Legalising International Trade in Rhino Horn ???

[Toko]

A legal market may generate an explosion in demand. And the poached horn will find its way into the consumer market as long as corruption is not eradicated.

NO

[Toko]

EWT: Position statement on legalising the international trade in rhino horn - April 2013

BACKGROUND
The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) is a non-governmental organisation dedicated to conserving threatened species and ecosystems in southern and eastern Africa to the benefit of all people. The EWT has been actively involved in efforts to reduce rhino poaching since April 2010 with the launch of the Rhino Security Project.
Rhino poaching in South Africa has escalated dramatically since 2008, with 83 rhinos being poached that year compared to the 13 poached in 2007. This trend continued in 2009 (122 rhino poached), 2010 (333), and 2011 (448). In 2012 the official statistics indicated that at least 668 rhinos were poached for their horns. As South Africa is home to ~77% of the world’s remaining rhinos, it is imperative that measures be put in place to reduce poaching and protect rhinos.
The South African government placed a moratorium on national trade in rhino horn (Government Gazette No. 31899, Notice No. 148, 13 February 2009) in an attempt to stop horns bought legally in the domestic market being exported illegally to Asian countries. During November 2010, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) convened a National Rhino Summit with the aim of developing a strategy for government in the fight against rhino poaching. Based on findings at this summit the South African government concluded that a study to determine the feasibility and viability of lifting the moratorium to legalise national trade in rhino horn should be commissioned and, should the outcome of the study be positive, the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs should consider initiating the process towards legalising the trade in rhino horn. In December 2011, the DEA commissioned the EWT to undertake a formal investigation into legalising the national trade in rhino horn as a possible intervention to curb rhino poaching. The report containing the findings of the research was completed in October 2012 but is still to be published. The EWT’s position as outlined in this document has been informed by this research as well as a variety of other sources.

CURRENT LEGAL SITUATION IN SOUTH AFRICA REGULATING RHINO
International
South Africa joined the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1975. CITES aims to ensure international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.
The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs published Regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 10 of 2004 whereby CITES regulations were formally incorporated into South African legislation.
In terms of CITES, species are listed in Appendices I, II or III, depending on the level of protection required. Appendix I include species threatened with extinction and trade in their specimens is only permitted in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilisation incompatible with their survival.
Currently, the Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis) is listed under Appendix I and may therefore not be traded internationally, except under exceptional circumstances. However, during the 13th Conference of the Parties (CoP) held in March 2005, a resolution was passed through which South Africa obtained permission to hunt five Black Rhino bulls per annum for trophies, and that these hunting trophies were to be exported to the hunters’ countries of residence.
Since 1994, the South African White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) has been listed under Appendix II with the annotation - For the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and in hunting trophies. All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly. International trade may therefore take place, but only for the off-take of rhino through sport hunting by foreign nationals and the export of live rhino to appropriate and acceptable destinations. All other rhinos or rhino derivatives are still listed on Appendix I which means that no international trade may take place. In other words the commercial international sale of rhino horn is prohibited.

National
The National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998 (NEMA) was passed in November 1998 and came into force in January 1999. It is a framework Act covering natural resource use and conservation, pollution control and waste management, and land-use planning and development. NEMA also provides for environmental management principles and Section 2 (4) (a)(vi) specifically states ‘that the development, use and exploitation of renewable resources and the ecosystems of which they are part do not exceed the level beyond which their integrity is jeopardised.’
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 10 of 2004 (NEMBA) regulates the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity and its components and affords protection to species and ecosystems that are in need of national protection.
Chapter 4 of NEMBA as well as the accompanying Threatened or Protected Species Regulations (ToPS) specifically deals with the protection and conservation of listed threatened or protected species as well the trade in threatened species. Section 56 of NEMBA provides for the listing of species that are threatened or in need of national protection: both the White and Black Rhino are listed. Activities involving these listed species are either restricted or in some cases prohibited. Restricted activities carried out within the national parks, or by officials of South African National Parks (SANParks), are also subject to the provisions of NEMBA and the ToPS Regulations.
Any restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed species, requires a permit. Currently both South African rhino species are included in the list of threatened or protected species in national legislation.
 Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis) – Endangered species: indigenous species facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, although it is not a critically endangered species; and
 White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) – Protected species: indigenous species of high conservation value or national importance that requires national protection.
Currently the domestic trade in rhino horns and derivatives is prohibited in terms of a national moratorium which was published in Gazette No. 31899 (Government Notice 148).

