
trade, possession, and transport of these spe- practice a clear boundary between compliance
cies to ensure that they are taken or obtained in and violation” (Trouwhorst, 2015). Perhaps the
accordance with both domestic legislation and chief value of this treaty is in providing a high-
international law, and enact appropriate penal profile forum for the development and adoption
sanctions and confiscation practices. This ad- of nonbinding but authoritative guidance, of
dresses a weakness of CITES that Party nations which the most relevant for the cheetah are two
often lack robust national implementing legisla- biodiversity targets adopted by the CBD Strategic
tion. Article XI also calls for Parties to cooperate Plan for 2011–20 in Aichi, Japan, known as Aichi
through bilateral and subregional agreements Targets 11 and 12. Target 11 calls for 17% of ter-
to control illegal wildlife trade. Article XII en- restrial ecosystems to be protected by 2020; a 2012
courages Parties to establish protected areas analysis of the World Protected Areas Database
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS PRIMARILY RELEVANT TO IN SITU CHEETAH CONSERVATION 297
estimated the coverage at 13% (Woodley as actually encompassing any species whose
et al., 2012). Yet, a recent analysis has found that, range extends across more than one country,”
even if the 17% target should be achieved, this and is evolving into an instrument for the
would likely protect less than 25% of the range of conservation of transboundary populations in
large carnivores, including the cheetah (Di Minin addition to those that regularly undertake long-
et al., 2016). Target 12 calls for the improvement distance movements. In 2009, the cheetah was
of the conservation status of threatened species included in CMS Appendix I, which extends the
in decline by 2020, and similar to the African highest degree of protection to “endangered”
Convention suggests (but does not prescribe) species, with the exception of the populations
that “threatened species” be defined according of Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe (cheetah
to IUCN Red List criteria (Critically Endangered, populations in these three countries are not list-
Endangered and Vulnerable) (CBD, 2010). Im- ed under the convention, for reasons discussed
provement of conservation status (which could later). Range countries, which are contracting
be measured by an improvement in Red List Parties to the Convention, agree to conserve and
category) will be a particular challenge for large restore the habitat of species listed on Appendix
carnivores in sub-Saharan Africa, where human I, as well as prohibit their taking (e.g., hunting
populations and habitat loss are projected to in- or other form of removal from the wild) except
crease substantially by 2050 (Visconti et al., 2015), under strict circumstances (e.g., scientific).
and where loss of savanna landscapes is acceler- The CMS provisions against taking and rec-
ating (Riggio et al., 2013). With these challenges ommendations for habitat conservation gener-
of projected range loss, and because it is unlikely ally have no “teeth” or enforcement mechanism.
that protected status can be conferred on enough For instance, CMS cheetah range states are
of their range to reverse projected population de- obliged to submit national reports every 3 years
clines (Di Minin et al., 2016), the establishment of (6 months before each regular Conference of the
a Large Carnivore Initiative under CBD with fo- Parties) to provide information on protection
cus on the development of conservation solutions measures, but similar to many other CMS-listed
outside protected areas would be highly benefi- species, the submission of reports has been spot-
cial. This would broadly benefit biodiversity, as ty, the information in the reports is often of du-
well as specifically addressing the unique prob- bious utility, and few have reported specifically
lems of large predator conservation. A volume of on cheetahs (Table 21.2). When they have, it is
the CBD Technical Series should be dedicated to in an abbreviated format and there is no inde-
provide guidance and best practices for the con- pendent review to verify information submitted
servation of large carnivores (Trouwhorst, 2015). (such as whether their population is increasing
or decreasing). There is no mechanism for pen-
alties for either failing to report or to fulfill their
Convention on the Conservation
obligations to prevent cheetah taking, conserve
of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
cheetah habitat, and remove obstacles to trans-
The Convention on the Conservation of boundary movement.
Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) However, CMS should not be viewed as inef-
defines “migratory species” as species “whose fective. It provides a political platform for dis-
members cyclically and predictably cross one or cussing conservation threats and, in the words
more national jurisdictional boundaries” (Ar- of one expert: “the Convention is ‘soft’ [law],
ticle I). As noted by Trouwhorst (2015); however, in such a way that no state need be reluctant to
“the term has subsequently been interpreted by ratify it, yet it encourages and guides Parties to
the CMS COP in a remarkably flexible manner, undertake practical and effective ‘hard’ work
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS
298 21. GLOBAL CHEETAH CONSERVATION POLICY: A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ENFORCEMENT
under specific regional Agreements” (Oster- as a target species for the development of a CMS
woldt, 1989). These subsidiary agreements are Agreement and for the Convention to, thus,
widely viewed as successful implementation play a more active role in transboundary chee-
process for CMS. A number of these agreements tah conservation (Trouwhorst, 2015). And in
have matured into “sophisticated regimes in 2017, the formation of a new joint CMS-CITES
their own right, complete with an effective insti- African Carnivore Initiative was announced, to
tutional structure and the political will to adopt include the cheetah along with the leopard, lion
measures to protect the species for which they and African wild dog. The primary focus will
are responsible” (Caddell, 2005). The existence be on “promoting coexistence, sustainable land
of small quotas for international trade in wild management and maintaining connectivity for
cheetah specimens under CITES for Botswana, all carnivores,” with a 3 year budget estimated at
Namibia, and Zimbabwe, as discussed later US $53 million (CITES, 2017).
