Jachttoerisme & Natuurbehoud: welke rol voor CITES ? Case-study: de ijsbeer “30 jaar CITES in België” Symposium 03/03/2014, K.B.I.N. - Brussel
Dr. Yves LECOCQ Senior Policy Advisor FACE
• Opgericht in 1977 • Verdedigt en behartigt de belangen van Leden = jagersverenigingen van 36 Europese landen (28 EU + 8) • Lid van IUCN sinds 1987 • Secretariaat in Brussel – team van 10 • 7 Million Hunters for Conservation in Europe
www.face.eu
Jachttoerisme & Natuurbehoud? THE LION'S SHARE OF THE HUNT Trophy Hunting and Conservation: A review of the legal Eurasian tourist hunting market and trophy trade under CITES A TRAFFIC Europe Regional Report
“Trophy hunting has increasingly become part of conservation issues and policies, and is promoted as a low-impact sustainable use approach and to add value to natural resources”
Jachttoerisme & Natuurbehoud? “Trophy hunting generates however contradictory positions! - some believe that the consumptive use of individual animals for the sake of the population, the species, or the ecosystem is ethically acceptable, others vehemently oppose the killing of animals - media publish highly emotional reports on illegal or unethical practises with sensational illustrations, creating public resentment - public perception still influenced by image of big game hunters operating during the colonial era - disagreement about social equity and economic implications of trophy hunting (e.g. CAMPFIRE, Zimbabwe, since 1989)”
Definitie / vertaling van “Trophy hunting”? = jacht in het buitenland, jachttoerisme...
Jachttoerisme & Natuurbehoud? “Uncertainty about ecological, economic or social consequences? - through trophy hunting, wildlife becomes economically important and increases the interest and concern of rural populations to conserve this source of income - …government agencies are interested in enacting adequate legislation, supporting protection efforts and research and monitoring activities - revenues gained can be reallocated to management, protection and habitat conservation …but - may result in short-sighted overexploitation of populations, illegal killing and smuggling - conservation returns nor advantages for the local population are not always guaranteed” ± 6,5 miljoen jagers in Europa ± 20% ervan jagen (soms) in het buitenland ± 25% ervan jaarlijks = ± 180 miljoen € omzet / jaar: ± 1/3 blijft in gastland
Internationale regelgeving handel in wilde soorten Travelling hunters transport hunting trophies (antlers, horns, tusks, skulls, hides, pelts…) back home = very personal “souvenirs” → such items are very rarely traded or sold afterwards! Nevertheless considered (and monitored & regulated) by CITES as “trade” CITES distinguishes between: - commercial effects - Personal or household effects = less restrictions & formal rules Resolution 2.11 (Rev.): ”...trade in hunting trophies of animals of the species listed in Appendix I be permitted only…accompanied by import and export permits...” Aim: to allow App. I trophy trade only where it would enhance the survival of the species concerned (e.g. leopard) – possibly under a quota system!
Europese Unie – 28 Lidstaten Within the EU, CITES is applied through Council Regulation (EC) 338/97 which provides for more restrictive trade regulations (e.g. some European species such as CITES App. II species Wolf, Brown Bear and Lynx, receive stricter protection through listing in Annex A) Article 2 (‘Definitions’), paragraph (j): “personal or household effects shall mean dead specimens, parts and derivatives thereof, that are the belongings of a private individual and that form, or are intended to form, part of his normal goods and chattels” Article 7(3) (‘Derogations - Personal and household effects’) Implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, Article 57 (‘Introduction into the Community of personal and household effects’): “This derogation shall only apply to specimens, including hunting trophies, if...” + Evaluation by EU Scientific Review Group
Beheer van grote roofdieren in Europa Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Considers that the hunting of large carnivores (in Europe) is acceptable under certain conditions (in accordance with international, national or regional laws and be carried out humanely) and may benefit and be compatible with their conservation
Management Plans
Enkele conclusies? * Tourist hunting in Eurasia is a stable market with strong selfregulating mechanisms * The majority of European hunters are relatively responsive and reject or avoid destinations that have a “bad image” * Client requirements for hunting seem to support at least some minimum conditions of sustainability; most populations concerned are therefore not overexploited • The analysis of CITES trophy trade indicates that the annual trade in trophy items of CITES-listed species is a matter of very small numbers – confiscations of trophies from actual hunting operations are exceptional • CITES is a powerful instrument to regulate the tourist hunting market
Enkele aanbevelingen? • Encouraging dialogue with tourist hunting stakeholders …promotes conservation
issues within this target group • The majority of foreign hunters support conservation and even condemn those who endanger the public image of hunters by inconsiderate behaviour • Initiating a common certification process for tourist hunting destinations / organisers may be a strong long-term instrument to reduce unacceptable practises by organisers, by focussing the hunters’ attention on certified organisers.
