Legalising International Trade in Rhino Horn ???

[Toko]

Horn of contention: pro-trade thinking comes in for criticism
IAN MICHLER SOUTH AFRICA 16 JAN 2014 01:36 (SOUTH AFRICA)

Pro-trade fighters have long argued that legalising the sale of rhino horn will be the strongest possible weapon against widespread rhino poaching. But a new report highlights the dangers of such thinking, and argues that it’s by no means an economically or ecologically viable solution. By IAN MICHLER.

Those that oppose the legalisation of trade in rhino horn as the panacea for the continent’s rhino poaching crisis have long cautioned against the use of simplistic economic modelling as a basis to justify this stance. And now in the first of what is likely to be many more convincing critiques, a report that raises considerable doubt over the approaches used by pro-trade economists and consultants has just been published.

Compiled by Economists at Large (EcoLarge) and released by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Horn of Contention: A review of literature on the economics of trade in rhino horn (www.ifaw.org) sounds a clear and persuasive warning against pro-trade policies as a way of reducing the heavy poaching pressures on rhino. After reviewing a selection of literature on wildlife trade in general and the economics of trade in rhino horn in particular, the report highlights the risks involved in legalising the trade. It concludes that “economic logic does not suggest that a legal trade in rhino horn would necessarily reduce poaching of rhino in Africa.”

Distinguishing between ‘formal peer-reviewed articles’ and un-reviewed work or what they refer to as ‘grey literature’, the EcoLarge report makes a clear distinction between the two categories. The former have a far more cautious tone due to the ambiguous nature of the outcomes, pointing out the uncertainties and discrepancies with trade, while the authors of the ‘grey literature’ are overtly pro trade and make a host of assumptions on a variety of factors in order to fit the modelling. Listed in this category is the work of Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Michael Eustace, two economists that have received extensive coverage within pro-trade circles, and their modelling has been instrumental in driving the economic arguments behind this lobby in South Africa. The EcoLarge report goes on to say these studies “are considerably less rigorous in their application of economic principles,” and that they “generally fail to address the factors that the more formal studies suggest could lead to increases in poaching…the evidence offered for these views is generally not compelling.” And in the case of Eustace, the report refers to his position as “simplistic and misguided.”

This report clearly highlights the levels of uncertainty and risk involved with the current economic modelling underpinning the legalisation lobby. And with the extinction of rhino at stake, it is difficult to see how the global regulatory authorities would be able to allow any changes to the current no-trade policies. DM

[Richprins]

I'm sorry, but this is all rather vague?

Anything that starts with: And now in the first of what is likely to be many more convincing critiques is already suspect in my opinion..

Can't find the actual report, and this seems more like a journalistic bitchfight?

[Richprins]

News24 Thursday, 30 January


How the engagement ring proves that we shouldn't trade Rhino Horn
When an obsession is based on myth and fuelled by the imagination little can be done to counter it. Legalising rhino horn in the name of conservation is especially dangerous as it only validates the untruth, says Africa Geographic editorial consultant, Anton Crone.

"Most Westerners know that the medicinal properties of rhino horn are nothing but an ancient Eastern myth.

But poachers are decimating the rhino population as Asia’s demand for horn grows and illegal trade expands.

There’s now pressure to legalise the trade and farm rhinos.

The argument is that by saturating the market with rhino horn, value and demand will fall.

On the surface this might appear sensible, but there are lessons we can learn from a Western myth fabricated just eighty years ago.
Once the privilege of royalty and aristocrats, by the 1930s, diamonds were being sold to those of far more modest means thanks to De Beers diamond company and their advertising agency, N.W Ayer & Son. As the USA came out of the depression, De Beers approached Ayer to create demand for their product. Based on a few examples set by European royalty, the advertising persuaded average Americans that a worthy man should give a diamond ring to his betrothed.

