Africa Wild

Statement by the Department of Environmental Affairs on the issue of trade in rhino horn, 06 June 2014

Recent media reports on the issue of possible trade in rhino horns by South Africa have been mischievous and have evidently been playing to the gallery by seeking to create confusion with regards to the government’s position on the proposed trade in rhino horns.

The South African government is well aware of the worldwide assault on wildlife, particularly rare and endangered species.South Africa, as home to more than 80% of the world’s rhino population, has been facing an onslaught from rhino poaching syndicates since 2008.

Our initiatives to address rhino poaching have incorporated not only increasing the number of rangers protecting our wildlife, but also improving regional and international collaboration with range and consumer states. It has also included introducing legislation and policy measures to support the tasks of those working to ensure rhino and other wildlife threatened by poachers and crime syndicates are protected and will not become extinct.

While the Department of Environmental Affairs was authorised by Cabinet last year to explore the possible legalisation of trade in rhino horn with CITES at the 17th Conference of Parties in 2016, no final proposal has been compiled, or decision made, regarding the future legal trade in rhino horn as an additional intervention to reduce the levels of poaching.

This means no final proposal has been compiled regarding the future legal trade in rhino horn as an additional intervention to reduce the levels of poaching.

Since the start of 2014, 442 rhinos have been poached in South Africa and 123 suspected poachers arrested. The Kruger National Park has lost 293 rhinos to poachers, with 56 people, including a former ranger and two policemen, being arrested for poaching.

Of the total number of rhino poached, 48 rhinos have been killed in Limpopo, 41 in KwaZulu-Natal and 28 in North West.

As international anti-trade campaigns gather momentum, it is of critical importance to emphasise that South Africa’s position regarding the trade in rhino horn is being distorted by the anti-trade lobby and the media.

A Panel of Experts, under the chairmanship of the Deputy Director General: Biodiversity and Conservation in the Department of Environmental Affairs, Mr Fundisile Mketeni, has been appointed to assist the Inter-Ministerial Committee appointed by Cabinet to deliberate on the matters relating to a possible trade in rhino horn.

The Panel of Experts has started its work and will, in the coming months, listen to all sides of the trade debate before submitting a set of recommendations to the Inter-Ministerial Committee. No proposal to CITES will be finalised until all the questions related to the trade in rhino horn have been comprehensively debated and investigated.

The proposal to be tabled to CITES in 2016 will be based on sound research, take into consideration the terms of the recent London Declaration. It will not be influenced by any individual wanting to “line their pockets” or any group opposed to South Africa’s sustainable utilisation policies. The proposal is part of a set of holistic interventions introduced by government, SANParks and conservation institutions to stem the tide of rhino poaching.

The suggestion by the Director of the University of Pretoria’s Conservation Ecology Unit, Professor Rudi van Aarde, that poaching is not an ecological, but a political problem and that the remark by Environmental Affairs Minister, Mrs Edna Molewa, in which she was quoted as saying that South Africa “did an ivory once-off sale and elephant poaching has not been a problem since” is mischievous.

Minister Molewa’s remark was made during an interview with a foreign news agency at the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in the field of Biodiversity and Conservation between South Africa and Mozambique in the Kruger National Park on 17 April 2014.

It is important to note that South Africa’s elephant were not affected by poaching for more than a decade following the once-off sale, approved by the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2007. The sale of ivory by South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe in November 2008 to approved Chinese and Japanese buyers was authorised by CITES, and was the first sale permitted following a ban on the trade in elephant and elephant products by CITES in 1989.

While South Africa has been fortunate to escape the onslaught on elephant populations by poachers across Africa in recent years, the country is ready to deal with any elephant poaching incidents. Safety and security measures have been developed, and actions taken, alongside steps to address the menace of rhino poaching, to ensure elephant poaching does not increase in South Africa.

South Africa has been mindful of any attempts by international criminal syndicates to expand their elephant poaching operations across the country’s borders, particularly since South Africa was warned at the 16th Conference of Parties to CITES in Bangkok, Thailand, in March 2013, that elephant poaching was expected to become a problem as of the start of 2014.