Jachttoerisme & Raad van Europa 2004 Recommendation Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe emphasised that : “If managed professionally and scientifically, hunting tourism … may prove to be a factor of development for rural and mountain regions. It may also make a significant contribution to rural tourism, ecotourism, job creation and the preservation of local traditions”
European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity Adopted in 2007 by the Council of Europe’s Standing Committee of the BERN Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
To ensure that hunting and hunting tourism in Europe are practiced in a sustainable manner, making a positive contribution to the conservation of species and habitats and the needs of society
The Charter • Provides a set of non-binding principles and guidelines for sustainable hunting (with firearms, bows, traps, hounds or birds of prey) to facilitate biodiversity conservation and rural development • Promotes cooperation between hunters and other stakeholders • Seeks to ensure that hunting tourism is sustainable • Promotes forms of hunting tourism that provide local communities with socio-economic incentives to conserve and manage wildlife and their habitats, as well as general biodiversity • Promotes measures that increase hunter proficiency and safety • Encourages hunter education, awareness and information measures • Promotes best hunting practices
CITES & livelihoods Resolution Conf. 16.6 RECALLING Resolution Conf. 8.3 (Rev. CoP13), adopted at the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Bangkok, 2004), where the Conference recognized that implementation of CITES-listing decisions should take into account potential impacts on the livelihoods of the poor; THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION (…) RECOGNIZES that: a) empowerment of rural communities should be encouraged through measures that include, as appropriate: (…) ii) maximizing the benefits for rural communities of CITES implementation and trade concerned, in particular to support poverty eradication; iii) promoting associations of primary users of wildlife, however they are defined; and iv) recognizing resource tenure and ownership, and traditional knowledge of or in rural communities associated with CITES-listed species, subject to any applicable national or international law; (…) b) support for the implementation of CITES listings should be enhanced by public awareness and education, including programmes for rural communities, to ensure that: (…) ii) communities support policies and activities designed to reduce or eliminate illegal trade in specimens of CITES-listed species; and c) as implementation of some listings may have short-term negative impacts on rural communities, mitigation strategies should be adopted as appropriate. These strategies may include: (…) A. income-generation approaches, such as payment for ecosystem services, sustainable tourism, employment in eco-tourism or as game wardens; and B. licences or concessions for tourism, hunting, fishing and harvesting; and the development of alternative products; (…)
Globale context
IUCN Sustainable Use Initiative (1995) Policy Statement adopted at its 2nd World Conservation Congress in 2000 (Amman) “The use of wild living resources, if sustainable, is an important conservation tool because the social and economic benefits derived from such use provide incentives for people to conserve them”
Case Study: de ijsbeer Ursus maritimus Biologisch statuut -
-
Wereldpopulatie: 20.000-25.000 ex. (schattingen in ‘60: 5.000!) Voorkomen: USA, Canada, Groenland, Noorwegen, Rusland Levensverwachting: 20-30 jaar Voortplanting: vanaf leeftijd 4-6 jaar, met tussenpauze ± 3 jaar Voornaamste limiterende factor: aanbod Phoca hispida als voedsel, bepaald door bereikbaarheid via zee-ijs