The truth was diamonds had never harboured romantic connotations; they had always been considered symbols of privilege and wealth. Yet the campaign caught the American imagination and the diamond’s association with romance grew.

They exploited the exciting new medium of film by weaving diamonds into romantic Hollywood scenes and flaunting them on the fingers of the stars. The slogan Diamonds are Forever was spawned instilling a sense of lasting romance while dissuading people from selling the rocks and flooding the market. To top it off they proposed grooms spend no less than two months’ salary on an engagement ring and, as the campaign spread worldwide, British men were compelled to spend one month’s salary and Japanese men, three.

A vast number of people reading this will have a diamond ring on their finger or will have spent a great deal of money buying one. It’s probably the greatest marketing trick of all time. So what would it take to dispel the myth about the engagement ring? At the very least it would take an advertising campaign of equal proportion to the one that manufactured it and require funding only the likes of a diamond company could afford. Of course, diamond companies would counter with a campaign to reinforce the myth, and they have an eighty year head start.

Now imagine how much time and money it would take to dispel the far more ancient and elaborate myth of the medical efficacy of the rhino horn. Imagine the backlash that would ensue from deeply entrenched players. In the face of this it might appear the only course is to throw up our hands, legalise the trade and farm rhinos for their horn.

In South Africa there is a great deal of pressure to put just such a proposal before the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 2016. But then we need to look at other aspects of the diamond trade:

Diamond supplies are carefully controlled. Competing companies realise that dropping prices might kill the market, therefore a certain amount is stockpiled to avoid saturating the market and keep demand and price at an optimum level.

The price of diamonds is so inflated that a vast criminal market operates in its shadow. We are generally aware of this, yet the bodies and abuse left in its wake do little to deter us. The film Blood Diamond opened millions of eyes to the horrors of the illicit trade yet there was no apparent drop in sales after its release.

Reports of Zimbabwe’s recently found Marange diamond fields, reputed to be one of the greatest reserves in history, points to corruption and human rights abuse. But while the US refuses to deal in Zimbabwean diamonds, sanctions have just been lifted in Antwerp, the centre of diamond trading.

Of the legitimate mining operations on South Africa and Namibia’s west coast, estimates are that between fifteen and thirty per cent of rough diamonds exit the mines illegally. But De Beers seeks out and buys up as many of these illicit diamonds as they can in order to control the supply thus encouraging an illegal market.

Given the example of the diamond market, what would happen if we legalised the trade in rhino horn? The market would also be at risk of saturation (the stated goal of the pro rhino horn trade lobby) but it’s doubtful that the already established suppliers, with their criminal roots, would let that happen.

They would want prices to remain high and the only way to ensure that would be to limit supply by hoarding stockpiles and controlling rhino population. As demand increases there could be as much if not more poaching to meet the demand and the illicit trade in rhino horn would still flourish and compete with the legitimate trade.

Conversely, if the price were to drop, it is highly unlikely it would deter poachers. At present the price hovers between US$60 000 and US$100 000 per kilogram. Drop that to a tenth of the price or even less and poachers would still gun them down to make a living.

A legal market would not discourage sophisticated terrorist organisations, already poaching to fund their exploits, from continuing. A legal market would in fact add a convenient smokescreen for their and other poaching operations.

The market for rhino horn is growing fast and will continue to grow with Asia’s booming economy. The current rise in rhino poaching is driven, to a great degree, by Vietnam’s economic rise. Here, the wealthy sprinkle horn on their food and snort it like cocaine – a sign of prestige because it is more expensive than the drug. They use it to cure hangovers and enhance hard-ons – all modern, manufactured myths.

As the demand rises, imagine the surge that would occur with legalisation. Just 1 million consumers consuming just 10g per month = 120 tons per year. At an average of 4kg per horn, that’s 30 000 rhinos per year, more than the total number of rhinos alive today. Now imagine 2 million consumers, 3 million….