The cross-border crime of rhino and elephant poaching, as with all wildlife crimes, requires coordinated and joint responses not only by individual countries and environmental authorities, but also by domestic, regional and international security agencies to ensure that terrorist groups and well-organised cross border crime syndicates are unable to benefit from particularly endangered species such as the rhino and elephant.

Poaching remains the biggest threat to South Africa’s rhino and our successful conservation track record. Addressing this scourge is not simple and there is no single solution. South Africa believes that the decision to table a proposal at the next CITES COP is timeous, and may be a step towards addressing a scourge that is decimating one of our iconic Big Five species. South Africa is however not in any way insinuating that the possible trade in rhino horns would be a panacea to the problem of poaching.

While the government’s decision on whether to table a proposal at the CITES COP17 or not will be based on the outcome of the Inter-Ministerial process, South Africa believes that legalising the trade in rhino horn will in no way contribute to increased poaching.

Toko wrote:While the government’s decision on whether to table a proposal at the CITES COP17 or not will be based on the outcome of the Inter-Ministerial process, South Africa believes that legalising the trade in rhino horn will in no way contribute to increased poaching.

A rather obscure comment.! For sure it will not contribute for
how bad can it get??? The craze is in full swing!!!
I beg your pardon dear Madam but Cop whatever is still years
distant in the making!!! How many rhino do you seem to believe
you will need to stretch it that far??? and only then the system
will kick -in, if and when it suits you!!!

Geez .gov your'e stretching this one too the wire,...

It was Leonardo da Vinci, the great Renaissance-era mathematician, architect and artist, who said: “He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards a ship without a rudder and compass, and never knows where he may cast.” It is this same rash approach that is being used by the proponents of trade in rhino horn, argues Professor Alejandro Nadal, in his co-authored critique of pro-rhino horn trade literature.

Full article here

Full Scientific Paper Here

Unite against Poaching have the video Assessing The Risks of Rhino Horn Trade (A Nick Chevallier production for the Conservation Action Trust and OSCAP) on their website "to ensure that all sides of the various perspectives are presented".

Link

High-level report calls SA wildlife trade policy reckless

TWO top international economists say those who advocate trade in rhino horn and ivory fail to understand world markets or the economic muscle of multinational poachers.

Governments, economists and conservationists who think they can curb poaching by selling rhino horn and ivory legally have little understanding of macroeconomics or the sophistication of international crime syndicates. They stand to be out-gunned, out-manoeuvred and have no idea about the laws of the market. This is according to economists Alejandro Nadal and Francisco Aguayo in a hard-hitting critique of, particularly, South Africa’s wildlife pro-trade lobby, published this week in the Manchester University.

Mr Nadal, a professor at El Colegio de Mexico and Mr Aguayo, an economic systems analyst at Maastricht University describe attempts to formulate wildlife trade policy on the basis of inadequate command of economic theory as "acts of recklessness".

One of the most conspicuous features in the economic analysis of wildlife trade, they write, is the level of misinformation about changes in market theory over the last six decades. With regard to proposals by those wishing to lift the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) ban on trade in animal parts, "the uncritical use of theoretically discredited analytical instruments is a striking revelation".

Economic analysis of wildlife trade, according to the study, "appears to have been trapped in the backwaters of textbook economics." Most of the reports that support legalising trade in animal parts and which have influenced the South African government are described as "grey literature" by the authors and being more in the tradition of pamphleteering than scientific deliberation.

According to the pro-trade model, scarcity caused by trade bans, produces high prices which leads to higher poaching rates. Instead of combating illegal poaching, according to this argument, scarcity should be eliminated through legal supply from wildlife farmers and state stockpiles. Legalising markets would then reduce or even eliminate profitability for poachers while maintaining high returns for legal suppliers.

This argument, say Prof Nadal and Mr Aguayo, relies on highly unrealistic assumptions, one of which is that legal trade is able to fully substitute for illegal trade. This points to a failure to understand illegal markets. Market legalisation, they suggest, would actually increase demand as well as provide avenues for illegal traders to launder poached products.

The report points to a number of naive and untested assumptions in pro-trade models. One is an that illegal supply of products such as ivory and rhino horn is more costly than a legal supply and can only survive if prices remain high. This is "simply an untested assumption" and also fails to recognise that the relatively small number of legal suppliers would have a powerful incentive to retain a monopoly and not lower costs.

The report also contests the notion that farming can lead to conservation of wildlife. "Farming must be seen for what it is, a for-profit operation that responds to an economic logic that will probably come to dominate all other considerations." Farming rhino horns may be good for business, but it’s not an answer to poaching or wildlife protection nor wild rhinos.

One of the most serious blind spots in the pro-trade literature, say Prof Nadal and Mr Aguayo, is the absence of reliable quantitative information that could be used to systematically tackle the question of how price reductions could possibly decrease demand. This literature ignores the fact that any business enterprise in a capitalist economy needs to develop its market and therefore invest resources in expanding demand. So a pro-trade position claiming to reduce the predation of wild rhinos and, particularly, elephants would have to explain how it would factor in the market need to increase supply.

Pro-trade studies, says the report, assume that poaching is done by crime syndicates, but fail to understand the international sophistication of what are essentially multi-product firms. "Illegal traders are relatively shielded against competition and can store high value products when they perceive future increases in prices, finding a value in sacrificing present for future sales."

Crime syndicates involved in wildlife trafficking, says the report, not only operate with multiple species, they also work with many lines of production: illegal logging, drugs, arms and human trafficking. This allows them to hedge against the vagaries of a single market such as rhino horn or ivory and withstand price wars for longer than legal traders could.

"Access to scope economies may thus reveal a competitive advantage for illegal trade channels with respect to wildlife farmers and their hypothetical trading channels. Moreover, high prices and market uncertainty also provide incentives for market manipulation that allow illegal traders to expand their profit margins (because) consumers are willing to accept high prices in response to the threat of even higher prices in the future."

The sheer size of criminal firms radically alters the rules of the game. Therefore, says the report, it’s reckless to think that an analysis of market-friendly mechanisms has any degree of accuracy when applied to these multi-product firms.

The report warns that even legal markets are no panacea against corruption. For this reason a new wildlife trade authority would have to be formed and empowered to police the process. It would be tasked to attract buyers to the legal trade and away from the black market. It would also need to fine-tune prices to not be too high or low and deal with rogue competitors and old cartel members willing to break ranks. It would be required to increase demand by law-abiding consumers while increasing the perceived costs for illegal consumers. There has been no analysis in pro-trade literature of how this could be done.

The report is particularly scathing about the economic modelling proposed (or simply ignored) by the pro-trade lobby. "The behaviour of wildlife-product suppliers, it says, is seen as an optimising, price-taking, homogeneous group of agents, vertically integrated to produce an undifferentiated product."

The market, however, is anything but that. "Reducing international wildlife trade to a one-stage market exchange is a reckless simplification. Its main drawback is that it fails to take into account the various stages involved in the supply chain.

"Everything beyond textbook versions of market supply, including neoclassical analysis of asymmetric information, transaction costs, monopolistic competition, or contested markets, is blatantly ignored in (pro-trade) models. Their supply structure is misplaced and most of their claims are restricted to a very small and most likely irrelevant set of possible market configurations."

Their modeling, it says, "lacks a theory of the basics of industrial dynamics: how firms grow, how industries develop, what determines the boundaries of firms and what the sources of competitive advantages are."

Although some pro-trade papers present what appears to be an appealing set of empirical observations for the demand of wildlife products, in reality these are "nothing more than a set of isolated annotations of tenuous validity — brutal simplification of real-world economics (and) a serious assault on logic."

Economic theory, says the report, is something more than textbook economics and research cannot rely on the "well-behaved concepts taught in undergraduate courses".

Given the recent intensification of poaching, with all its cruel ramifications, say Prof Nadal and Mr Aguayo, enthusiasm for alternative policy instruments is understandable. But using market forces in an attempt to solve the poaching crisis or as a tool in conservation policy is misleading.

The aim of the report is clearly not to suggest ways to solve the poaching crisis, but to explore the consequences of lifting the Cites prohibition on trade in animal parts. For this reason Prof Nadal and Mr Aguayo take to task those who campaign for the lifting of trade bans. To lift the bans, they say, would be a disaster for creatures such as rhinos and elephants in the wild.

"We have shown the serious limitations of pro-trade models and the weaknesses of their conclusions," says the report. "Recommending legal markets in underfunded and understaffed protected areas and biosphere islands in a sea of rural poverty is irresponsible.