Juridisch statuut -
CITES App. II Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (1973)
Beheer van ijsbeer in Canada
-
Bestand: ± 15.500 ex. (>10.000 adult) 1 biologische populatie (genetisch) 13 sub-populaties (voor beheer) Grondwettelijk recht op “harvest” voor “Aboriginal peoples” onder Treaty Rights / Land Claim Agreements Jaarlijks afschot (incl. “probleemberen”) ± 600 ex. = 3-4% v. populatie Quota-bepaling, monitoring & coördinatie door Canadian Wildlife Director’s Committee, Polar Bear Administrative Committee, Polar Bear Technical Committee en Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
Jacht op ijsberen in Canada - - “Subsistence harvest” sinds duizenden jaren, onder beheerplanning sinds 1970’ - - Strikt voorbehouden aan Inuits, met sterke sociale controle! (nauwelijks illegaal afschot) - - Volledig gebruik van alle producten: vlees, pels, beenderen… - - In 3 Provincies (N.W. Territories, Nunavut, Yukon) “trofeejacht” toegelaten onder zeer strikte voorwaarden
IJsbeerjacht door gastjagers - Beperkt % van totale quota - Enkel onder leiding van Inuit jager-gids - Enkel traditionele jachtmethode met hondensledes (geen sneeuwscooters e.d.m.) - Verblijf in Inuit gemeenschap
IJsbeer-jachttourisme…
Een unieke ervaring… …vanuit meer dan één standpunt! - KOUD! - DUUR! min. 30.000 € (reis niet inbegrepen), maar ± 80% blijft in Inuit gemeenschap >< 2.000 € waarde ijsbeerpels - 2006: 153 toeristjacht-ijsberen - 2008 Endangered Species Act → USA markt = 0! - 2011: 26
CITES & ijsbeerjacht? Internationale “handel”: ± 300/jaar = “insignificant”! CITES CoP15 (Doha, 2010) US voorstel tot “up-listing” ijsbeer van App. II naar App. I 48+ / 62 - (incl. EU 27!) / 11 o
CITES CoP16 (Bangkok, 2013) US voorstel tot “up-listing” ijsbeer van App. II naar App. I (+ steun Rusland) 38+ / 42 - / 46 o (incl. EU 27!)
CITES CoP17 (SA) ???
NGO’s & CITES & ijsbeerjacht & klimaatsverandering! 2013: intensieve campagnevoering door Humane Society international, Species Survival Network, etc. “Canada’s commercial polar bear hunting…is unsustainable…and needs to end now if these animals are to stand any chance of survival” Analyse van engelstalige media tussen 15.01 en 06.03.2013 (= dag voor CITES CoP16 stemming): - 347 “ijsbeer” artikels, waarvan 283 relevant, waarvan 67 over CITES (4 x meer dan in 2010 voor CoP15!) - 5 hoofdthema’s, alle ± losgekoppeld van problematiek “climate change”
NGO’s & CITES & ijsbeerjacht Focus op “commercial hunting” killed for profit…commercial exploitation…profitable trade Systematisch gelinkd aan Canada en losgekoppeld van Inuit-economy! Manipulatie van data 30,000 to 32,000 specimens in global trade in decade to 2010 = suggestie van 32.000 gedode ijsberen! Uitsterven-dreiging the world’s last remaining polar bears…only 20,000…. = suggestie dat er “vroeger” veel meer ijsberen waren! Publieke & wetenschappelijke opinies 2007 IFAW-HIS opinion poll? WWF + IUCN + CITES adviesraad = tegen up-listing! Ethische aspecten Good (USA, Rusland, EU) versus Bad (Canada, China)
CITES & ijsberen & climate change? Feiten & “voorspellingen” Klimaatverandering → afname oppervlakte / kwaliteit zee-ijs → verslechtering toegang tot voedsel (ringelrobben) → afname conditie & voortplanting ijsberen Projectie (uit 2008): 2/3 minder ijsberen tegen 2050!? …maar: CITES is een regulerend instrument tot voorkoming van uitsterven van soorten door internationale handel
CITES & ijsberen & climate change? Up-listing ijsbeer naar App. I? - Kan enkel als App. I criteria gelden – is niet het geval! - Nauwelijks impact op aantal gejaagde beren – want Inuit “harvest” valt niet onder CITES (maar zal wel hun welzijn negatief beïnvloeden!) - Geeft Staten* vals gevoel “iets te doen” aan probleem van klimaatverandering & misleiden publieke opinie * USA: olie- en gaswinning in ijsbeergebieden valt niet onder ESA!
Dank voor uw aandacht…
