Abstract: Executive Summary:
The report is part of a project aiming to strengthen capacities to implement CITES, especially in
Central Asia and to satisfy the CITES‐related requirements of trading partners, to prevent
overexploitation and to ensure legal international trade in wild fauna and flora does not exceed
sustainable levels. The objective is to enhance the policies and regulations concerning trophy
hunting in selected range States of the Argali Ovis ammon: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian
Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and to provide a framework for the establishment of
sustainable hunting programmes that support conservation. This report is focused on the relevance
of trophy hunting for conservation and associated local livelihoods.
Sustainable use of biological diversity is an integral part of the Convention on Biodiversity (1992) and
is seen as a valuable tool in conserving biological diversity. The Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines
(AAPG) set out the basis for sustainable use of natural resources. The IUCN SSC1 Guiding Principles on
Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives, and the European Charter on Hunting
and Biodiversity provide further guidance on the sustainability of trophy hunting, including on highly
threatened species. The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) together
with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has also developed Best
Practice Guidelines for trophy hunting.
All five project countries are Parties to CITES, except Tajikistan, which has begun the accession
process. Argali are the focus of the trophy hunting in the region and they represent the most
expensive trophy in the five project countries. Other CITES‐listed hunting species are Brown Bear
Ursus arctos, Wolf Canis lupus, Musk Deer Moschus moschiferus, Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx (all mainly
in Russia) and Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata. Markhor Capra falconeri and Urial Ovis
orientalis have also been hunted at times but are not the object of regular trophy hunting
programmes at present. Other widely hunted species are not listed in the CITES Appendices.
A recent analysis by TRAFFIC of the CITES trade database showed that 10 245 hunting trophy items
from species listed in the CITES Appendices were exported from the project countries between 2000
and 2010. Almost all trophy items consisted of Argali, Brown Bear and Wolf. Most were exported
from Russia (9473 trophies), with smaller numbers from Tajikistan (705), Kyrgyzstan (668), and
Kazakhstan (126), and 13 from Uzbekistan.
In the region, wildlife is generally the property of the State, which awards rights to use it to
individuals or other entities. National legislation covering hunting and wildlife protection may refer
to sustainable use but this is undefined. The legal rights of local communities are also not generally
specified. FAO and CIC produced a review of national legislation that set out in detail the basic
principles of sustainable wildlife management laws (2008). One of the main findings was that
legislative frameworks in the region frequently consisted of different legal instruments that were not
always harmonized and sometimes overlapped. In some cases, there was also a lack of institutional
clarity, with overlapping jurisdictions among different agencies.
Poaching for meat and trophies or commercial products is a significant factor across the whole
region, negatively affecting all the main hunting species, as well as protected species. Wild
populations have been reduced, sometimes drastically so. Poaching of Argali and other mountain
ungulates may be carried out by military or border personnel and is not restricted to areas outside
formal nature reserves: indeed, law enforcement and protected area staff are sometimes complicit
in illegal hunting, driven in part by the very low salaries. There are numerous recent examples of
poaching and illegal trade in trophies of CITES‐listed species. The actual level of illegal off‐take is
unknown. Known cases may represent a very small fraction of the real total. The wildlife
conservation sector is under‐resourced across the region with a lack of funding, trained personnel,
transport and other equipment severely limiting the effectiveness of anti‐poaching efforts.
Memoranda of Understanding under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS MoUs) and their
associated action plans for Saiga Saiga tatarica and Bukhara Deer Cervus elaphus bactrianus have
proven to be effective instruments in facilitating species recovery. A CMS Single Species Action Plan
for Argali is in preparation (Roettger & Singh, in prep) and will provide a framework for conservation.
Trophy hunting in the region is predominantly organized on a commercial basis. Community‐based
hunting initiatives in the region are in their infancy and face some legal and institutional obstacles.
There are however promising developments: for example, five community‐based NGOs in Tajikistan
are managing wildlife in legally assigned areas and three of them have hosted hunting clients (on
non‐CITES species). Well‐developed community‐based trophy hunting programmes operate in
Pakistan, targeted at Markhor Capra falconeri which is listed in CITES Appendix I, and in Namibia,
which is widely seen as a leader in such programmes, and while the specific conditions and sociopolitical
background of both differ in several ways from those in the region, they nonetheless
provide instructive guidance on the principles of successful community conservancy organization.
