Who’s got it wrong about rhinos?
LAST Friday the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) issued a curious media statement in which it noted with concern what it termed the misrepresentation of facts associated with the international trade in rhino horn.
It warned that this trade is prohibited in terms of the Convention on International Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora (Cites). As a case of slamming the gate after the horse has bolted, this is hard to beat.
In April the Constitutional Court upheld a high court decision overturning a 2009 moratorium prohibiting the domestic trade in horn. This followed a successful application by rhino farmers challenging the moratorium. The DEA took the decision to the Concourt – and lost. It is now preparing legislation to ratify the trade.
The result of the Concourt decision requires an unbanning of domestic rhino horn trade retrospective to 2009, opening the gate for charges against the department by farmers for restriction of trade and loss of earnings. How it came to this, in the face of massive rhino poaching (over 1 000 a year) and an international ban on cross-border trade, and massive public support for rhinos is simply disastrous bungling by the department. The outcome was so startling that there have been questions raised about collusion between the department and rhino farmers.
The point, though, is why would anyone want to buy rhino horn if it could not be onsold illegally to dealers in Asia where it’s worth more per kilogram than gold or heroin? With sophisticated poaching syndicates running circles around highly trained military personnel in the Kruger Park, the cost of protection to private owners is massive. Even storage of horn is at risk from weaponised raids.
So if anyone buys horn – and with a provincially issued licence almost anyone, even foreigners can – what do they know that we don’t? Will the price be set against massive returns if the horn can be smuggled out of the country, or simply as a local commodity like wildlife skins and trophies? The latest press release says, rather cryptically, a set of draft regulations published for public comment in February is not meant to circumvent any Cites process as such will be tantamount to non-compliance (sic).
The possibility of non-compliance is massive. A transaction can only take place with a permit issued by “the relevant provincial department”, some of which have been found to licence Vietnamese prostitutes as legitimate hunters. All horns sold are required to have their DNA recorded and microchips inserted. Quite apart from the fact that such chips can be removed, the DEA’s machinery for doing insertions is not yet in place. And its directorate of biodiversity compliance and enforcement has yet to complete its audit of horn stockpiles.
Of course, selling horn beyond South Africa’s borders will be the hoped-for pot of gold at the end of this particular rainbow. Rhinos – and by definition their horns – are listed by Cites as Appendix 1. This means no trade for commercial purposes. So are there devils in the detail?
According to the Cites regulations, horn can only be traded for personal use. But what possible personal use could horn be used for? And who will monitor its use once it disappears into the carving sweatshops of Laos, Burma and the Golden Triangle? Cites is a trade convention, and no longer has any compliance capability.
Will this spawn a local carving industry in bangles and libation cups “gifted” to deserving Asian tourists? Or microchip extraction workshops?
The DEA says it’s evaluating public comments following the publication of the three draft notices relating to the management of the domestic rhino horn trade.
“The Department will then set in motion the process for approval of the final legislation. Once approved, it will be published in the Gazette for implementation.”
One thing’s for sure: legislation will permit the domestic sale of rhino horn because, in terms of the Concourt finding, it has to. The possibility of containing the sales within the country after that is minimal. – Conservation Action Trust
The Department of Environmental Affairs thinks we have have, but it’s they who are wrong – through their actions, writes Don Pinnock