"Economists, as with all scientists, have an ethical responsibility to communicate the limitations of their models and the potential misuses of their research. Thus far, pro-trade economists have failed to discharge this responsibility."

LCSV Working Paper No. 6: Leonardo’s sailors: A review of the economic analysis of wildlife trade

The Minister of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, is the highest authority in any decision to trade or not trade rhino horn. She has done courses in economic leadership, run a trade union and chaired a portfolio committee on trade and industry, but could not be deemed an economist.

For advice she has quite rightly convened a 10-person 'panel of experts' to debate the matter, though who they are and how they were appointed is largely unknown to the public. What messages filter out from this process are variously confusing, untested, contradictory and on occasion deeply misinformed. This does not auger well for rhinos.

Being a communications manager on rhinos for the Department is an unenviable task, but Eleanor Momberg tries her best. In a press release dated 6 June, she castigates people opposed to trade in horns as mischievous, playing to the gallery, distorting South Africa's position and seeking to create confusion. She singles out South Africa’s pre-eminent elephant expert, Professor Rudi van Aarde, for daring to question Minister Molewa's statement denying that a one-off sale of ivory to China and Japan in 2008 was followed by a rise in poaching immediately afterwards. (He was right and the Minister was wrong. Within a year of that sale, elephant poaching and the illegal ivory trade increased dramatically.)

Despite rapidly escalating rhino poaching (possible extinction between 2026 and 2030 at present escalation rates) and massive ivory poaching in the rest of Africa (about three elephants an hour), Momberg assures us that “[t]he country is ready to deal with any elephant poaching incidents”. But on the matter of rhino trading, exhortations only thinly disguise intentions.

In the final paragraph we discover that the decision on whether to table a proposal (clearly to trade horn, given the existing ban) at the CITES meeting in 2016 will not be based on the advice of the panel of experts or the Parliamentary committee set up to deal with the matter and – here's the clincher – “South Africa believes that legislating the trade in rhino horn will in no way contribute to increased poaching”. Why, then, one needs to ask, have a panel of experts?

Dr Sam Ferreira, who's one of the few known panel members, is much more than a press officer. He's an experienced large mammal ecologist at Kruger National Park, so his views have far greater impact. So his latest paper on rhino strategies in the South African Journal of Science, written with Michele Pfab and Mike Knight, is more than puzzling.

The paper's heading is “Management strategies to curb rhino poaching”, with a subheading, “Alternative opinions using a cost-benefit approach”. It may be in a scientific journal, but has nothing to do with hard science. It's merely an exercise in getting 30 mostly like-minded people in a room and tabulating their suggestions about rhino trading with complex mathematical formulae. Clearly the workshop contained few, if any, of Momberg's mischievous people opposed to trading in horn.

There is, of course, no reason why a workshop should not result in a formal paper. But, with world opinion increasingly turning against opening trade in rhino horn, such a paper in a scientific journal will undoubtedly be used by those who wish to sell as a being scientific justification for their views. Using it this way would be fraudulent.

Like Momberg's press release, it's easy to read between the lines. The increasing value of rhino horn, says Ferreira and co., is making owning rhinos a cost liability. There's an implication that they should pay for their protection. As to the price of horns, the workshop's reasoning is curiously tautological: “Supply-demand relationships that influence the price of horn provided an understanding of the main drivers affecting the relationship between the demand and supply of rhino horn.”

Then there are some utterly unproven economic howlers: “It was assumed that if supply is increased, reduction in price may result and the incentive to poach should decrease.” This completely misses the fact that the East is an unknown and virtually bottomless market and that rhino horn is being stockpiled there against the creatures' extinction.

One of the proposed scenarios, the unrestricted trade in horn, requires a “well-regulated trading mechanism based on free market principles and a centralised selling mechanism” which would “lead to a drop in horn price and decreased poaching”, an assertion so naive it hardly bears discussion. This approach, the participants admitted, might carry considerable challenges and costs (including lobbying CITES), but these would be “offset by increased financial gains” (one needs to ask for whom?).

The paper has no solid, verifiable economic analysis of almost anything to do with trade in rhino horn and strategies to curb poaching, but the writers do have the good grace to say that “being mindful that our results are dependent on subjective assessments and understanding, as well as the persuasive powers of participants, the assessment is only indicative.” The only real puzzle is how it ended up in a scientific journal.