There is an extensive literature on trophy hunting, its potential to contribute to conservation of
biodiversity and local livelihoods, and the potential negative effects of selective harvesting on
species. The consensus view seems to be that selective harvest of trophy‐age males does not impact
negatively in the short term, if only a low proportion of the available trophy‐age individuals are
harvested, but uncontrolled harvest can lead to a decline in horn size and thus trophy quality, as well
as have negative demographic effects. Trophy hunting programmes raise substantial revenues in
some African countries, and in the best cases significant sums are received at community or
conservancy level. However, this is not universally the case and inequitable benefit sharing remains
a major challenge to be overcome. Good governance is an essential requirement when developing
hunting and other forms of community based management initiative.
A possible decline in size of Argali trophies in Kyrgyzstan has been reported and determining
whether this is actually the case, and the causes, is a priority. Standardized monitoring, involvement
of independent experts, transparency in quota setting and allocation of licences are all seen as
prerequisites of well‐managed and sustainable hunting operations. Allocation of long‐term leases for
concessions is needed to motivate managers to invest in anti‐poaching and other conservation
measures and remove the temptation for short‐term profit that threatens the sustainability of the
resource.
Developing all forms of Community‐based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) – trophy hunting
and tourism – is also recommended. As the concept is still new to many parts of the region, and the
legal‐political background is not always sympathetic, building on examples of existing community
conservancies (in Tajikistan) or where there is an administrative basis for local management of
resources (Kyrgyzstan), is likely to be effective. Ensuring that communities and conservancies are
legally empowered to manage and utilise wildlife and to receive revenues for such use is a basic
requirement.
Recommendations on good practice are set out in several publications and salient points relevant to the region are highlighted.

Abstract: Human population growth and concomitant increases in demand for natural resources pose threats to many wildlife populations. The landscapes used by the endangered snow leopard (Panthera uncia) and their prey is increasingly subject to major changes in land use. We aimed to assess the influence of 1) key human activities, as indicated by the presence of mining and livestock herding, and 2) the presence of a key prey species, the blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur), on probability of snow leopard site use across the landscape. In Gansu Province, China, we conducted sign surveys in 49 grid cells, each of 16 km2 in size, within a larger area of 3392 km2. We analysed the data using likelihood-based habitat occupancy models that explicitly account for imperfect detection and spatial auto-correlation between survey transect segments. The model-averaged estimate of snow leopard occupancy was high [0.75 (SE 0.10)], but only marginally higher than the naïve estimate (0.67). Snow leop- ard segment-level probability of detection, given occupancy on a 500 m spatial replicate, was also high [0.68 (SE 0.08)]. Prey presence was the main determinant of snow leopard site use, while human disturbances, in the form of mining and herding, had low predictive power. These findings suggest that snow leopards continue to use areas very close to such disturbances, as long as there is sufficient prey. Improved knowledge about the effect of human activity on large carnivores, which require large areas and intact prey populations, is urgently needed for conservation planning at the local and global levels. We highlight a number of methodological considerations that should guide the design of such research.

Abstract: Snow Leopard poaching and trafficking – referred to herein as Snow Leopard crime – is revisited 13 years after TRAFFIC’s first report on the subject, Fading Footprints: The Killing and Trade of Snow Leopards (Theile, 2003). This report builds on a preliminary analysis published in May 2016 (Maheshwari and von Meibom, 2016). It addresses a major information gap concerning the linkage between retaliatory killing for livestock depredation and poaching for trade, and the scale at which both are taking place. The focus is on 12 Snow Leopard range countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, India, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. There is little evidence of illegal trade in Snow Leopards outside these countries.
Two sets of data were developed in the research for this report. The first is a Snow Leopard crime database containing records of seizures (legal actions taken by government authorities) and observations (reports of Snow Leopard killing, capture or trade, including market surveys). The database contains records dating back to 1989 (which are discussed in Annex 1), but the analysis focuses on the period since the release of Fading Footprints, the first TRAFFIC report: 2003-June 2016. Seizures are a function of law enforcement effort, effectiveness and publicization, as well as the magnitude of illegal trade, and so observations are an important component of the analysis, particularly for countries where few seizures are made or reported. However, detailed observations are not regularly published, and may be are biased toward countries where there is more effort, so a simple multiple choice survey was designed for Snow Leopard experts. Completed by 42 of them in 2016, and covering all 12 range countries, the survey asked experts for their total number of known cases, case outcomes, and reasons for killing Snow Leopards.
