Legalising International Trade in Rhino Horn ???

[H. erectus]

Oh my word,...the short sightedness,..

demand for illegal horn by “flooding” the black market

What on earth are we all about???

[Toko]

Doomed by indifference

November 6 2014 at 08:30am
By ADAM CRUSE

It looks like South Africa is going to break another record: 2014 is set to exceed the 1 004 rhino poached last year. But sadly, it’s not as though the nation is sitting back and doing nothing – far from it. And yet the scourge continues, thanks to a lone chink in the South African armour.

From the groundswell of the nation’s citizens to the various multi-governmental agencies, South Africans are doing their level best to halt the rampage. Just last week in the Kruger Park, where most of the rhinos met their demise, 24 poachers were arrested and a number of others were shot in a joint operation with the SA Police and SANParks rangers.

This brings the number of poachers apprehended this year to more than 120.

The lone – if substantial – chink in South Africa’s armour, however, is the penchant for the SA government to push for a legal trade in the misguided hope that it would torpedo the illegal trafficking of rhino horn. Such messages merely confuse consumers as to whether it’s morally right to buy the product.

And herein lies the rub. As long as there are consumers consuming, rhinos will continue to get slaughtered. Therefore it’s the world, not South Africa, where the solution to this horror truly lies.

This sentiment is echoed by Minister of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, who has stated that it was “important never to lose sight of the fact that there could be faster attainment results if we involve those Asian countries”.

John M Sellar, former chief of enforcement at the Cites Secretariat and currently a leading anti-smuggling, fraud and organised crime consultant (including for the UN) also believes that the real fight lies outside South Africa.

Sellar maintains, in an article posted on LinkedIn titled Is This Really the Best We Can Do? that “since the demand for the horns of these animals originates on another continent, the dedication, and often considerable courage, shown by South African park rangers, police, customs, military, prosecutors and other officials can only go so far”. To tackle the problem, South Africans “need the support of their counterparts abroad”. But such support has not been forthcoming.

It all boils down to a lack of co-operation in dealing with a trade that is now regarded as one of the largest and most lucrative global crimes. But while Molewa et al are concentrating on the demand in China and Vietnam, and rightly so, it is also the trade in the West, particularly the US, that is of concern. Smugglers bring horn and cargo in through poorly policed ports and take advantage of legal loopholes that exempt antiques and some hunting trophies from the ban on trading elephant ivory and rhino horn.

Worse, when agents manage to snare a wildlife smuggler, courts are often lenient.

“Our nation hasn’t prioritised wildlife trafficking,” said David Hayes, a former interior department deputy secretary, who serves as vice-chairman of an advisory panel for wildlife trafficking formed by President Obama. A major part of the problem, Hayes has said, “is the lack of inspections at our ports”.

There are fewer than 330 inspectors and agents posted at strategic US ports of entry, something that hasn’t changed since the agency’s law enforcement branch was formed 30 year ago. Since then, international wildlife trafficking has grown from almost nothing into a criminal colossus worth an estimated R200 billion per year, making it the fourth-largest global illegal market after drugs, weapons and human trafficking.

Rhino horn, much like ivory, cannot be imported into the US without a federal permit, unless it’s an antique of 100 years or older. However, there is a gaping loophole – hunting trophies.

Although the US has recently banned the sale of elephant and rhino trophies from some countries, notably Zimbabwe and Tanzania, where it has deemed that the animals are unsustainable for sport-hunting purposes, it still allows the practice from others like South Africa, a nation that encourages hunting as a form of ecotourism and conservation. The trophies – that are essentially tusks and horns – are strictly for personal use, but owners who tire of the trophies may put them up for sale to collectors at an auction.

At $45 000 (R498 000) for just a pound (453.5g) of rhino horn, who wouldn’t tire of their trophy? As a result there is a burgeoning trade for these products at antique auctions across America, with criminals clutching the usual fake documents weighing in heavily.

While the Obama administration last year belatedly issued an executive order to plug such loopholes, it’s a case of too little, too late, and the willingness is not really evident with one official telling the Washington Post that this is perceived as a low crime priority.

Sellar highlights such unwillingness in the events following the Cites Rhino Enforcement Task Force that met in Kenya in October 2013. During that meeting, which included representatives from 21 countries including the US, China and Vietnam, it was recognised that organised crime networks, like the notorious Irish syndicate, The Rathkeale Rovers, were operating in a wide range of countries from the UK to Australia.

The Rovers achieved notoriety for their snatch-and-grab thefts – yanking rhino horns from exhibits, forcing museums across Europe to replace the exhibits with replicas.