A major influence would be marketing. A rumour started a few years ago claimed that a respected Vietnamese politician cured his cancer by ingesting powdered rhino horn. Such a cure has no foundation in traditional Chinese medicine; the politician was not even named, but the rumour spread rapidly. Many see it as an underground marketing campaign to drive up the value of rhino horn. If it was, it worked; measure for measure, rhino horn is now more valuable than gold.

Legalising the trade means marketers need not use the rumor mill because they can advertise in popular media. And we know how crafty advertisers can be; we fell for the diamond myth after all.

Perhaps the greatest myth is that legalising the rhino horn trade is about conservation.

But it is far more significant than that. By legalising the trade we validate a fallacy.

We legitimise the death of every single rhino slain illegally for its horn. We put this and other endangered species at greater risk by setting a precedent that could open avenues for trade in ivory, lion bone, leopard skin and more.

We legitimise the corruption of African officials who are complicit in the illegal trade of endangered species and we set a terrible precedent for Africa’s future."

[Richprins]

This opinion piece stretches the point a bit, I think..and doesn't offer any alternative, as with so many naysaying pieces.

Official diamond trading has never been illegal, while rhino horn trading has, for many years. So good luck to the diamond people for marketing their product, creating jobs and wealth in impoverished countries. That the countries in question screwed up is not the legal "farmers' " fault, rather the Locust Mentality of the governments in question...

There is an illegal "Black market" for virtually everything, from gold to shoes...get over it!



Conversely, if the price were to drop, it is highly unlikely it would deter poachers. At present the price hovers between US$60 000 and US$100 000 per kilogram. Drop that to a tenth of the price or even less and poachers would still gun them down to make a living.



The businesmen that will hopefully move on to their other illegal activities are the syndicate chiefs and corrupt government officials etc. at both ends of the supply chain. They will hopefully lose interest if their product loses 90% of its value, leaving the poachers high and dry.




Perhaps the greatest myth is that legalising the rhino horn trade is about conservation.

Not much detail in that sweeping statement....

Rhino are already being farmed in China. Local game farmers/ecotourism operators (Who protect the biggest pool of animals both in numbers and in area conserved, after Kruger) are sometimes getting rid of their rhino via selling, not replacing, or even poaching themselves, unfortunately! So conservation is definitely at stake there, and legalised trade may change that state of affairs!



Here is a bit of a contradiction:




Now imagine how much time and money it would take to dispel the far more ancient and elaborate myth of the medical efficacy of the rhino horn. Imagine the backlash that would ensue from deeply entrenched players.


vs



The market for rhino horn is growing fast and will continue to grow with Asia’s booming economy. The current rise in rhino poaching is driven, to a great degree, by Vietnam’s economic rise. Here, the wealthy sprinkle horn on their food and snort it like cocaine – a sign of prestige because it is more expensive than the drug. They use it to cure hangovers and enhance hard-ons – all modern, manufactured myths.

[Richprins]

Don't know if this should be here, but a lot of good ideas!










Rhinos: It's time for Plan B by Colin Bell

Daily Maverick 05 Feb 2014 12:49 (South Africa)

In public debates about how to save our rhino, those who advocate ending the ban on trading their horns fail to acknowledge (if you'll excuse the metaphor) the elephant in the room.

They also seem to be very jaundiced economists. Not least among them is Ivo Vegter (Daily Maverick, 21 January 2014). Economics is as much an art as a science, and history is full of examples of the planet's most brilliant economists making some of the world’s most disastrous economic and financial decisions. The tragedy of the horn debate is that, for reasons I will point out, highly respected rhino custodians (park authorities, field rangers, anti-poaching, monitoring teams) and even politicians and scribes like Vegter, have embraced a failed, private-sector-driven, pro-trade economic model as the answer to the rhino crisis.

I think there are two reasons for this. The first is a constant public engagement by a few academics and private rhino farmers who stand to make or lose a fortune if trade in rhino horn is legalised or not. The stock of just one of these rhino farmers is worth billions or zero, depending on the outcome of this debate.

The second reason is a misunderstanding of the difference between successful policies to save rhinos pioneered by environmentalist Dr Ian Player in the past and conditions today in the face of rampant poaching. Vegter raises the standard pro-trade argument that “if the (rhino horn sale) experiment fails, there is no real downside”. In my 35 years in the wildlife industry I have seldom seen a more naive statement. The replacement of rhino in the wild with rhino farmed like cattle is, in my opinion, a definite downside. The idea that selling lopped-off horns from farmed rhinos will curb poaching is untested, unproven, unlikely and something pro-traders avoid like that proverbial elephant in the room.

Unfortunately we do not get a second chance if we get the economics of rhino trading wrong; rhino in the wild will be gone. So we have to get it right and there's no room for experiments.

Let's look at the economics. Pro-traders argue that supply of rhino horn can equal demand through free-trade pricing. This may work for large, complex and visible items like Ferraris, but it has not worked for other consumer goods where counterfeiters thrive and expand markets by attracting new buyers to the market by selling goods at discounted prices.

With the real cost of obtaining a rhino horn being merely the cost of a bullet and a hacksaw, there will always be too much of a price difference between the legal selling price of a rhino horn and the cost of poaching that horn. To assume that free-trade pricing economics will stem demand and solve the poaching crisis is nonsense. That sort of theory doesn't stick when criminal poaching syndicates and the rogue militia have the ability to expand markets by supplying discounted goods and perverting the legal market.

The pro-trade price theory simply has not been proven – it is pure conjecture nor does it take into account the massive potential size of the market. The counter-argument (speaking to my real concern) is: what if the demand for rhino horn is much greater than supply? With close to a billion potential Asian consumers, this could easily become the reality, especially when criminal syndicates can induce increased demand by operating in the grey markets at prices below those set by the central selling organisation. Then what? In my view, the horns of just 25,000 rhinos simply cannot satisfy the demand from just a million, let alone a billion or more potential Asian consumers.

Vegter cites examples of ostriches, crocodiles, vicuñas as successes that rhino policies must copy in order to ensure rhino survival. I'm not convinced that these are comparable examples, as none show the same relative scarcity levels based on values attached to body parts. Tigers and elephants do, and we've seen what trade in their parts has done to wild populations. If trading were the simple answer for all wildlife crises, why don’t we try to breed and trade tigers (or maybe even wild dogs) out of their critical status?

Drawing a comparison on the potential of breeding rhinos in the same way as ostrich, vicuña and crocodile is, in my view, a flawed assumption. Ostriches and crocodiles are bred commercially almost in the way that domestic poultry is bred; laying large clutches of eggs with short gestation periods. Rhinos, on the other hand, have an extremely long gestation period and will only breed after long carving intervals.

The pro-traders propose that the way to conduct rhino sales is via a De Beers-type Central Selling Organisation (CSO). There are many economists, traders and merchant bankers out there who'll tell you how cartels serve only their own narrow interests (rhino farmers?) rather than the majority of stakeholders. The De Beers CSO made money for their vested interests, but in the process certainly didn't stop ‘blood diamonds’ or illegal parallel markets.

Well-organised criminal syndicates are extremely clever and innovative… they'll find every loophole to work around and become enriched by a rhino-horn CSO, which will merely provide a legal platform for them to launder horn, as happened with ‘blood diamonds’. And, given the current poor delivery record of the South African bureaucracy and policing services, we have to ask whether our authorities would really be able to run a sophisticated CSO system.

But here's the crux of the matter. Current international legislation clearly states that there can be no trade in rhino horn. Surely, then, as is the case with all legal and legislative parameters, the onus is on the pro-trade lobby to prove that trading of rhino horn will unequivocally work and that changing the laws will not be detrimental to rhino populations?