LEGALISING TRADE IN RHINO HORN
Requirements for legal international trade
International trade in South African rhino horn is currently not sanctioned by CITES. In order to conduct legal international trade in rhino horn, South Africa will first have to submit a proposal to CITES and obtain a two thirds majority vote in favour of the proposal.
Based on the experience with the establishment of trade in other wildlife products, for instance elephant ivory, South Africa will have to attend to the following:
1. Trade may be limited to suitable trading partners pre-approved by CITES who have proven that their internal trade controls are sufficient to prevent laundering of illegal horn. No country has expressed an interest in legal horn import to-date. South Africa will therefore need to identify willing, compliant, regulated and established trading partners as approved by the CITES Secretariat.
2. Proposed structure and trading protocols to be used in both South Africa, as the source country, and the consuming country, for example Vietnam, will need to be addressed.
3. An improved central information system linked to the permitting system and to the DNA database RhoDISTM, (http://www.rhodis.co.za) is an important step toward trade controls to provide transparency around how horns have been obtained (traceability). This is critical to distinguish between legal and illegal horn.
4. South Africa will need to prove that internal effective trade controls have been implemented and are sufficient to prevent the laundering of illegally obtained rhino horn.
5. Adequate regulatory and other measures to ensure that South Africa complies with reporting and inventory obligations, which would include:
a. Encourage non-compliant private rhino owners to register their horn stockpiles by providing guidance and assistance with security, and by convincing them that their personal information will be stored securely. Issue DNA certificates with each possession permit for each rhino and each rhino horn.
b. Conduct regular audits of horn stockpiles to discourage illegal sales.
c. Only issue possession permits for rhino horns when sufficient proof of legal ownership or acquisition is provided.
d. Increase capacity at ports of entry/exit to detect illegal wildlife products.
6. Clarity on how the revenue from trade will be utilised.

Key knowledge gaps
Currently there are several critical uncertainties to be addressed before legalising the international legal trade in rhino horn should be considered as an option to address the rhino poaching crisis. These are:
1. Whether, from a market dynamics perspective, legalising international trade will reduce the incentive for poaching. The first uncertainty in this context concerns the notion that an increase in supply leads to price reductions, which has been questioned in some quarters. The second uncertainty concerns the effects of such price reductions should they actually take place.
2. Whether a supply of legal horn can satisfy the demand in Asian countries.
3. Whether South Africa is in a position to effectively regulate a system of legal international trade, nationally and internationally.
4. Whether South Africa’s trading partners are able to implement a structured legal trade regime and adequately regulate against illegal trade.
5. Whether it will be possible to keep illegal horn out of the legal market.
6. Whether legalising the trade in rhino horn will have other negative impacts on the conservation and wellbeing of the species. For example the proliferation of rhino farming.
7. Whether legalising trade will legitimize and condone the use of rhino horn in Asian countries.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Currently rhino populations are under threat due to poaching. The question of whether commercial trade in rhino horn should be legalised hinges on whether a scenario of legalised international trade would have a positive impact on addressing the rhino poaching crisis.
2. The EWT fully supports all efforts to improve in-country trade control, permit monitoring systems and increased regulatory and other measures, as described above. South Africa should be working towards having the measures required by CITES in place, irrespective of the potential legal trade in horn.
3. The EWT is cognisant of the urgency in addressing the rhino poaching crisis, but is also mindful of the dangers associated with implementing a plan of action as far-reaching as legalising the international trade in rhino horn, before understanding the critical uncertainties associated therewith.
4. CITES must first approve a proposal from South Africa before any system of legal trade in South African rhino horn can commence. As the next CoP meeting is only in 2016, adefinitive decision on legalising trade is therefore not required at this stage and would be premature given the uncertainties over the possible impacts of this strategy. The EWT therefore promotes focussing our immediate efforts on filling the knowledge gaps and addressing the uncertainties listed above. Once we are in a position to demonstrate, with an acceptable level of certainty, that a system of sustainable, legalised trade in rhino horn will secure wild populations of rhino and not fuel markets or further obstruct the eradication of the black market, the EWT would then be open to considering this as a means to conserve the species.