in detail, led to the CMS decision to exclude Similar to CBD and CITES, when CMS gov-
cheetah populations of these countries from ernments meet at COPs, they can adopt recom-
Appendix I. Inclusion of these populations in mendations. Unlike the Convention text itself or
Appendix II (species with an unfavorable con- subsidiary agreements, recommendations are
servation status whose conservation requires nonbinding, but do carry weight by communicat-
international cooperation) is an option that ing shared priorities and drawing international
was discussed by the Scientific Council at its attention. The ninth CMS COP, held in Rome in
16th meeting in 2010 (CMS, 2010), but no action 2008, adopted a recommendation on Tigers and
was taken, as neither Botswana nor Namibia is other Asian Big Cats, which included the Asiatic
currently party to CMS (other non-Party range cheetah population in Iran (CMS, 2008). As that
states include the Central African Republic, Su- population is not transboundary, the most rel-
dan, South Sudan, and Zambia). Appendix II evant part of this recommendation for the Iranian
listing would have obliged exploration of a sub- cheetah is its call for increased financial support
sidiary legal agreement for these populations. from donor countries and organizations. CMS has
These CMS subsidiary agreements and mem- appointed under the CAMI an Asiatic cheetah fo-
oranda of understanding provide a vehicle for cal point, responsible for advising CMS on activi-
multinational and regional cooperation tailored ties related to the conservation of the species.
to specific groups of animals, particularly birds
and marine species (Caddell, 2005). Although Southern African Development
originally envisioned to improve the conserva- Community (SADC) Protocol on Wildlife
tion of species only partially protected under na-
Conservation and Law Enforcement
tional law (and listed on CMS Appendix II), these
agreements and related initiatives may also ex- The primary objective of the Protocol is to
tend to Appendix I species, and are also open to establish, within the framework of the respec-
the participation of non-Party countries. Cheetah tive national laws of each party, common ap-
populations may be already benefiting from two proaches to the conservation and sustainable
CMS subsidiary agreements: the Saharo-Sahelian use of wildlife resources, and to assist with
Megafauna Action Plan, focused on gazelles the effective enforcement of laws governing
in 14 North African countries, and the Central those resources. There are many measures to
Eurasian Aridland Mammals Concerted Action, be standardized, including species and habitat
which spurred the Central Asian Mammals Ini- protections, regulation of taking and trade, and
tiative (CAMI), and includes Iran and its cheetah powers granted to wildlife officers, among oth-
population. The cheetah has been recommended ers (Cirelli and Morgera, 2010). The Protocol
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON WILDLIFE TRADE CONTROL 299
does not identify any species of concern and thus the Serengeti National Park (Tanzania). Some
does not extend any specific protections to the indication of the value of this recognition is that
cheetah. It does allow for its governing Council less than 5% of listed sites are currently consid-
to determine sanctions to be taken against any ered “in danger” according to Article 4 (World
Party government which undertakes action that Heritage Convention, 2016). One of the selection
undermine the Protocol, or persistently fails to criteria for sites on the List is that they “contain
execute its obligations under the Protocol with- the most important and significant natural habi-
out good reason (Article 12). Two recent signifi- tats for in situ conservation of biological diversi-
cant developments to emerge from the Protocol ty, including those containing threatened species
for the cheetah include the SADC Program on of outstanding universal value from the point of
Transfrontier Conservation Areas (SADC TFCA) view of science or conservation,” and thus for
and the SADC Law Enforcement and Anti- the cheetah the Convention has the potential to
Poaching Strategy 2016–21 (SADC LEAP, 2015). assist in the preservation of priority sites through
The TFCA Program has an active infrastructure their nomination for World Heritage.