The pro-trade lobby also needs to demonstrate that changing the legislation will largely do away with poaching and the illegal trade. This has clearly not yet been proven and current pro-trade modeling glosses over these vital areas by making basic assumptions.

We also need to factor in that South Africa has little chance of getting any application for approved seller status through CITES in the foreseeable future, no matter how hard we lobby. The earliest SA can submit such a proposal for change is 2016, and this merely sets in motion a whole range of bureaucratic procedures and legislative measures that then have to be satisfied before a vote takes places. Any change then requires a 75% majority.

Given South Africa’s current administrative malaise, it's far from meeting the extensive CITES requirements and would need unprecedented coordination to achieve this.

Approval to trade rhino horn is highly unlikely and even if South Africa succeeds, sales may only be made to CITES-approved Purchaser Nations. The two most likely applicants, China and Vietnam, have little or no chance of getting such approval without massive internal legislative and law enforcement upgrading. Are we going to waste years of haggling for a slim chance of ever getting trade introduced?

With this protracted process in mind, I'm surprised that South Africa has no 'Plan B', because it's going to need one. My suggestion is that all sides get together to create a strategy that's a wide-ranging, multi-faceted approach covering the entire scope of the crisis to ensure that rhino have a chance of surviving in the wild. Here's my stab at it:

To avoid the poaching avalanche, we declare all forms of trade in rhino products illegal. This means we have to switch mindsets from creating value from rhinos to taking away all their value in order to save them in the wild. Rapidly increasing rural populations, together with the likes of criminal and terrorist syndicates, have changed conditions on the ground from when Dr Player and his teams were in the trenches saving the rhino. The difference from those days to now is that putting a price on rhinos made them valuable enough to buy, breed and keep, ensuring their survival. Putting a price on rhino horn today will make rhinos valuable enough to kill, ensuring their extinction. It's a big ask for everyone to change mindset and direction, but the horn must become worthless for rhino to survive in the wild. Of course it's easier said than done, but we have to start by sending a clear message to the markets by minimising value through a blanket ban on all trade. We can then work on reducing demand through the local and consumer-country media, increasing security, targeting the middlemen, rewarding whistleblowers, enhancing policing and prosecutorial effectiveness and international co-operation.

We have to give General Jooste's anti-poaching team time to get fully trained-up and place an iron fist over southern Kruger, then expand that to cover all of Kruger. The same no-nonsense attitude needs to prevail in other protected areas. There are reserves in the country that have not had a single rhino poached because of their potent intelligence and effective anti-poaching systems. This needs to be replicated throughout South Africa. And we have as yet not used the full capability of the military.

Very little has been done to target the middleman. They're the Achilles heel in the poaching chain and could be the syndicate’s weakest link. They pay poachers to kill rhino and export the horns to Asia. Currently, middlemen are operating relatively unhindered from inside Mozambique and even from within South Africa. And there can’t be too many of them. Some are not hard to spot. Many believe they're untouchable and show off their wealth with expensive new cars, luxury housing and consumer products. Without them the whole poaching chain would start to implode.

Offer rewards for information, do lifestyle audits and get the taxman working on suspects. Communities will give information if the rewards for poaching information are greater than what they earn from poaching. In addition, there are laws and processes in Mozambique that allow assets and possessions to be confiscated immediately without going through lengthy court cases if there is reasonable evidence. There are reputable people with the necessary skills, expertise and contacts who are prepared to tackle this problem if they're given the go-ahead and budget.

South Africa’s tourism and wildlife policies have often not sufficiently included rural communities living alongside national parks into their business models and it is from these communities that many poachers come. Many wildlife areas are surrounded by rapidly increasing rural populations coupled with increased levels of extreme poverty. Innovative policies and plans must be put into place to integrate these communities into the business models that govern our wildlife and tourism industries. As long as these neighbouring communities remain marginalised, they'll seek to claim wildlife, either in their cooking pots or through illicit activities.

