On the horns of a dilemma

Legalising the rhino horn trade could inject R60-billion into the South African fiscus, but allowing the trade could backfire at the expense of rhinos.

Two months before a critical international wildlife conference, the conservation community is still grappling with how to fund efforts to save the animals. As costs escalate, South African rhino owners insist that the only way to protect them is to allow some form of legal trade in horns.

The international trade has been illegal since 1977 so criminal syndicates are the only suppliers to the market.

Some countries, such as eSwatini (formerly Swaziland) and Namibia, also believe that the expensive business of conserving rhinos could be funded by selling their horns.

Jo Shaw, the World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa (WWF-SA) rhino programme manager, admits there is an argument to be made for using the proceeds from rhino horn sales to fund conservation but she cautions against this.


“Current conditions are not conducive to regulating a legal trade effectively and legalising trade in rhino horn could pave the way for more rhinos being poached.”

On the other hand, Pelham Jones, the chairperson of the Private Rhino Owners’ Association, believes the trade in rhino horn will make the animal the most protected and valuable animal in Africa.

Studies by two independent economists show that R60-billion could flow into the South African economy and provide funding for conservation and rural poverty alleviation, he says. The studies, which are not available for public release, were presented to the environmental affairs department and minister.

“It is important to note that about two-thirds of these funds will be funnelled to the government, as they own two-thirds of the national stockpile,” Jones says. “This, plus the taxes from private sales, mean that some 75% would go into the fiscus.”

Since 2008, rhino poaching in South Africa has spiralled out of control, with more than 8 000 casualties, and more than 1 300 animals poached on private reserves. Rhino numbers are officially in decline, even though poaching figures were down last year.

Shaw agrees that joining hands with the private sector is crucial to protect rhinos. Private reserves own 50% of the national white rhino population and 25% of the black, according to the association, and owners are increasingly campaigning to be allowed to trade.

National parks and private landowners now spend millions of rands on security every month to protect the animals, and the association calculates that the annual cost of maintaining rhino security on private, provincial and national reserves amounts to R2-billion a year.

“From 2014 to end 2017, the value of living rhinos has declined by 67%, because of the escalating costs,” Jones says.

He says several provincial reserves and more than 100 private reserves no longer have rhinos because of poaching losses and the high security costs, which amount to R112 500 an animal a year. By having to allocate so much money to rhino protection, they have become unpopular for private reserves to invest in, he says.

In July last year, prolific rhino breeder John Hume said he could no longer fund the “private army” necessary to protect his North West rhino farm, which has more than 1 000 animals.

“The rhino will be left to the mercy of poachers, which will result in an inevitable blood bath,” he said in an attempt to secure crowdfunding for his rhinos.

The question the owners are asking is: Who will pay the pipers, if they are to look after South Africa’s rhinos?

“In the current domestic and international economic environment, I do not see any billion-dollar donor funding, or the government’s willingness to cover these costs,” Jones says.

An African call for trade

Namibia, eSwatini and some other African nations also believe that selling off some of their stockpiles would raise much-needed funds. The two countries have handed in proposals to allow the trading of horns to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites), which meets in May in Sri Lanka. This is the only organisation that can reinstate trade.

In 2016 in Johannesburg, eSwatini made the same proposal, which was turned down, so the chances are slim that it will receive the requisite two-thirds of Cites members voting to pass it. Countries such as Kenya strongly oppose legalising the trade.

Both eSwatini and Namibia want to move white rhinos from Appendix I to Appendix II, which, under the convention, would allow international trade in rhinos and their products, including horn and its derivatives, as country representatives believe this would provide much-needed legal revenue for rhino conservation.

Species listed in Appendix I are threatened with extinction, and the listing prevents all commercial international trade in these animals. Appendix II species are not necessarily threatened with extinction and can be traded under special permit conditions.

Namibia wants the international trade in live animals to be allowed, as well as for trophy hunting.

eSwatini’s proposal argues that its three game parks are under immense financial strain to conserve its rhinos, especially with the ballooning costs of security.“The Cites ban on trade in rhino horn has been in force for 42 years and it is clearly not working — rhino losses from illegal hunters are driving rhinos towards extinction,” eSwatini argues in the proposal.

The tiny kingdom says whatever income the legal trade attracts would be unavailable to the illegal trade and that this would reduce illicit profits and improve protection.

But supporting a legal trade is a political hot potato and South Africa has shied away from the controversy.

Shonisani Munzhedzi, the deputy director general of biodiversity and conservation at the department of environmental affairs, said in Parliament that, although there are a number of proposals that affect South Africa, the department had opted not to put forward a proposal in May 2019 to trade in horns. South Africa has also made no pronouncement on whether it would support or oppose the two proposals.