of support, including a Steering Committee and
a membership Network of practitioners; 18 ex- INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
isting and potential transboundary protected EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON
areas are in the process of being developed WILDLIFE TRADE CONTROL
(SADC TFCA, 2016), all representing important
landscapes for cheetah conservation, with the Convention on International Trade
most active being the Kavango-Zambezi TFCA in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
(KAZA, 2016) and the Great Limpopo Trans-
and Flora
frontier Park (GLTP, 2016). The SADC LEAP
Strategy urges every member country to create a CITES is best known for its appendices. No
national task force to coordinate wildlife-related commercial trade is permitted for species listed
law enforcement and antipoaching issues, and on Appendix I, regulated commercial trade is
establishes a SADC Wildlife Crime Prevention permitted for species listed on Appendices II and
and Coordination Unit to coordinate the efforts III, and trade in unlisted species is not regulated
of the national task forces (WWF, 2015). under the Convention. Parties must, each, des-
ignate a Management Authority (MA) and a Sci-
entific Authority (SA), and before any legal trade
Convention Concerning the Protection of
of species or specimens listed under Appendix II
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
may take place, the range state Party has to con-
Contracting governments are committed to duct a nondetriment finding (NDF) exercise pri-
doing everything within their power to ensure or to export. The cheetah was first listed in 1975
the “identification, protection, conservation, on Appendix I, which includes species “threat-
presentation, and transmission to future genera- ened with extinction which are or may be affect-
tions” of the natural heritage situated on their ed by trade. Trade in specimens of these species
territories (Article 4). It should be noted that must be subject to particularly strict regulation
the Convention defines “natural heritage” to in- in order not to endanger further their survival
clude, but not be limited to, sites on the World and must only be authorized in exceptional
Heritage List (Trouwhorst, 2015), currently over circumstances,” according to Article III
1000. A number of important large protected of the Convention text. In practice, exceptional
areas for cheetah are World Heritage sites, in- circumstances have been interpreted as not for
cluding the Okavango Delta (Botswana) and primarily commercial purposes; in other words,
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS
300 21. GLOBAL CHEETAH CONSERVATION POLICY: A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ENFORCEMENT
a transaction not for resale (such as the move-
ment of private household effects), or for sci-
entific or educational purposes (CITES, 2010).
CITES requires permits from both the country
of import and export which approve any trade
in Appendix I species. A key cheetah range
country, Namibia, acceded to the Convention in
1990 and entered a reservation for the species,
meaning that the country would be treated as a
non-Party to CITES concerning cheetah trade.
As the Convention does allow for trade with
non-Party nations, this allowed Namibia to ex-
port wild cheetahs without permits (although
CITES encourages the use of alternative permits
when trading with non-Parties), which it did
FIGURE 21.1 Total net imports of cheetah trophies
from the 1960s up until 1975, when it was the
grouped by importer, 1993–2012, from records of the CITES
main supplier to zoos (Marker-Kraus, 1997). In
Trade Database (Nowell, 2014). DE, Germany; EU, Europe-
1992, Namibia explained at the 8th meeting of an Union.
the Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, Japan,
that it had entered a reservation intending to trophy hunting of cheetah, has not used its quo-
continue cheetah exports because attaching a ta at all. CITES Trade Database records indicate
commercial value to their populations was con- that Namibia’s exports exceeded its quota of 150
sidered “a prime means for the species conser- in both 2008 and 2009. There may be recording
vation” (CITES, 1992a). Namibia submitted a errors because figures provided by the Namibia
proposal to list cheetah populations of southern government (Nowell, 2014) of trophy exports
African countries on Appendix II (Govt. of for 2009 do not correspond to the WCMC-UNEP
Namibia, 1992), which would have allowed CITES Trade Database records for that year. Nev-
commercial trade with export permits. The pro- ertheless, the Namibian government enacted a
posal was withdrawn after a compromise was 1-year moratorium on cheetah trophy hunting in
worked out between various Parties to CITES, April 2009 (Anon, 2009) to investigate the system,
resulting in an annotation to the Appendix I list- and since then, Namibian exports do not appear
ing allowing annual export quotas for Namibia, to have exceeded its allocated quota.
Zimbabwe, and Botswana. As a result, Namibia Cheetah trophy hunting lacks the appeal of
also withdrew its reservation on the cheetah. “the Big Five” trophy animals although, as just
The Appendix I quotas allow the annual export discussed, the CITES quota is mainly trophies
of both live animals and hunting trophies with and is largely filled annually. One interview sur-
the following limits: Namibia (150), Zimbabwe vey found 37% of American hunters expressed
(50), and Botswana (5) (CITES, 1992b). an interest in hunting cheetahs, but cheetah
Most of the CITES trade under this quota sys- trophies cannot, currently, be imported into
tem has been in hunting trophies, mainly to EU the United States under American national law
Member States and particularly to Germany, with (Lindsey et al., 2006). South Africa’s CITES SA
Namibia the primary exporter (90% of total net recently undertook a preliminary NDF concern-
trophy exports shown in Fig. 21.1). Zimbabwe has ing the possibility of establishing a national
exported an average of fewer than 10 trophies per trophy hunting quota for cheetah, and found
year, and Botswana, which does not permit the that “there are insufficient data available on
3. CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS