Page 1

Journal of the WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY THE PRACTICAL & LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF CAPTIVE/FARMED WILDLIFE CHINA’S TIGER FARMS MUCH LAW BUT LITTLE JUSTICE Richard Hargreaves A STATED PREFERENCE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHINESE DEMAND FOR FARMED VS. WILD BEAR BILE Adam J. Dutton, Cameron Hepburn & David W. Macdonald CAT DILEMMA: TOO PROTECTED TO ESCAPE TROPHY HUNTING? Lucille Palazy, Christophe Bonenfant, Jean-Michel Gaillard, & Frank Courchamp IMPRESSIONS & PROSE: “THE BUTTERFLY” Chris Wright

Summer/Fall 2011 ~ Volume V WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY © All Rights Reserved


Journal of the WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY


The Journal of the WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY is published by the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Washington, DC. Copyright Š 2011 All Rights Reserved.


Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V iii

NOTA BENE The Journal of the WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY (Journal) is published semi-annually by the

WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society.

The Journal provides a unique forum for professionals and scholars to analyze and comment on the issues affecting wildcats around the world, reflecting the perspectives of all disciplines including law, education, medicine, science, philosophy, religion, humanities, social science, and art. Information on current topics, submission guidelines, and deadlines is available on our website at: http://www.wcclas.org/publications. The Journal is reviewed by the Board of Directors of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society and by our Legal Editor. R esearch, commentaries, opinions, views, and content expressed and contained in the articles published in the Journal are those of the contributing authors and not of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, its Board of Directors, or staff. No compensation is paid to the authors in exchange for, review, editing, and subsequent publication. The Journal is published in a specialty-licensed electronic format. Disseminating this feature in any manner is strictly prohibited. Disseminating the Journal in whole or part and reprinting or republishing it on the Internet or in any other form is also strictly prohibited. Queries related to reprinting and republishing articles contained in the Journal should be sent to journaleditor@wcclas.org. Soft-bound copies of the Journal are available via a yearly subscription (two consecutive volumes) for $50.00US. Subscriptions may be purchased on our website or by mailing a check to WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, P.O. Box 65495, Washington, DC 20035.


iv Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V


Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V v

FOR ALL WILDCATS


vi Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V


Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PRACTICAL & LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF CAPTIVE/FARMED WILDLIFE

PREFACE

ix

CHINA’S TIGER FARMS MUCH LAW BUT LITTLE JUSTICE Richard Hargreaves LLB, FCILEx.

1

A STATED PREFERENCE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 41 CHINESE DEMAND FOR FARMED VS. WILD BEAR BILE Adam J. Dutton, Cameron Hepburn & David W. Macdonald CAT DILEMMA: TOO PROTECTED TO ESCAPE TROPHY HUNTING? Lucille Palazy, Christophe Bonenfant, Jean-Michel Gaillard, & Frank Courchamp IMPRESSIONS & PROSE: “THE BUTTERFLY” Chris Wright

75

91


viii Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V


Preface

ix

PREFACE “We must be the change we wish to see in the world.” ~ MAHATMA GANDHI Education is a vital part of the work we perform. Education is necessary in order to bring about the changes required to protect and preserve the remaining wildcat populations throughout the world. But what does education mean? And why is education so vital to our work in wildcat conservation? To start let’s turn to a standard dictionary definition of education: EDUCATION is the development of the abilities of the mind (learning to know): a liberal education. TRAINING is practical education (learning to do) or practice, usually under supervision, in some art, trade, or profession: training in art, teacher training. 4. learning, knowledge, enlightenment. EDUCATION, CULTURE are often used interchangeably to mean the results of schooling. EDUCATION however, suggests chiefly the information acquired. CULTURE is a mode of thought and feeling encouraged by education. It suggests an aspiration toward, and an appreciation of high intellectual and esthetic ideals: The level of culture in a country depends upon the education of its people. 1

Essentially we learn just from a d ictionary definition that education not only includes acquiring knowledge through the attainment and assessment of information but the development of the mind and thought to higher ideals. We co uld say therefore that an educated person is someone who thinks clearly and 1

RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY (2012).


x Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

rationally, who views and perceives the world and environment objectively and who acts maturely. John Dewey an American philosopher, social, educational and political thinker and theorist, argued that the purpose of education should not be solely training in a predetermined skill set but the ability to apply and use those skills for the greater good. From this premise Dewey explains that education is necessary for social change and reform. H e states in My Pedagogic Creed that “education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness; is the only sure method of social reconstruction.”2 Through the process of education we learn to expand our minds, our level of thinking. W e are able and fully capable to appreciate a country we’ve never visited, to demonstrate compassion for other individuals even if we have different experiences. This is precisely why education is vital to the conservation of wildcats. Through the process of learning, sharing ideas, through reading, writing and dialogue, we can teach, inform, and be the basis of the social consciousness in order to bring about the social reform required to protect and preserve wildcats. In this issue of the JOURNAL OF THE WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY, we selected articles that discuss, from different perspectives, the basic premise that captive farmed wildcats and other wildlife for use in trade of their parts and products will aid in relieving the pressure on wild populations. In all we learn that this premise is quite the contrary and farming wildlife for trade purposes in reality creates an increase in the demand for “wild” wildlife. We also learn that demand increases as the level of extinction increases which in turn increases the price individuals are willing to expend to attain their prized possession.

2

JOHN DEWEY, MY PEDAGOGIC CREED, (1897).


Preface

xi

From a practical perspective the theory that farming wildlife for commercial trade in order to relieve the pressure on wild populations seems reasonable (notwithstanding ethical considerations). A nd yet we are instructed through research by scholars, scientists, biologists, conservationist, and lawyers that farming wildlife solely for trade does not take the pressure off wild populations. Why is this so? Why does this simple solution to protecting wildlife populations fail? B ecause we failed. Unfortunately the same is true with respect to the laws. Laws are created, implemented and enforced to protect our individual interests, health and well-being, our freedom. Many laws are enacted only after a tragedy to restore societal order, so that others in the future are not subject to ill will brought against them by another in our society. The same is true with respect to the laws both domestically and internationally that deters and restrains trade in wildlife. We’ve destroyed wildlife populations to such an extent that they may not be able to fully recover in the wild. And as a result we needed to implement restrains on trade in wildlife to restore environmental order. Dewey emphasized that education is a conduit to social change, social reform, and social consciousness. Education is not solely about the recitation of facts and figures—it is about value and virtue. I n this sense the knowledge we attain through the educational process raises our level of thinking and ought to raise our level of behavior accordingly. It is only when the knowledge we attain through learning is not applied to our behavior that we fail as individuals. B ut when we understand and are capable of applying what we’ve learned and intentionally behave to the contrary do we fail humanity.

WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

1

CHINA’S TIGER FARMS MUCH LAW BUT LITTLE JUSTICE Richard Hargreaves LLB, FCILEx. United Kingdom

Introduction Tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives. T he 2007 statement by the international community, ♦ restating nearly fifteen years of efforts to crack down on China’s Tiger farms, could not have been clearer. Despite this China’s Tiger farmers have consistently breached Chinese domestic law and consistently, often deliberately, caused China to be in breach of international law. In considering these circumstances, this article seeks to understand why China’s Tiger farms came into existence; looks in depth at the efforts taken by the international community in response to their establishment; and provides a potted history of China’s first Tiger farm by way of an example of how such operations have consistently operated outside of both Chinese domestic law and international law. In order to understand why Tiger farms came into existence in the middle of the 1980s and why the Tiger farming industry has persisted and grown over the last quarter of a century, it is necessary to understand that Tiger (Panthera tigris) parts and derivatives have been used in Oriental medicine, predominantly by Asian communities, throughout Asia and the world, for centuries. F or the purpose of this overview, the practice is referred to as Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) but also it is considered herein to include traditional medicine practices involving Tiger parts and derivatives throughout Asia, including ♦

International community as referenced herein means all Sovereign Member States that are signatories to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora (CITES) (Also known as Parties to the Convention).


2 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

countries such as Vietnam, North Korea, and, Japan as well as in China.

The History of Using Tiger Parts & Derivatives in TCM The use of herbs in medicine in China and across Asia dates back over three thousand years but it took until the second century A.D. before a number of authors put together the first major text on the subject; compiling what was believed up to that point. The work titled Shen Ben Cao Jing, is known in the west as the Divine Husbandman’s Classic of the Materia Medica. 1 However, it is the second major text, compiled by Tao Hong-Jing between 480 and 498 A.D., Ben Cao Jing Ji Zhu or Collection of Commentaries on the Classic of the Materia Medica, that is most relevant in terms of understanding Tiger farming. This is because the Collection of Commentaries is believed to contain the first published reference to the use of Tiger bone in medicine in China. 2 As such, notwithstanding the fact that Tiger parts and derivatives were never scientifically proven to have any healing properties whatsoever, they have been used and consumed in TCM for over 1,500 years. Over those 1,500 years, the specific parts of Tigers that were used and the purposes for which they were used became more and more peculiar. The reasons for use, up to the late sixteenth century, were recorded in an extensive text published in 1596 called the Ben Cao Gang Mu or Compendium of Materia Medica. This massive work, comprising over 52 volumes, took its author, Li Shizhen, twenty-seven years to assemble. Shizhen was disappointed by what he saw as i naccuracies and incorrect information in many of the Materia Medica texts available to him so he set about compiling a definitive and correctly revised text. After reading 800 books on medicine (practically everything available at that time) purportedly travelling over 6,000 miles to consult with local herbalists across the length and breadth of 1

CYNTHIA BIRKHIMER OMD, The History of Chinese Herbal Medicine, available at http://cynthiabirkhimeromd.com/herbs.htm. 2 JUDY MILLS & PETER JACKSON, Killed for a Cure: A Review of the Worldwide Trade in Tiger Bone, TRAFFIC (1994).


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

3

China, and ten years of writing, Shizhen finally completed his work in 1578. S ubsequently, he revised it in 1580 and again in 1587; just six years prior to his death in 1593. Shizhen died three years before the Compendium was first officially published. It lay dormant and largely unrecognised for a time before being reorganized to include other works by Shizhen along with improved illustrations. As a result, further updated editions appeared in 1603, 1640, 1658, 1684 a nd 1717, and the Compendium became a c lassic. So much so that it was not replaced as the official pharmaceutical Materia Medica of China until Zhong Yao Zhi or Manual of Chinese Materia Medica, was published in 1959 as the first Materia Medica sponsored by the Chinese communist government. 3 Retrospectively, this means that until 1959 in China, Tiger nose was an official cure for epilepsy. Tiger teeth were official cures for rabies, asthma, and penis sores. Tiger eyeballs were official cures for malaria and the stomach of a Tiger was officially considered a cure for nausea in humans. 4 The list in the Compendium goes on but it should not be forgotten that Tiger parts and derivatives were being used for medicinal purposes elsewhere too. Tiger fat was listed in the Indian Materia Medica as a treatment for leprosy and rheumatism and Tiger claws were used in Lao PDR as a sedative. These are again, just two of the numerous examples for the use of Tiger parts.5 Throughout all of TCM, however, it has always been and remains the bones of a Tiger that are the most highly prized. Tiger bone was removed from China’s Materia Medica in 1993 but to this day some TCM practitioners and doctors continue to promote the use of Tiger parts and derivatives, such as Tiger bone glue, noted in the official pharmacopeia in Vietnam. 6 3

See SUBHUTI DHARMANANDA, Li Shizhen: Scholar Worthy of Emulation, INSTITUTE FOR TRADITIONAL MEDICINE, available at http://www.itmonline.org/arts/lishizhen.htm and http://www.famouschinese.com/virtual/Li_Shizhen. 4 MILLS, supra note 2, at 5; see also http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate. 5 MILLS, supra note 2, at 4. 6 See Global Tiger Initiative Secretariat, Global Tiger Recovery Program, ANNEX: National Tiger Recovery Priorities & Global Support Programs, (2011), available at http://www.globaltigerinitiative.org.


4 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Tiger bones in TCM are thought to relieve pain in muscles and bones, to fortify the body, 7 and instill a warming effect to combat cold conditions such as r heumatism. 8 The method of preparing Tiger bones for use in TCM involves cleaning off the flesh followed by roasting them over a charcoal fire using oil or vinegar. T he Tiger bones are then ground down into a powder that is used to make pills and plasters or mixed with other herbal concoctions. 9 Tiger bone wine is made by soaking comparatively small segments of the bones in wine, 10 but more often, it seems to be made by immersing entire Tiger carcasses into large vats of rice wine. 11 Tiger bone glue is made by boiling the Tiger’s bones until they form a sticky substance that is dried into a powder and mixed with any ordinary wine. 12

The Impact of Using Tiger Parts & Derivatives in TCM on Tiger Populations Since 1900 Whilst unpalatable and unnecessary it is likely that the use of Tiger parts and derivatives in TCM has only been a major contributing factor to the decline in Tiger numbers, to their present position on t he brink of extinction in the wild, since around 1900. Throughout the Twentieth Century and the opening years of the Twenty-First Century, it is estimated that as human populations have increased, Tiger numbers in the wild have plummeted from approximately 100,000 t o under 4,000 at the time of writing in 2011. This decline is primarily attributed to the hunting of Tigers as pests and for sport; poaching of Tigers for

7

KRISTIN NOWELL, Tiger Bone Medicines and Trade, CAT NEWS 18 (1993). MILLS, supra note 2, at 6. 9 Id.; see also Chinese Medicine Threatens Asia’s Last Tigers, CAT NEWS 13 (1990). 10 MILLS, supra note 2, at 6. 11 RICHARD JONES, Exposed: Dark secret of the farm where tigers' bodies are plundered to make £185 wine, DAILY MAIL (20 February 2010), available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article. 12 EDUCATION FOR NATURE VIETNAM, Summary of Tiger Trade Investigation Findings, ENV (2010), available at http://envietnam.org/library/Resource. 8


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

5

their skins, bones, and other body parts; and the destruction of critical Tiger habitat for human commercial and residential use. In fact, it seems highly probable that the hunting of tigers as pests and for sport and the use of their body parts and derivatives for TCM, were closely linked during the Twentieth Century. In the preface to Kristin Nowell’s Far from a Cure report for TRAFFIC in 2000, a preeminent Tiger conservationist, Peter Jackson revealed that: “Russian scientists recalled that, in former times, frozen [Tiger] carcasses were bought by Chinese traders, and hunters sold Tiger skeletons to China in the 1930s and as late as 1958.” 13 A safe assumption, gleaned from Jackson, is that such purchases by the Chinese were so that the parts and derivatives, of the carcasses and skeletons that were purchased, could be used in TCM. Jackson then went on to highlight the fact that shortly after the Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949, t he South China Tiger (Panthera tigris amoyensis) was declared a pest. It was perceived to be a threat to China’s agricultural output. As a result, official teams were appointed to hunt down the South China Tigers 14 and bounties were paid by the Chinese government for the Tigers’ skins and bones. 15 The bounty system worked. T he South China Tiger was practically exterminated. Over 3,000 s kins were turned over to the Chinese government during the 1950s and 1960s alone. 16 The few remaining Tigers managed to survive for a s hort time. Although the South China Tiger is still officially classified as Critically Endangered, since it was last assessed for the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species back in 2008, those reviewing it took the view that “on the balance of evidence, the taxon appears to be Extinct in the Wild.” 17 If their assessment is true, this means that only five of the nine Tiger sub-species acknowledged to exist 13

KRISTIN NOWELL, Far From a Cure: The Tiger Trade Revisited, TRAFFIC (2000).

14

Id. KRISTIN NOWELL & LING XU, Taming the Tiger Trade: China’s Markets for Wild and Captive Tiger Products since its 1993 Domestic Trade Ban, TRAFFIC (2007). 16 NOWELL, supra note 13, at v. 17 PHILIP J. NYHUS, Panthera tigris ssp. Amoyensis, IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES (2011), available at http://www.iucnredlist.org. 15


6 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

in modern times remain in the wild; all populations’ perilously low; and all classified as either Endangered or Critically Endangered. Kristin Nowell and Xu Ling reported: “In a relatively short period of time, China went from one of the [Tiger] range States with the most Tigers to the range State with the least.” 18 However, China also accumulated a massive bank of Tiger bones 19 for use in TCM which combined with modern methods of production, means that by the early 1990s there were over 200 companies producing TCM products containing Tiger bone. 20 Putting this into context, Nowell and Ling stated that the: Chinese medicine industry representatives told Jenkins (2006) that: The annual removal of Tigers from the wild [in China] peaked in the 1960s at approximately 300 animals, yielding in the region of three metric tonnes of Tiger bone. T he harvest rate declined from approximately 200 animals per annum in the 1970s to less than 100 a nimals per year in the 1980s. The decline in annual harvests reflected declining numbers of Tigers in the wild. At this time poaching was non-existent as it was not illegal to kill Tigers [sic]. During this period, approximately 1000kg of Tiger bone was used annually in the production of [traditional Chinese medicines]. 21

Jackson already correctly speculated that by the middle of the 1980s, China’s Tiger bone bank was running low. 22 He came to this conclusion because of an increase in reports, at the time, by arrested poachers who claimed they were illegally killing wild Tigers for the Chinese in countries outside of China to satisfy the Chinese demand for Tiger bones. In 1987, J ackson was one of the first to report on China’s official solution to its shortage of Tiger bone—the creation of the first Tiger farm. 23 Before 18

NOWELL, supra note 15, at 3. NOWELL, supra note 13, at v. 20 Id. at 3-4. 21 NOWELL, supra note 15, at 4. 22 NOWELL, supra note 13, at v. 23 PETER JACKSON, Tiger Breeding Station to Provide Bones Proposed, CAT NEWS 7 (1987). 19


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

7

presenting a comprehensive analysis on Tiger farms, it is necessary to understand the relevant international and domestic laws governing Tiger conservation and trade; against which the activities of Tiger farms can then be better put into context.

The Legal Framework Concerning Internationally and in China

Tiger

Farming

The main international law concerning the global trade in Tigers, their parts, and products containing derivatives of their parts, is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES came into force on 1 J uly 1975 a nd from the outset, all Tiger sub-species, except the Siberian Tiger, were and are listed on CITES Appendix I. T his means that they cannot be legally traded internationally for commercial purposes between CITES member States (also referred to as the Parties). 24 At present, eighty-five percent of the world’s countries (referred to as States) are Parties to CITES including all of the thirteen Tiger Range Countries (TRCs). In July 1987, the Siberian Tiger was finally transferred from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I during the Sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 25 China acceded to CITES on 8 January 1981 and entered into force domestically in China on 8 A pril 1981.26 Notwithstanding this, China did not issue any CITES import or export permits in respect of products containing Tiger parts or derivatives until 1990. China’s reasoning behind this non-compliance with CITES was that there were generally very few ways in which to determine whether products that claimed to contain Tiger parts and derivatives actually did. 27

24

SUSAN MAINKA, Tiger Progress? The Response to CITES Resolution Conf. 9.13, TRAFFIC (1997). 25 PETER JACKSON, Transfer of Siberian Tiger from CITES App. II to App, I, CAT NEWS 7 (1987). 26 See http://cites.org/eng/disc/parties/chronolo.php. 27 MILLS, supra note 2, at. 14.


8 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Dramatically, during the three year period from 1990 to 1992 in which China did issue CITES export permits for products stated to contain Tiger parts or derivatives, its figures showed that it exported more than 27 million units of Tiger products. Over 26 million of these were specified as g rains or caps (presumably TCM capsules and/or pills). I n addition, China also exported 71,014kg to Japan—thousands of containers, t housands of cartons, and bottles of wine in those three years alone; all were reported as containing Tiger parts or derivatives. China stopped issuing export permits at the end of 1992. Jackson reported that China’s CITES annual reports for those three years offered “perhaps the only officially documented glimpse of the scope of China’s export trade in Tiger derivatives.”28 The fact that China stopped issuing CITES export permits for products stated to contain Tiger was, however, not the end of their exports of such products. CITES import data shows that in the first three quarters of 1993, China exported a further 1,563kg of Tiger bones to South Korea 29 plus Tiger bone medicine to Japan, on the basis that they were from pre-convention Siberian Tigers whose bones were obtained prior to Siberian Tigers being transferred to CITES Appendix I in 1987. 30 Against a backdrop of China’s continual non-compliance with its commitments toward Tigers and other endangered species under CITES and the growing concern over the aforementioned increase in the poaching of wild Tigers outside China in order to satisfy Chinese demand, a group of United States wildlife nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) came together in late 1992. The NGOs submitted a petition to the U.S. government. Their petition asked the U.S. government to impose trade sanctions on China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Yemen (the latter three were similarly non-compliant) on the basis that they were “engaging in trade or taking which diminishes the effectiveness of an international program for [the protection of] endangered or threatened species, i.e. CITES.”31 Such sanctions, if imposed, 28

Id. at 14-15. Id. at 16. 30 NOWELL, supra note 13, at 1. 31 See http://www.earthtrust.org/bearref.html. 29


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

9

would cost China millions of dollars in international trade revenues. Shortly afterwards, CITES set about making its first attempts to address the mounting crisis facing the world’s few remaining wild Tiger populations. A t the 29TH meeting of the CITES Standing Committee held in March 1993, the Committee expressed its deep concern over this grave danger and acknowledged it was “due to poaching and smuggling of tigers and tiger parts and derivatives to sustain markets for traditional medicines.” 32 The Committee adopted decisions calling “upon all P arties to the C onvention, and on consumers, w hether Parties or non-Parties, to take such measures as are required to halt the illegal trade in tigers and tiger parts and derivatives” and asked the relevant authorities to report back to the Committee “on the measures they [had taken] to stop the illegal trade in tigers and tiger parts and derivatives by July 1993.” 33 Domestically, China previously listed Tigers as a Category I protected species under its Law of Protection of Wildlife (Wild Animal Conservation Law) that was adopted in 1988 and came into force on 1 March 1989. 34 Nowell and Ling stated that this afforded Tigers “the maximum level of protection from hunting, sale, purchase, and use of Tigers and Tiger products.” 35 Susan Mainka, however, noted these caveats: While hunting of wildlife is prohibited, the law does allow capture of wildlife for scientific purposes including domestication once a p ermit has been obtained [and similarly, whilst] sale, purchase and utilisation of wildlife or the products thereof are also prohibited (…) under special circumstances, such as scientific research or domestication, permission may be granted by the State. 36

In short this means Tiger farming and the sale of products from Tiger farming could proceed provided that the Tiger farmers 32

See http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/1993/738.txt. Id. 34 MAINKA, supra note 24, at 23. 35 NOWELL, supra note 15, at 3. 36 MAINKA, supra note 24, at 23. 33


10 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

acquire the requisite permit. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Article 17 of the 1988 l aw reads, inter alia, that “the State shall encourage domestication and breeding of wildlife;”37 words that may have prompted all but the earliest of the Tiger farmers to set up their operations. China, however, needed to do m uch more for the international community to believe that it was taking the increased pressure on w ild Tiger populations (which was primarily coming from within its borders) seriously. In response to the CITES Standing Committee decisions and quite possibly in response to an alleged tip about the U.S. government’s inclination to certify China for possible trade sanctions if it didn’t take action, 38 the Chinese government took a dramatic step. O n 29 May 1993, it issued the Notice Promulgated by the State Council on the Prohibition of Trade in Rhinoceros Horn and Tiger Bone banning all international and domestic trade in all products that claimed to include parts and derivatives of Tiger bone. This outright ban extended the existing domestic prohibition; the sale, purchase, carrying and/or mailing of Tiger bone products was prohibited: “Any products marked with the words ‘Tiger bone’ shall be treated as containing (…)Tiger bone,” regardless of whether they actually did.39 The ban also effectively prohibited all further manufacture of TCM products containing Tiger bone and was the instrument responsible for the aforementioned removal of Tigers from China’s official pharmacopeia. All stocks of Tiger bones were ordered to be immediately registered, securely sealed, and after 30 November 1993, all stocks of TCM products stated to contain Tiger bone were ordered to be similarly registered and securely sealed. In other words, TCM practitioners were given a six month grace period within which to use their existing stock. But this was still not enough because it gave TCM practitioners six months within which to sell and dispense their existing stock.

37

Id. MICHAEL DAY, FIGHT FOR THE TIGER: ONE MAN’S FIGHT TO SAVE THE WILD TIGER FROM EXTINCTION, (Headline Book Publishing 1995). 39 See Rhinoceros Horn and Tiger Bone in China: An Investigation of Trade since the 1993 Ban, TRAFFIC (Judy A. Mills, ed., 1997). 38


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

11

In 1993, w hen the CITES Standing Committee met in Brussels, they noted that China’s report regarding the measures it took to stop the illegal trade in Tigers and Tiger parts and derivatives was inadequate. The Committee stated in their report “concern that the measures taken by (...) China [were] not adequate to sufficiently control illegal trade in rhinoceros horn and tiger specimens” and therefore suggested to the Parties that they “should consider implementing stricter domestic measures up to and including prohibition of trade [with China] in wildlife species” with immediate effect. 40 The U.S. did exactly that. On 7 S eptember 1993, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, announced to the CITES Standing Committee that the U.S. officially certified both China and Taiwan for possible trade sanctions, 41 signifying the U.S. NGOs’ petition as a noteworthy success. The certifications were pursuant to the Pelly Amendment to the U.S. Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967, on the basis that both countries were “engaging in trade that diminishes the effectiveness of CITES.” 42 Under the circumstances, the CITES Standing Committee agreed with regard to Tigers: [t]he minimum criteria to be met for the adequate implementation of protection measures before the end of November 1993 [should be] (...) consolidation of (...) Tiger bone stocks and their adequate control by the State; adoption and implementation of adequate legislative measures; and provision for adequate enforcement of the above measures.

Additionally it was agreed that “a high-level delegation should be sent to assess progress achieved (…) as soon as possible after the end of November 1993, and [that it] should [then] report to the Standing Committee, which may make further recommendations as appropriate.” 43

40

See http://www.cites.org/eng. DAY, supra note 38, at 329; see also http://www.federalregister.gov. 42 Supra note 39, at 3. 43 Supra note 40. 41


12 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Subsequently, a C ITES technical assistance delegation was dispatched to China, Taiwan and South Korea, in order to “provide advice on the implementation of the minimum conditions before the visit of the high-level delegation, which visited these countries, plus Hong Kong, in January 1994, t o assess progress.” 44 Michael Day, author of Fight for the Tiger: One Man’s Fight to Save the Wild Tiger from Extinction, surmised the following on the delegation’s visit: [They] were manifestly impressed. They were shown around empty factories and surveyed sacks of bone neatly fastened with extravagant lead seals; they were even treated to a bonfire party where several hundred kilos of ‘tiger bone’ were ceremoniously torched. 45

When the CITES Standing Committee reconvened in Geneva for its 31st meeting, in March 1994, the Committee noted “with satisfaction the progress demonstrated by China in meeting the [previously] stated minimum requirements.” 46 This conclusion was despite strong indicative video evidence, provided by Day during the meeting, that the bones the delegation saw being burned by the Chinese were fake and not Tiger bones at all. 47 Incidentally, the U.S. government imposed trade sanctions on Taiwan for less than a year but not on China or South Korea. 48 Ironically, after a dozen years of non-compliance with the provisions of CITES by China, its 1993 ban became precedent and a m odel for the drafters of the CITES Tiger and Asian Big Cat Resolutions that followed. 49 The first was Resolution Conf. 9.13, adopted at CoP9, in November 1994. Resolution Conf. 9.13 urged CITES: 44

45 46

See http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/09/doc/E9-Doc-28_29-2.pdf.

DAY, supra note 38, at 351-52.

PETER JACKSON, CITES Standing Committee on Tiger Bone Trade, Cat News 20 (1994). 47 DAY, supra note 38, at 352-58. 48 See https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com. 49 KRISTIN NOWELL, Tiger Farms and Pharmacies: The Central Importance of China’s Trade Policy for Tiger Conservation, TIGERS OF THE WORLD: THE SCIENCE, POLITICS, AND CONSERVATION OF PANTHERA TIGRIS (Philip J. Nyhus & Ron Tilson eds., 2d ed., 2010).


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

13

Parties and non-Parties, especially Tiger range and consumer states, which currently lack[ed] legislation to properly control illegal killing of tigers and/or the trade in tiger parts and derivatives, to adopt such measures as a matter of urgency (...) [to] include penalties adequate to deter illegal trade.

As China’s 1993 ban had done, CITES Resolution Conf. 9.13 also urged “all Parties to treat any product claiming to contain tiger specimens as a readily recognizable tiger derivative and therefore subject to Appendix I provisions.” Moreover it, inter alia, recommended that “the governments of tiger-consumer States work with traditional-medicine communities and industries to develop strategies for eliminating the use and consumption of tiger parts and derivatives.” 50 Unsurprisingly perhaps, Nowell and Ling reported that a 1997 “ TRAFFIC review of implementation of this Resolution found that China had undertaken many of the key recommendations already in 1993, more so than any other range State and most other consumer states.” 51 Overall, however, TRAFFIC’s 1997 review found that the implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 9.13 was far from complete. 52 Many measures remained unimplemented and financial penalties for poaching at the national level were barely significant enough to outweigh the potential gains and were rarely, if ever, applied. 53 As such, in June 1997 at CoP10, Resolution Conf. 9.13 was revised and strengthened. Resolution Conf. 9.13 (Rev.) noted “with alarm that the use of tiger-based medicines and products exists in many countries of the world” and again, slightly more strenuously, urged All Parties and non-Parties, especially tiger range and consumer States, to adopt comprehensive legislation and enforcement controls as a matter of urgency, with the aim of eliminating trade in tiger parts and 50

See http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/09/E9-Res.pdf. NOWELL, supra note 15, at 5. 52 MAINKA, supra note 24, at 16. 53 PETER JACKSON, Governments Fail to Take Promised Measures to Save Tiger, CAT NEWS 26 (1997). 51


14 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

derivatives, in order to demonstrably reduce the illegal trade in tiger parts and derivatives by the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 54

Yet this was still not enough. In 1999, C ITES sent a Tiger Mission Technical Team (TMTT), similar to the one that previously visited and advised China, Taiwan and South Korea at the end of 1993, and again was followed up by CITES dispatching a high level political mission in 2000. The TMTT went further than the 1993 delegation. The TMTT visited 14 Tiger range and consumer States: C ambodia, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, Russia, UK, U.S. and Vietnam. T he TMTT made a number of observations and suggestions; its 107 p age report 55 was subsequently accepted at the 42ND meeting of the CITES Standing Committee that was held in 1999. 56 Significantly, the TMTT considered “alternative approaches to the total prohibition of international and domestic trade in tigers.� 57 With regard to Tiger farming, the TMTT reported the following: Farming It was suggested to the team that, given the proven success of breeding tigers in captivity with relative ease, such an approach would provide an answer to the present demand for the species. The team cannot deny that captive breeding and ranching has proved to be a very effective means of enabling trade within the provisions of the Convention. Crocodile farms are a good illustration of this. The team doubts, however, whether such an 54

PETER JACKSON, CITES Parties Reinforce Tiger Conservation Resolution, CAT NEWS 27 (1997); see also http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/10/E10-res_rev.pdf. 55 See Tiger Technical Missions Report. 42ND MEETING OF THE CITES STANDING COMMITTEE, (1999), available at http://www.cites.org/eng/com/SC/42/42-104.pdf. 56 See http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/42/E42-SumRep.pdf. 57 See http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/14/doc/E14-52.pdf.


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

15

approach would necessarily be beneficial to the survival of the remaining tiger subspecies in the short or mid-term and that the following factors require consideration. a)

Unlike the reptile skin trade where demand can be quantified, albeit approximately, most of the current demand for tiger and tiger products is illegal and, consequently, cannot be gauged to a meaningful degree.

b) Knowledge of wild tiger population numbers is so limited and relatively poor that the success or failure of such an approach could not be measured. c)

The likelihood of wild tiger populations being small, farming would provide an opportunity for laundering wild-caught specimens that would simply accelerate and/or assist current poaching and illicit trade.

d) As a response to the current problems, on its own farming ignores the important other factors that a reduction in tiger numbers, as a flagship species, indicates. Range States might not consider and tackle degradation of habitat, loss of tiger prey species and the fact that illicit activities involving other species will invariably also be taking place and will not simply be restricted to tigers. 58

In short, the TMTT advised that the risks of opening up a limited international trade in parts and derivatives of captive-bred Tigers far outweighed any possible benefit in terms of reducing the pressure on wild Tigers from poaching. Such a move would have definite consequences and was backed by a clear message to the Chinese government in the final report of the 2000 political mission that stated:

58

See supra note 55, at 15.


16 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

The Mission recognised the economic and cultural sacrifice, which China has made by banning the use of stockpiled or captive-bred tiger products in Traditional Chinese Medicine [but] at a time when tiger populations remain critically endangered by pressure from poachers and smugglers, it strongly recommends that China retains these prohibitions. 59

In light of these missions it is perhaps surprising that the subsequent Resolution Conf. 11.5 o n the Conservation of and Trade in Tigers that was passed at CoP11 was little more than a restatement of Resolution Conf. 9.13 (Rev.) that it repealed. 60 Notwithstanding all of this, Tiger numbers continued to decline in the wild; not least because TCM was still using parts and derivatives of other Asian big cats such as leopards as a substitution for Tiger. Thus it continued to sustain illicit demand for products containing Tiger parts that were considered to have a stronger effect. I n November 2002 dur ing CoP12, Resolution Conf. 12.5 on the conservation of and trade in tigers and other Appendix I Asian big cat species was passed. T his repealed Resolution Conf. 11.5 and restated its terms by expanding them to protect all Asian big cats. I n particular, Resolution Conf. 12.5 noted that in addition to Tigers: wild populations of (...) other Asian big cat species (snow leopard {Uncia uncia}; clouded leopard{Neofelis nebulosa}; all subspecies of leopard {Panthera pardus} within its Asian range; and the Asiatic lion {Panthera leo persica}) are [also] threatened by the combined effects of poaching and habitat loss caused by disturbance, fragmentation, and destruction.61

Resolution Conf. 12.5 also expressed the CoPs’ concerns that: the use of medicines and products containing parts and derivatives from the tiger and other Asian big cat species continues in many countries around the world 59

See The CITES Tiger High-Level Political Missions, ELEVENTH MEETING OF (2000), available at http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/11/doc/30rev1.pdf. 60 See http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/11/other/Adopted_Res.pdf. 61 See http://www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12-05.php. THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES,


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

17

and that the bones of some of these species may be used in traditional medicine systems as a substitute for tiger bone. 62

As a result, the CoP urged: all Parties seeking to improve their legislation prohibiting international commercial trade in specimens of tiger and other Asian big cat species, and products labeled as, or claiming to contain, their parts and derivatives, to adopt such legislation, to include penalties adequate to deter illegal trade and to consider introducing national measures to facilitate implementation of CITES, such as voluntarily prohibiting internal trade in such parts, derivatives and products. 63

This was a particularly significant development given that it is not within the jurisdiction of CITES to get involved with the domestic laws of the Parties and indicated just how dire the problem had become by 2002. W ith regard to Tiger farms, Resolution Conf. 12.5 urged: those Parties and non-Parties in whose territory tigers and other Asian big cat species are bred in captivity to ensure that adequate management practices and controls are in place to prevent parts and derivatives from entering illegal trade from or through such facilities. 64

Under the circumstances and with little notable progress in the way of improvement, a f ew additional measures were implemented at CoP13 in October 2004. T he CITES Secretariat and Standing Committee acknowledged that the “killing and illegal trade in Asian big cats remained a significant problem.�65 Yet, Resolution Conf. 12.5 stood unaltered from 2002 unt il CoP14 convened in June 2007. This comparative stagnation of 62

Id. Id. 64 Id. 65 See http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/13/doc/E13-28.pdf. 63


18 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

impetus could, in part, explain why in the interim, China seriously considered lifting its 1993 ba n on dom estic trade in Tiger bone and products containing or stating to contain tiger bone. I n a document, distributed by the Chinese Delegation at CoP14, China stated that: Since 2000, as a co nsequence of a r apidly increasing captive population and the needs of traditional medicine communities for better treatment of certain diseases, an increasing number of petitions were received requesting an evaluation of the possibility and feasibility of permitting the medical use of tiger bone derived from captive bred tigers. 66

These petitions apparently came to a head in late 2005 when, as Kirsten Conrad reported: “a petition was made under the Public Administration Act 2004 ( PAA), to the Central Governmental authorities to lift the ban.” 67 Conrad explained further that under China’s PAA, the Chinese government has 90 working days to respond unless the matter required additional research which, in this case, the Chinese government decided it did. C onrad stated also that although the exact petitioners were not disclosed, tiger breeders were amongst them. 68 In the same document distributed at CoP14, the Chinese Delegation advised further that: In 2005, China central wildlife authority commenced policy research on the issue when some communities and experts advised that it would benefit protection of wild tigers globally more if the tiger bone from captive breeding was permitted for medical use. I t would be irresponsible if a government authority ignored [a] proposal of this nature when such advice

66

GOVERNMENT OF CHINA, Key Positions & General Introduction on Tiger Conservation in China, (Unpublished report distributed by the Government Delegation of the Peoples Republic of China, CITES CoP14, 2007). 67 KIRSTEN CONRAD, Chinese Government Investigates the Feasibility of Limited Domestic Trade in Tigers, CAT NEWS 45 (2006). 68 Id.


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

was consistent with the policy objectives maximizing protection of the tiger globally. 69

19

of

In another document filed by the Chinese Delegation in preparation for CoP14, noted in detail, the steps they took in order to implement the measures contained in Resolution Conf. 12.5. They also expressed their deep unhappiness with the state of Tiger conservation efforts to-date and advised CITES that their 1993 ban caused them to suffer “an economic loss of four billion US dollars [and] impacted [on both the] Chinese traditional culture and medicinal treatment and health care of the Chinese people.” 70 The Chinese Delegation further stated that: The practice of more than ten years proves that the existing tiger conservation strategies and policies have never contributed to solution of the problems, but in contrast the populations of wild tiger in the wild are still in decline. 71

As such, the Chinese submitted to CITES, the Tigers in their Tiger farms would not only constitute “a steady foundation for a future potential re-open[ing] of utilization of tiger bones and furs, but would also provide abundant breeding stocks for future reintroduction and restoration of wild tiger populations.” 72 CoP12 advised in Resolution Conf. 12.5, that Asian big cat range States recommend appropriate measures to address the motivation behind the illegal killing of the Asian big cats within their borders. C hina’s Management Authority report to CITES with regard to how they implemented the appropriate measures stated that: The future (...) resumption of the use of captive bred tigers that China intends to do, [emphasis added] can play an effective role in deterring the illegal 69

Supra note 66. GOVERNMENT OF CHINA, Report on Implementing Resolution Conf. 12.5 of CITES (2007), available at http://www.cites.org/common/cop/14/doc/E1452A01.pdf. 71 Id. 72 Id. 70


20 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

killing of Asian big cat, when satisfying the demands for parts and derivatives of Asian big cat. 73

Subsequently in 2007, China’s Management Authority told the CITES Verification and Assessment mission, that this was simply a “translation error” and that no s uch decision had been made. 74 Significantly, however, China also advised CITES in their implementation report that, in order to “restrain unsuitable consumption demands” and in the interests of making its enforcement and judicial operations more convenient, it was “considering registering and labeling legally sourced skins and its products of Asian big cats, knowing that such a measure [might] distinguish the old stocks and new illegal products.”75 In spite of the mixed communications, China did not repeal its 1993 Tiger bone ban in 2007, a nd officially, at the end of 2011, it remains in place. 76 Remarkably, during CoP14, the Chinese Delegation advised CITES that “It has been determined, as a f undamental principle for this research, that current policy will not be changed unless it can be demonstrated that it will have a positive benefit for wild tiger population[s] internationally.” 77 This however, was not enough for the U.S. Delegation. Among the draft Decisions that were tabled to be made during CoP14, the U.S. suggested an amendment to enhance and more effectively address the issue of Tiger farming. As a result of the U.S. amendment, Decision 14.69 eventually read the following: Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale shall implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers; tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives [emphasis added]. 78

73

Id. See http://www.cites.org/common/cop/14/doc/E14-52A07.pdf. 75 Supra note 70. 76 See http://www.cites.org/common/com/SC/61/E61-41-A2.pdf. 77 Supra note 66. 78 See http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid14/14_65-72.shtml. 74


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

21

China objected to the U.S. amendment and proposed that it be revised to state: “tigers should not be bred for international trade in their parts and derivatives” [emphasis added]. The matter was put to a vote and China’s proposed revision was rejected by the Parties. 79 The immediate threat of resumption in the legal trade of Tiger parts and products in China appeared to be over for the time being. Additionally, Decision 14.65 adopted during CoP14, also required Asian big cat States to strengthen their efforts to implement Resolution Conf. 12.5 and to report on their progress at the next Standing Committee meeting and CoP15 in 2010.80 Any cause for celebration was short lived however, as the signs coming out of China, not long after CoP14 adjourned, were anything but encouraging. Nowell reported that: After the CITES conference, the Director General of [China’s] State Forest Administration’s Wildlife Management Division told Chinese media that China’s ban [on domestic trade in Tiger parts and derivatives] ‘won’t be there forever, given the strong voices from tiger farmers, experts and society’ [emphasis added]. 81

In the years following, the response from CITES Parties to the Asian big cat decisions adopted at CoP14 was generally considered poor. I n March 2010, the CITES Secretariat noted, during CoP15 that “The Decisions relating to Asian big cats that were adopted at CoP14 appear to have had little impact upon the threats facing these species.” 82 Under the circumstances, Resolution Conf. 12.5 was revised and strengthened by CoP15 in an attempt to: • • 79

Increase regional co-operation between [Asian big cat] range states; Improve enforcement controls and procedures;

See http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/14/rep/E14-Com-II-Rep-14.pdf. See supra note 78. 81 NOWELL, supra note 47, at 463-75. 82 See http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-43-01.pdf. 80


22 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

• • • •

Ensure breeding operations are consistent with the conservation of wild populations; Improve reporting; Improve compliance; and Encourage consideration of an expansion of a database to enable the consistent reporting at a global scale on illegal trade in wildlife, including tigers and other Asian big cats. 83

Furthermore, CoP15 also adopted new Decisions to complement other earlier Decisions, such as 14.69 on Tiger farming, which remained in force from CoP14. Notably, Decision 15.46 required “All Parties, but particularly tiger range States, [to] submit, by 30 J une 2010, information relating to incidents of poaching of and illegal trade in tigers that have occurred within their territory since the beginning of 2007.” Decision 15.46 was immediately followed by Decision 15.47 which set out that the CITES Secretariat would: [C]ollaborate with ICPO-INTERPOL to undertake an analysis of the information received [and compile] two reports, one for public consumption and the other solely for the law enforcement community. The Secretariat shall [then] report on this matter at the 61st meeting of the Standing Committee and make any relevant recommendations as a result of the analysis. 84

The response to these Decisions was again, disappointing. In its report for the 61ST meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, in August 2011, the CITES Secretariat advised the Parties that it h ad “worked with INTERPOL to implement Decision 15.47” but: Whilst some very detailed information was submitted by some Parties, overall the response was relatively poor. Consequently, this exercise, intended to provide an international overview of poaching of and illegal 83 84

See http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-43-02.pdf. See http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_46-49.php.


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

23

trade in tigers, cannot be regarded as having been particularly successful. 85

Moreover, in a joint report by the CITES Secretariat and the INTERPOL General Secretariat, the Parties were advised that: Unless they receive detailed data in relation to crimes directed at tigers, from all relevant sources, it is next to impossible for crime analysts to provide any meaningful overview of such activities or supply intelligence that would assist enforcement agencies in responding. 86

Curiously, however, the Standing Committee did not compel the Parties to comply, even after calls by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI), and other NGOs for it to set a new submission deadline for documentation from the Parties pursuant to Decision 15.46. C ompliance with Decision 15.46 would enable “INTERPOL to conduct a full analysis of not just tiger, but all Asian big cat trade.” 87 One reason for the lack of action by the Standing Committee may be due to concern that the Parties already expended a comparatively large amount of political will with regard to Tigers during the International Tiger Forum (Summit) that was held in St. Petersburg, Russia, in November 2010. D uring the Summit, China, along with the other Tiger range countries, signed the St. Petersburg Declaration on Tiger Conservation on 23 November 2010, that declared they would collectively: “Strive to double the number of wild tigers across their range by 2022 by [inter alia] working to eradicate poaching, smuggling, and illegal trade of tigers, their parts, and derivatives.” 88 These words are all well and good but if reporting fatigue was part of the reasoning behind why the Standing Committee did not 85

See http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/61/E61-41.pdf. See http://www.cites.org/common/com/SC/61/E61-41-A1.pdf. 87 See ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY & WILDLIFE PROTECTION SOCIETY OF INDIA, Briefing document: Enforcement and Asian big cats, 61st Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (2011), available at http://issuu.com/eia1984/docs/sc61_tigerdoc_merged. 88 Supra note 6. 86


24 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

require anything more from the Parties, it need not have worried. This is because whilst the Global Tiger Recovery Program (GTRP) and the National Tiger Recovery Priorities (NTRPs), agreed to by the Tiger Range Countries (TRCs) at the Summit, are highly encouraging prospects, these initiatives do little or nothing to address Tiger farming or leakages from the Tiger farms beyond a simple statement by China that: Captive breeding of tigers is under strict supervision in China. A permit system is in operation for the domestication and reproduction of tigers. A permit holder is required to establish and maintain strict management archives and a family tree system for each individual tiger. Particularly since 2007, microchip, gene samples and management information systems [MIS] that can be searched via the internet have been adopted in China, and the supervision of captive breeding agencies and individual tigers can be achieved through MIS. 89

In fact, throughout all of Summit’s literature, the only mention of CITES continuing the reporting requirement upon the Parties, is a note by India, in which they describe how they intervened to keep Decision 14.69 in force: “ Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a c ommercial scale [to] implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers.” 90 In summary, therefore, China was: • officially prohibited from international commercial trade involving all Tiger sub-species other than Siberian Tigers (since April 1981); and • prohibited from international trade involving all Tiger sub-species (since July 1987). In addition, China has officially: • maintained a comprehensive domestic ban on the trade in Tiger bones (since May 1993); 89 90

Supra note 6, at 50-51. Id. at 59.


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

• •

25

maintained a comprehensive ban on the production of TCM products incorporating Tiger bone (since May 1993); and maintained a comprehensive ban on the trade in all TCM products containing, or stating to contain Tiger bone (since December 1993).

Furthermore, despite imperfect enforcement and emphasis, China has been continually urged by the international community to “ensure that adequate management practices and controls are in place to prevent parts and derivatives [from its captive-bred Tigers and other Asian big cats] from entering illegal trade from or through [the] facilities [breeding them].” 91 China has received, is aware, and has acknowledged the Decisions by the international community which are still in force, requiring China to ‘implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers.’ C hina has also been told categorically by the international community that ‘tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives’ [emphasis added]. 92 While China has informed the international community that they are keenly aware of these issues—that they do take their legal obligation to Tiger trade very seriously; and their 1993 domestic trade ban remains in effect—behind the scenes, a different story is unfolding. There may be strong indicative evidence that China may have opened up limited legal trade domestically, in Tiger and leopard skins at the end of 2007 just shortly after CoP14 concluded. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), noted that China’s State Forestry Administration (SFA) issued Notice #206 (29 September 2007) “relating to the registration of tiger and leopard pelts and skins.” 93 In their 17 March 2009 letter to the SFA, EIA expressed concern as “Point 2 of this Notification implies that owners of tiger and leopard pelts and parts derived

91

See http://www.cites.org/eng/res/all/12/E12-05R15.pdf. Supra note 84. 93 Supra note 87. 92


26 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

from ‘legal origins’ can apply for registrations,” 94 before further stating that: EIA is also deeply concerned that the SFA Notification states that Asian big cat skins, which have been derived from legal breeding operations, may also be registered and provided with a l abel of approval from the provincial State Forestry Administration and can then be sold. This would seem to contradict the Government of the PRC position that the domestic trade ban in China is in force and runs counter to Decision 14.69 of the 14th Conference of the Parties to CITES, that tigers should not be bred for the trade in their parts and derivatives. 95

In the interests of clarification, EIA closed its letter by asking China’s SFA the following questions: 1. Does the SFA intend to register and sell skins of captive bred tigers and leopards? 2. By what means will China verify claims that skins are of ‘legal origins’? 3. Could you provide details of a) how many items have been registered to date, and b) how many illegal skins have been found during this process? 96 The lack of a response from China’s SFA only perpetuated EIAs concerns. The EIA worked together with the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI) and they jointly submitted their evidence to the Chairman of the 61ST CITES Standing Committee. Their submission included a request that China be asked to provide clarification with regard to whether they had effectively legalized trade in farmed tigers and leopards. 97 Their request was not granted; and a relevant, justifiable and imperative 94

Id. Id. 96 Id. 97 Id. 95


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

27

question remains unanswered. T he EIA accepted that perhaps something may have been lost in the translation of Notification #206. H owever, the photographic evidence they provided regarding the online sales of tiger skins from 2010 along with the accompanying Chinese government permits suggests this is highly unlikely. 98 As previously mentioned, there is nothing to suggest that China’s 1993 Tiger bone domestic trade ban was officially repealed, since the May 2011 c ommunication from China confirming that the ban was still in place.99 However, if SFA Notification #206 (2007) is translated correctly, and it is implicit within Point 2 “that owners of tiger and leopard pelts and parts derived from legal origins can apply for registration” could clearly send mixed messages to Chinese citizens as well as the TCM industry. Or would such messages even be mixed? SFA Notification #206 was issued just months after the Director General of the SFA’s Wildlife Management Division told the Chinese media that China’s Tiger bone oriented domestic trade ban “won’t be there forever.” I n considering the Director General’s statement, could a low profile, limited domestic trade in skins, be an experiment of sorts; to see if anyone noticed? And if no one did notice could it be a precursor to a similar low profile, domestic trade in Tiger bones from captive-bred sources? Or in another scenario, could a low profile, limited domestic trade, represent a means of appeasing China’s tiger farmers? Since the 1993 Tiger bone trade ban, many Tiger farmers raised the issue of compensation with the government. T his would settle internal domestic tension without rising to an outright repeal which would be politically difficult. Whatever the facts of the aforementioned matters, the international community is unlikely to pressure China anytime soon. It is sufficient for the purposes of the following analysis to proceed on the basis that: •

98 99

All international commercial trade by China in Tigers, other than Siberian Tigers, and all other wild big cats listed on

Id. See http://www.cites.org/common/com/SC/61/E61-41-A2.pdf.


28 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

• •

CITES Appendix I has been and remains illegal under international law since April 1981; All international commercial trade by China in all Tiger subspecies, including Siberian Tigers, and all other wild big cats listed on CITES Appendix I has been and remains illegal under international law since July 1987; All domestic trade in Tigers, their parts and products containing derivatives of their parts has been and remains illegal in China, under Chinese law, since 1 M arch 1989 without the requisite government permit; All domestic trade in all products stated to contain Tiger bone has been and remains completely illegal in China, under Chinese law, since 1 December 1993; and Since June 2007, China was put on notice and has known full well of the international community’s decision that tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives.

Taking this analysis into account, when China’s first Tiger farm went into operation in 1986, as part of China’s official solution to their Tiger bone banks running low, domestic trade in Tiger bones subsequently grown on T iger farms, was not technically illegal in China.

The Breeding Center for Felidae at Hengdaohezi Construction of the Breeding Center for Felidae at Hengdaohezi (Center), in China’s north eastern Heilongjiang province, first commenced in 1985; 100 a site that was previously used for breeding foxes, otters and raccoons for commercial purposes. 101 Conrad commented that: “The original objectives of the Center were two-fold: preserve the species while, in parallel, raise tigers for use in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).”102

100

DAY, supra note 38, at 306. ESMOND B. MARTIN, ET AL., The Breeding Center for Siberian Tigers in China, CAT NEWS 15 (1990). 102 KIRSTEN CONRAD, Safety in Numbers: A Review of the Breeding Center for Felidae at Hengdaohezi. (Unpublished report, 2000). 101


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

29

The initial cost of $253,000US to get the Center established was paid for by two Chinese governmental agencies, the China Heilongjiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import/Export Corporation and the State Council on Managing Endangered Species. 103 The agencies in turn, reported to the Chinese Ministries of Foreign Trade and Forestry 104 the latter of which commenced work at the Center by moving eight Tigers to the facility from various zoos in China towards the end of 1986. Before the end of that year, five pure bred Siberian Tigers (Panthera tigris altaica), were sent to China by the official U.S. Siberian Tiger breeding program, and were subsequently moved to the Center, 105 thus giving the Center nine females and four males. 106 The following year, the first Tiger farm cubs were born. In the same year that the first Tiger farm cubs were born at the Center, the Siberian Tiger was transferred from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I, thus effectively cutting off all international commercial trade from the Center to customers in countries that acceded to CITES. A s a r esult of this action, Jackson commented that the Chinese government twice “prepared requests to the CITES Conferences of the Parties in 1992 a nd 1994 for recognition of the [Center], which would permit the sale of tiger products on the international market.” 107 This was because, as Martin, Chen, and Lin explained: there are provisions under CITES for the sale of captive-bred animals and their products, if it is accepted by the international scientific community that the animals are indeed captive-bred and that there is a fool-proof system of identification for their products. 108

103

Id. DAY, supra note 38, at 306. 105 PETER JACKSON, Concern about Chinese Tiger Programme, CAT NEWS 25 (1996). 106 MARTIN, supra note 101, at 3-4. 107 JACKSON, supra note 105, at 13-14. 108 MARTIN, supra note 101, at 3-4. 104


30 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

The requests from China for recognition of the Center by the CoP, were on the basis that any international sales that CITES permitted from the Center would provide it with the requisite funds it would need to support itself. As it transpired, however, China withdrew both requests before either of the CoPs had a chance to consider them. During the intervening years of China’s CoP requests, Michael Day visited the Center in July 1993; after which he provided a vivid account of his experience: We finally pulled into the gates of the compound shortly after sunset and Mr. Liu [Xin Chen, the Center’s Director,] insisted on giving me a quick tour of his facility. I could smell the tigers as I stepped out of the jeep on to the hard concrete ground, and I could hear their growls of discontent. In the twilight we walked between rows of austere cages. Inside each one, a lonely tiger paced back and forth. The evening was their time. T housands of years of evolution had equipped them to use this time of the day to stalk and hunt in the shadows of the undergrowth. T he tiger’s acute sense of sight and sound and awesome strength was instinctively known to all the creatures of the jungle. I n the half light of dusk even the most sure-footed deer was always alert and on guard for the silent approach of a hungry tiger. These wretched creatures instilled in me not a sense of fear but one of pity. It was quite obvious why they were there. T he four-metre-square cages were designed for mass production. Each one could be interconnected with a common passageway which would allow a stud male to be introduced to any or all of the females. I t reminded me of the Suffolk pigbreeding units, so familiar from my childhood in East Anglia. E verything about this place said farm. Factory farm. 109

109

DAY, supra note 38, at 311.


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

31

Day went on to describe his encounter with the young Tigers at the Center: As we walked around the complex, I noticed about a quarter of an acre of flat ground surrounded by a high chain-link fence. In one corner, a d ozen pairs of young eyes stared back at me. As I approached, first one, then the whole group trotted timidly over to me and began rubbing their noses playfully up against the fence. T he tigers were yearlings, barely half grown and they were going nowhere. I knew that in the wild a tigress keeps her cubs with her for at least two years. These young creatures had obviously been prematurely weaned and forever deprived of that crucial learning period.

Additionally, Day uncovered evidence of primitive genetic experimentation using the Center’s tigresses 110 with a view to, as China’s 1992 proposal to CITES states, increasing “the pregnancy rate by using the techniques of transferring embryos.” 111 Day later describes the horrific and terrifying scene when he entered the Center’s laboratory: Beside the adjoining door to the laboratory there was [a] heavy wooden piece of furniture. On the cluttered surface were a n umber of tubular glass apothecary jars, each about eighteen inches high… About ten feet away I stopped abruptly as my eyes finally registered the grisly nature of the contents. Submerged in what was almost certainly formalin were dozens of carefully preserved foetal tigers. R age possessed me as I imagined the hideous experiments that had quite obviously gone disastrously wrong in this terrible place. Twenty-four female tigers had died, their skeletons strung up in cold storage. 112

Shortly before Day’s visit, China issued their 1993 ban on domestic trade in Tiger bone. China’s State Council officially cut 110

Id. at 317-18. Id. at 319. 112 Id. 111


32 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

off funding for the Center on the basis that “the central government no longer allowed it to legally market its produce.” 113 Chen, the Center’s Director, apparently told Day (when he visited the Center in July 1993) that it “could support itself by culling ten adult tigers annually and manufacturing various traditional medicines.” 114 The 1993 domestic trade ban officially cut off this revenue stream. As a result of this purported loss of State funding, the Center ran short of funds. G iven Day’s publication of his first-hand account of meetings with key personnel that strongly suggested the Center made money by supplying the Harbin Shiyitang Pharmaceutical Factory with Tiger bone for processing; reports of the Center’s loss of revenue at this time seemed exaggerated at best. From Day’s accounts, the Center was supplying the Harbin Shiyitang Pharmaceutical Factory with Tiger bones before the 1993 ban, and from what was discussed, the Center would, in all likelihood, continue to do so after the ban was implemented. 115 Whatever the facts are regarding the actual state of the Center’s finances during this period, it was at this time that conditions for the Tigers worsened. Conrad commented that the Center sought lower cost food and began to cut back on expenses, including heating. M alnutrition began to take its toll on b irth rates, while poor environmental conditions weakened the old and sick. [Under these ailing conditions] during the winter months of 1993-1994 five tigers died and during the winter months of 19941995 an additional five tigers perished.116 Coincidentally, soon after the five tigers died during the winter of 1993-1994, the Chinese Government gave the Center another $220,000US of funding, 117 and soon after the five tigers died during the winter of 1994-1995, in June 1995, “Heilongjiang’s foreign trade bureau announced that the farm was allowed to ‘feed tigers with tigers,’ meaning that the farm could

113

PETER JACKSON, China Bans Tiger Bone and Puts Tiger Farm in Limbo, CAT NEWS 19 (1993). 114 Id. 115 DAY, supra note 38, at 315-17. 116 CONRAD, supra note 102, at 5. 117 Id.


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

33

profit commercially from the tigers.” 118 These are, arguably, two of the first and most sickening instances of Tiger farmers putting pressure on t heir stakeholders when things weren’t going quite right for them. There would be others. Feeding tigers with tigers meant that the Center was allowed to open a subsidiary. In January 1996, the Siberian Tiger Park (Park) opened in Harbin, to the north east of Hengdaohezi. Since its opening, the Park receives revenue by exhibiting its Tigers to visitors. This is, however, not a zoological display. In June 1996, just months after it opened, Jackson visited the Park and wrote that: “The tigers in the Siberian Tiger Park are being publicly fed live cattle and chickens in order to prepare them, according to the Director, Liu Xin Chen, for reintroduction in the wild.” 119 Further, Jackson wrote to Chen, advising him that the Park’s program “was not suitable for training tigers for reintroduction as the provision of cows and chickens would lead to the Tigers seeking out such domestic livestock and posing a threat to people if they were ever subsequently released.”120 In spite of Jackson’s advice, the Park continued to sell live chickens and cows to visitors to feed its Tigers. This feeding activity was noted by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) as they conducted field investigations in 2006 and 2007; 121 and the Park did so openly, irrespective of stern words against such practices by China’s SFA in 2007. 122 There is no documentation to suggest otherwise. The Park continues to allow live feedings as a so urce of revenue. Amazingly, such practices were a huge success. I n 2000, Conrad advised that the Park was extremely profitable, averaging 250,000 to 300,000 paying visitors per year in its first few years of operation. 123 Unsurprisingly, in September 1998, the Center opened a second, similar park in Hengdaohezi and gained 118

Made in China: Farming Tigers to Extinction, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE (2007). 119 JACKSON, supra note 105, at 13-14. 120 Id. 121 Supra note 118, at 11. 122 See http://www.animalsasia.org. 123 CONRAD, supra note 102, at 5.


34 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

additional revenue by renting some of its Tigers out to zoos such as Shanghai and Shenyang. 124 Throughout its history, the figures from the Center and its subsidiaries never quite tallied. When China’s 1993 domestic ban on trade in Tiger bone products was implemented and all existing stockpiles of Tiger bone were declared to the Chinese government and sealed. 138kg was sealed in Heilongjiang Province, where the Park is located.125 All bones and carcasses from animals that died or were killed at the Center’s operations since that time were required to be declared and kept securely sealed. The Center claims they are in compliance with the law;126 however, this does not appear to be the case as Nowell reported in 2000: Various visitors to the farm over the 1990s have inspected the contents of the [Center]’s Tiger freezer and there appears to be a discrepancy between approximately 60 carcasses seen by reporters in 1998, and 36 to 48 reported by the government to the CITES Tiger Technical Mission in 1999. 127

In addition to bones and carcasses, there is also evidence to suggest that meat from the Center’s dead tigers made its way to a local restaurant in Hengdaohezi. T he Hufalou (Tiger Fortune) restaurant that was located very close to the Park had a “large Tiger entrance portal and Tiger meat on the menu in 2005.”128 A hostess from the Hufalou purportedly advised reporters that they were the only establishment that the Center’s Director [Chen] would supply meat to. 129 Chen subsequently commented on this stating that: It is impossible for the meat of dead Tigers from the park to be smuggled outside. W e have specialist workers to remove the hide and detach the meat from 124

Id. NOWELL, supra note 15, at 5. 126 NOWELL, supra note 13, at 38. 127 Id. 128 NOWELL, supra note 15, at 36. 129 Id. 125


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

35

the bone. Some useful organs are preserved for research while the remaining meat is incinerated and buried; the fur and bones are stored in a refrigerator. 130

The Hufalou restaurant closed in 2007. Notwithstanding this, after IFAW concluded their 2006-2007 field investigations, they advised that “dishes made with tiger meat are, however, still available in the area to those in-the-know and to local people of influence.” 131 IFAW also reported that the Center was openly selling Tiger bone wine in complete contravention of the ban. 132 Around the same time, China’s Tiger farmers began to increase pressure on the Chinese government to lift the 1993 domestic trade ban.

Conclusion The Breeding Center for Felidae at Hengdaohezi (Center) may have been the first of China’s Tiger farms but even with its Director confirming that it had 700 Tigers, during an interview that was published in April 2007, 133 it is by no means the largest. The Xiongsen Tigers and Bears Mountain Village (Village) in Guilin held over 1,300 Tigers, 210 lions and 400 bears when the CITES verification mission visited China in 2007; 134 the Village has also managed to have an even worse track record than the Center when it comes to compliance with the law. The Village’s associated bone nurturing wine production company, that roughly translates as the Xiongsen Wine Producing Ltd. Co. 135 or Xiongsen Wine Industries Co. Ltd., 136 operates from a h uge subterranean factory some 300 k ilometres from Guilin in the Pingnan County of China’s Guangxi Province. This 130

Id. Supra note 118, at 19. 132 Id. 133 See http://www.iwmc.org/PDF/IWMCtiger.pdf. 134 See http://www.cites.org/common/cop/14/doc/E14-52A07.pdf; http://www.cites.org/common/cop/14/doc/E14-52A08.pdf. 135 NOWELL, supra note 15, at 30. 136 Supra note 118, at 14. 131


36 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

factory consists of vast cellars and, in February 2010, i t was stated to have a storage capacity of 8,000 tons of bone wine. 137 The bone wine is produced in huge vats by combining rice wine and entire animal carcasses which are then left to ferment for periods ranging from three, six or nine years. 138 In May 2007, IFAW reported that of the 1,000 such vats in Cellar Number One at the Pingnan factory, the Company’s Manager confirmed that approximately 400 of them contained entire Tiger carcasses. 139 In contrast, the CITES verification mission that visited the Xiongsen Village in 2007, was told that the factory only had 900 vats in use; 200 for lion bone wine, 300 for lion meat wine, and 400 for gecko wine. Of the 500 vats in use for the production of lion wine, the CITES Secretariat was informed that 46 contained lion skeletons, 50 contained lion meat, and the remaining 404 “were engaged in a fermentation process without the need for bones or meat.” 140 Cleverly, the Xiongsen Village markets its bone strengthening wine as BuGu Jiu which, in Chinese, sounds very similar to Tiger bone wine or HuGu Jiu. The wine is frequently sold in Tiger shaped bottles with the Tiger’s head being the bottle’s screw cap. Even if the main ingredient is lion, there is little if any information provided to the consumer to know the true contents of what they purchased.141 In fact, even DNA analysis could not tell the difference. When TRAFFIC bought two bottles of BuGu Wine from the Xiongsen Village and sent it off for forensic testing, the test results were ambiguous: “although DNA was detected, it was too degraded to be amplified and matched to any felid-specific DNA sequence.” 142 This led Nowell and Ling to conclude in their 2007 report that: Persistent claims by staff and distributors that BuGu Jiu is made from Tiger bone, the packaging in a Tigershaped bottle, and the lack of an explanation that Panthera leo is actually African Lion could be 137

JONES, supra note 11. Id. (See also supra note 118; supra note 134 [E14-52A07]). 139 Supra note 118, at 14. 140 See supra note 134 (E14-52A07). 141 Supra note 118; NOWELL, supra note 15. 142 NOWELL, supra note 15, at 34-35. 138


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

37

interpreted as a violation of Chinese law prohibiting labelling of any substance as containing Tiger parts. The Xiongsen BuGu Wine marketing perpetuates consumer demand for Tiger bone wine, subverting established Chinese policy of eliminating demand. The use of African Lion as a substitute for Tiger bone wine should not be permitted due to concerns that demand could be stimulated which would impact wild Lion populations. 143

An eminently sensible conclusion that, unfortunately, was not quite reached by the CITES Secretariat after its 2007 verification mission. I n a su bsequent report, the Secretariat advised that it had hoped to visit [the Pingnan bone wine factory] but it was not practical to do so. Despite having also seen numerous bottles of bone wine for sale at the Xiongsen Village, and told they contained genuine Tiger bone, and noticing that such bottles were subsequently removed from display, the Secretariat ultimately concluded that it had “no grounds, at this time, to question the activities of the management or staff of the Guilin Xiongsen Tigers and Bears Mountain Village.” 144 Such a conclusion, in spite of all of the evidence gathered by the NGOs undercover investigators and their reports, the subsequent poor response to the illegal Tiger trade and Tiger farm oriented Decisions from CITES CoP14, and the lack of any substantive action to compel compliance with the CITES Decisions, sum up the title of this work. It is accepted that the welfare of captive-bred Tigers in Tiger farms in China and other Asian countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, and Lao PDR, are not technically within the remit of CITES. And yet, these Tigers continue to suffer, confined to exist in the most appalling conditions. T iger farms only perpetuate the demand for products and parts and the black market for trade long since declared illegal. After a visit to the Xiongsen Village on 25 S eptember 2009, i nvestigators from Animals Asia reported that:

143 144

Id. at 35. See supra note 134 (E14-52A07).


38 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Many of the tigers were malnourished (…) the cubs show signs of malnutrition [and] are housed in cages approximately 10m x 5m. T he enclosures are concrete structures with rusty wire (…) have an unacceptably large amount of urine and faeces present [and] lack any enrichment facilities. [ For the performances for the public] (…) the Tigers have been de-toothed and de-clawed [and they] are made to stand on their hind legs and paw the air. 145

Months later, in February 2010, after a similar visit to Xiongsen, Richard Jones wrote: Behind rusted bars, a skeletal male tiger lies panting on the filthy concrete floor of his cage, covered in sores and untreated wounds. His once-fearsome body is so emaciated it is little more than a pitiful pile of fur and bones. Death is surely a matter of days away and can only come as a welcome release. ‘What can we do?’ a female park official asks a small huddle of visitors with a sigh and a casual shrug. ‘He’s dying, of course, but we have to keep feeding him until he does. It’s against the law to kill tigers.’ Instead, it s eems, they die slowly of neglect. I n row after row of foul, cramped cages, more tigers lie alone, crippled and dying. One is hunched up against the side of its cage with its neck grotesquely deformed. Another, blinded in one eye, lies motionless. Only a few hundred of the park’s animals are on view to visitors. The majority are hidden from sight in row after row of cages outside the public area of the park. Here, bored tigers crammed four or more to a ca ge, pace restlessly back and forth.

145

J. ROBINSON, ET AL., Xiongsen Bear & Tiger Mountain Village: Animals Asia Investigation Report, ANIMALS ASIA (2009), available at http://www.animalsasia.org.


China’s Tiger Farms Much Law But Little Justice

39

Others are kept in small, concrete enclosures, spending their days in perpetual darkness. They occasionally jump up on their hind legs to peer through narrow, slit windows, to get a rare glimpse of daylight. Welfare expert David Neale from Animals Asia, said after inspecting the park: ‘These animals are kept in appalling conditions and it is clear that many are suffering from malnutrition. And if what the public can see is so appalling, can you imagine what the conditions are like for the tigers hidden from view?’ 146

Around the same time, Animals Asia also reported on the fact that “In February 2010, t he vice head of the State Forestry Administration, Yin Hong, said China has nearly 6,000 t igers in captivity and could breed 1,000 more every year” 147—this from just eight Tigers at the Center in 1986. A dditionally, hundreds, possibly thousands more Tigers are now also being grown for their bones for TCM on T iger farms that have emulated the Chinese model in Thailand,148 Vietnam, Lao PDR ,and Cambodia. 149 Strangely, however, it seems that even the combined efforts of all of these Tiger farms has yet to satisfy the demand for TCM products containing the parts and derivatives of the world’s biggest wildcat. In 2009, reports started coming out of South Africa regarding limited permits being granted to members of the South African lion breeding/canned lion hunting industry to sell lion bones. This was a new development and attracted much deserved publicity at the time. 150 However, it was not until early in 2011 that the shocking extent of this new trade became apparent. Figures and confirmations published by the South African 146

JONES, supra note 11. Position Paper: Trade in Tiger Parts, ANIMALS ASIA (2010), available at http://www.animalsasia.org. 148 Thailand’s Tiger Economy, ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY. (2001); see also http://www.cites.org/common/com/SC/61/E61-41-A3.pdf; and supra note 87. 149 Supra note 12. 150 See http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Anger-over-lion-bone-sales20091210. 147


40 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs throughout 2011, confirmed that starting in 2009 and in 2009 and 2010 alone, 327 entire lion carcasses were exported from captive lion breeders in South Africa’s North West Province to Lao PDR, primarily to a notorious import/export company already known to be involved in the rhino horn trade. 151 As such, in the absence of anything else, it can only be hoped that the 62ND Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, scheduled to take place in Geneva in July 2012, will devote more time to not just to Asian big cats but also to African big cats. With no scientific evidence to prove or support that Felidae parts and derivatives have any beneficial medicinal properties whatsoever; with use of their parts and derivatives having finally been removed from most traditional consuming countries’ official TCM texts; and with most TCM organisations and practitioners now against and refraining from prescribing products containing parts or derivatives of Felidae, the questions have to be asked— Why does the international community continue to acquiesce to thousands of big cats languishing and dying in commercial captive breeding facilities throughout the world? Where is the justice in that?

151

See http://cannedlion.org/content/august-10th-2011-327-lion-carcassesexported-south-africa.


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

41

A STATED PREFERENCE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHINESE DEMAND FOR FARMED VS. WILD BEAR BILE∗ Adam J. Dutton†, Cameron Hepburn††, & David W. Macdonald†

† Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Dept. of Zoology, University of Oxford †† Smith School of Enterprise & the Environment & James Martin Institute, University of Oxford

Abstract Farming of animals and plants has recently been considered not merely as a more efficient and plentiful supply of their products but also as a means of protecting wild populations from that trade. Amongst these nascent farming products might be listed bear bile. Bear bile has been exploited by traditional Chinese medicinalists for millennia. Since the 1980s consumers have had the options of: illegal wild gall bladders, bile extracted from caged live bears or the acid synthesized chemically. Despite these alternatives bears continue to be harvested from the wild. In this paper we use stated preference techniques using a random sample of the Chinese population to estimate demand functions for wild bear bile with and without competition from farmed bear bile. W e find a willingness to pay considerably more for wild bear bile than farmed. Wild bear bile has low own price elasticity and cross price elasticity with farmed bear bile. T he ability of farmed bear bile to reduce demand for wild bear bile is at best limited and, at prevailing prices, may be close to zero or have the opposite effect. The demand functions estimated suggest that the ∗

This study was originally published in PLoS ONE 6(7) (2011). Formatting and references were changed to the style and citation requirements of WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY.


42 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

own price elasticity of wild bear bile is lower when competing with farmed bear bile than when it is the only option available. This means that the incumbent product may actually sell more items at a higher price when competing than when alone in the market. T his finding may be of broader interest to behavioral economists as we argue that one explanation may be that as product choice increases price has less impact on decision making. For the wildlife farming debate this indicates that at some prices the introduction of farmed competition might increase the demand for the wild product.

Introduction Damaging illegal trades in the products of the natural world are often tackled by one of two opposing solutions: a total ban on trade or a controlled trade harvested from the wild. However neither the banning of the trade in tiger (Panthera tigris) parts 1 nor the controlled trades in fish stocks have halted poaching or the decline in wild populations. 2 The lack of a ‘silver bullet’ to halt illegal wildlife trade leaves scope for dispute between proponents for either of these imperfect cures. B ans are relatively blunt instruments which can be costly and often remove economic incentives to tolerate animals in the wild. Controlled trades from the wild are, conversely, complicated. In some instances a third option is available: to farm wildlife. Wildlife farming offers, at first glance, an intuitively satisfying solution: a legal trade can in principle be created by farming animals to assuage demand for wild animals which thus need not be harvested. Optimism about farming as a conservation policy is further bolstered by the successes of crocodilian farming in reducing the poaching of wild crocodilians for their skins. 3 However the success of a policy to “farm for conservation” is not certain and a number of obstacles to its success require consideration. By 1

K. NOWELL, Far from a Cure: The Tiger Trade Revisited, TRAFFIC (2000). J. A. HUTCHINGS, Collapse and Recovery of Marine Fishes, 406 NATURE 882– 885 (2000). 3 J. HUTTON & G. WEBB, Crocodiles: Legal Trade Snaps Back, THE TRADE IN WILDLIFE: REGULATION FOR CONSERVATION (S. Oldfield, ed., 2003). 2


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

43

analogy, a legal trade in mobile phones does not preclude their theft, and crocodilian farms have not entirely removed illegal exploitation.4 Dutton, Hepburn & Macdonald 5 list the issues which must be overcome for a farming policy successfully to remove pressure from on the species in the wild, amongst which was substitutability. Here, an illegal trade in wild bear bile and a legal trade in siphoned bear bile acid from farms, for use in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), are examined for substitutability.

Bear Bile as a Medicine Bear bile is described in the earliest official pharmacopoeia of TCM in AD 659. 6 TCM practitioners use bile against a variety of illnesses including liver disease, epilepsy and eclampsia.7 Bear bile would historically have been a s carce and costly product reserved for the wealthy or for serious illness.8 A wide variety of alternatives are available depending upon the illness. H uang9 lists 27 alternative species whose bile was said to mimic the effect of bear bile on specific conditions. A WSPA report 10 lists 39 species of flora which might similarly replace bear bile. A non-random survey of 50 T CM practitioners found that 8% felt that bear bile was an irreplaceable and vital part of the pharmacopoeia. 11 Since the availability of bear bile increased due to the production of farms new uses for it have been found, not all of 4

GROUP ICS, CSG Steering Committee Meeting, Montelimar (2006). A. DUTTON, ET AL., Finding the Least Leaky Bucket: Farming Wildlife and Wildlife Trade Regulation, KEY TOPICS IN CONSERVATION 2 (D. W. Macdonald & K. Willis, eds., in press). 6 J. HUANG, Asian Perspectives on the Therapeutic Value of Bear Bile and Alternatives, Washington (1994). 7 D. BENSKY ET AL., MATERIA MEDICA: CHINESE HERBAL MEDICINE, (Eastland Press 2004). 8 Y. LEE, The Use of Bear Bile as Medicine Versus Tonic, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (D. F. Williamson & M. J. Phipps, eds., 1999). 9 Supra note 6. 10 Finding Herbal Alternatives to Bear Bile, WSPA (2005). 11 J.A. MILLS, ASIAN DEDICATION TO THE USE OF BEAR BILE AS MEDICINE, (University of Washington 1994). 5


44 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

which are supported by TCM. Bear bile shampoos, for instance, might be considered, in western terms, a tonic rather than a medicine. Some TCM practitioners argue that bear bile, being a potent pharmaceutical, is actually dangerous if used as a tonic for regular consumption. 12 There may, therefore, be the emergence of two different trades. The first trade being the traditional use of bear bile as a p otent medicine and the second as a tonic: we therefore considered both. Ursodeoxycholic acid, found in the bile of bears, was first isolated from ursid gall by Shoda et al., 13 and was later produced synthetically by Kanazawa et al.14 Today western medicine is using it, or researching its efficacy, against a range of maladies including: liver cirrhosis, 15 a prophylactic for colon cancer, 16 to prevent the production of gallstones after surgery. 17 Therefore, the synthetic acid is produced commercially. U rsodeoxycholic acid is produced by all bears, but is found in large concentrations in: polar (Ursus martimus), American black (Ursus americanus) Asiatic black (Ursus thibetanus) and brown (Ursus arctos) bears. 18

Bear Welfare and Conservation The bears involved in the bile trade include: American and Asiatic black bears, brown bears, sun bears (Helarctos malayanus) 12

Supra note 8. M. SHODA, U¨ ber die ursodesoxycholsa¨ ure aus ba¨ rengallen und ihre physiologische wirkung, 7 JOURNAL OF BIOCHEMISTRY 505–510 (1927). 14 T. KANAZAWA ET AL., Synthesis of Ursodeoxycholic Acid and its Conjugated Bile Acid, 30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE JAPAN ACADEMY, 391–394 (1954). 15 E. RODA, ET AL., Improved Liver Tests and Greater Biliary Enrichment with High Dose Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Earl Stage Primary Biliary Cirrhosis, 34 DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE 34: 523–527 (2002). 16 T. IKEGAMI, ET AL., The Chemopreventive Role of Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Azoxymethane-Treated Rats: Suppressive Effects on Enhanced Group II Phospholipase A2 Expression in Colonic Tissue, 134 CANCER LETTERS 129–139 (1998). 17 L. BARCLAY, URSODEOXYCHOLIC ACID PREVENTS GALLSTONES AFTER GASTRIC RESTRICTIVE PROCEDURES? 238 ANNALS OF SURGERY 697–702 (2003) 18 L. R. HAGEY, ET AL., Ursodeoxycholic Acid in the Ursidae Biliary Bile Acids of Bears, Pandas and Related Carnivores, 34 JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH 1911–1917 (1993). 13


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

45

and sloth bears (Melursus ursinus). However most pressure is placed on the Asiatic black, sloth and brown bear’s in Asia. 19 TCM orthodoxy states that Asiatic black bears and brown bears (incidentally those with the largest levels of ursodeoxycholic acid in their bile) are either most or exclusively desirable. 20 Gall bladders are relatively small and can be removed from the carcass at the site of the kill for ease of trafficking and the species from which the gallbladder has been taken cannot be distinguished by sight. 21 American black bears are also considered a good source of bile for TCM. All Asiatic populations of the bear species endemic to Asia are on Text S1 of CITES. W hilst brown bears are of least concern given the overall status of their populations across the globe, East Asian populations remain in Appendix 1. The other bears threatened by the trade in Asia (Asiatic black, sun and sloth) are all considered vulnerable and decreasing by the IUCN. 22 The Asiatic black bears are the most threatened by the trade in gallbladders. 23 Habitat loss is considered the most damaging threat to Asiatic black bears in southern areas such as India, but the trade in bear parts is the major threat to them in China in Southeast Asia. 24 Bears have been farmed for their bile in East Asia since the 1980’s when Korean scientists developed a method for extracting bile from live bears through a cannula to the bear’s bile duct. 25 Over 12,000 bears are estimated to be in farms across China, 26 the vast majority of which are Asiatic black bears. A bear can

19

C. SERVHEEN, The Impacts of the Bear Trade on Global Bear Populations, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE TRADE OF BEAR PARTS FOR MEDICINAL USE, (Washington). 20 Supra note 11. 21 L. PEPPIN, ET AL., A DNA-Based Approach for the Forensic Identification of Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) in a Traditional Asian Medicine, 53 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES 1358–1362 (2008). 22 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, available at http://www.iucn.org. 23 D. L. GARSHELIS & R. STEINMETZ, Ursus thibetanus, Asiatic Black Bear, IUCN (2007). 24 Id. 25 T. Philips & P. Wilson, eds., The Bear Bile Business, WSPA (2002). 26 Inside Bear Farms, WSPA (2010).


46 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

produce 2.2 k g of bile over a 5 y ear production life. 27 The farming of bears for bile is highly controversial as a r esult of concerns for the welfare of bears held indefinitely in small cages and enduring either open wounds or regular invasive surgery. 28 Given the CITES status of the bears, commercial trade between countries in their products is illegal but requires certification.

Preferences and Demand The TCM practitioner or patient in China could legally choose: farmed bear bile, synthetic bear bile or from an array of alternative species’ bile or products from flora. The trade from wild bears continues 29 and so must remain lucrative for some. This paper examines why it might be that farming bears does not preclude poaching, and reveals the magnitude of the effect farming might have on t he demand for wild bear bile. We quantify a clear preference for wild caught bear bile over a chemically identical alternative from farms. Farmed bear bile can be provided in larger quantities at lower cost than the bile of wild bears, and can be supplied through legal channels. As such it is potentially able to compete with a more desirable alternative. In order to measure any conservation effect, in terms of diminished pressure on wild bears, from farming bears we measure the substitutability of the two goods. Substitutability can be estimated by measuring the degree to which the average person would trade wild-sourced bile for farmed-bile at all prices, and then deriving the cross price elasticity of substitution at prevailing prices. G iven that the wild trade is illegal adequate market data for these goods do not exist.

27 S. A. MAINKA & J. MILLS, Wildlife and Traditional Chinese Medicine: Supply and Demand for Wildlife Species, 26 JOURNAL OF ZOO AND WILDLIFE MEDICINE 193–200 (1995). 28 J. RALOFF, A Galling Business, 168 SCIENCE NEWS 250–252 (2005); I. K. LOEFFLER, ET AL., Compromised Health and Welfare of Bears Farmed for Bile in China, 18 ANIMAL WELFARE 225–235 (2009). 29 Supra note 19; C. SERVHEEN, ET AL., Bears: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, IUCN (1999).


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

47

However, demand can be measured through classic nonmarket valuation methods such as stated preference techniques. 30 Stated preference experiments ask respondents to imagine a set of options for some policy intervention or product with associated costs and express a preferred option. R espondents in our investigation were asked to imagine they had one of two sets of symptoms and were prescribed bear bile. G iven the illness and the prices of the alternative medicines (wild bear bile, farmed bear bile another alternative treatment or nothing) respondents were asked to choose a treatment. We used stated preferences to estimate demand functions for the two goods at varying prices. In order to measure the impact of farming we gathered data for scenarios where farmed bear bile was and was not available. In order to investigate the use of bile as a tonic, two levels of illness were considered: one serious and the other less so. The largest single market for bear bile is in the People’s Republic of China (henceforth China) given its population and a health care service providing TCM in parallel to western medicine. China has the largest number of bears and bear farms. There is also evidence, from captures and experts, that bear bile is trafficked to China. F or these reasons this investigation was focused upon the Chinese population.

Methods The University of Oxford’s Central University Research Ethics Committee (CUREC) provides a checklist to assess whether research requires ethical audit. Working through this audit revealed that this work would not require a further audit. The checklist was completed and submitted to the IDREC officer. This study, carried out in the summer of 2008, excluded the semi-autonomous regions and the special administrative regions of China. Sample areas were spread spatially over the length and breadth of the remaining provinces. TABLE 1 lists the provinces 30

I. J. BATEMAN, ET AL., ECONOMIC VALUATION WITH STATED PREFERENCE TECHNIQUES: A MANUAL, (Edward Elgar Publishing 2002).


48 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

the sample area types and numbers. The survey was carried out following the devastating Sichuan earthquake which led to some readjustment in sampling from the central areas which is clear from TABLE 1. Samples were taken in equal numbers from cities, towns and rural areas. The official Chinese definition for urban and rural areas places cities and towns in urban areas and villages in rural ones. 31 In 2006, 43.9% of the Chinese population lived in areas designated to be urban whilst 56.1% lived in rural areas. Given the bias built into the sampling procedure, data used in the analysis were weighted to account for this. Percentages reported are adjusted so that rural responses from 43.9% of the total. Households within these areas were sampled at random using government databases for the area. I ndividuals within each household were randomly chosen using a KISH matrix 32 but excluded household members which were under 18 or had lived in the sampling area for less than a year. A KISH matrix gathers the name, age and sex of the eligible household members, and then uses a random number to choose which individual to interview. TABLE 1. SAMPLING POINTS CITY

TOWN

COUNTRY

PROVINCE

86 90 0 0 86 88 81 86 100 90

0 0 74 76 74 77 77 74 74 73

78 77 0 0 76 77 77 76 73 73

Guangdong Hubei Shandong Shanxi Beijing Shaanxi Yunnan Jiangxi Shanghai/Zhejiang Jilin

31

Press CS China Statistical Yearbook, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CENTER FOR CHINESE STUDIES. 32 L. KISH, A Procedure for Objective Respondent Selection within the Household, 44 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION 380–387 (1949).


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

49

The survey was administered by Horizon PLC, a China-based professional market research company. H orizon was chosen based upon their previous experience of conservation-related research. 33 Horizon sent representatives to each area to recruit and train locally based interviewers. The interviewees were approached at home, and worked through a questionnaire with the interviewer in return for a small gift of washing powder. All interviews were carried out face to face by local interviewers in the homes of the interviewees. The data from interviews were returned each day and checked by supervisors; any logical inconsistency or missing/spoiled data at this stage resulted in a re-run. In order to test the returned forms from individual interviewers 30% of interviews were subsequently validated via a phone call by the supervisor and should any have proved to be fraudulent then all questionnaires from the interviewer involved would have been reviewed. Data were further checked at the input stage by the database for syntactical errors. Initial designs for the questionnaire were prepared in English and pre-tested on f our Chinese post-graduate students at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University, with incremental changes following each to aid understanding of the questions. The survey was then reviewed with the team at Horizon P.L.C. and transformed to aid logical progression through the form and to provide relevant options for multiple-choice questions. Two rounds of pre-testing, with 10 interviews in each round, were then carried out in Beijing. For optional choices, common responses which had not been considered were added at this stage. P rices of wild bear bile offered in the stated preference section (see below) were adjusted such that some respondents would turn down wild bear bile. I n the contingent valuation section, the maximum price of wild bear bile was raised from 짜800 to 짜1500. The primary purpose of the contingent valuation is to estimate demand at likely prevailing prices. A broader spread of prices were used to capture the average maximum willingness to pay for bear bile, resolution would be lost around 33 B. GRATWICKE, ET AL., Attitudes Toward Consumption and Conservation of Tigers in China. PLoS ONE 3: e2544 (2008) see also II JOURNAL OF THE WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY 43-62 (Winter 2009).


50 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

the prices of interest to the market. At this stage Horizon produced an English and Chinese version of the questionnaire. The Chinese version was sent to an independent translator to translate it into English. The English translation was then compared against the English version provided by Horizon. No further changes were required as a result of this check on linguistic consistency. At this stage Horizon produced an English and Chinese version of the questionnaire. The Chinese version was sent to an independent translator to translate it into English. T he English translation was then compared against the English version provided by Horizon. N o further changes were required as a result of this check on linguistic consistency. In order to elicit estimates of respondent’s preferences and willingness to pay for medicines, the stated preference investigation had three parts. The first encouraged respondents to recall their experiences and knowledge of bear bile; the second elicited their preferences and used debriefing questions to glean insight into their reasoning, and the third gathered demographic information to examine the sampling and for other modeling purposes. Best practice in state preference investigations requires that sufficient information is provided for the respondent fully to understand the product and the circumstances in which he is asked to state preferences. 34 This is because in most cases the respondent is valuing a public good. In this case, however, the respondent is asked to imagine themselves in a m ore common purchasing decision of pharmaceuticals rather than a public good. For that reason, rather than giving the respondent more information than they might have in a genuine situation, the first section of the questionnaire asked the respondents’ about their experience and knowledge of bear bile. The respondent might then be helped to recollect their own memories and understanding of the product. The first section could then both prepare them to answer stated preference questions regarding wild and farmed bear bile, and directly gather information on experiences. Respondents were then prepared to enter the choice experiment. Respondents were told that, in the future, there could 34

Supra note 30.


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

51

be a legal trade in bear bile sourced from a sustainable harvest of wild bears. R espondents were told that yields of bile from the wild would be lower, and cost more to manage and obtain, than farmed bile—making wild bile more expensive. For the purposes of the choice experiment, respondents were asked to imagine that the wild bear bile offered came from a l egal sustainable supply. In this way the investigation removed the conflating impacts of illegality and subsequent under-reporting due to fear of reprisals. Respondents were asked to state their preferences in four different scenarios. The four scenarios were produced by varying two aspects of the conditions: the health problem faced and the availability of farmed bear bile. Where farmed bear bile was available a choice experiment was used in order to allow respondents to choose: wild bear bile, farmed bear bile, nothing or to seek an alternative. Wh ere farmed bear bile was not available we required information on their propensity to buy wild bear bile and so a simpler contingent valuation approach was used. The respondent would first be informed of the illness they were to imagine having contracted, before completing a ch oice experiment and then a contingent valuation exercise. In the first scenario the respondent was asked to: “Imagine that you have become very ill. Y ou feel very sick are in a great deal of pain and cannot work. A part of your prescription is bear bile.”

Whilst the second scenario asked them to: “Imagine you do not have a serious illness but you are uncomfortable. F or instance you may get stomach pains, headaches or tired easily. It is strongly suggested by somebody that you trust that you try bear bile.”

A choice experiment typically presents a set of questions where the respondent may choose from a menu of options typically linked to prices. Prices and options vary between questions such that a demand curve may be estimated. I n each


52 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

choice experiment the respondent could choose either farmed bear bile, wild bear bile, seek the closest TCM alternative or to buy none of the above. The prices of farmed bear bile and the alternative treatment were considered to be identical, to accept no treatment was free while a different price was offered for wild bear bile. The only choice variables involved in the decision were the treatment and its price. As such it is by default a labeled choice experiment. L abeled choice experiments have been shown to distract respondents from the attributes of the choices. 35 However in this case there are no attributes presented and only the price and the respondent’s knowledge and biases guide the decision. Moreover labeled choice experiments have been shown to be appropriate in health care economics. 36 Three prices were to be tested for each treatment: high (wild ¥800, farmed ¥56), mid (wild ¥300, farmed ¥28) and low (wild ¥80, farmed ¥14). These produce 9 p ossible permutations of prices between the farmed/alternative and wild goods. A ll respondents were offered the choices with both prices high, both prices low and both prices at the mid-point. In order to test (and adjust) for anchoring 37 the respondents were randomly presented with either the high or the low prices first. Anchoring occurs where respondents use the first price offered to compare prices and so higher prices tend to increase willingness to pay and vice versa. Depending upon the answers to these three questions many, if not all, of the remaining permutations may be inferred assuming transitivity of preferences. A fourth price combination was then offered dependent upon the answers to the first three to ensure that choices were broadly transitively logical or to allow the remaining permutations to be filled in. As such 9 binary choices could be gathered as a full factorial design for a single respondent with 4 questions. 35

R. K. BLAMEY, ET AL., A Test of Policy Labels in Environmental Choice Modeling Studies, 32 ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 269–286 (2000). 36 E. W. DE BEKKER-GROB, ET AL., Labeled Versus Unlabeled Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: An Application to Colorectal Cancer Screening, 13 VALUE IN HEALTH 315–323 (2010). 37 A. TVERSKY & D. KAHNEMAN, Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, 185 SCIENCE 1124–1131 (1974).