Stockpiles

South Africa’s own rhino horn stockpile is estimated to be slightly less than 30 tonnes, but there is a lot of secrecy about it, especially among private rhino owners. Owners pre-emptively dehorning their rhinos and natural rhino deaths have led to a considerable stockpile, which could become the basis of a mooted futures market, where investors could hedge against the future legalisation of the trade.

The stockpiles would be worth millions if the trade is legalised. But Jones is adamant that it is a total misrepresentation made by anti-trade nongovernmental organisations that the privately owned reserves want the trade to be legalised just to make money.

“We are already over R1.47-billion out of pocket, ignoring the original investment costs, land use and management costs; and, secondly, the private reserves hold the smallest volume of the horn stockpiles after provincial and national parks.”

Instead, he says: “If we supply horn at below the current illegal trade [rate] of $23 000 for a raw horn, we can collapse the illegal trade and turn the current illegal market into a regulated and legal trade environment where revenue comes back to conservation and not into the hands of the criminals.”

Strong ‘no trade’ lobbyists

Kenya, which regularly makes a pyre out of their stockpiles, and some European countries are certain to be some of the main opposers of legalised trading.

eSwatini has even criticised Kenya for destroying rhino horn when African conservation agencies are cash-strapped.

Shaw says there are proponents for destroying horn “but I think we need to understand a lot more about what message that sends to the market in terms of reducing the supply of an illegal, high-value resource”.

Opponents of legal horn trading worry that it would simply stimulate the black market trade that exists in Asia, where rhino horn sells for a higher price than gold or cocaine.

Shaw argues that, because rhinos are endangered, there is not enough horn available to feed the enormous Asian market.

“I don’t think anyone in recent years believes that trading is about meeting demand. The numbers do not add up at all.”

Critics also argue that legalisation could lead to a situation where the criminal market flourishes alongside the legal one, as is the case with abalone.

Subscribe to the M&G for R2 a month

These are unprecedented times, and the role of media to tell and record the story of South Africa as it develops is more important than ever.

The Mail & Guardian is a proud news publisher with roots stretching back 35 years, and we’ve survived right from day one thanks to the support of readers who value fiercely independent journalism that is beholden to no-one. To help us continue for another 35 future years with the same proud values, please consider taking out a subscription.

And for this weekend only, you can become a subscriber by paying just R2 a month for your first three months.

Yolandi Groenewald
Yolandi Groenewald
Yolandi Groenewald is a South African environmental reporter, particularly experienced in the investigative field. After 10 years at the Mail & Guardian, she signed on with City Press in 2011. Her investigative environmental features have been recognised with numerous national journalism awards. Her coverage revolves around climate change politics, land reform, polluting mines, and environmental health. The world’s journey to find a deal to address climate change has shaped her career to a great degree. Yolandi attended her first climate change conference in Montreal in 2005. In the last decade, she has been present at seven of the COP’s, including the all-important COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. South Africa’s own addiction to coal in the midst of these talks has featured prominently in her reports.

Related stories

Eskom burns on through bailout

Despite alarm over the recent lifeline, state says the power utility is not on the brink of collapse

Headless cats and government promises back in 2005

Government interest in the pollution claims appears to have been aroused by Constitutional Court action launched against President Thabo Mbeki

MultiChoice set for organic growth

The firm is countering threats from streaming services and is investing strongly in local content

The exotic game market goes bang

Insane prices were paid for high-value species — then there was a lull, followed by a crash

SA fails to stub out dodgy ciggies

The wars at Sars have provided fertile ground for the illicit tobacco trade to grow

Slimline Old Mutual heads home

Its unbundling is expected to unlock value for investors and make it more competitive
Advertising

Subscribers only

ANC: ‘We’re operating under conditions of anarchy’

In its latest policy documents, the ANC is self-critical and wants ‘consequence management’, yet it’s letting its members off the hook again

Q&A Sessions: ‘I think I was born way before my...

The chief executive of the Estate Agency Affairs Board and the deputy chair of the SABC board, shares her take on retrenchments at the public broadcaster and reveals why she hates horror movies

More top stories

DRC: Tshisekedi and Kabila fall out

The country’s governing coalition is under strain, which could lead to even more acrimony ahead

Editorial: Crocodile tears from the coalface

Pumping limited resources into a project that is predominantly meant to extend dirty coal energy in South Africa is not what local communities and the climate needs.

Klipgat residents left high and dry

Flushing toilets were installed in backyards in the North West, but they can’t be used because the sewage has nowhere to go

Nehawu leaders are ‘betraying us’

The accusation by a branch of the union comes after it withdrew from a parliamentary process
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…