Rhino Horn Trade

[graham]

Maintaining the ban is not going to stop poaching either. So I would support lifting the ban if it could be done without making the use of rhino horn more acceptable, without creating a special demand for wild horn as opposed to farmed horn and without facilitating the smuggling of poached horn through legal horn distribution channels.

Sadly, I think poaching is going to be a factor until there are very few rhino left. Perhaps then we might see coordinated international action to reduce demand but it will probably be too late.

[Lisbeth]

Sadly, I think poaching is going to be a factor until there are very few rhino left. Perhaps then we might see coordinated international action to reduce demand but it will probably be too late.

I prefer being positive, but I am seriously afraid that you are right

[Richprins]

Rhino owners damn Creecy report
Sheree Bega
27 Jun 2021


Some of the proposals regarding rhinos in a recent high-level panel report on the management of South Africa’s iconic wildlife species “potentially lay the foundation for legal dispute at a time in the future”.

This was said in a recent letter sent by the board of the Private Rhino Owners Association to its members.

On 2 May, the forestry, fisheries and environment minister, Barbara Creecy, released the 582-page report by the 25-member panel, which was tasked with reviewing policies relating to the management, breeding, hunting and trade of lions, rhinos, leopards and elephants.

Among the panel’s 60 recommendations was ending the captive lion breeding industry and the lion bone trade. For rhinos, it included phasing out intensive breeding and a reversal of rhino captive-breeding operations, and for the development of alternative revenue streams for rhino breeders.

South Africa, too, would not lobby the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) to trade in rhino horn internationally until it meets the conditions of a 2016 plan to combat poaching, enhance public participation and rhino horn demand-management in destination countries.

Pelham Jones, the chairperson of the rhino association, wrote that its submission to the panel was ignored and that certain proposals are in violation of section 22 and 24 of the constitution and “are discriminatory”.

Current laws — Cites and its resolutions, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Nemba) and the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations — permit captive breeding operations and other rhino-related activities including trade, he said in his letter.

“The report proposes policy that is in conflict with this existing legislation and legal rights … and does not acknowledge the legal rights of owners of a captive-breeding operation.”

Albi Modise, spokesperson for Creecy’s department, said it was “aware of the risks of potential litigation following the panel’s recommendations”.

Jones said the panel’s position on the rhino horn trade sends a “clear message” that no income from horn sales can be expected to cover conservation costs or any supply to meet end-user demand, “thereby reducing poaching pressure on our wild populations. This while there has been a 67% drop in rhino values since 2014 and the impact of poaching in terms of “loss of asset, loss of production and devaluation amounts to a staggering R9.8-billion”.

He said the report does not provide clear incentives for private reserves, home to 55% of the national herd, to continue with their rhino conservation efforts.

Instead, “rhino ownership has now become a liability”.

Jones said 63% of the national stockpile of rhino horn (47.5 tonnes of 75 tonnes) is privately owned and “this figure is growing daily”. The panel’s recommendation of horn stockpile destruction was thus of “grave concern”.

“This terminology and failed media stunts we have seen elsewhere in Africa are no solution to our poaching challenges …. Stockpile destruction does not and will not stop poaching or illegal trade.”

The panel’s report is “extremely idealistic” and lacks short-term solutions, he said. “There are no recommendations … that will stop or reduce poaching on national, provincial or private reserves.”

Modise said the department would release its position paper on the implementation of the panel’s recommendations within days, and it would be published for public comment.

Since the report’s release, he said, Creecy had held discussions with a number of wildlife organisations.

“The purpose of these consultations is to provide clarity on the recommendations and to provide opportunity to stakeholders to engage with the minister on the recommendations.”

Modise said formal consultation, in terms of Nemba, would be done when the regulatory provisions had been developed to give effect to the panel’s recommendations.

Jones said: “We have expressed to the minister that the document is sadly lacking a lot of key information,” adding that the private sector had met Creecy. “We have agreed … that the private sector has to form part of the long-term solution.”

Kim da Ribiera, of the nonprofit Outraged SA Citizens Against Rhino Poaching, said the association does not represent all private rhino owners, nor did all its members “share the views expressed in this communication with regard to trade”.

“Currently none of the South African breeders could apply to Cites to be registered as a captive breeding operation for rhino.

“We have never supported trade as a solution to the poaching crisis.”