All this is removed from the actual poaching taking place in South Africa. In fact, Sellar points out that many poachers come from beyond South Africa’s borders, mainly Mozambique, while citizens of the Czech Republic, Thailand and Vietnam have all participated in fraudulent hunting expeditions here.

This realisation led to an agreement at the Kenya meeting for the creation of a directory of the 21 nations present in order to facilitate rapid communication and enable law enforcement officials to realise, for example, that in one particular country the focal point might be in the police, while in another it might be in customs.

The simple importance of such a directory, states Sellar, is “if the police in Johannesburg need to contact counterparts in, let’s say, Malaysia, we can probably be confident they will be able to find the right phone number or e-mail address”.

In short, all the Cites secretariat required was for each representative nation to provide information for a comprehensive list. Just a name, e-mail address, phone and fax number of the department most likely to handle rhino-related crimes.

This is essentially something that takes less than a minute to compile, but they were allowed to submit details by February of this year. A reminder was issued in July. Only in October was the directory finally published. It took a full year, or 1 000 dead rhinos.

But that’s not all. Only nine nations were on the list (or eight since, as Sellar argues, South Africa does not count). Fourteen countries failed to send their details and two of the nine that did – Greece and Japan – were not even at the Rhino Task Force meeting.

While China, the Czech Republic and Mozambique submitted their information there was nothing from the US, Vietnam, Thailand or Malaysia, four of the biggest culprits in the illegal rhino horn trade.

And while China and Mozambique have submitted theirs, it probably won’t be of much use to a South African investigator. Mozambique, for example, is notorious for non-compliance, especially if it involves Cites and, if anything, the nation’s officials are intimately linked to the crime syndicates they are supposed to be combating.

I doubt the name given for Mozambique in the directory carries much authority. A g-mail account doesn’t give one comfort that much will be done. It’s even more surprising that it was accepted by Cites at all.

What this tardiness and lack of compliance reveals, in this most straightforward of operational tasks, is that the world doesn’t care a fig about rhinos. South Africa will remain fighting a losing and very lonely battle to save the species.

* Cruise works with Conservation Action Trust. This article first appeared in Daily Maverick.

[Richprins]

Rather dramatic article, I think?

The lone – if substantial – chink in South Africa’s armour, however, is the penchant for the SA government to push for a legal trade in the misguided hope that it would torpedo the illegal trafficking of rhino horn. Such messages merely confuse consumers as to whether it’s morally right to buy the product.


This doesn't really make sense...how would the consumers even know about this, or give a hoot?


But they are right about Mozambique...it is not really a country, more an extended family, if that makes sense?

[H. erectus]

Yah,..love it,...

it is not really a country, more an extended family, if that makes sense?

Maybe me put in a land claim!!!!??,...hah,..

The better part of Denmark should be mine,... heh he,...

Better the UN resolve my issue for I have my constitutional rights!!!

[Toko]

Minister Edna Molewa on legal rhino horn trade

14 Nov 2014
The Minister of Environmental Affairs, Mrs Edna Molewa, has confirmed that no decision has yet been taken over the legal trade in rhino horn by South Africa.

“If we come up with measures that completely eradicate poaching we may not need to look at (trade). We are not looking for money. We are looking at war. This is a war we must win. If there is a solution we may not have to look at possible trade,” Minister Molewa told delegates on the sidelines of the 6th World Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia, on 13 November 2014.

Minister Molewa, supported by Deputy Minister Barbara Thomson and senior Department of Environmental Affairs, SANParks and KZN Ezemvelo Wildlife officials, hosted a successful Rhino Conservation Side Event on the sidelines of the 2014 Congress.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Parks Congress 2014 is regarded as a landmark global forum on protected areas, where the agenda for protected areas conservation will be set for the next decade.

Outlining the interventions by the South African government, and conservation bodies, to combat rhino poaching, the Minister said actions at international level will further strengthen efforts to not only address rhino poaching, but the illegal wildlife trade in general.

South Africa recognised that the work being done required continued adaptability to meet changing dynamics.

“Unfortunately the threat of poaching has continued to escalate while various multi faceted interventions are being implemented by South Africa. We are concerned that poaching is part of a multi billion dollar worldwide illicit wildlife trade. Addressing the scourge is not simple,” she said.

The multi-disciplinary responses included the creation of intensive protection zones, translocation of rhino to safe havens within rhino range states, the introduction of new technology, and investigating the possibility of a feasible rhino trade, or not.

The Minister emphasised that 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.