Based on the average number of cases known to experts over the average of nine years spent working in their geographic areas of knowledge, 221-450 Snow Leopards were estimated to have been poached annually since 2008. With the average rate of poaching detection estimated by experts at less than 38%, these numbers could be substantially higher. Of these, 55% are killed in retaliation for livestock depredation, 21% killed for trade and 18% taken by non-targeted methods such as snares. Although retaliatory killing is estimated to account for roughly half of Snow Leopard poaching (55%), experts estimate that there is a 50-50 chance (48%) that a poaching attempt will take place after a depredation incident. On average, experts estimate that 60% of retaliatory and non-targeted poaching incidents result in an attempt to sell; accounting for differences in this estimate between countries, a total of 108-219 Snow Leopards potentially enter into illegal trade. Over 90% of annual Snow Leopard poaching is estimated to occur in five range countries: China (103-236), Mongolia (34-53), Pakistan (23-53), India (21-45) and Tajikistan (20-25).
Given the uncertainties about population numbers, as well as the low rate of poaching detection, it is difficult to assess the impact of this offtake on the viability of the species. Snow Leopard range is used as a proxy for Snow Leopard population numbers; most national Snow Leopard population estimates are derived from extrapolating study site densities across likely range. Although China had by far the highest number of seizures and observations (309 Snow Leopards from 2003-2016) and the highest annual poaching estimate, its share of Snow Leopard crime was not disproportionate to its large share (at least 60%) of Snow Leopard range. Countries flagged for having disproportionate shares of crime levels relative to share of range included Afghanistan and Russia (seizures and observations), and Nepal and Pakistan (annual poaching estimates). China and Russia were most frequently identified as destinations for animals poached in other countries.
The expert survey indicates that the scale of Snow Leopard crime is more serious than apparent from the annual average number of Snow Leopard seized (18) or observed (34) from 2003-2016. This could be in part due to the challenges of law enforcement in the Snow Leopard’s remote montane habitat. Indeed, the survey found that an average of 23% of known cases were investigated by authorities, and only 14% prosecuted.
The minimum number of Snow Leopards in the seizures and observations database fell by 43% from the first half of the analysis period (2003-2009) compared to the second (2010-June 2016) (from 451 to 259). However, the decline was in the number of Snow Leopards observed in trade and in market surveys, which fell by 80% (from 280 to 54), with the largest decline taking place in China. There were more market surveys in the first half of the analysis period (13) than the second (5), but they
TRAFFIC report: An Ounce Of Prevention: Snow Leopard Crime Revisited xi
were repeated in the same places (Kabul, Afghanistan and cities in western China), and far fewer skins were seen (for example, 60 skins in the Chinese city of Linxia in 2007, compared to one in 2011). The numbers of Snow Leopards in other observations were roughly equivalent for the two periods (108 in the first and 100 in the second), but the numbers in trade observations fell by 46% (from 52 to 28). Otherwise, the number of Snow Leopards seized rose by 16% (from 115 to 133), and the number of individual seizure cases rose by 77% (from 44 to 78). The number of poached Snow Leopards seized doubled (from 31 to 60), and the observed number of poached Snow Leopards also increased by 14% (from 56 to 64). The number of Snow Leopards in trade seizures was the same in both periods (55), and the number smuggled roughly equivalent (29 seized in the first period, and 24 seized and observed in the second).
There are three possible interpretations of this situation of rising numbers of Snow Leopards poached (as measured by seizures and observations), steady numbers in smuggling and trade seizures, and steeply declining numbers in trade observations and market surveys. It could be that the limitations of available data and the authors’ inability to collect all of it has resulted in an incorrect picture. It is apparent that illegal trade has become more clandestine and difficult to detect in most countries, so that secondly, it could be increasing, as indicated by the apparent rise in poaching numbers. However, the number of Snow Leopards seized in large cases (more than 3 Snow Leopards per case), indicative of organized trafficking activity, declined from 60 in the 2003-2009 to 23 in 2010-2016. This points to a third possibility: that trade (and perhaps demand) is declining, possibly due to increased enforcement, but local people continue to opportunistically sell Snow Leopards they poached primarily to protect livestock.