[Toko]

Rhino poaching a national disaster: DA

Sunday 21 April 2013 16:41
SABC

The Democratic Alliance (DA) says rhino poaching should be declared a national disaster. The DA's Anthony Benadie says this would enable access to disaster management funds to finance anti-poaching initiatives while discussions on rhino horn trade continue.


The Environmental Affairs Department said 232 rhino have already been killed in South Africa this year, with 167 of them in the Kruger National Park.

Benadie says,“We believe that we need to intensify the national debate on the legalisation of rhino horn trade. This is ultimately the only way in which we will be able to save the rhino from extinction, by ensuring that there is a formulated and regulated market for the harvesting trading and supply of rhino horns which is undoubtedly the most effective anti-poaching initiative.”

Meanwhile, The Kruger National Park is relocating the animals to prevent them from being poached. In 2012, 668 rhinos were killed across the country. Government is pushing for stiffer sentences for poachers and the seizure of assets of the accused and hope this will help serve as a further deterrent to potential poachers.

A majestic animal under siege and despite increased conservation efforts rhino poaching continues to increase. It's led to the South Africa National Parks (SANParks) adding tracking and tracing measures to its routine patrols. Dogs are being trained to follow human scent.

[PennyinSA]

BWahaha ha ha - who you fooling DA - you won't get my vote if you are going to advocate trade!

[Richprins]

I have always favoured legal trade! Another topic, though?

Don't know why a political party comment is needed here...?

[iNdlovu]

You get votes by commenting on an emotional issue such as this.
I will keep saying it until I'm blue in the face, there are just too many end users in the far east for our stock pile to make any difference, all we will succeed in doing is increasing the number of users and thus the demand and then what happens when the stock pile runs out. Sure we may be able to force the price down whilst we still have stock, but watch it double once the stock dries up.

[PennyinSA]

I am extremely concerned that the Maj Gen in KNP is using a figure of 8 000 rhino - what happened to the other 5 000 plus that were supposed to be there? Did they just disappear into thin air?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/393 ... ophy-hunts

Thank you Ian McDonald for putting this down so succinctly - No Trade Ever!!!!

Trade in rhino horn as a solution for their conservation is a FLAWED option! We need to stop the trade, not feed it!