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

53

Following the choice experiments, respondents were debriefed to gain some insight into the reasoning behind their choices. R espondents were asked, by multiple-choice question (with an “other” option), why they had chosen as they had. Respondents were then asked to consider the same health scenario without the option of treatment with farmed bear bile. Here they were presented with a d ouble bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation for bear bile alone. Four prices were offered: ¥1500, ¥800, ¥400, ¥80. H alf of all respondents were first asked if they would pay ¥800 and the other half first asked if they would pay ¥400. I f they stated that they would pay that price then the higher price was offered and if not then the lower price. The contingent valuation would then end and a debriefing question was asked. The third section gathered standard demographic information from respondents. T his included: age, sex, household income, educational attainment, and birthplace and employment status. The stated preferences were then used to estimate demand functions relating the price of wild and farmed bear bile to consumption of wild bear bile. The quantity of bear bile consumed in the function derived was in terms of the percentage of the population that would buy wild bear bile in the circumstances described with the prices offered. Quantity might more typically be described by volume but we are not here predicting the total number of patients likely to be prescribed bear bile. As such we do not know the volume of bear bile that would be sold and so cannot present these data. Instead we present percentages which might be used by researchers with data on the prescription of bear bile to estimate volumes sold. The demand functions were then interpreted to aid the debate over whether farmed bear bile might help to reduce consumption of wild bear bile. In order to describe likely impacts of farmed bear bile we chose a number of prices from the literature to enter into the functions. We then calculated the wild bear bile price at which the quantity demanding wild bear bile remains the same when farmed bear bile is and is not available. We also produced cross price elasticity’s for wild bear bile against farmed bear bile at these points. W e finally present the largest probable drop in demand for wild bear bile predicted by the availability of farmed


54 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

bear bile using a low but possible price for wild bear bile. These steps are described below. Respondents to the choice experiments could immediately be placed into one of three groups: those who would have bought wild bile at all prices, those who would have bought wild bile at some prices but not others and those who would never have bought wild bile. Insensitivity to price in the first and last groups could have been due to all prices being too high or too low for sensitivity to price to show up i n their answers. However some respondents may have considered the products to be nonsubstitutable and the questionnaire does not differentiate between these motives despite the debriefing efforts. In order to calculate price sensitivity at prevailing prices we used only those who were shown to be sensitive to price to produce demand functions. In estimating the total number willing to pay at a given price, the number from the predicted portion of the population were then added to the number who would have bought at all prices offered. Using this subset a b inary logistic function was used to regress preference for wild bear bile on prices and demographics. The best set of demographic variables to use in the model was chosen based on AIC scores. An alternative model was also produced using a linear regression relating the percentage choosing wild bear bile to the prices of the goods offered only. The contingent valuation results were converted into a d emand function using a survivor function. 38 This involves calculating the total percentage of respondents indicating a willingness to buy at each price. R espondents ag reeing t o p urchase bile a t a given price are assumed to be willing to buy at all lower prices. The most useful data come from a 2006 WSPA survey of Chinese pharmacies.39 All bear bile came as a medical product rather than as raw bile and volumes were not constant. The minimum price for a product was ¥10.1, the maximum ¥594 and the mean ¥93.26 (s.e. 22.05). Few prices for raw bile from farms were found. I n 1990 a newsletter reported that it ranged from ¥25.60 to ¥40.00 per gram. 40

38

Supra note 30. Shop Survey in China (eTranslate), WSPA (2006). 40 Supra note 27. 39


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

55

We only used wild bear bile where whole gall bladders were for sale and some farmed bile prices were by the gram, with the consequence that a d osage was required to estimate a treatment price. The literature presents a variety of doses for treatment: Huang 41 suggests 0.3–0.6 grams; Lee 42 prescribes 2 grams whilst Mainka and Mills 43 found references indicating doses of between 4 and 11 g rams. The literature does not suggest the number of treatments required. We chose a conservative estimate of the amount of bear bile required for treatment at 2.5 grams. Based on this dose, prices for pure farmed bear bile would then be ¥64.00 to ¥100.00 per treatment. Similar prices have been reported ◊ for farmed bile per gram. ¥594 was a single price far in excess of the remaining prices and came from Guangzhou for bear bile capsules. 44 The prices chosen were ¥30 at the lowest end of the mean estimates of prices at 95% significance and ¥90 which is close to the true mean. Prices for wild bile are poorly documented and variable given the illegality, timescale, geography and lack of formal markets from which these prices are taken. I n 1991 M ills 45 found wild gall bladders at a market in Chengdu relatively cheaply for $9– $12/kg, but also found a vendor who would charge $1400–$2700 to bring in a live bear and slaughter it to prove provenance. A gall bladder weighs on average 47–52 grams dried. 46 Wyler 47 estimates for a w ild bear gall bladders lead to treatment prices ranging from ¥100 to ¥3,399. We only used wild bear bile where whole gall bladders were for sale and some farmed bile prices were by the gram, with the consequence that a dosage was required to estimate a treatment price. The literature presents a variety of doses for treatment: Huang suggests 0.3–0.6 grams; 41

Supra note 6. Supra note 8. 43 Supra note 27. ◊ Supra note 50. 44 Supra note 39. 45 J. S. MILLS, THE ASIAN TRADE IN BEARS AND BEAR PARTS: IMPACTS AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS, (Missoula 1994). 46 Supra note 27. 47 L. S. Wyler & P. A. Sheikh, International Illegal Wildlife Trade: Threats and U.S. Policy, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (2009). 42


56 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Lee 48 prescribes 2 grams whilst Mainka and Mills 49 found references indicating doses of between 4 a nd 11 grams. T he literature does not suggest the number of treatments required. We chose a conservative estimate of the amount of bear bile required for treatment at 2.5 grams. Based on this dose, prices for pure farmed bear bile would then be ¥64.00 to ¥100.00 per treatment. Similar prices have been reported 50 for farmed bile per gram. ¥594 was a single price far in excess of the remaining prices and came from Guangzhou for bear bile capsules.◊ The prices chosen were ¥30 at the lowest end of the mean estimates of prices at 95% significance and ¥90 which is close to the true mean. Prices for wild bile are poorly documented and variable given the illegality, timescale, geography and lack of formal markets from which these prices are taken. I n 1991 M ills 51 found wild gall bladders at a market in Chengdu relatively cheaply for $9– $12/kg, but also found a vendor who would charge $1400–$2700 to bring in a live bear and slaughter it to prove provenance. A gall bladder weighs on average 47–52 grams dried. 52 Wyler 53 estimates for a w ild bear gall bladders lead to treatment prices ranging from ¥100 to ¥3,399.

Results The response rate was 40.09% (from respondents present and eligible at the time of the interviewer calling) with a total sample size of 1677. The sample is biased towards better educated and wealthier respondents than the overall Chinese population (TABLE 2 AND TABLE 3). Adjusting for the urban/rural bias still leaves a sample with a greater average education than the populace at large (TABLE 2). 48

Huang, supra note 6; Lee, supra note 8. Supra note 27. 50 M. BEKOFF, Bear Tapping: A Bile Business, NEW SCIENTIST (2009); AHAN Bear Bile Farm Visit. ◊ Supra note 39. 51 Supra note 45. 52 Supra note 27. 53 Supra note 47. 49


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

57

Income and education are correlated. A binary logistic regression of higher education on household income produces a positive coefficient (2.256 x 10−5 P-value<0.0001).The sex ratio is slightly biased towards women at, ~51% and in the Chinese statistical yearbook 48% of the population are female. 54 33.69% mentioned bile as a part of the bear used in medicine without a prompt. 31.1 5% of the remaining population then stated that they were aware that bear bile is used in TCM when asked. In total 54.26% of the total sample claimed to have any knowledge of bear bile. The total number who claims to have consumed or known anyone who has consumed bear bile from any source was 19.86% of the sample.

Bile used for serious illness ~ Scenario 1 Respondents who did not vary their responses showed no sensitivity to price and were therefore excluded from further analysis. U nder the first ‘‘serious’’ scenario, correcting for the rural bias, 37.12% were insensitive to price and would buy only wild bile, 38.49% were insensitive to price and bought no w ild bile. T his left 24.40%, of which 47% were rural, who were sensitive to price. A binary logistic model was then used to estimate the proportion of this 24.4% who might buy legal wild bear bile at prevailing prices. The lowest AIC score was gained for a model including a variety of demographic variables (TABLE 4). The model included the prices for both products and a dummy variable for whether the question was the first asked and a separate dummy variable indicating that the higher prices were offered first. Respondents were less likely to buy wild bear bile in the first question asked. It also included the respondent’s: household income, sex, whether they were in a rural area and their birth province. We will refer to this as the BL model (binary logistic). To estimate a d emand curve, averages from the sample were placed into the model to describe the demographic of the population. For contrast, a second similar model was produced using a log-linear regression 54

Supra note 31.


58 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

of the percentage of respondents choosing wild bear bile at varying prices of wild and farmed bear bile. This model will be referred to as the LL model (log linear) and shown in TABLE 5. The equations describing these models can be found in TEXT S1. ◊ TABLE 2. COMPARING EDUCATION LEVELS IN THE SAMPLE AND IN THE CHINESE POPULATION HIGHEST LEVEL OF SAMPLE CHINESE STATISTICAL EDUCATION YEARBOOK None Primary School Junior School Senior School College and higher

0.92% 23.19% 37.79% 25.61% 12.49%

8.79% 33.07% 38.99% 12.93% 6.22%

The sample values are adjusted for the bias towards urban respondents. Chinese statistical yearbook values are from the 2006 edition.

TABLE 3. COMPARING AVERAGE YEARLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AREA TYPE BETWEEN THE SAMPLE AND THE CHINESE POPULATION SAMPLE CHINA URBAN RURAL

43862.44 19724.53222

12719.19 3587.04

TABLE 6 summarizes the results of the contingent valuation. The demand function derived is in TABLE 7. Here we define the prices at which introducing farmed bear bile to the market would be predicted to have no effect in the scenario presented. Setting the farmed price at ¥30 (the lower end of the 95% confidence interval for the average price) the BL model is equal (in total demand) to the Contingent Valuation (CV) model at ¥283.2 for wild bile. That is to say that at this price the BL model predicts no change in demand when farmed bile is and is not available. At this price the cross price elasticity for wild bear bile is 0.13 (calculation of the elasticity’s is presented in TEXT S1) indicating that at this point a change in the price of farmed bear bile would ◊

Infra 73-74.


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

59

have little impact upon t he consumption of wild bile. Elasticity of less than 1 indicated inelasticity. This means that a change in price will have little impact upon demand. The Log Linear (LL) model intersects the CV model at ¥871 (cross price elasticity = 0.18). Setting the farmed price at ¥90 the BL model is equal to the CV model at ¥201.2 (cross price elasticity = 0.03); the LL model intersects the CV model at ¥310.2 (cross price elasticity = 0.16). At starting prices above these values the model predict that the public would demand more wild bile, when offered the choice of farmed bear bile, if the price of wild bile either drops or stays the same (See FIGURES 1 AND 2). TABLE 4. CHOSEN BINARY LOGISTIC MODEL OF WILD BEAR BILE CHOICE IN THE “SERIOUS” SCENARIO COEFFICIENT P VALUE Intercept –9.95x10–1 (3.220 e-01) 0.002 Price wild –1.9x10–3 (1.722 e-04) <0.0001 Price farmed 5x10–2 (3.294 e-03) <0.0001 First price offered –1.23 (1.424 e-01) <0.0001 High price first –1.97x10–1 (1.09 x10–1) 0.07 Income 1.08x10–5 (2.23x10–6) <0.0001 Female –3.21x10–1 (1.04x10–1) 0.002 Rural 8.4 x10–1 (2.07x10–1) <0.0001 Higher education –7x10–1 (1.35x10–1) <0.0001 Guangdong –4.48x10–1 (2.68x10–1) 0.01 Heilongjiang 1.1 (3.3x10–1) 0.0008 Hubei –4.2x10–2 (3x10–1) 0.9 Jiangxi 1.62 (4x10–1) <0.0001 Jilin 3.81x10–1 (3.71x10–1) 0.3 Shaanxi 7.92x10–1 (2.97x10–1) 0.008 Shandong 3.59x10–1 (3.66x10–1) 0.33 Shanghai 5.9x10–1 (2.65x10–1) 0.03 Shanxi 5.52x10–1 (3.82x10–1) 0.15 Yunnan 1.8x10–1 (3x10–1) 0.55 Zhejiang –4.97x10–1 (3.56x10–1) 0.89 AIC: 2401.9 Correct No 0.62% Correct Yes 0.83% Total Correct 0.75%

TABLE 5. LOG LINEAR REGRESSION OF WILD BILE CHOICE PERCENTAGES AGAINST PRICE UNDER THE “SERIOUS” SCENARIO VARIABLE

COEFF

S.E.

(Intercept) Log (wild price) Log (farmed price) R2 0.8792; P 0.0018.

0.46 –0.06 0.1

0.10 0.01 0.02

P

0.4x10–2 0.3x10–2 0.3x10–2


60 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

During this study the lowest retail price derived for a w ild bear bile treatment was ¥100 from. 55 It should be noted that other prices are well in excess of this. T he effects on quantities demanded at this price are summarized in TABLE 8. TABLE 8 describes the predicted reduction in the percentage of respondents choosing wild bear bile between the scenario where farmed bear bile is not, and is, available. It also gives the cross price elasticity of substitution at this price when farmed bear bile is available. Finally it presents the price of bear bile, without farmed competition, from which the drop in price to ¥100, facing farmed competition, would return demand to previous levels. The largest predicted drop in demand was of 19.05% of the population. This drop assumes that the price of wild bear bile does not change. If the price of wild bear bile in the absence of farmed bear bile had been ¥334 or greater, then the demand for wild bear bile would not change or would increase. The negation price reports the price in the single wild bile market which would lead to no change in total demand if farmed bile is introduced and the price for wild bear bile drops to ¥100 per treatment.

Bile used for non-serious illness ~ Scenario 2 Under this scenario and correcting for the rural bias 12.41% were insensitive to price and would buy only wild bile, 72.55% were insensitive to price and bought no wild bile. T his left 15.04% who chose wild bile at some prices but not others. A binary logistic model was created for this scenario using the purchase of wild bile as the explained binary variable (TABLE 9). The lowest AIC score was produced for a model which included no demographic parameters and instead only prices and a dummy variable indicating that the question was for the first price and was the higher option. We will again refer to this in the next section as the BL model. Given that this model included no demographic parameters we did not make a second simpler log linear model for the “non-serious” scenario. TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF CONTINGENT VALUATION RESULTS FOR THE 55

Supra note 47.


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

61

“SERIOUS” SCENARIO PRICE (¥) 1500 800 400 100

RURAL 24.20 (0.45) 36.88 (0.57) 51.17 (0.62) 73.79 (0.47)

URBAN 30.29 (0.52) 40.94 (0.59) 52.32 (0.63) 65.23 (0.55)

ADJUSTED TOTAL 26.87 (0.9) 38.66 (0.9) 51.68 (0.8) 70.03 (0.6)

The number of respondents willing to buy wild bear bile at each price is presented for rural, urban and as a weighted average for all areas as percentages. Standard errors are presented in brackets.

TABLE 7. LOG LINEAR REGRESSION OF CONTINGENT VALUATION RESULTS UNDER THE “SERIOUS” SCENARIO Intercept Ln (price) R2 0.995; P 0.005.

COEFFICIENTS

P-VALUE

144.26 (6.75) –15.85 (1.08)

0.002 0.005

A demand curve was estimated for the contingent valuation using a survivor function adjusted for rural bias (TABLE 10). The percentage of the population consuming at each price in this survivor function was regressed on t he log of wild prices. W e will again refer to the log linear regression developed from this survivor function as LL. Setting the farmed price at ¥30 the demand for wild bear bile, when farmed bile is available, is equal to demand for wild bear bile when farmed bear bile is not offered at ¥569 (cross price elasticity 0.004). Setting the farmed price at ¥90 the demand for wild bear bile when farmed bile is offered is equal to demand for wild bear bile when farmed bear bile is not offered at ¥381.5 (cross price elasticity 0.0002). T hese functions can be seen in FIGURES 3 and 4. T he effects on the demand for wild bear bile under the second, “less serious” scenario at a wild price of ¥100, both with and without farmed competition, are summarized in TABLE 11. TABLE 11 shows the predicted reduction in the percentage of respondents choosing wild bear bile with no change in price as farmed bile is offered, the cross price elasticity of substitution at this price and the price of bear bile without farmed competition which would negate the drop in demand. The largest


62 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

predicted drop in the percentage of respondents predicted to consume wild bear bile in this scenario was of 23.44%. The preference for wild bear bile persists as when the prices of farmed bear bile and wild are of equivalent magnitude cross price elasticity is low. A s the price of farmed bile drops relative to wild bile in the ‘‘less serious’’ scenario, cross price elasticity increases. When the illness is “less serious” some consumers are more willing to trade their preferred choice and therefore possibly health for money.

FIGURE 1. A set of estimated demand functions for wild bear bile. For each function farmed bear bile is held at ¥30 per treatment and these are the results under the “serious” scenario. The CV demand function presents demand in the absence of farmed bear bile whilst the others describe two possible functions when competing with farmed bear bile.


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

63

FIGURE 2. A set of estimated demand functions for wild bear bile. For each function farmed bear bile is held at ÂĽ90 per treatment and these are the results under the â&#x20AC;&#x153;seriousâ&#x20AC;? scenario. The CV demand function presents demand in the absence of farmed bear bile whilst the others describe two possible functions when competing with farmed bear bile.

Discussion This paper shows that many Chinese people state that they will pay more for wild bear bile than for farmed bear bile. The interactions between the demand functions estimated above present three key results which will further aid in the audit of the efficacy of farming bears for bile as a conservation measure. The first is that the cross price elasticity of wild bear bile with farmed bear bile is inelastic. The second is that, when competing with farmed bear bile, own price elasticity of demand for wild bear bile is relatively inelastic. Finally the demand functions estimated suggest that the gradient of the demand curve, and so the own price elasticity, of wild bear bile is lower when competing with farmed bear bile than when it is the only option available. The preference for wild bear bile, along with the first two findings, indicate that the ability of farmed bear bile to reduce demand for wild bear bile is at best limited and, at prevailing prices, likely to be close to zero. The third finding from the demand functions suggests that at some prices the


64 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

introduction of farmed competition will actually increase the demand for wild bear bile. TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF PREDICTED EFFECTS ON WILD BEAR BILE CHOICE OF INTRODUCING FARMED BEAR BILE MAINTAINING A CONSTANT PRICE

(100) FOR WILD BEAR BILE UNDER THE “SERIOUS” SCENARIO FARMED PRICE (¥)

MODEL

CHANGE IN WILD BEAR BILE CONSUMPTION

CROSS PRICE ELASTICITY

NEGATION PRICE

30

Lin. Bin. Lin. Bin.