In order to redress this, I propose the creation of a ‘Natural Capital Fund’ to:

bolster conservation and anti-poaching work, remunerate and uplift communities who live alongside parks and reserves uplifting their lives and
pay for information leading to the arrest of the middlemen and poachers.

The South African tourism industry generates around R100 billion a year. My proposal is that a 1% levy is charged on all tourism accommodation and related services to support this ‘Natural Capital Fund’. This could generate as much as R1 billion a year. Getting tourism industry buy-in would take some discussion and persuasion, but it would be possible if there were leadership and the will. In my experience, tourists do not mind paying additional money if they know it's going to a worthy cause.

This ‘Natural Capital Fund’ could be administered on an annuity-type basis and we could get one of South Africa’s large corporate investment houses involved as part of their environmental commitment. We could also approach the corporate world for initial donations to get the ball rolling and top up this fund through fund-raising campaigns aimed at private citizens and profiled by well respected individuals and suitable celebrities. The myriad rhino conservation NGOs that have sprung up should be encouraged to pay their proceeds over to this fund. The combined efforts would be to get the fund to generate more than R1 billion a year. The funds could be distributed through an impartial and respectable NGO so that the money is spent wisely, effectively and accounted for.

We will have to engage with the Mozambican authorities more effectively to address policies that will reduce poaching. The Natural Capital Fund could help speed up negotiations and ease some of the community issues along Kruger’s eastern boundaries (and will help ferret out the poaching middlemen). SA needs to get the Mozambican authorities to close the loopholes in their ports and airports. If we don’t have progress with the Mozambican authorities, the rhino issue should then be elevated to Presidential priority level (and with Vietnam) to speed up agreements and implement effective policies.

International conservation agencies, governments and NGOs must put greater emphasis on demand-reduction strategies and spread awareness that horn has no medicinal properties. These efforts must be significantly increased, using all platforms, especially the social media and celebrities. The current horn consumption patterns in Vietnam are not based on age-old traditional practices. They are very recent behaviours that have followed the economic boom. Global political and economic agencies must also put further pressure on China, Laos and Vietnam to step up measures against users and criminals. China and Vietnam are states heavily controlled by politburos where a very small number of people effectively dominate the country. These influential few can effectively shift public demand, as happened with the recent Chinese ban on serving shark fin soup at official banquets and the resulting drop in overall demand.

Additional effort needs to be put into standardising wildlife legislation and criminal sentences around the continent as well as strengthening policing and prosecutorial capacity. In most cases, current criminal sentences are inappropriate to the point of not sending a clear message that wildlife trade is a crime, let alone providing any deterrent.

We need an Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-type of left-field thinking to ensure that technology is created to help monitor and protect vast wildernesses such as Kruger. Drones that work, Google Earth that assists anti-poachers and counters poachers as well as other high-tech solutions would be a boon and we are capable of making them.

The above list is far from exhaustive and I’m sure that our conservators and rhino experts can add many more, better points to the list.

Ivo Vegter and the pro-trade lobby concede that trading rhino horn would not necessarily reduce poaching in Africa and furthermore, some pro-traders concede that their policies may result in rhinos becoming extinct in the wild and only being found on well-protected farms. Is this what we want?

The bottom line is: which is the safer bet - test the gluttony of market demand, or get together to create an effective and risk-free Plan B with no trade, ensuring that rhinos do survive in the wild? In my view, we cannot let rhinos become extinct in the wild and South Africa become merely a ‘Big 4’ tourism destination through risky economic policies. DM

Colin Bell is a tourism professional with 35 years of experience and co-author of “Africa’s Finest” a new book out on the good, the bad and the ugly of the tourism industry . His operations have successfully re-introduced rhino into the wilds of Botswana and pioneered sustainable partnerships with rural communities in Namibia that ensure that rhino thrive outside of protected areas.

[Lisbeth]

by Colin Bell on February 10, 2014 in Rhino Poaching

We do not get a second chance if we get the economics of rhino trading wrong; all the rhino in the wild will be gone. We have to get our policies right and there’s no room for experiments; viewing rhinos in small secure breeding farms is no substitute. The tragedy of the horn debate is that South Africa’s highly respected rhino custodians (park authorities, field rangers, anti-poaching, monitoring teams) and even politicians have embraced a failed, pro-trade economic model as the answer to the rhino crisis.



Let’s look at the economics. Pro-traders argue that supply of rhino horn can equal demand through free-trade pricing. This may work for large, visible items like Ferraris, but it has not worked for other consumer goods where counterfeiters thrive and expand markets by attracting new buyers by selling goods at discounted prices.

With the real cost of obtaining a rhino horn being a little above the cost of a bullet and a hacksaw, there will always be too much of a price difference between the legal selling price of rhino horn and the cost of poaching that horn. To assume that free-trade pricing economics will stem demand and solve the poaching crisis is nonsense when criminal syndicates have the ability to expand markets by supplying discounted goods and perverting the legal market.

The pro-trade price theory simply has not been proven – it is pure conjecture nor does it take into account the massive potential size of the market. What if the demand for rhino horn is much greater than supply? With close to a billion potential Asian consumers, this could easily become the reality, especially when criminal syndicates can induce increased demand by selling at prices below those set by the central selling organisation. Then what? The horns of just 25 000 rhinos simply cannot satisfy the demand from just a few million Asian consumers.



Pro-traders site examples of ostriches, crocodiles, vicuñas as successes that rhino policies must copy to ensure rhino survival. These are not comparable examples as ostriches etc. breed quickly and none show the same scarcity levels based on values attached to body parts. Tigers and elephants do, and we’ve seen what trade in their parts has done to wild populations. If trading was the simple answer for all wildlife crises, why don’t we breed and trade tigers (or wild dogs) out of their critical status?

The pro-traders propose that the way to conduct rhino sales is via a De Beers-type Central Selling Organisation (CSO). There are many economists out there who’ll tell you how cartels serve only their own narrow interests (rhino breeders?) rather than the majority of stakeholders. The De Beers CSO made money for their vested interests but in the process certainly didn’t stop ‘blood diamonds’ or illegal parallel markets. Well organised criminal syndicates will find loopholes around a rhino-horn CSO, which will merely provide a legal platform for them to launder illegal horn. And, will our authorities really be able to run a sophisticated CSO system?

But here’s the crux of the matter. Current international legislation clearly states that there can be no trade in rhino horn. The onus therefore must be on the pro-trade lobby to prove that trading of rhino horn will unequivocally work; that changing the laws will not be detrimental to rhino populations and will largely do away with poaching and the illegal trade. This has clearly not yet been proven and current pro-trade modeling glosses over these vital areas by making basic assumptions.

We also need to factor in that South Africa has little chance of getting any application for approved seller status through CITES in the foreseeable future. The earliest SA can submit such a proposal for change is 2016 and this merely sets in motion a whole range of bureaucratic procedures and legislative measures. Any change then requires a 75% majority – highly unlikely considering our current administrative malaise – and then many more years will be wasted to implement.



With this protracted process in mind, I’m surprised that SA has no ‘Plan B’, because it’s going to need one. My suggestion is that all sides get together and create a strategy that’s a wide ranging, multi-faceted approach covering the entire scope of the crisis to ensure that rhino have a chance of surviving in the wild. Here are suggestions (over and above those that are already work in progress):

• To stem the poaching avalanche, we declare all forms of trade in rhino products illegal. This means we have to switch mindsets from creating value from rhinos to minimising or even better taking away all their value in order to save them in the wild. It’s a big ask for pro-traders to change mindsets, but the horn must become worthless for rhino to survive in the wild.