Legalising the rhino horn trade will not make illegal trade unprofitable. “It will, in fact, most likely preserve and reinforce the illegal sourcing of horn — poaching,” she said.

“We were unable to control the retail price with the once-off ivory sale and will not be able to control the retail price of rhino horn. Even with rhino farming, we would not be in a position to supply enough rhino horn to sustain a legitimised market,” Da Ribiera.

“We understand that all rhino custodians are under pressure. The longer we look to trade as an answer to the poaching crisis the less time our rhino have.”

https://mg.co.za/environment/2021-06-27 ... ms-vIuaniA

[Richprins]

Another reason to protect rhino farmers is as follows:

As rhino are eventually wiped out in parks and reserves, private stock will one day be needed to repopulate those areas.

[Lisbeth]

I don't know about others, but that has always been my only defence of rhino farming and the reason why I asked if farmed rhinos could be introduced to the wild

[graham]

Is that really a valid defence?

For private rhino farming to be viable prices need to be high
While prices are high poaching will continue
You can't reintroduce rhino into the wild if they are then going to be poached

Rhino to reintroduce into the wild (if and ever poaching stops) will need to come from a non-commercial source
That is why we have national parks

[Richprins]

I think 99% of rhino in National Parks will be wiped out before poaching stops anyway. Private owners seem to be able to secure their stock for now, and need to be encouraged to do so.

[Lisbeth]

Farmed vs wild rhino horn - what the research tells us

Posted by: teamAG
Editors
Published on:24 May 2022

As conservationists and rangers work around the clock to protect Africa’s rhinos, scientists on the other side of the globe are attempting to unravel different aspects of the trade: including the perspectives and market preferences from actual consumers of rhino horn. Do these consumers prefer the horn of a wild rhino over that of a “farmed” or captive rhino? The answer to this question has a significant bearing on the potential impact of legalising the trade in rhino horns.

Rhino populations in Africa continue their dizzying decline due to poaching. The Kruger National Park – a protected area in South Africa where populations were once thriving – for example, has experienced a 75% decline in population numbers in the past 10 years. Conservation circles are locked in a fierce debate on whether legalising the horn trade would save these iconic animals or be the instrument of their final destruction. (A complete summary of the nuances of this debate can be found here: Rhino horn trade – yes or no.) The success or failure of a controlled trade strategy will depend on several factors, including how the market develops if legal restrictions are removed. This is a complex question involving everything from economics to sociology, and it is almost impossible to predict accurately.

The history of wildlife trading has shown that wildlife farming can benefit species conservation under certain specific conditions. In particular, the end consumer would need to consider the farmed/sustainably harvested products to be equal in quality and status to wild products and to be a suitable substitute¹ ². If consumers who buy rhino products prefer horns from wild rhinos, this would constitute a threat to the remaining population of wild rhinos.


A concerned calf stays close to her mother’s side, as she is readied for a horn removal

What does the research say?

The two largest rhino-horn markets are in China and Vietnam³, and much of the market research conducted in recent years has focussed on consumer surveys in these regions.

• The most recent study⁴, published at the end of 2021, identified 345 rhino horn consumers in Vietnam, where the horn is used as a treatment for hangovers and fevers, and as a detoxifying agent. The researchers found that, on average, those surveyed were willing to pay more for horns from wild or semi-wild rhinos due to the belief that these have more potent medicinal properties. (A summary of their methods and conclusions can be accessed here.) Notably, wealthy respondents with a high “need” for rhino horns favoured wild rhino horn, while those with lower incomes and a lower “need” for rhino horns preferred semi-wild horns over wild horns.

• A previous study⁵ by two of the authors of the above research found that 73% of survey respondents in Vietnam preferred wild horns to horns from farmed animals. One consumer stated, “I am willing to pay more for the wild ones, even double. Even though there was a legal trade rhino horn, I would only buy the wild ones [sic]”.

• Another study conducted using similar methods that approached the question from a slightly different angle⁶ found that consumers preferred wild horns over semi-wild and farmed products. However, there was a definite preference for horns harvested in a sustainable, nonlethal manner: “the finding that [those surveyed] strongly prefer horn acquired from nonlethal harvesting has not been reported previously and suggests that horn sourced humanely from living rhinos would attract a premium in the market”.