So how would legally selling rhino horn save the rhino? This is an analysis seemingly avoided by Minister Molewa and absent in the 'scientific' paper purporting to deal with it. It is, however, taken on by two top Mexican economists, Alejandro Nadal and Francisco Aguayo, following research published by the Manchester School of Environment, Education and Development this month. They describe South Africa's attempts to formulate wildlife trade policy on the basis of inadequate command of economic theory as “acts of recklessness”.

Full article here:
Daily Maverick; Op-Ed: Egg-dancing on a bloodied horn

See here for Ferreira's paper (mentioned above)
https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... 14#p202385

Bandile Mkhize on rhino horn trade

20 June 2014 at 09:09 by Bandile Mkhize - In this opinion piece, Bandile Mkhize, CEO of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, shares his views on the controversial topic of controlled trade in rhino horn.

"When I called out in 2012 to the world’s conservation lobby to implement a controlled trade in rhino horn on the open market I did so for very sound reasons.

We were facing highly financed poaching syndicates who commanded overwhelming advantages on this battlefield; huge open spaces in regions populated by poverty and unemployment and prices for this commodity that would entice any number of people to succumb to the temptation of rhino poaching.

And what of our financial resources? I considered the priority human demands that our Treasury would have to meet in our emerging democracy. How were we going to dampen the financial incentive to poach our Rhinos and thereby decrease this devastating onslaught?

Relying on some of the most knowledgeable and experienced rhino minds in the country, we agreed. Let’s try and use the huge stockpiles of horn we keep in our stockades and sell the commodity through a controlled central selling organisation to meet this demand sustainably. No guarantees, of course, but it might very well do the trick through careful and very strict protocols. After all, we worked out that we could meet this international demand for the next 20 years or so.

Now, nearly three years later, nothing has changed! Our Rhinos keep getting butchered. Our green heritage gets redder! And all the while international conservation lobbyists talk, write and argue amongst themselves. What do you call it; paralysis of analysis!

Despite investing millions more onto this battlefield, the war has escalated. We have very brave and dedicated people doing a remarkable job to stem this bloodshed but we just don’t have the funding to fight these syndicates off. How could we when a poacher gets paid R100 000 or more for his filthy work.
To be quite honest, the biggest effect my call for trading horn has had on our international stakeholders, (those lobbies and signatories who decide whether we can trade this horn or not) is to split them into two camps; those in favour of our trading proposal and those opposed to it.

Perhaps it’s not an exaggeration to say it has sponsored one of the most ferocious and divisive debates in rhino conservation history; and, as I said, paralysed any proactive approach to combating this war.

So I have come to a decision. To all those who are against trying out this trade and who appear to command the majority vote in CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) I say to you; fine, keep arguing and debating. And while you do so, understand that this species is dying. As you don’t want this to happen then, in the meantime, please engage us and provide the finance we desperately need to fight this war at the level that will deter these poaching syndicates.

Believe me; our ‘wish list’ is long. It demands far greater investment than international NGO’s and Government are presently providing!
In making this appeal, I need to comment on some of the naive thinking behind these naysayers. There are those more academic, suggesting it might open up an even greater demand for the commodity that we would not be able to meet. I suppose that’s a possibility. Yet, as with any new business, who’s to know every vagary of the international market place?

But my most serious concern lies with those who say trading Rhino horn would signal an acceptance of the commercialisation of wildlife and this would be unethical. This baffles me. It flies in the face of the commercial dynamics that underpin how conservation is conducted in the real world.

Have such people not yet grasped the overwhelming impact that wildlife auctions, sport hunting, the meat trade and eco-tourism has had on our greater conservation estate in South Africa, let alone KZN? It was these game auctions that effectively gave a financial value to wildlife. They provided the single greatest commercial springboard for the huge expansion of land under conservation in South Africa today. When farmers turned away from beef farming on marginal land throughout the country, they opted for the wildlife game business as a profitable and viable alternative.

Have these people not understood that some 70% of the total 6.2% land mass given over to conservation in South Africa is owned by such private landowners whose livelihoods depend on the successful commercial use of their wildlife? Friends, conservation is a business. Approach it as something operating outside of supply and demand and you stand to be accused of extreme idealism!