–19.05% –13.49% –9.96% –10.57%

0.16 0.08 0.13 0.02

¥334 ¥235 ¥310 ¥201

90

TABLE 9. CHOSEN BINARY LOGISTIC MODEL OF WILD BEAR BILE CHOICE IN THE “NON-SERIOUS” SCENARIO COEFFICIENT P VALUE (Intercept) –0.52 (0.12) <0.1x10–3 Price wild –1.32x10–3 (1.67x10–4) <0.1x10–3 –2 –3) Price farmed 5.26x10 (3.42x10 <0.1x10–3 High price first –1.57 (0.22) <0.1x10–3 AIC: 2619.8 Correct No 0.57% Correct Yes 0.77% Total Correct 0.69%

The cross price elasticity of wild and farmed bear bile was at a maximum of 0.2 amongst the price combinations in all models considered; suggesting that substitution from wild bile is inelastic. E xpected reductions in demand under optimistic conditions would be less than 20% for serious illness and less than 24% for non- serious. T he optimistic conditions were for wild bear bile before and after the introduction of farmed bile to have been at, and remained at, a price much lower than all but one found in the literature. A t prices likely to prevail, in the region of ¥1000 per course of treatment according to the most recent reports found e.g., 56 there would be no drop in demand, and no reason to reduce prices given own price inelasticity in the demand for wild bile. Demand functions estimated for this paper indicate that at ¥1000 per wild bile treatment demand for wild

56

Supra note 47; supra note 5.


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

65

bile would increase with the introduction of farmed bile ceteris paribus.

Price illusion In order to understand the preferences outlined, we might consider the respondent’s understanding of the goods on offer. In this sample a t hird of respondents are sufficiently familiar with bear bile as a TCM product refer to it unprompted as a pharmaceutical product of bears. In total, approximately 55% of the sample stated that they were aware that bear bile is used in Traditional Chinese Medicine. TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF CONTINGENT VALUATION RESULTS FOR THE “NON-SERIOUS” SCENARIO PRICE (¥) RURAL URBAN ADJUSTED TOTAL 1500 6.13 (0.56) 15.16 (0.9) 10.10 (0.6) 800 11.36 (0.73) 17.12 (0.90) 13.89 (0.7) 400 21.10 (0.9) 25.74 (0.9) 23.13 (0.9) 100 50.59 (0.9) 46.16 (0.9) 48.65 (0.9) The number of respondents willing to buy wild bear bile at each price is presented for rural, urban and as a weighted average for all areas as percentages. Standard errors are presented in brackets.

Despite a paucity of knowledge, our findings suggest that 54% of the population would buy this good at the prices offered if it were recommended to them for a serious illness. Knowledge of bear bile was not found to be a strong predictor of wild bile consumption and so respondents often chose this expensive alternative purely based on the facts presented in the questionnaire.


66 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

FIGURE 3. A set of estimated demand functions for wild bear bile. For each function farmed bear bile is held at ¥30 per treatment and these are the results under the “non-serious” scenario. The CV demand function presents demand in the absence of farmed bear bile whilst the others describe two possible functions when competing with farmed bear bile.

FIGURE 4. A set of estimated demand functions for wild bear bile. For each function farmed bear bile is held at ¥90 per treatment and these are the results under the “non-serious” scenario. The CV demand function presents demand in the absence of farmed bear bile whilst the others describe two possible functions when competing with farmed bear bile.


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

67

The only facts given were the prices, the origin of the goods, and the prescription, which made no i ndication as to relative benefits. N otably, whilst being debriefed, of those, that chose wild bear bile in the two choice experiments 30.51% and 33.26% respectively stated that it was because they trusted more expensive medicines. TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF PREDICTED EFFECTS ON WILD BEAR BILE CHOICE OF INTRODUCING FARMED BEAR BILE MAINTAINING A CONSTANT PRICE (¥100) FOR WILD BEAR BILE UNDER THE “LESS-SERIOUS” SCENARIO

FARMED PRICE (¥)

CHANGE IN WILD

CROSS PRICE

BEAR BILE CONSUMPTION

ELASTICITY

NEGATION PRICE

¥30 ¥90

–23.44% –19.2%

0.35 0.04

¥569 ¥375

Under these circumstances it is possible that respondents were willing to trust price signals assuming that price would relate to quality. Price will not always provide a clear signal for quality and to some degree the assumption that it does represents an irrational choice similar to “money illusion.” 57 Nearly half of the respondents consuming wild bear bile stated plainly that they “trust more expensive medicines.” The simple assumption that greater prices equate to greater quality is not so dissimilar to the assumption that greater sums of money necessarily lead to greater purchasing power. In circumstances where the consumer is likely to be able to increase the amount of information they have about the good they may be able to rectify this problem. However a sick person will in most cases get better regardless of the treatment and so continue to prefer the more expensive good. Tanaka 58 show how treatments in folk medicine might persist despite a complete lack of any medicinal affect.

57

P. HOWITT, MONEY ILLUSION. THE NEW PALGRAVE: A DICTIONARY OF ECONOMICS, 3RD ED. (Macmillan 1987). 58 M. M. TANAKA, ET AL., From Traditional Medicine to Witchcraft: Why Medical Treatments Are Not Always Efficacious, PLOS ONE 4 (2009).


68 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

The majority of consumers did not state that they were led by price. T his suggests that the influence of price was either a subconscious one or else they were persuaded by wild origin of the bile. Consideration must also be given to the advice given by TCM practitioners who would influence preferences. I f practitioners refused to prescribe or offer wild bear bile then consumption would reduce. I n such case the key to protecting wild species would not lie with the second control of economic markets to alter consumption, but with the TCM practicing community— many of whom agree that there are suitable alternatives to bear bile.

Lowing own price elasticity as choice complexity increases We have yet, though, to understand why some respondents appeared to be more likely to choose wild bear bile when farmed bear bile is available than when it is not. Surveys are imperfect reflections of reality. H owever, “People’s imperfect knowledge of economic opportunities, their imprudence and unworldliness, have never prevented economists from accepting as basic data the amounts people freely choose at given prices.” 59 It might therefore be sensible to explore how own price elasticity might reduce for a product when facing new competition. One explanation may be that as the complexity of the choice increases the price’s marginal importance in decision making may wane. Comparing the qualities of one chocolate bar against its price is one level of complexity. Comparing relative merits of a selection of chocolate bars and their prices to just one of many considerations and also perhaps “crowds out” the option of having none. A s such, providing a choice may, under some circumstances, increase demand for an existing product. It might be useful to illustrate further what we mean here. The impact of marginal changes in individual product attributes is marginally reduced as the number of attributes or products increases given a cognitive budget. The ‘‘resolution’’ of variable 59

E. J. MISHAN, Evaluation of Life and Limb: A Theoretical Approach, 79 THE JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 687–705 (1971).


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

69

estimates and impacts might diminish as the number of variables increase in a si milar way to a p erson tasked with measuring a wood quickly from a single vantage point. I f given the task of measuring the height of the wood, a sample of trees might be measured at close proximity with high accuracy. I f two dimensions are required, the width and height of a wood, then a vantage might be chosen further from the subject reducing the accuracy with which the height might be estimated but allowing width and height to be estimated from the same vantage. T he argument does not suggest that price is removed from the decision but that small changes in price are more pressing when price is the only variable than when it is one of many to be contemplated.

Validity Stated preference studies face a v ariety of challenges in attempting to ensure that responses reflect the decisions the public would make in real world situations. In order to deal with these challenges a range of tests, best practices and a description of the forms of validity which results must conform to have been produced. 60 Validity testing can be separated into construct and content validity. Many stated preference studies value public goods in a w ay in which respondents may not be familiar. V ery few people would think about how much they would hope to spend on the defense of realm. A poorly contented valuation instrument would be likely therefore to present a question which the respondent may not understand or may be un-able or unhappy to answer. Such issues are filed under, â&#x20AC;&#x153;content validity.â&#x20AC;? Given that this stated preference investigation deals with a private good content validity becomes less problematic. However in order to ensure content validity the interviews went through a p rocess of peer review and pre-testing. The question was framed as one might expect it to be if one were unwell and offered a choice of treatments from a practitioner. 60

Supra note 30.


70 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

The question would not be alien to the respondents. Most notably no respondents refused to answer any of the valuation questions and all respondents were able to understand and give answers to valuation questions. Construct validity requires that the answers are logically coherent and conform to the predictions of neo-classical economic theory. The preferences of the respondents were shown to be transitive in their preferences 88% of the time. The models from the choice experiments showed that the price coefficients correlated appropriately with price with an increase in the price of the alternative increasing demand (though only very slightly) and a decrease in the price of the good increasing demand. There is also a negative relationship between price and demand for the contingent valuation investigations. Based on these tests the valuation tools can be considered valid.

Sample bias There was a bias in the sample towards better off and better educated respondents than might be found in a purely random sample of China. The results suggest that attending higher education establishments made respondents less likely to buy wild bear bile. As such it would seem likely that this bias has reduced the total number willing to buy wild bear bile rather than exaggerated it. A lower income reduces ability to consume wild bear bile and so would also reduce consumption. A ltering the sample populationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to pay should lower the numbers consuming wild bear bile in both scenarios. As such a reduction in income would not be expected to alter relative results the main finding of this paper would remain intact.

Limits There are clear limits to what we can interpret from these results. The results presented here do not represent estimates of the total consumption of bear bile in China. E stimates of total


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

71

wild bear bile consumption would have to deal with availability, illegality of wild bile, prevalence of relevant diseases and the prescription of medical practitioners. What are clearly represented here are the stated preferences of the consumers. Without a full understanding of wild bear bile supply it is not yet possible to estimate accurately the reaction of the market to the introduction of farmed bear bile. We can however do some small calculations which indicate that these levels of demand might present a sev ere threat to wild bear populations at prices presented in this paper. A single bear in a farm might produce an average of 0.44 kg of bile each year 61 and we believe there to be roughly 12000 bears in farms currently. 62 Total supply of farmed bear bile might therefore be of the order of 5.3 tonnes per year. If wild bile were legal our demand functions suggest that at current prices wild bear bile might take up as much as 54% of the market or as little as 12%. Total wild bear demand would therefore be a minimum of 1.38 tonnes per year requiring 27,600 bears. Estimates of the total Chinese population of Asiatic Black bears are between 15,000 and 46,000. 63

Conclusion The results of this manuscript indicate that if the conservation benefits of farming bears are unlikely to be delivered if they rely upon altering the consumption decisions of the final user. The contention of this paper would therefore be that if poaching of bears has been curbed it is most likely because of the illegality of the wild trade in their bile and anti-poaching efforts. This research concerns the choice of the final consumers; however the medical practitioner may have some influence on this decision which is not captured here. If demand for bear bile is in part driven by the medical professions then there would remain a possibility that farming might have some impact on wild poaching. H owever there is evidence to suggest that the same 61

Supra note 27. Supra note 26 63 Supra note 23. 62


72 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

preference for wild bear bile can be found within the TCM profession 64 which might undermine this possibility. A further research step might be to interview a large sample of TCM practitioners to gauge how they might react to the loss of a legal supply of bear bile. Market-based policies such as farming are, however, most persuasively championed when the trade involves disparate and unmanageable groups. By this we mean that if there is a demand for a damaging substance or activity within the populace it might be difficult to curb that demand or prevent supply from illegal sources. If on t he other hand demand is largely driven by licensed professionals then it ought to be possible for professional regulatory mechanisms to control their activities thus undermining the argument to facilitate their demand. We are not here suggesting that trade in wild bear bile is being encouraged by the TCM profession, merely acknowledging that we cannot rule this out. As such we might refute this potential argument for bear bile farming were TCM professionals catalyzing demand. The results of this research do not rule out the theoretical possibility that the introduction of farmed bear bile might reduce demand for wild bear bile. H owever our analysis suggests that any reduction in wild bear bile demand would be partial at best. Moreover under what we posit are the more probable circumstances (namely the higher price estimates) the introduction of farmed bear bile has either had little impact on demand for wild bear bile or in some circumstances increased it.

64

Supra note 11.


A Stated Preference Investigation into the Chinese Demand for Farmed vs. Wild Bear Bile

73

TEXT S1 The binary logistic regression predicts the probability that a respondent will consume bear bile based upon the prices of the two products and a range of demographics as shown in equations 1 and 2. If the demographics used are those for the population then we can consider the probability produced to indicate the proportion of the population predicted to purchase wild bear bile and so the quantity sold.

1 1+ e y* Equation 2 y* = α + β pf .pf + β pf .pw

Equation 1 q =

Where pf is the price of farmed bear bile, pw the price of wild bear bile and α is the intercept and the demographics of the individual or population combined. In order to calculate the cross price elasticity for wild bile consumption with farmed bile price we need to differentiate the model by the farmed price as in Equation 3. Equation 3

 −β pf y *  ∂pf = − −y* 2  ∂q  (1+ e ) 

For the log linear model the model the relationship is simpler and shown in equation 4 which and is differentiated in equation 5. Equation 4 q = α + β pf .ln( pf ) + β pf .ln( pw) Equation 5

∂pf β pf = ∂q pf


74 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Using equation 3 or 5 we can therefore estimate the cross price elasticity at specific prices for wild and farmed bear bile as in equation 6. Equation 6 elasticity =

â&#x2C6;&#x201A;pf pf â&#x2C6;&#x201A;q q


Cat Dilemma: Too Protected to Escape Trophy Hunting?

75

CAT DILEMMA: TOO PROTECTED TO ESCAPE TROPHY HUNTING? ∗ Lucille Palazy†, ††; Christophe Bonenfant††, Jean-Michel Gaillard††, & Frank Courchamp†

† Écologie, Systématique et Évolution, Univ Paris-Sud, Orsay, France †† Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, Univ Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France

Abstract Trophy hunting is one of the most controversial issues in the field of biodiversity conservation. In particular, proponents and opponents debate fiercely over whether it poses a threat to hunted populations. H ere, we show that trophy hunting constitutes a greater menace to threatened species than previously realized. Because humans value rarity, targeted species that are threatened are likely to be disproportionately hunted, thereby becoming even more vulnerable, which could eventually push them to extinction. With the ten felid species currently hunted for their trophies, we present evidence that (1) the number of killed individuals increases with time, in several cases exponentially, despite population declines, (2) the price of trophies is strongly dependent on species protection status, (3) changes of protection status coincide with counter-intuitive changes of hunting pressures: protection intensification with augmented hunting effort, and protection relaxation with lower effort. This suggests an over-exploitation of trophy-hunted felids and the necessity of a better quota system coupled with reconsidered protection methods. ∗ This study was originally published in PLoS ONE 6(7) (2011). Formatting and references were changed to the style and citation requirements of the WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY.


76 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Introduction Trophy hunting is one of the most controversial issues in the field of biodiversity conservation, with fierce debates over whether it poses a threat to hunted populations. 1 Proponents of this multi-billion dollar industry highlight the enormous income it can generate for biodiversity conservation at the cost of a few harvested individuals of target species. 2 They also argue that hunters are frequently instrumental in protecting hunted species by both protecting habitat and preventing poaching. 3 Opponents counter that hunting is inherently unethical and that the selective culling of individuals can have population consequences, as has been shown in antelopes, elephants, lions and bears.4 They also claim that the high fees generated by trophy hunting lead to difficulties to control corruption in countries with high levels of poverty, and that trophy hunting is less economically profitable than photographic tourism. O pponents to trophy hunting point out as well that even the most threatened species are potential targets for trophy hunters and, in many cases quotas are inappropriately designed or not respected. 5 There is evidence to support both sides of the argument: trophy hunting has successfully been used to help some declining 1 N. LEADER-WILLIAMS, ET AL., Elephant Hunting and Conservation, 293 SCIENCE 2203 (2001); P. A. LINDSEY, ET AL., Economic and Conservation Significance of the Trophy Hunting Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa, 134 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 455–469 (2007); A. J. LOVERIDGE, ET AL., Does sport hunting benefit conservation? KEY TOPICS IN CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 224-240 (D. Macdonald & K. Service eds., 2006). 2 Id. see also D. M. LEWIS & P. ALPERT, Trophy Hunting and Wildlife Conservation in Zambia, 11 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 59–68 (1997). 3 LOVERIDGE, supra note 1. 4 R. SLOTOW, ET AL., Older Bull Elephants Control Young Males, 408 NATURE 425–426 (2000); J. E. SWENSON, ET AL., Infanticide Caused by Hunting of Male Bears, 386 NATURE 450–451 (1997); K. WHITMAN, ET AL., Sustainable Trophy Hunting of African Lions, 428 NATURE 175–178 (2004); K. L.WHITMAN, ET AL., Modeling the Effects of Trophy Selection and Environmental Disturbance on a Simulated Population of African Lions, 21 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 591–601 (2007); E. J. MILNER-GULLAND, ET AL., Conservation: Reproductive Collapse in Saiga Antelope Harems, 422 NATURE 135–135 (2003). 5 LINDSEY, supra, note 1; T. M. CARO, ET AL., The Impact of Tourist Hunting on Large Mammals in Tanzania: An Initial Assessment, 36 JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY 321–346 (1998).


Cat Dilemma: Too Protected to Escape Trophy Hunting?

77

populations to recover. For example, a trophy-hunting based conservation program in Pakistan helped to stop the decline of two endangered Himalayan sheep and goat species. 6 Conversely, recent studies have pointed out the need to consider trophy hunting as a threat to species conservation. N otably, trophy hunting of African lions, one of the most charismatic species, is sometimes ill-managed and could be implicated in the decline of populations. 7 Similarly, as demonstrated in ungulates, rarity per se can be responsible for a disproportionate attractiveness of the species among trophy hunters. 8 In this crucial but unsolved conundrum for the conservation of charismatic mammals, we discovered that hunter’s selection criteria seems influenced by threat status: hunters could prefer species that are highly threatened. We tested it with the ten felid species that are legally hunted for their trophies and listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Results We first assessed the intensity of trophy hunting activity by recording the number of legal trophy hunts worldwide over the period from 1975 t o 2008, as declared to CITES. 9 We found a marked increase in the number of individuals reportedly killed for seven out of the ten felid species (FIGURE 1). This increase was exponential for six of them.