• A study that focussed on traditional Chinese-medicine practitioners in Hong Kong⁷ found a similar pattern. Though this research did not specifically address the distinction between wild and farmed horn, 50% of the practitioners interviewed expressed a preference for sustainably harvested horn should the trade be legalised. The remaining half suggested that they would not distinguish between sustainably harvested or lethally obtained horn.

Rhinos are dehorned as a protective measure against poachers

A word of caution?

It is important to note that there are inherent limitations in market surveys conducted in a “what if” scenario. It is challenging to expand these responses to predict the ultimate market behaviour should the trade in rhino horns be legalised. This applies to arguments both for and against the legalisation of rhino horn trade and is in large part responsible for the deadlock in making the call one way or another.

Critics of the research into wild/farmed horn consumer preferences suggest that “the wild versus farmed narrative is based on assumptions that over-simplify consumer behaviour and can lead to conclusions that do not recognise the complexity of real wildlife markets”⁸. Hinsley and t’Sas-Rolfe (2020) argue it is challenging to link preferences with real-world behaviour, as other confounding factors (such as legality or availability) may also play an influential role.

Naturally, the legal trade in rhino horns is both a scientific and ideological conundrum, and subconscious biases could impact scientific methodology and conclusions. Even the terminology used could potentially influence consumers. For example, rhinos in South Africa are generally not “farmed” in the way people might think of feedlot cattle, and most private rhino owners operate a semi-intensive system. Creating a distinction between “farmed”, “wild”, and “semi-wild” was a vital step in the research process.

When preference could kill

It is clear from available science that if given a choice between horns from wild rhinos and farmed rhinos, many consumers show an evident preference for wild horns. This tendency to associate increased potency or effectiveness with wild-sourced products is seen in traditional medicine involving other wild species such as tigers⁹. How this will translate in terms of behaviour is more challenging to predict.

Regardless, these preferences need to be taken seriously. Supposing legal rhino horn enters the market, the wealthiest users may still be willing to pay a premium for wild rhino horn. In that case, a preference for wild horns could drive wild rhino populations to extinction.


References

1. L. Tensen, Under what circumstances can wildlife farming benefit species conservation? Global Ecology and Conservation, 6 (2016), pp. 286 – 298
2. D. Biggs, F. Courchamp, R. Martin, H.P. Possingham, Legal trade of Africa’s rhino horn, Science, 339 (2013), pp. 1038-1039
3. J.A.J. Eikelboom, R.J.M. Nuijten, Y.X.G. Wang, B. Schroder, I.M.A. Heitkönig, W.M. Mooij, F. van Langevelde, H.H.T. Prins, Will legal international rhino horn trade save wild rhino populations?, Global Ecology and Conservation, 23 (2020)
4. H.N.D. Vu, M.R. Nielsen, J.B. Jacobsen, Conserving rhinos by legal trade: Insights from a choice experiment with rhino horn consumers, Ecological Economics, 193 (2022)
5. H.N.D. Vu & M.R. Nielsen, Understanding utilitarian and hedonic values determining the demand for rhino horn in Vietnam, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23:5 (2018), 417-432
6. N. Hanley, O. Sheremet, M. Bozzola, D.C. MacMillan, The allure of the illegal: choice modeling of rhino horn demand in Vietnam, Conservation Letters, 11 (2018)7.
7. H. Cheung, L. Mazerolle, H.P. Possingham, D. Biggs, Medicinal use and legalized trade of rhinoceros horn from the perspective of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners in Hong Kong, Tropical Conservation Science, 11 (2018), 1-8
8. A. Hinsley, M. ‘t Sas-Rolfes, Wild assumptions? Questioning simplistic narratives about consumer preferences for wildlife products, People and Nature, 2 (2020), 972– 979
9. B. Gratwicke, J. Mills, A. Dutton, et al. Attitude toward consumption and conservation of tigers in China. PLOS ONE, 3 (2008)

[Richprins]

A better article, except for the rubbish at the end.

50% of the practitioners interviewed expressed a preference for sustainably harvested horn should the trade be legalised. The remaining half suggested that they would not distinguish between sustainably harvested or lethally obtained horn.

This is the real important thing!

It is frankly condescending to assume the Asians have no interest in sustainable products...

[Lisbeth]

There is almost always too much generalizing in articles with options.