The poaching of rhinos is escalating exponentially and the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is currently being asked to legalise the trade in Rhino horn.
Proponents for the lifting of the ban argue that rhino numbers have increased due to rhino farming and that legalizing the trade will stop the poaching. But will this be the case?
Retired Lawyer Chris Mercer of the Campaign Against Canned Hunting points out that any scheme to legalise the trade in rhino horns rests upon the assumption that governments can be un-corrupt, efficient (doing things right) and effective (doing the right thing). He cannot imagine a shakier foundation for a legal trade in rhino horn. To remain in power some African governments buy patronage, he says, and corruption is therefore endemic.
This statement seems to be borne out by a recent international comparative study of conservation and environmental issues by Yale University and the UNEP which placed South Africa 124th out of 132 countries, thus reflecting badly upon South Africa's ability to conserve its natural resources. Coupled with the fact that China, the main user of rhino horn for 'medicinal purposes' is increasingly getting a foot hold in Africa, he paints a bleak future indeed.
Rhino breeders like John Hume, feel that the answer is legalization of the trade and the continued breeding of rhinos
in captivity in what Mercer described as factory farm conditions. Using a purely economical argument which disregards the fact that rhinos are sentient beings, Hume's ume'sHvision is that we "breed enough rhinos to supply the market with horns that come from live, breeding herds of rhinos and fill our game reserves and wilderness areas with horned ones." This will not only serve the ongoing demand for medicinal purposes but also cater for hunters. He openly boasts: "The horns which I've removed are stored in banks and have increased in value like no other asset owned by myself."
But this vision is debunked by Michele Pickover, author of Animal Rights in South Africa, who published a well researched document on the issue. She points out that when considering the legalization of the trade in Rhino horn it is important to look to the results of lifting the ban on elephant tusks as a result of similar arguments, that elephant numbers had increased sufficiently and legalizing the trade would stop poaching. In fact, the opposite occurred and what we learned from the elephant ivory trade is as follows:
Cites is an international agreement signed by 175 governments, including one of the world's major markets for illegal wildlife products- China. After several years of polarised discussion and debate, CITES in 2008 granted China approved buyer status in the controversial sale of stockpiled ivory from Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe.
The argument was that a legalized, controlled trade in specimens of naturally deceased, managed and culled elephants could be used to flood the market and thereby lower demand, so reducing illegal trade and easing pressure on wild populations of endangered species. Two years after this stockpile sale took place, environmental investigations revealed that, far from flooding the market with legal ivory to reduce demand, the sale of the stockpiles simply fuelled the demand for illegal ivory, spurring a massive increase in the poaching of elephants. Up to 90 per cent of ivory on sale came from illegal sources and prices had increased. The illegal ivory simply got laundered onto the market under cover of the 'legal' ivory.
Turning to rhinos, the species that has already teetered on the brink of extinction once in the past 30 years is once again facing a total onslaught. The current crisis has an added dimension not seen before – the involvement of organized criminal syndicates in countries which are neither range states nor major consumer markets. This suggests the demand for rhino horn is currently at an all-time high. What the ivory issue has taught us is that a legalized trade can never be properly monitored or regulated because the principal markets for rhino horn, including China, have failed spectacularly to fulfill commitments and has been abysmal at implementing an ivory regulation and control system. If China cannot implement a control system designed specifically to address the problem (while at the same time satisfying demand) how on earth can it even be considered a suitable candidate for introducing a similar system for rhinos?
The organization TRAFFIC (Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce), formerly in favour of legalizing the trade in horns, have now done an about turn and concurs with Pickover's views.
There is a battle ahead – the illegal trade in wildlife and their by-products is an industry worth billions, being second only to the illegal trade in drugs.
Beatrice Wiltshire