1) In order for trade to be legalised, willing trade partners need to be identified. China and Vietnam are not willing to put themselves forward as trade partners for this commodity. As these are the 2 largest users of rhino horn, if they are not prepared to trade in horn, no other potential customers exist in the market place, so who will South Africa ultimately trade with then, the criminal syndicates presently controlling the market?
2) Before South Africa can consider trade, we need to know how many rhinos we have in South Africa, how much horn we have stockpiled, how much we can supply annually etc. These statistics are unknown and many rhino owners are not willing to divulge information on their “assets”. There are thus far too many unknowns to attempt to dabble with a species on the edge of extinction.
3) South Africa is patently failing in its constitutional mandate to protect our environment and its biodiversity. The state of our environmental protection is retrogressing rapidly due to lack of funds, manpower and prioritization of the environment. It is unlikely that we will be able to adequately monitor trade in rhino horn – it will simply add another environmental challenge that we cannot control. User nations such as China and Vietnam also have poor environmental control records. What guarantees do we have that they will be able to control the rhino horn trade in those nations? More than likely it will still be controlled by syndicates using “legal” front companies.
4) Many rhino farmers (not conservationists) keep rhino as a financial investment. These farmers are pushing trade in order to realise a profit on their investment. Why should South Africa’s wildlife pay the price of their poor investment decisions – rhinos are not a commodity to be traded with.
5) Should trade be legalised and market forces come into play, a decline in the price of rhino horn may make it more attractive to an even greater market group, potentially increasing the level of demand. Rhino populations are increasing at 6-8% per annum compared to an increase in demand of 165% per annum (under present market conditions). It is obvious that supply will never be able to match the demand and result in a stable supply/demand relationship.
6) We have at the most approximately 22000 white rhinos and less than 5000 black rhinos left in Africa. We do not have a comfortable margin of numbers to “play with” should we make an error in allowing trade only to find that it has not stemmed poaching but actually promoted it.
7) Pro-traders use the argument that banning the trade is not saving the rhino. They cannot provide a shred of proof of the alternative that unbanning trade will save the rhino.
8) The illegal trade in rhino horn offers a huge income to illegal criminal syndicates. Should trade be legalised it is naive to believe that these syndicates will willingly accept the loss of this huge income. Instead, it is more than likely that they will continue to control this trade, especially in the light that no willing trade partners are coming forward. Do we as a nation want to be branded as openly trading with illegal syndicates? Furthermore if syndicates continue to control the rhino horn market, why would they want to buy it when they can poach it for a fraction of the price and still retain the market control they presently have?
9) Rhino horn has no medicinal value, although it may be argued that it does have a placebo value. A placebo is however a psychological phenomenon and not a cure. Rhino horn is touted as a cancer cure which is definitely not going to be cured by a placebo. We are thus willingly supplying a product which we know and can prove has no true medicinal value.
10) Trade is not going to benefit rhino conservation. 98% of the profit from the sale of wildlife products does not end up being ploughed back into the conservation of those species or environments. This is particularly so in a developmental state such as South Africa where income to the Treasury is required to fund social programmes, housing, education, healthcare and infrastructure.
11) Tourism in South Africa depends on the promotion of the “Big Five” in the wild, as free roaming, naturally appearing animals. Many private reserves that are dependent on international tourism are not willing to harvest horns as this defaces the animal (excuse the pun) and they lose their tourism value. Rhino farmers do not contribute to the tourism economy and there interest in rhinos is purely from the point of personal economic gain and not the welfare of the species or communities dependent on tourism.
12) Modern conservation thinking views the protection of a species in isolation from a functioning ecosystem as invalid (as is done on rhino farms). Rhinos need to be protected within conservation areas where they can perform their ecological functions as part of a dynamic ecosystem. Farming of rhinos for the purposes of harvesting horns breaks down their social behaviour patterns and makes zero contribution towards conservation of functioning ecosystems and biomes. Furthermore farming with rhinos disrupts the natural pattern of sexual (and genetic) selection within rhinos – selective breeding is practised to breed rhinos with heavier and longer horns. This again is not conservation practise.
13) Whilst there is speculation as to the necessity of a rhino to possess a horn, this is a shortcoming of the human understanding of the evolution of rhinos. Clearly, evolution knows the answer to this conundrum as rhinos have horns. Should it not be a necessary appendage, evolution would not have favoured its retention. By harvesting horn, we are effectively countering millions of years of evolution. We know that horns are used as defence weapons by mothers for the protection of calves; we know that males fight for territory ownership with their horns etc. Whilst dehorning does not APPARENTLY have negative consequences we know too little and have been monitoring the effects of dehorning for too little time to prove evolution wrong.
14) The state of the forensic investigation of rhino carcasses is in disarray due to poor funding and training. If we are unable to adequately police the situation now where the possession of any horn is illegal, how will we possibly be able to forensically distinguish between what is legally acquired horn and thus can be traded and what has been illegally acquired and thus cannot be traded. In other words, we cannot police one trade route adequately at the moment, how are we possibly going to effectively police two?
15) It is not the CITES ban on trade which has caused an increase in poaching. It is an increase in demand based on flawed medical beliefs.

[Richprins]

Hello, Penny!

There is a long discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=197&t=1141

Lots of differing views. The above is similarly full of "not a shred of evidence" stuff, particularly since the Minister has publically stated a trading partner has been identified.

I don't think people understand the enormity of the size of the SP/ .gov stockpile!

[H. erectus]

Again!!! To legalize will only become abused and misused
umbrella and smokescreen for those with ulterior motives!!

Such action will only cause the price to rise even more for
it will only create a understanding that indeed rhinohorn
has certain properties to it for one.

This action will have little effect on those with ulterior
motives. The price fetched by rhinohorn far supersedes
the cost of a few bullets and stolen weaponry, thus the evil
ones will simply continue down that garden path!!

In fact I believe that matters can only get worse should
trade be agreed upon. I can very well feel the knife and
dagger discontent staring at me!! Let's for a mo' not stare
at the far east, instead lets stare at ourselves?????

Did we, "the fraternity and not only Sanparks, perhaps just
stimulate this vile and horrendous situation" simply 'cause
there is big bucks walking about on many farms so to speak!

Big bucks that could bail out many financial disasters!!

We cannot but only blame the user always!!!

[H. erectus]

Legalizing trade based on a fallacy,....

OMW, where do our public responsibilities and
morals lie???!!!