Here we have a commodity (rhino horn) that has exploded the animals’ worth. Instead of trying to meet this business demand sustainably, we are accused by this lobby of being unethical. Instead, we are asked to explore ways of discouraging consumers from buying the commodity they want. I find this very ambitious!

It’s also indefensible for people to put the rights of animals above humans. If South Africa can initiate a trial period of trading rhino horn, that is horn accumulated from natural mortalities, just think of the sustainable business incentives this trade would provide local people to keep rhino. They could herd them, trade them and yes, provide hunting concessions, too. This would springboard our wish to set up satellite community reserves as wildlife buffer areas around game reserves such as Mkhuze, Ndumo and Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park (HiP).

To wish away the business side of conservation ignores the damage caused by such ethical considerations. I note Kenya has lost some 80% of their wildlife since they banned any trade in wildlife as well as stopping hunting in 1977. 80%! South Africa’s wildlife populations have expanded by this amount since the legalisation of sport hunting and game auctions since the 1970’s.

What place do ethics fill when a Texan hunter earlier this year was stopped from hunting a single, ageing rhino bull in Namibia? He offered to pay a million dollars and have this entire amounted invested in conservation practices in that country. All he got for his wishes were death threats from people saying it would be unethical to shoot it!

Let there be no doubting Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife’s overall commercial slant towards conservation, either. We lie at the heart of a national initiative to place a financial value on other forms of natural resources, too; such as water! We are looking for funding to pay disadvantaged farmers and landowners to farm it! In other words, by providing a monetary incentive, they will care for soils, grasslands, wetlands and the like, in order to ensure a greater and cleaner supply of water.

If the decimation of this species is not enough to hurry your deliberations, then let me identify another consequence of your inertia surrounding this war. There are signs of people starting to disinvest from owning rhino. Latest reports show that in 2011 KZN had 44 private wildlife owners who invested in rhino on their private game farms. Today I see this figure has dropped to 38; six owners in KZN have effectively said this rhino poaching epidemic is simply proving too costly to keep them. And I understand the same scenario is reflected elsewhere in the country.

Believe me, this is a big red flag! My final word to the international conservation lobby comes from the battlefield we are engulfed in: ‘Never reinforce a failed strategy’.

- Dr Bandile Mkhize,CEO -Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

I really can't argue with Mkhize's logic here? He hints, in my opinion, that our stockpiles are massive, and will have a great short to medium-term effect. Which is true! After that, who knows, but it will keep farmers running conservation land?

At the current rate, there is only a dead-end to look at, eventually!

Panel of experts invites stakeholder participation as it explores rhino horn trade feasibility as part of South Africa’s comprehensive integrated approach to reduce rhino poaching

30 June 2014



The Minister of Environmental Affairs, Mrs Edna Molewa, invites stakeholders to register to participate in the process of the Panel of Experts investigating the feasibility of legalizing rhino horn trade.

The Department of Environmental Affairs was authorised by Cabinet in July 2013 to explore the feasibility of South Africa tabling a proposal for the legalization of commercial international trade in rhino horn at the 17th Conference of Parties (CoP17) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2016.

The Panel of Experts was established to assist the Inter-Ministerial Committee appointed by Cabinet to deliberate on the matters relating to a possible trade in rhino horn and commenced its work in April 2014. The 10 member Panel is chaired by Mr Fundisile Mketeni, the Deputy Director-General: Biodiversity and Conservation and will report to the Inter-Ministerial Committee before the end of the year.

The Cabinet-approvedInter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) comprises the Ministers of Environmental Affairs, International Relations and Cooperation, Trade and Industry, Finance, Science and Technology, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Rural Development and Land Reform, Economic Development and Tourism, Safety and Security and Justice and Correctional Services. The Committee will provide guidance relating to preparations in respect of a trade proposal to be considered at CITES COP17. The IMC will meet as soon as the Panel of Experts (PoE) has finalised a report for its consideration.

The PoE has met twice since its appointment to initiate its work and discuss the scope of work to be done.