6

M. R. FRISINA & SNA TAREEN, Exploitation Prevents Extinction: Case Study of Endangered Himalayan Sheep and Goats, RECREATIONAL HUNTING, CONSERVATION AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS 141–156 (B. Dickson, et al., eds. 2009). 7 C. PACKER, ET AL., Effects of Trophy Hunting on Lion and Leopard Populations in Tanzania, 25 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 142–153 (2010). 8 P. J. JOHNSON, ET AL., Size, Rarity and Charisma: Valuing African Wildlife Trophies, 5 PLOS ONE 1–9 (2010); F. COURCHAMP, ET AL., Rarity Value and Species Extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee Effect, 4 PLOS BIOLOGY 2405– 2410 (2006). 9 P. RIVALAN, ET AL., Can Bans Stimulate Wildlife Trade? 447 NATURE 529–530 (2007).


78 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Furthermore, we considered the IUCN threat status of hunted felids. 10 Counter-intuitively, the increase of trophy hunting was among the largest for some of the most threatened hunted felids. In particular, numbers of hunts of lions, cheetahs and leopards (all Vulnerable or Near Threatened) doubled every 7.2 years, on average, versus every 11.7 years for the other seven, less threatened felids (FIGURE 1). Obviously, such an increasing hunting pressure can eventually have dramatic consequences on the populations. Thirdly, we analyzed the volume of illegal takes for felids from the CITES database (including only “trophies,” “skins” and “skulls” show that during the study period the illegal takes have been increasing linearly (FIGURE 2). Wi ldlife trade is now recognized a m ajor commercial activity of transnational organized crime 11 and it is unlikely that this dramatic increase could be solely due to an exponential efficiency of custom controls. Customs are obviously increasingly aware and efficient but so are illegal wildlife traders and it is believed that increased quantities of seizures in customs also reflect the intensification of this multi- billion dollar illegal industry. 12 It is indeed likely that custom efficiency increase ought to be accompanied (or preceded) by a similar efficiency increase of smuggler’s methods and networks (akin to the Red Queen paradigm, van Valen, 1973). FIGURE 2 shows that illegal trade too is increasing. Meanwhile, according to the IUCN, the populations of all four species of conservation concern and one Least Concerned species are currently declining. 13 The increasing vulnerability (and associated decreasing availability) of species is not an impediment to increased hunting pressure. Next, we analyzed the monetary value (trophy hunting fee) of each species and found that Near Threatened and Vulnerable species are more valued, regardless of their body mass or trophy 10

Id. G. E. ROSEN & K.F. SMITH, Summarizing the Evidence on the International Trade in Illegal Wildlife, 7 ECOHEALTH 24–32 (2010); A. GRIESER-JOHNS & J. THOMSON, Going going gone: The Illegal Trade in Wildlife in East and Southeast Asia, THE WORLD BANK 32 (2005). 12 ROSEN, supra note 11. 13 See IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, version 2010.3 available at http://www.iucnredlist.org. 11


Cat Dilemma: Too Protected to Escape Trophy Hunting?

79

size (Kruskal test: (A) H1 = 0.63; p = 0.42; (B) H1 = 5.72; p = 0.02, FIGURE 3).

FIGURE 1. Increase of the number of hunts with time for ten felid species (1975-2010; Poisson regression: c21= 31606; p<0.001). IUCN protection status is shown by points of different colors.

Last, we analyzed the effect of changes in IUCN threat status on the volume of hunts. Unexpectedly, we found that declaring a species more threatened has perverse conservation consequences. Indeed, upgrading the species from Least Concern to Near Threatened led to some increases of trophy numbers, while upgrading to Vulnerable, a higher threat status, led to an even more marked increase (R2 = 0.87; F2,44 = 2.81; p = 0.070, FIGURE 4A). Most surprisingly, a st atus downgrade led to some decrease of species exploitation (R2 = 0.85; F2,9 = 3.91; p = 0.060, FIGURE 4B),


80 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

thereby suggesting a consecutive reduction of their attractiveness to hunters. This analysis strongly suggests a causal relationship between threat status and volumes hunted. However, it does not show merely that hunting makes felid species vulnerable to extinction, but rather, surprisingly, that vulnerability to extinction makes felid species more hunted.

FIGURE 2. Changes in time of the volume of illegal trade of felid species between 1975 and 2010, as recorded by the CITES Databases.

Discussion In this paper, we have shown that trophy hunting could constitute an underestimated threat to fragile felid species since the value of rarity makes them disproportionately desirable. With the ten felids species currently hunted for their trophies, we demonstrated that the number of killed individuals increases with time, in several cases exponentially, despite established populations declines. We also show that the price of trophies is dependent on species threat status and that changes in threat status result in counter-intuitive changes in hunting pressures. Indeed, our results indicate that an increase in species threat


Cat Dilemma: Too Protected to Escape Trophy Hunting?

81

FIGURE 3. Positive relationship between the IUCN protection status and the price. Trophy price has previously been corrected by body mass in kg, light red dots (Kruskal test: A: H1=0.64; p=0.42) or by trophy size in dark red dots (B: H1=5.72; p=0.02).


82 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V


Cat Dilemma: Too Protected to Escape Trophy Hunting?

83

FIGURE 4. Trend of the number of hunts following an IUCN status change. Status changes that can be an increased (A) or a decreased (B) IUCN protection status show that protection status is directly related to attractiveness and exploitation (marginal significance A: R2=0.87; F2.44=2.81; p=0.070; B: R2=0.85; F2.9=3.91; p=0.060). Note that P. pardus experienced several successive changes. status coincides with increasing hunting effort, while a downgrading to a lower threat status paradoxically results in a reduction in hunting pressure. Together, this suggests a possible over-exploitation of trophy-hunted felids and the urgent necessity of a better, scientifically quantified quota system coupled with reconsidered protection methods. Rarer species are generally more attractive and of higher value than similar common species. 14 Experiments in zoos and web-based questionnaires have demonstrated the value of rarity for plant and animal species. 15 The disproportionate value and resulting exploitation of rare species has been evidenced in markets as different as exotic pet collections,16 luxury good consumption 17 and ecotourism. 18 In addition, the relationship we show here for felids has also been demonstrated for trophy hunting of ungulates. 19 Motivations for trophy hunting may be various 20 but typically hunters’ target selection is driven by the challenge of the hunt, with the most difficult species to hunt being the most rewarding. 14

COURCHAMP, supra note 8. E. ANGULO & F. COURCHAMP, Rare Species are Valued Big Time, 4 PLOS ONE e5215 (2009); E. ANGULO, ET AL., Fatal attraction: Rare Species in the Spotlight, 276 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 1331–1337 (2009). 16 P. TOURNANT. ET AL., The Rarity and Overexploitation Paradox: Stagbeetle Collections in Japan (submitted/in review). 17 A. GAULT, ET AL., Consumers’ Taste for Rarity Drives Sturgeons to Extinction, 1 CONSERVATION LETTERS 199–207 (2008). 18 R. HALL, ET AL., Endangering the Endangered: The Effects of Perceived Rarity on Species Exploitation, 1 CONSERVATION LETTERS 75–81 (2008). 19 JOHNSON, supra, note 8; L. PALAZY, ET AL., Rarity, Trophy Hunting and Ungulates, ANIMAL CONSERVATION (in press 2011). 20 LOVERIDGE, supra note 1. 15


84 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

With technological progresses, such as firearms, motor vehicles and other modern practicalities, it has been advocated that the challenge of hunting has shifted from the perilous or difficult to hunt towards the rare species. 21 Indeed, one very likely explanation for the desirability of threatened species is their associated rarity rather than their vulnerability per se a s many hunters advocate their commitment to conservation. Because of limited supply, greater wealth or power is necessary to acquire one of the very few permits delivered for the least abundant species. The successful hunter wins a competition for restricted goods and gains prestige among his peers.22 It is likely that the ever-increasing mismatch between attractiveness and availability also stimulates illegal hunting. O ur analyses show that illegal harvest, by definition difficult to quantify, constitutes an underappreciated threat to felid species that are subject to stringent hunting quotas, if these restrictions are not efficiently enforced. Although it is arguably difficult to unambiguously attribute causation to a correlation, the breath of our argument, together with the demonstrated effect of rarity value in different markets, including on ung ulates trophy hunting 23 should be sufficient to raise caution about the hidden consequences of trophy hunting on threatened species. Adequately calculated quotas require precise population size assessment, as w ell as growth capacity and knowledge of density dependent mechanisms (such as A llee effects, 24 so that harvest can be calculated to be sustainable. One of the strongest arguments of the opponents of trophy hunting is the difficulty to provide and enforce adequate hunting quotas. For example, it is known that in Zimbabwe, trophy licenses for lions exceeded the entire population for many years, partly because the population size was unknown. 25 The few felid species for which estimates of total population size are available have dramatically declined from their historical abundance. For 21

COURCHAMP, supra note 8. COURCHAMP, supra note 8; supra note 18. 23 Supra note 19. 24 L. BEREC, ET AL., Multiple Allee Effects and Population Management, 22 TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 185â&#x20AC;&#x201C;191 (2007). 25 A. J. LOVERIDGE, ET AL., SCIENCE AND THE RECREATIONAL HUNTING OF LIONS 108-123 (Wiley-Blackwell 2009). 22


Cat Dilemma: Too Protected to Escape Trophy Hunting?

85

example, only 23,000 t o 39.000 lions and 7,500 cheetahs now remain from numbers which may have been one order of magnitude higher or more (IUCN Red List 2010). Solid and precise estimate are lacking for most other hunted felids, yet they are all increasingly hunted (FIGURE 1). Recent studies have shown that, contrary to claims of hunting proponents, trophy hunting was the main driver of population decline in African lions and leopards.26 Cases of reduced lion quotas are said to have led to increased prices, up to one order of magnitude during national hunting bans.27 For lions, the increase in trophies may in part be due to the recent amplification of the practice of ‘‘canned lions’’ (lions that have been raised in reserves for hunting purposes). Y et, wild lions are also disproportionately hunted and lion trophy hunting is, in many cases, unsustainable. 28 We demonstrate here that this attraction to rare species might affect several felids similarly and, outside this family, other species hunted for their trophies could also be affected. 29 In this regard, recent interests in opening trophy hunting of tigers, as the “most expensive trophy in the world” 30 raises new concerns. Trophy hunting has a unique status in conservation; its benefits have been demonstrated in several cases, where species might even have been saved from extinction by a thorough management program involving harvest of a f ew selected individuals, protection of the rest of the population, and injection of very significant funds for species and habitat protection. 31 However, harvest based on improperly calculated or enforced quotas may have led to overexploitation of other species. This is especially the case when the attraction for rarity artificially 26

Supra note 7; C. PACKER, ET. AL., Sport Hunting, Predator Control and Conservation of Large Carnivores, 4 PLOS ONE 1–8 (2009) see also II JOURNAL OF THE WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY 62-86 (Winter 2009). 27 JOHNSON, supra note 8; D.W. MACDONALD, ET AL., Felid Futures: Crossing Disciplines, Borders and Generations, THE BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF WILD FELIDS 599 651 (D. W. Macdonald & A. J. Loveridge, eds. 2010). 28 Supra note 25. 29 Supra note 8. 30 G. CHAPRON, ET AL., The Impact on Tigers of Poaching Versus Prey Depletion, 45 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY 1667-1674 (2008). 31 Supra note 2.


86 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

increases trophy value and risks driving them into an extinction vortex. 32 Consequently, if not strictly regulated by quotas that are scientifically established, seriously enforced and internationally organized, the continuous increase of kills in threatened species could risk driving them towards extinction. These considerations are of crucial significance if trophy hunting is to be used appropriately as a conservation tool.

Methods & Materials Data Collection ~ Safari Club International (SCI) database 33 was used to obtain the list of hunted species in Felids. Thirteen felid species are subjected to trophy hunting. From the SCI database, we extracted trophy scores (corresponding to trophy size) for each harvest given in points. M ale body masses were found in the CRC handbook of mammalian body masses. 34 From the IUCN red list of threatened species, we collected the category under which the 13 felid species were classified annually since 1975. We could therefore identify which species experienced a change in its IUCN status during this period. C aracal (Caracal caracal), African wildcat (Felis silvestris libyca), Serval (Leptailurus serval), Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) and Bobcat (Lynx rufus) were classified as Least Concern during the entire study period. The status of Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and African lion (Panthera leo) changed once. The status of European lynx (Lynx lynx) and Cougar (Puma concolor) changed twice. Lastly, the status of leopards (Panthera pardus) changed three times. According to the IUCN, the populations of six species are currently declining. The CITES database on species trade (CITES Trade Database, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK) compiles the data on the international trade of each member countries or parties (actually 175 countries). These 32

COURCHAMP, supra note 8; PALAZY, supra note 19. SCI database available at http://www.scirecordbook.org. 34 M. SILVA & J. A. DOWNING, CRC HANDBOOK MAMMALIAN BODY MASSES (B. Raton, ed. 1995). 33


Cat Dilemma: Too Protected to Escape Trophy Hunting?

87

correspond to a proxy of the yearly number of legal importation and exportation of trophies reported for each species by the parties from around 1975 to 2008. For each record the corresponding number of individuals was provided. Among the 13 felid species harvested, we excluded tigers (Panthera tigris), jaguars (Panthera onca) and African golden cats (Profelis aurata) because we found no harvest the last 5 years in the CITES data base and no trophy price for these species. We did not consider the number of records in 2009 because of the required delay to collect and centralize the information by the CITES. D ata on illegal trade were also collected from the CITES database and all items were considered. F or items listed as â&#x20AC;&#x153;derivativeâ&#x20AC;?, which could be numbering in the thousands likely parts of animals, we considered only one item per record. Although the quality of data collection and reportage probably increased over time, it ought to be globally similar for all species. A s we used the number of harvests corrected for the increase with time, the observed increased number of hunts should not be due to such improved quality. We used the trophy prices reported by Booth (2009) for African felids and collected the trophy fees proposed by different hunting societies on the web for the non-African ones. 35 Two to eight different trophy fees were used to calculate the average price. All prices used run between 2008 and 2010. Trophy fees include the price of one trophy for one species. It does not include any logistic costs for the hunt and is therefore comparable among countries. Instances where the trophy fee could not be distinguished from the other costs of the hunting safari were not considered. Typically, trophy fees are first determined by governments, and then bought by hunting societies that intend to sell them to their clients after increasing the price.36 In this context, a high price attributed to one trophy by hunting societies means that this type of trophy is highly valued among their clients. It is largely recognized that prices reflect desirability and that the prices increase with the demand. 37 35

V. R. BOOTH, A Comparison of the Prices of Hunting Tourism in Southern and Eastern Africa, 7 CIC TECHNICAL SERVICE PUBLICATION 40 (2009). 36 Id. 37 P. KOTLER, ET AL., PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING, (F.T.P. Hall, ed. 2008).


88 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

Statistical Analyzes We used a Poisson regression to analyze the temporal trend in the annual number of trophies. We first fit a linear trend on the log-scale (equivalent to an exponential model on t he normalscale) to test for an overall trend over time in the number of trophies in Felids. We then tested for the effect of rarity, entered as a t wo- category factor (Least Concern vs. Near Threatened/Vulnerable), on the rate of increase of the number of trophies listed in the CITES with time by fitting the first order interaction between time and rarity. Next, we calculated the trophy price per unit (i.e., trophy point and kilo). We used the second biggest trophy score listed in the record book of the Safari Club International in order to avoid any mistake and bias in the reporting, which are more likely in the biggest. This score is determined using the SCI Official Measurerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Manual, a key reference in the field.38 Thus we used it as a p roxy of the trophy size for a given species. W e then divided the trophy price by this score to obtain the trophy price per point for each species. I n the same way, we calculated the trophy price per body mass kilo. We used the IUCN threat status of the species in 2008 for the comparison between trophy prices. Indeed no s tatus change occurred after 2008 for the present species and the prices used ran between 2008 and 2010. We considered two groups of species because of the low number of data: no protection need (Least Concern, 7 species) versus others (Near Threatened or Vulnerable, 3 species). We then tested for between-group differences in the trophy price per unit (kg or SCI points). The dataset was too small to allow the use of a simple linear model. Hence, we used a Kruskal test to compare trophy prices per units between our samples of rare and common species. 39 To examine the effect of threat status changes on the trade, we calculated the mean number of harvested individuals 5 ye ars before and 5 years after a change in the IUCN protection status of 38

S. E. GANDY & B. K. REILLY, Alternative Trophy Measuring Techniques for African Buffalo, 47 KOEDOE 119-124 (2004). 39 N. BRESLOW, A Generalized Kruskal-Wallis Test for Comparing K Samples Subject to Unequal Patterns of Censorship, 57 BIOMETRIKA 579-594 (1970).


Cat Dilemma: Too Protected to Escape Trophy Hunting?

89

the species, except for Puma concolor, Lynx lynx and Panthera pardus whose status was changed too recently to be able to conduct this analysis (i.e., in 2008). In this case, the comparison was performed between the year preceding and the year following the change. The period of 5 years was chosen to smoothen for yearly variations. We u sed the de-trended number of trophies as the response variable, calculated by modeling the residuals of the Poisson regression linking annual numbers of trophies and time. Therefore, we controlled for the observed general increase of harvest with time. We r emoved the difference in the global number of harvests among species by using the proportion of harvests instead of the row number of harvests. In this regard, we considered as 100% the sum of the mean harvests before and after the status change. We then tested for the effect of rarity on this parameter. The results obtained using a buffer of 1, 2 or 5 years before and after a change in IUCN status were qualitatively similar.


Impressions & Prose: The Butterfly

91

IMPRESSIONS & PROSE THE BUTTERFLY Chris Wright

Chris Wright © 2011


92 Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society Sum/Fall 2011, Vol. V

The Butterfly is a d epiction of Masti, a wild born Bengal tiger, who was tragically caught in a poacher’s trap in Nagarhole National Park in southern India. W hilst the Forest Department was able to find him, his crushed leg had to be amputated in order to save his young life. The Born Free Foundation has cared for Masti at their tiger sanctuary in Bannerghatta National Park since 2007. Mr. Wright was coordinating the management of the sanctuary for Born Free and photographed Masti—his photographs inspired this drawing. The Butterfly was shortlisted for the prestigious David Shepherd Wildlife Artist of the Year Awards. Limited edition prints of The Butterfly may be purchased directly from Mr. Wright at: www.cwright.co.uk/gallery/artwork. Follow Mr. Wright’s work in progress on Facebook. P lease visit his page: www.facebook.com/ChrisWrightWildlifeArt.


WILDCAT CONSERVATION LEGAL AID SOCIETY 1725 I STREET, NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 WWW.WCCLAS.ORG ~ INFO@WCCLAS.ORG


ENSURING A WILD FUTURE FOR ALL WILDCATS

Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society, Sum/Fall 2011, Vol V  

The Journal of the WildCat Conservation Legal Aid Society provides a unique forum for professionals and scholars to analyze and comment on t...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you