A gamble that will spell doom for rhinos
Making the trade in their horns legal won’t stop poaching or ensure survival of the species, writes
EVERY eight hours, on average, marks the death of one more of South Africa’s rhinos for its horn, and another step in the march to extinction driven by poaching. With fewer than 20 000 white rhinos left, the question of how best to halt this march is hotly contested.
Next year, South Africa will have the opportunity to submit a proposal to legalise trade in rhino horn at the 17th meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Cape Town. Such a proposal de- pends on the outcome of our own committee of inquiry into the issue, and would need a twothirds majority vote from all 180 Cites nations to be passed.
Last month, stakeholders presented their arguments to the committee on whether legalisation would help or hinder conservation. Some argued that legalisation of horn is our last resort: a heroic gamble to save the rhino.
The argument is that flooding the market with legal (farmed and stockpiled) horn will drive poachers out of the market NO ESCAPE: Even after this rhino was dehorned, poachers still shot it to get the stubs of horn that were left COSTLY CONTRABAND: Rhino horns, ivory chopsticks and ivory bracelets are displayed in Hong Kong’s customs and excise department offices after being found in a container shipped to Hong Kong from Cape Town while encouraging individuals and communities to farm rhinos and invest in their protection. According to John Hume, a private rhino owner, as it stands it is simply not in the interests of game farm owners to hold on to their rhinos.
On the other side of the debate are those who contend that set against the expanding Asian markets, the meagre amount of horn that could be farmed would fall leagues short of demand. In fact, legalising trade may further boost demand by stripping away stigma around horn.
As the explosion in illegal ivory trade in China following South Africa’s 2008 ivory sale demonstrated, the origins of wildlife products are notoriously difficult to trace and legal channels provide smokescreens for illegal trade. Prior to the oneoff sales, elephant poaching had been simmering at manageable levels since the 1989 international ivory trade ban.
Given the free-falling rhino numbers, a similar surge in demand for horn would have a calamitous impact. The considerable costs involved in farming rhinos would probably prevent a significant drop in the price of horn, and the incentive to poach would remain. Even if a lower market price could be achieved, the value of horn — about $65 000 per kilo in 2011 — is such that even a fraction of this would still attract poachers.
Conservationists contend that the same corruption and loopholes in law enforcement that undermine the South African and Chinese response to poaching would probably erode efforts to regulate trade.
For these reasons, it is hugely unlikely that Cites would vote in favour of legalisation. Even supposing it did — if not next year, then perhaps at the following Cites meeting — China would still need to revoke its own ban on rhino horn.
While all measures should be considered, there is a danger that the focus on trade is diverting attention from gaps in our defence against poaching.
The lack of transparency in the selection process for the committee of inquiry, together with the sizable stockpile of ivory in the state’s possession (estimated to be worth R11.6billion), have sparked concern that the government may be leaning prematurely towards a pro-trade position.
The Department of Environmental Affairs has gone to some lengths to portray the response to poaching as impeccable, but it is inaccurate to contend that trade in rhino horn is our last resort. Closer co-operation with Mozambique (which now largely exists only on paper), the introduction of minimum sentences for poachers, and higher rates of arrest of middlemen and syndicate leaders, are all strategies that should be aggressively pursued.
Demand reduction strategies in consumer countries have been successful in the past. The argument of inelastic demand assumes that modern use of rhino horn is a result of long-standing traditional beliefs. In fact, rhino horn is rarely used for traditional medicinal purposes today. Its marketing for other uses (for example, as a cancer cure) by criminal syndicates indicates that consumers respond to new information, and that demand can be influenced.
“We know that bans, along with demand reduction campaigns, can work. They worked extremely well in Taiwan in the early ’90s,” argues Adam Welz of environmental group WildAid. “They shut that whole trade down, not in a matter of years but in a matter of months . . . [In China] we’re already seeing shifts in public attitude.”
While the committee of inquiry weighs arguments for and against legalisation, it is imperative that South Africa continues efforts to tighten law enforcement and to partner with civil society organisations in China to try to reduce demand.
Teagle is a freelance journalist specialising in the environment
They shut that whole trade down, not in a matter of years but in a matter of months