Proposed domestic trade law the answer to decreasing rhino poaching?

Friday at the close of business is the last time arguments for and against the draft regulations for the domestic trade in rhinoceros horn, or a part, product or derivative of rhinoceros horn may be submitted to the department of environmental affairs for consideration.

The proposal has brought a huge sigh of relief from private rhino owners.

It has also stirred up a hornets nest from the anti-trade brigade, and success for either side will depend on who shouts loudest in Environmental Minister Edna Molewa’s ear.

First, some history

International trade in rhino horn was first banned back in 1977 by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), as it was believed the species would not survive if it was not protected.

In 1994, Cites downgraded white rhino, allowing horns to be taken in legal “noncommercial” hunts. In 2009, SA put a moratorium on local trade in place. Since 2008, 5 434 rhino were reportedly killed for their horn, although this number is in dispute.

According to a report by IUCN Species Survival Commission presented at Cites 17th Conference of Parties in Johannesburg last year, 6 580 of 8 691 horns from Africa went into illegal trade between 2012 and 2015.

The horns were taken from poached rhino, natural mortalities, theft from government stockpiles, horn sold illegally from and theft from private stocks, and legal hunts of white rhino.
“This represents an estimated 20 tonnes of rhino horn moving out of Africa for illegal trade,” the report stated.

Back to the present

Between Wednesday and Thursday, four rhino in the North West, three in the Free State, two in Limpopo and two in KwaZulu-Natal were butchered for their horn, according to Outraged South African Citizens against Poaching (Oscap).

Yet banning trade was not the answer, said Michael Eustace in a statement.

He is an investment analyst, a director on the boards of three government parks in Malawi and one in Zambia, and questioned Cites’ worth, saying its trade ban was a failure and bureaucrats enjoyed the power Cites gave them.

“Significantly, it provides the bureaucrats with frequent and luxurious travel opportunities, at the expense of the taxpayer,” Eustace said. “Donor agencies (NGOs) like it because it underwrites continued conservation crises, and that gives the agencies purpose. Criminals love it because it allows them a trade monopoly and large profits.”

“Market logic suggests that supplying the market with horn [blood-free] will reduce poaching and reducing poaching is what we all want. So, horn leaking out of the country would be a good thing for rhino but a bad thing for Cites’ compliance.

“It may even be an inducement for Cites to change and to regulate a legal horn trade, sensibly, rather than banning trade, which has not worked and will never work and simply enriches criminals and charlatans,” said Eustace.

No so fast

“Since this proposal was made public, we have witnessed the violent attack on Thula Thula Rhino Orphanage where Rhino orphans were killed by criminals for their tiny horns,” said the American-based Global March for Elephants and Rhinos (GMFER) in its submission.

“In the same violent attack, foreign volunteers were assaulted. In anticipation of a surge of Rhino horn on the market, it can be argued that the South African government’s proposal to sell it has also victimised captive Rhino abroad as with the death of Vincent in Thoiry Zoo in France, and the theft of his horn,” GMFER’s statement read.

“The proposal is written in complete defiance to the demand reduction programs and campaigns instituted in Asia. Expert groups in this field have formed a clear picture of how the market works, what the buyers of rhino horn want, and what motivates them to purchase it.”

Cites failure

The problem is Molewa is in a legal bind, with the moratorium on rhino horn trade tenuous while she awaits the outcome of a Constitutional Court challenge from when it was overturned by the lower courts.

“The moratorium has been a total failure as has been the Cites international trade ban,” Private Rhino Owners Association chair Pelham Jones said in a note to the association.

“It has not saved the life of a single rhino and has achieved the unintended consequence of creating a vast transnational illegal trade in rhino horn and stimulated an illegal rhino poaching industry, resulting in the illegal killing of over 6 000 rhino since its introduction and resultant security costs of about R1.2 billion a year to protect remaining populations. The value of live rhino has fallen sharply and over 70 reserves sold or had all their animals poached.”

His note demonstrated there was no love lost between owners and activist NGOs, or the media.

“Unfortunately certain media and various animal rights NGOs have already attacked this proposed legislation, published inaccurate ‘opinion pieces’ with zero consideration of the needs of national, provincial or private reserves or any of the credible rhino conservation bodies,” Jones said.

“Most importantly, a substantial number of these animal rights NGOs do not actually face the life threatening risks [to humans and rhino alike] that private rhino owners do, every day for the past 7 years. Yet they are very vocal on matters of anti-trade and have little to no conservation history or expertise.”

Tit for tat

Oscap director Allison Thompson had similar views on some private rhino owners.

“Corruption is endemic in the rhino poaching arena with vets, pilots, rangers, policemen, members of the Organized Crime Unit, conservation officers etc. all being involved in poaching and poaching syndicates. There are members of the organized crime unit, the Hawks, policemen, rangers all awaiting trial in South Africa on poaching-related crimes,” Thompson said in her DEA submission.

“We need to examine the private rhino community and the many role players that support them. In 2009, TRAFFIC noted that trophy hunts ‘on the same game farms repeatedly’ were used as a front for international trafficking of rhino horn. By 2012, the involvement of South African game farmers and trophy hunt operators in rhino horn trafficking was well-documented in ‘Killing for Profit: Exposing the Illegal Rhino Horn Trade’ by Julian Rademeyer.”

Looking ahead

The bitter irony is that both camps want to preserve rhino populations while a seemingly impuissant government is caught in the middle while poachers turn their backs on legislation and the remaining rhino population into literally dust.

The question is, will the proposed legislation bring about the drop in poaching desperately wanted by everyone, or will it undo years of hard work by NGOs in demand reduction.

Given the quandary DEA finds itself in, only time will tell.

//

For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.