NO TRADE—PRO TRADE
The Great Debate

Over the past decade or so, the wholesale slaughter of elephants and rhinos has highlighted the enormity of the illegal wildlife trade. It is part of a crime nexus that includes trafficking in waste, chemicals, ozone-depleting substances, illegally caught seafood, contraband timber and other forest products, as well as conflict minerals such as gold, diamonds and coltan. It is a grim picture indeed.

Some 5,950 animal and 32,800 plant species (including all five rhinos) are currently listed by CITES. The 182 signatory countries, plus the European Union, are bound by its decisions regarding trade in these species (see “All About CITES”).

All five rhino species are listed in CITES Appendix I, which means that any international trade in either live specimens or their body parts (including horn) is prohibited. Therefore, any cross-border trade is illegal.

Two exceptions

In 1995, the South African population of White Rhinos was downlisted to Appendix II, allowing for trade in live specimens to approved destinations and as hunting trophies. In 2005, this Appendix II status was extended to include the White Rhino population in Eswatini (formally known as Swaziland).

Although the Black Rhino continues to be listed in Appendix 1, in 2004, an exception was granted for South Africa and Namibia, allowing for a small trophy-hunting quota. In terms of the permits granted for such hunts, a trophy may be exported to the hunter’s home country, where it must remain in the owner’s possession and not be sold on for any purpose. This is a difficult condition to enforce (See “The Journey of a Horn”).

Changing the CITES status for rhinos

The CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP) is the convention’s supreme decision-making body. Agreed biological and trade criteria to help determine whether a species should be included in Appendix I or II. At each CoP meeting, which takes place every two to three years, any Party is entitled to submit proposals to amend the status of a listed species. These proposals are discussed and then submitted to a vote. A proposal is only accepted if two-thirds of the Parties present at the CoP are in its favor.

At recent CoP meetings, proposals have been put forward to change the listing status of rhinos to open the way for legal trade in horn. However, these have failed to gain the majority required to be accepted, albeit sometimes by the narrowest margins. 

The next meeting of the Parties, CoP 19, is planned for Costa Rica in 2022.

There are stockpiles of rhino horn, both great and small, all over the world. They come from several sources. Many horns are taken by the staff of national parks and other government-run conservation areas from rhinos that have died in the wild of natural causes. These are then stored in secure vaults in secret locations to minimize opportunities for discovery and theft. Private rhino owners and reserves similarly collect and secure horn from natural mortalities. Horns legally removed by dehorning are also added to these stockpiles.

Rhinos in zoos and sanctuaries also die from time to time and their horns, too, have to be securely sequestered. There are also horns, some antique and worked into art pieces as part of museum and private collections, and horns taken as hunting trophies.

Horns, whole or in pieces, are also seized from poachers and smugglers attempting to move them across national borders and through transit destinations. These, too, have to be secured. 

Undetected stockpiles

Of course, there are illegally taken horns that escape detection. Some of this contraband is sold to consumers in end-user countries, but much ends up in the stockpiles of criminal syndicates investing in the future value of horn. 

Finally is the “lost stockpile” of the wild—the unknown amount of horn in remote conservation areas from undiscovered rhino mortalities.

So how much horn is out there?

Just how much horn is “out there” is very hard to establish given undiscovered natural mortalities and stockpiles in the hands of criminals. However, with legally gathered horns, the situation should be different. There are stringent procedures regarding the recording of horns, their weight and measurement, the animals from which they were taken, and where those animals (either alive or dead) are situated. DNA samples are also taken. A complete set of recommendations for cataloging all legally gathered horns is set out in great detail in Rhino Horn Stockpile Management: Minimum Standards And Best Practices From East And Southern Africa, published in 2005 by TRAFFIC.

The need for a comprehensive “horn audit.”

Most conservationists would agree, whether they support a legal trade or not, that a full, independently conducted, and transparent audit of all legal stockpiles everywhere, whether in a state agency or private hands, is an urgent requirement. Given the legal, step-by-step requirements of recording horns, this should not be particularly difficult or time-consuming, but it has proved frustratingly slow.

Given that South Africa (state and private owners combined) remains the custodian of the overwhelming majority of all living rhinos, the country must show international leadership in rhino conservation, including an accurate, regularly updated audit of all stockpiled horns. This has not been forthcoming.

As with almost all aspects of rhino horn, what to do with stockpiles once they are in safekeeping raises heated debate. Keeping them indefinitely is perhaps not wise, given their value and endemic corruption at almost every level throughout the supply chain. Despite the rigorous management of stockpiles, criminal minds will focus on any opportunity to wrest it away from safety and onto the black market, whether in some bold heist or quietly with the help of complicit officials.