For further information contact:
Albi Modise
Cell: 083 490 2871

[Richprins]

Ai!

This reminds me of the prevarication regarding Elephant Culling...

Make up your minds!

[Lisbeth]

WHY LEGALISING TRADE IN HORN WILL HASTEN THE DEMISE OF RHINOS

by
DEX KOTZE
28 November, 2014

Last week the number of South African rhinos poached for their horn since January surpassed the 2013 total of 1,004. At the time of publishing the number was 1,030. With this news more weight will be put behind the arguments in favour of legalising trade in rhino horn, a strategy that some claim will reduce demand by flooding the market with stockpiled and farmed horn. It is a solution the government appears intent on implementing despite potentially disastrous results and lack of evidence that the enormous financial benefits to the rhino owners who are campaigning for legalisation will filter down into anti-poaching efforts where they are needed most – our under-funded national parks. In this account of the situation, conservationist Dex Kotze reveals how global conservation authorities appear to be opening avenues for trade while South Africa cannot even meet 1% of the potential demand for rhino-horn – Ed.

©Dex Kotze

South Africa is home to roughly 83% of the world’s rhino population and, at time of writing, has lost 3,700 rhinos since the escalation of poaching in 2008. With this year’s death toll already over a thousand, it seems likely that the total number of rhinos slaughtered for their horns in 2014 will be in excess of 1,150. An estimated 20,000 white rhinos exist today and fewer than 4,800 black rhinos survive in the wild.
Although recent comments from the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) suggest that South Africa is seeing success in curbing rhino poaching, the numbers clearly contradict that. The DEA’s absence from the London Wildlife Conference earlier in 2014, and President Zuma’s failure to attend a plenary session on combating wildlife crime in Washington in August, whilst attending the US-Africa summit, strengthens opinion that the government has already adopted a stance in favour of rhino horn trade. In fact the DEA recently stated, ‘There’s very little we can do about the belief in the use of rhino horn that exists in other countries. Legalisation would be a more medium-term solution.’ But the department has not considered the potential long-term effects of such a decision.
The exponential growth of Asian economies, coupled with the proliferation of China’s presence on the African continent (China-Africa trade reached $198 billion in 2012) may be a component of the government’s obeisance to China. But a species on the brink of catastrophe can ill afford miscalculated decisions and hidden agendas.

mother-and-calf-rhino-dex-kotze
©Dex Kotze

South Africa needs a two third majority vote of all 180 CITES members to legalise trade

By their own account, South Africa’s government intends to apply for legalised trade in horn when it hosts the next conference of the parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2016. Legalised trade can only be approved if two thirds of all CITES members agree, and it is doubtful that majority will be obtained. But even if a two-thirds majority agrees, it will take more than six years to create the necessary structures to facilitate legalised trade. At the current rate of poaching we could lose another 6,000 to 7,000 rhinos during that period, so one has to question the wisdom and motivation of this strategy from a conservation perspective.

South Africa is too corrupt to manage trade in rhino horn

South Africa’s poor record of governance and corruption at the highest level under President Zuma is a major obstacle for legalised trade to work. Stockpiles of rhino horn worth millions have already been stolen from government offices where safe custody, security alarms and electric fences were blatantly absent.
The government and pro-trade lobby’s concept of a “transparent” central selling organisation (CSO) regulating rhino horn trade is a pipe dream that could never work. Motivations using comparisons to the CSO of the global diamond industry are naïvely ironic. Illicit diamond trading continues throughout the world, blood diamonds still enter the market, and criminal syndicates in South Africa are targeting jewellery stores on a weekly basis – indicating a healthy black market for diamonds. If the imposition of controls by the massively-resourced diamond industry has not curbed illegal activity, why would anybody think that this system would work with regard to rhino horn?
In addition CITES has proved to be totally ineffectual in controlling illegal trade in wildlife, despite ongoing efforts and the imposition of controls, again calling into question the efficacy of the proposed model.

South Africa could not even hope to meet demand

Perhaps the greatest concern would be South Africa’s inability to meet demand if rhino horn trade is legalised. By conservative calculations, the shortfall would be over 365 tons a year. Proponents of trade conveniently ignore the dynamics of China’s gargantuan population, and Asia’s newfound conspicuous consumption and desire for status and prestige. Legalising rhino horn has the potential to create a demand that far outweighs supply. A simple extrapolation of known facts about the markets that are currently creating the demand for rhino horn creates more alarming questions than answers:
There are about 8,000 US Dollar billionaires in China today, a figure that is expected to grow to 15,000 in the next eight years. By 2022 China will have more billionaires than the UK, France, Switzerland and Russia combined. China has roughly 120 million affluent people. By 2020 this group will grow to 280 million, their spending power growing fivefold to $3.1 trillion, equal to 35% of China’s total consumption. Presently there are 250 million middle class consumers in China. By 2022 China’s middle class will swell to 630 million generating just under half of total Chinese private consumption.