Key areas of work to be undertaken by the Panel include:

• Analysis of the current rhino situation and interventions to address illegal killing of rhino and illegal trade in rhino horn, with a focus on government initiatives;
• Identification of new or additional interventions required to create an enabling environment for the sustainable utilization of natural resources and to strengthen the integrated approach of the government in addressing illegal killing and illegal trade;
• The socio-economic impact of wildlife trafficking (illegal killing and illegal trade) for communities, game farms and private game reserves, conservation authorities and species conservation, and options relating to the establishment of alternative economies;
• Special focus on community involvement and participation, especially the communities neighbouring protected areas with rhinos
• The potential impact of various interventions and management scenarios on the conservation of the species, including range expansion;
• Improve understanding of demand and supply; the anticipated changes if trade is introduced; and the mechanisms to respond to that change;
• Potential models/mechanisms for trade (strictly controlled trade, i.e. once-off sale of stockpiles; government to government trade or more open regulated trade; sources of specimens and specimens to be traded; the benefits and risks associated with the different options; regulatory and control mechanisms; traceability; enforcement measures and financial mechanisms to be considered);
• The implications and risks for enforcement and security matters and mechanisms to mitigate (dynamics of wildlife crime and the key issues to be considered in terms of addressing current enforcement challenges and anticipated enforcement challenges);
• Implications of the decisions relating to trade for other rhino range States as well as implications for consumer States; and
The work of the Panel has intensified as the number of rhinos poached in South Africa since the start of 2014, now stands at 496. The number of alleged poachers arrested since January 2014 is 141.

The Kruger National Park continues to bear the brunt of rhino poaching in South Africa. Since January 2014, 321 rhinos have been poached in the Park.

The number of rhinos poached in Limpopo this year has risen to 51, while 47 rhinos have been poached in KwaZulu-Natal, 35 in North West and 24 in Mpumalanga.

The Panel will co-opt experts as the need arises and will engage with various stakeholders during the process. Stakeholders are invited to indicate whether they would like to make representations to the panel, and on what subject matter. The inputs will be considered by the Panel in formulating recommendations to the South African government on an appropriate position on the legalisation of rhino horn trade.

The Panel will consider the requests received and invite organisations or individuals to present information to it for consideration. The schedule of engagements/workshops will be made available in due course.

Interested stakeholders and organisations can register their interest to participate with Mr Mpho Tjiane of the Department of Environmental Affairs through e-mail: mtjiane@environment.gov.za
Stakeholders requiring information about the work of the Panel may contact Mr Tjiane at mtjiane@environment.gov.za
All media requests must be directed in writing to either Albi Modise at amodise@environment.gov.za or Eleanor Momberg at emomberg@environment.gov.za
To access the template to be completed by organisations / individuals that would like to register, click on:

>> Stakeholder Registration Form - Panel of Experts into South Africa’s Comprehensive Integrated Approach to Reduce Rhino Poaching 2014. (PDF)
https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/de ... n_form.pdf


>> Stakeholder Registration Form - Panel of Experts into South Africa’s Comprehensive Integrated Approach to Reduce Rhino Poaching 2014. (Word)
https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/de ... xperts.doc

Toko wrote:just don’t have the funding to fight these syndicates off.

Try approaching Sanparks for some of that unspent millions donated to them!!

Toko wrote:careful and very strict protocols.

This is where the weels fall off. This country with it's reputation
of being corrupt,.....

Toko wrote: How were we going to dampen the financial incentive to poach our Rhinos and thereby decrease this devastating onslaught

Simple economics will explain that a bullet and stolen rifle come
so dirt cheap, together with some effort crossing a used to be fence,
how cheap does the horn commodity have to be sold at where it no
longer is viable option. In fact becomes a huge risk with little reward???,...

Do you really think rhino farmers don't see this red flag????,....

Why should they go through all this trouble when Kruger is bountiful,..

You see, there was a expert panel discussion on this, where at least
four economists expressed their views on this matter. Many pro-trade
were invited but did not grasp at the oppurtuninty,.. So what now, all
these years down the line???,...

For me, all these years down the line, I am still confused at the separate
initiatives between Sanparks and the "Natal parks board",..

This country faces a crisis yet all stakeholders have their own personal
agendas,...and the catalist,....money greed.

A hypothetical awareness maybe here, would it be crazy to think that
rhino farmers are poaching their own stock,....while the going is good???