With skins being the main Snow Leopard product type in trade (78%), the primary motive for buyers appears to be for display, with some observations of skins hanging on walls in homes and restaurants, as well as stuffed taxidermy specimens. Priced in the thousands of US dollars, skins have been described as a “symbol of wealth and power.” However, there probably exists very little in the way of a definable consumer segment deliberately seeking out such items. They are most likely purchased opportunistically – “impulse buys” – and most consumers probably only buy one in their lifetime. Once in a home, the illegal possession has very low probability of detection, and moreover law enforcement authorities may be reluctant to investigate in such situations. The purchase itself also has a low probability of detection, as indicated by the sharp decline in observed numbers of Snow Leopard skins being offered for sale. While growing personal wealth in Asia has been highlighted as a primary driver of illegal wildlife trade, poverty is also recognized as a driver, and the Snow Leopard trade may be more driven by rural people in Snow Leopard habitat attempting to make money and make up for livestock losses to predators than by wealthy people placing orders for luxury household decorations. Unlike the demand-driven Tiger trade (Annex 2), to which it otherwise bears many similarities, the market for Snow Leopards may be more a function of supply, and actions should focus on the communities living near Snow Leopards to reduce incentives to poach and sell. This notion is reflected in the aphorism behind the title of this report: an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. Preventing livestock losses, offsetting the costs of losses and improving community support for Snow Leopard conservation are the most important approaches to tackling the problem of Snow Leopard trafficking.
Recommendations focus on addressing the leading cause of Snow Leopard poaching (retaliatory killing/Human-Wildlife Conflict) as well as measures to stem illegal trade, and are primarily targeted at the 12 Snow Leopard range countries. They are aligned with existing recommendations and planned actions, including CITES recommendations, draft Decisions and consultant’s reports around implementation of Resolution Conf. 12.5 (CITES 2015, 2016; Nowell and Pervushina, 2014); the Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program (GSLEP, 2013, 2015, n.d.); the SLN’s Snow Leopard Survival Strategy (SLN, 2014); and WWF’s Snow Leopard Species Action Plan (WWF, 2015 and Sharma, 2016). There was also an informal discussion about recommendations to address poaching and illegal trade at the Second China Snow Leopard Forum, held in Urumqi, Xinjiang province 24-26 August 2016 (B. Weckworth, Panthera, pers. comm.).
Recommendations are grouped according to four primary actors in Snow Leopard conservation: 1) governments of Snow Leopard range countries; 2) communities living in Snow Leopard range; 3) conservation organizations and Snow Leopard experts; and 4) donor governments and agencies.

Abstract: Top carnivores play an important role in maintaining energy flow and functioning of the ecosystem,
and a clear understanding of their diets and foraging strategies is essential for
developing effective conservation strategies. In this paper, we compared diets and prey
selection of snow leopards and wolves based on analyses of genotyped scats (snow leopards
n = 182, wolves n = 57), collected within 26 sampling grid cells (5×5 km) that were distributed
across a vast landscape of ca 5000 km2 in the Central Himalayas, Nepal. Within the
grid cells, we sampled prey abundances using the double observer method. We found that
interspecific differences in diet composition and prey selection reflected their respective
habitat preferences, i.e. snow leopards significantly preferred cliff-dwelling wild ungulates
(mainly bharal, 57% of identified material in scat samples), whereas wolves preferred typically
plain-dwellers (Tibetan gazelle, kiang and argali, 31%). Livestock was consumed less
frequently than their proportional availability by both predators (snow leopard = 27%; wolf =
24%), but significant avoidance was only detected among snow leopards. Among livestock
species, snow leopards significantly preferred horses and goats, avoided yaks, and used
sheep as available. We identified factors influencing diet composition using Generalized Linear
Mixed Models. Wolves showed seasonal differences in the occurrence of small mammals/
birds, probably due to the winter hibernation of an important prey, marmots. For snow
leopard, occurrence of both wild ungulates and livestock in scats depended on sex and latitude.
Wild ungulates occurrence increased while livestock decreased from south to north,
probably due to a latitudinal gradient in prey availability. Livestock occurred more frequently
in scats from male snow leopards (males: 47%, females: 21%), and wild ungulates more frequently
in scats from females (males: 48%, females: 70%). The sexual difference agrees
with previous telemetry studies on snow leopards and other large carnivores, and may
reflect a high-risk high-gain strategy among males.