• Very little has been done to target the middle man. They’re the poaching syndicate’s weakest link. Middlemen pay poachers to kill rhino and they export the horns. There can’t be too many of them and some are not hard to spot. Without them the whole poaching chain would start to implode. Communities will give information if the rewards for poaching information are greater than what they earn from poaching. Lifestyle audits etc will assist. There are laws in Mozambique that allow assets to be confiscated. There are reputable people with the necessary skills, expertise and contacts who are prepared to tackle this problem if they’re given the go-ahead and budget.

• South Africa’s tourism and wildlife policies have often not sufficiently included rural communities living alongside national parks into their business models and it is from these communities that many poachers emerge. Our wildlife areas are surrounded by rapidly increasing rural populations coupled with extreme poverty. Innovative policies and plans must be put into place to integrate communities into the tourism and wildlife industry’s business models. So long as these neighbouring communities remain marginalised, they’ll seek to claim wildlife, either in their cooking pots or through illicit activities.

In order to redress this, I propose the creation of a “Natural Capital Fund” to:

1. bolster conservation and anti-poaching work,

2. remunerate and uplift communities who live alongside parks and reserves

3. pay for information leading to the arrest of the middlemen and poachers.

• The South African tourism industry generates well over R100 billion a year. My proposal is that a 1% levy is charged on all tourism accommodation and related services to support this “Natural Capital Fund”. This could generate as much as R1 billion a year. Getting tourism industry buy-in would take some persuasion, but it’s possible if there was leadership. In my experience, tourists do not mind paying a small levy if they know it’s going to a worthy cause. The funds could be distributed through an impartial and respectable NGO so that the money is spent wisely and accounted for.

• Elevate the crisis to presidential priority level with Mozambique, Vietnam and China to speed up agreements and implement effective policies.

• We need an Elon Musk/Steve Jobs type of left-field thinking to ensure that technology is created to help monitor and protect vast wildernesses such as Kruger.



Some pro-traders concede that their policies may result in rhinos becoming extinct in the wild and only found on small well protected farms. Is this what we all want?

The bottom line is: which is the safer bet – test the insatiability of market demand, or creating an effective Plan B with no trade, ensuring that rhinos do survive in the wild? In my view, we cannot risk rhinos becoming extinct in the wild and South Africa becoming merely a “Big 4” tourism destination through high risk economic policies. How many jobs will be lost if that happens?

http://blog.africageographic.com/africa ... or-plan-b/

[iNdlovu]

I totally agree with Colin Bell that opening up trade would be the like signing away all our rhino in one fowl swoop, however his solution rests on our government and especially our president giving enough of a damn to do anything about it, an even longer shot than thinking free trade will solve the problem.

[Richprins]

[H. erectus]

I agree with Colin Bell, especially when our dwindling rhino
populations are in custody of a questionable government!

At best government officials have no clue about grass root
levels and purely react on information fed by those from that
level, with all good intentions!!!!

An aphrodisiac, meaning a sexual enhancer/stimulant as rhino
horn would be known in the far east. A powder that could prove
manliness with medicinal properties!! All very well.

We are speaking here about "a would be drug/enhancer", that
could change a outset in life for the better!!!

By legalizing rhino horn trafficking would be same as legalizing
drug trafficking!!!

In that case then rather legalize cannabis, worth more as far as
medicinal value goes with far better effect and thus removing
the rhino horn from the spotlight,.....

It grows easily from the ground demanding little attention as
would rhino horn,...

We live in a sick society and the sooner we appreciate that the
better for our animal kingdom!!

[nan]

by Colin Bell on February 10, 2014 in Rhino Poaching

..........In order to redress this, I propose the creation of a “Natural Capital Fund” to:

1. bolster conservation and anti-poaching work,

2. remunerate and uplift communities who live alongside parks and reserves

3. pay for information leading to the arrest of the middlemen and poachers........

not easy for me to read (and understand exactly all)... but I have pointed out these three points
it seems (to me) that money is the war's nerve.... for a lot of short of money (in need) people....