Demand would be 370 tons per annum. South Africa can yield only 3.6 tons

If just 5% of the Asian demand markets consume a mere 5 grams of rhino horn per person per annum the demand for rhino horn would amount to more than 370 tons per year. And yet, according to a study by the DEA using the known number of rhino on private land and the predicted rate of horn accumulation, “harvesting” of horn in South Africa will yield a maximum of 3.6 tons per annum, at approximately 3.5 kg per rhino every three years – not nearly sufficient in a market of such enormity. There is little chance that Kruger National Park would harvest their 8,500 rhinos for fear of losing revenue from nearly 1.5 million tourists that flock to the world-renowned park annually. This means few rhino are available to meet the demand, and the sale of South Africa’s existing 20-ton stockpile would vanish into the market immediately, putting immense pressure on available rhinos and increase the likelihood of their being poached.

APEC is committed to conserving wildlife resources and facilitating trade in legally harvested wildlife

In a joint ministerial statement by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) released on 8 November 2014, it was made abundantly clear that APEC is committed to “facilitate trade in legally harvested wildlife.” On 10 November, Mr. John Scanlon, the Secretary-general of CITES, released a statement saying:
’CITES welcomes the statement made by Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministers of the APEC economies renewing their commitment to combating wildlife trafficking and to sharing information, intelligence, experiences and best practices in the region to fight illicit transnational wildlife trade, as well as recognising legal trade in certain circumstances and the need to strengthen efforts to improve the livelihoods of rural communities.’

CITES has proven ineffective in controlling illegal trade

It is inappropriate for CITES to commend APEC’s ministerial statement and deplorable that neither APEC nor CITES make any attempt to exclude rhinos and elephants from the definition of “legally harvested wildlife”. Considering CITES’ ineffectiveness in controlling illegal trade, this announcement is doubly concerning. CITES has listed 19 nations as being part of the Gang of 19, countries that are implicitly involved in illegal wildlife trafficking networks. Of the seven Asian countries listed in the Gang, five are members of APEC. CITES has had very little success in convincing members of the Gang of 19 to comply with measures to combat wildlife trafficking.

The ivory example

One need only consider the detrimental effect of the legal sale of ivory to recognise the folly of trade legalisation. CITES approved two once–off sales of ivory in 1999 and again in 2008. At the last sale, about 106 tons of ivory was sold to Japan and China at a mere $157 per kg. Notwithstanding these stockpiles entering China legally, the poaching of African elephants continued relentlessly. Recent scientific reports have determined that 100,000 elephants were killed between 2010 and 2012. Estimates are that fewer than 400 000 elephants survive in Africa today.
In the online black market in China, raw ivory trades for up to $3,700 per kilogram and worked ivory as high as $10,700 per kilogram. In a recent report compiled by the Environmental Investigation Agency, it is claimed that officials travelling with Chinese President Xi Jinping to Tanzania in 2013 went on a buying spree of illegal ivory, causing prices of ivory in Tanzanian markets to double overnight. The ivory was loaded in diplomatic bags, immune from custom checks.

The domestic Chinese ivory market is the most important driver of poaching and trafficking and unless it is addressed on a global scale, elephant poaching will continue. Like ivory stockpiles, selling South Africa’s 20 tons of stockpiled horn alone would have a calamitous effect on rhinos in the wild.
South Africa’s current path seems set to leave no legacy for future generations and our policymakers are failing in their duties as guardians of our wildlife. The time has come for South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, to converse with conservationists and business leaders who oppose her department’s single-minded approach, an approach that will inspire an upsurge in demand and effectively destroy what has been achieved in terms of demand reduction.





1. Remains of two elephants poached recently in Kariba, Zimbabwe. ©Saving the Wild
2. A graphic visual account of the brutal methods used by poachers to remove a rhino’s horn. ©Dex Kotze

[Flutterby]

I don't need convincing, but all very compelling arguments!

[ExFmem]

Excellent, tell-it-like-it-is article.

[Mel]

And corruption that can't be managed, plays a role here as well...

Well-written and convincing article. But will probably fall on deaf ears with those who support the legalizing of rhino horn.