It is already happening.

There have been instances of horns being stolen from museums as far afield as in the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, and the United States. The most brazen crime to date was in 2014, when some 112 pieces of rhino horn weighing about 80 kilograms were taken when thieves broke into a safe at the Mpumalanga Tourist Agency. As the protection of live rhinos becomes ever more sophisticated, a surge in such crimes cannot be ruled out.

Should horn stockpiles be destroyed?

Some countries, including Mozambique, Kenya, and Vietnam, and zoos have already destroyed all or part of their stockpiles. Protagonists say that burning or crushing horns sends a clear message that horns belong to rhinos, not to people and that they should have no value other than being attached to the nose of a living rhino. It is also suggested that the destruction of existing stockpiles would reduce the illegal market value of horn, thereby making poaching a less profitable pursuit. For example, the late conservation icon, Richard Leakey, noted

that after Kenya burnt stockpiles at the end of the 1980s, its price dropped rapidly.

There is also an argument for destroying horns as soon as they are recovered, especially in countries and reserves where resources are few and endemic corruption is rife. This might prevent the horn from entering the contraband chain. To do this, a system just as rigorous as for recording stockpiled horns would need to be in place—an unlikely scenario in the circumstances.

Would this be a travesty?

” Yes” would be the immediate and emphatic response from countries and private owners who are pro-trade and see their stockpiles as an increasingly valuable asset if a legal market was established. This commercial imperative is bolstered by the argument that a major portion of the proceeds could be used to meet the already high and rising cost of rhino protection, thereby creating a win-win situation. 

But the keeping of horn stockpiles is not just about revenue and how that might be applied. DNA can be retrieved from horns and linked to individual rhinos. Such genetic evidence can and is used in the trials of alleged smugglers. 

Some of those opposed to destroying horn and ivory stockpiles contend that the destruction events are little more than publicity stunts. Furthermore, far from reducing demand, they simply drive up the price by creating a greater sense of rarity. Also, they advertise stockpiles and the institutions, such as zoos, where they are kept.

In 2008, 52 rhinos were poached in South Africa. Then, in 2009 when the figure jumped to 84, the South African government placed a moratorium on any trade in rhino horn to halt the trend.

The moratorium seemed to have no effect on poaching, which over the next decade was to soar dramatically. It was also highly unpopular with South Africa’s pro-trade lobby, principally the private rhino owners, who saw it as a further impediment in their quest for a legal trade.

The ban is set aside.

After a lengthy battle to have the moratorium set aside, spearheaded by John Hume, South Africa’s most influential rhino breeder, the complainants achieved their aim when, in 2015, a high court judge found in their favor. The judge maintained that the state had not followed the process of public participation before imposing the moratorium. 

The minister of environmental affairs announced her intention to appeal the decision, and the judgment was suspended until the case had been heard. In April 2017, this was refused, thereby allowing rhino horn to be traded domestically for the first time since 2009. 

In anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling, the South African government had already started to draft new rules to govern trade within its borders. 

The anti-trade response

The anti-trade lobby reacted with dismay, emphasizing a minimal domestic market for horn. It predicted that lifting the ban would result in even higher poaching as criminals found ways to use loopholes in the law to smuggle horn to markets in Southeast Asia.

TRAFFIC commented that while it sympathized with the frustrations of private rhino owners, “… there is insufficient evidence to suggest that South Africa’s domestic rhino horn market would benefit rhino conservation. Instead, it is likely that the new legislation might further exacerbate the potential for criminal involvement, creating further enforcement challenges or even helping to drive higher levels of consumer demand.”

Following the lifting of the moratorium on the domestic ban, rhino breeder John Hume set out his intention to hold an online auction of 264 horns from his private stockpile on the understanding that the traded horns would not leave South Africa.

The objective of the auction was clearly to realize much-needed cash for Hume, who for years had borne the high cost of protecting his rhino herd without any commercial payback. Any takers would be trading in a futures market, banking on an eventual legal market when they could realize a return on their investment.

The auction results were disappointing for Hume, who blamed the minister’s obstructiveness in only issuing a permit for the auction to go ahead at the eleventh hour. This, he believed, had discouraged potential buyers from registering in time. 

Those opposed to ending the moratorium and the auction criticized Hume for translating his auction website into Mandarin and Vietnamese. They said this was sending mixed messages from South Africa to consumer markets in Asia, implying that buying horn was a good investment, thereby undermining demand reduction efforts in the region.