Minister of Environmental Affairs Edna Molewa released rhino poaching statistics, which revealed that 10.3% fewer rhinos had fallen to poachers’ bullets last year – 1 054, compared with 1 175 in 2015.
But the toll is still high: three rhinos are being slaughtered every day in SA to feed the demand for horns in the Far East, mainly Vietnam. Now Molewa wants to lift the eight-year-old moratorium on domestic rhino horn trade – imposed to stem the bloodbath – through new, controversial, draft regulations gazetted on February 8 that allow legally acquired horn to be bought, sold and exported, for “personal use”.
Public submissions close on March 10. Molewa told Parliament how the domestic moratorium had been a “rational measure that contributed positively to the protection of rhino”, but then outlined how lifting the ban would “ensure the strict regulation of a prospective domestic trade in rhino horn”. Last year, private rhino owners John Hume and Johan Kruger challenged the moratorium in the high court, and won on a technicality. The ban was overturned, and Molewa approached the Constitutional Court. While rhino owners have hailed the draft regulations, others believe that reopening domestic trade will worsen illegal trade. Sheree Bega sought their views this week.
Pelham Jones, chairman of the Private Rhino Owners Association (Proa
) “The association has lobbied over the past seven years for this moratorium to be reviewed and set aside. “The moratorium has been a total failure as has the Cites international trade ban.The value of live rhino has fallen sharply and over 70 reserves sold or had all their animals poached. This position to allow for domestic trade in rhino horn is supported by 85% of rhino owners as per our last survey, with only 6% against and 9% undecided. “Many (NGOs) will respond to this notice with inaccurate submissions and assumptions… These submissions rely solely on emotional, non-scientific, knee-jerk reactions. “These NGOs are either unaware or simply ignorant of the various independent studies conducted by the DEA in respect of the proposed domestic trade in rhino horn. “Proa welcomes this positive announcement from the DEA as it will bring confidence back to rhino conservation and help support private owners who not only carry the conservation burden of a third of the national population (more than the rest of Africa combined) with zero government assistance or, up until now, incentives. “A concept trade method is being finalised and will be circulated to owners for further discussion.”
John Hume, the world’s biggest rhino farmer, and Izak du Toit, the attorney who represented him in the moratorium court case
“Until 2008, rhino poaching was only about 20 animals per year. The domestic moratorium on trade in rhino horn was introduced in February 2009,” they said. “We’ve been lobbying, begging and pleading with the minister over the past eight years for it to be reviewed. It’s a violation of our constitutional rights to sustainable use and our ability to pay for the protection of our rhino. “It failed to stop poaching. Instead, it had the opposite effect. The same is true of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) ban. Well-intended perhaps, but it failed to save Africa’s rhino. It created a vast transnational illegal trade in rhino horn, a monopoly to poachers. It resulted in more than 7 000 poached rhino in South Africa and over 50 000 poached rhino in the rest of Africa. “We as private rhino farmers carry the burden of security and anti-poaching costs of about R1.2 billion a year. It’s taken too long but finally our government is doing the right thing, so we commend them. “The Vicuna of South America are the lucky ones. Their trade has been a proven success and their numbers have soared. Until now, the rhino of Africa are the unlucky ones. Their trade has been prohibited by short-sighted animal rights money collectors who have already attacked these regulations with inaccurate opinions and zero consideration for the needs of our rhino or the opinions of credible rhino conservation bodies, consulted by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) when drafting these regulations. “We describe them as racketeers. They mostly own no rhino, yet they raise money from a naive public on our rhino poaching losses. “We wish to join hands with the minister to get trading, for the sake of our rhino, for the sake of using this renewable natural resource to empower local communities and mostly to put all the poachers out of business.”
Michael Eustace, an investment analyst
“The contribution of Cites to the conservation of African rhino over the past 40 years has been ineffective. “Their trade ban has been a failure… There is no indication that Cites will be of any value to rhino in the future.” “Yet (Cites) is supported by national environmental agencies. Why? Perhaps, because its established and countries like to belong to a large international organisation that appears to have some purpose. “Donor agencies (NGOs) like it because it underwrites continued conservation crises and that gives the agencies purpose. “Criminals love it because it allows them a trade monopoly and large profits. “It makes no sense for South Africa to belong. Either Cites must become more effective or we should resign. “But we kowtow to an organisation that may well do more harm than good. “Why should South Africans not be entitled to trade horn domestically in the same way as we’re allowed to trade everything else? “Because, the DEA is afraid unrestricted domestic trade will lead to the export of horns, which would be in contravention of Cites’s rules. “Market logic suggests that supplying the market with horn (blood free) will reduce poaching and reducing poaching is what we all want. “So, horn leaking out of the country would be good for rhino but bad for Cites compliance. “About 1 100 poached horn-sets, with a retail value of R3.4bn, are exported annually without any attention paid to Cites’s rules.” “Cites needs to change and, for one thing, incorporate the potential to appeal decisions made at Conferences of the Parties (CoPs), such as the illogical decision not to allow Swaziland to sell its horn. “If there was an ‘Appeal Court’ that reviewed and disallowed illogical decisions, that would make a big difference to the standard of debate and decision making at the CoPs and to the effectiveness of Cites.”
Aadila Agjee, attorney at the Centre for Environmental Rights
“If these regulations are promulgated, there will be no restriction on exporting rhino horn from South Africa unless the person doing the exporting is not domiciled in or does not own a rhino in South Africa. “All other aspects allow for unfettered movement in domestic and international markets. “If it’s the intention to allow for domestic trading in horn within the constraints of the constitution, the Biodiversity Act and while avoiding Cites restraint of trading rhino horn for commercial purposes, then the draft regulations are too vague and create too many loopholes. (They) are vulnerable to legal challenge. “The draft regulations provide no time limit on how often two horns may be imported by a person from a foreign state. The draft regulations put the additional burden on these same authorities to inspect and verify the correctness of the information submitted in each application.”
Dr Jo Shaw, manager of WWF South Africa’s rhino programme
“It must be remembered the 2009 moratorium was put in place as a response to the illegal laundering of horn. “In our view these draft legislations potentially open the door to this problem all over again. “While we appreciate the difficult position the DEA finds itself in over court challenges to the domestic moratorium on the sale of rhino horn, we’d prefer to see the DEA reinstate the moratorium until all the governance issues identified by the Committee of Inquiry into rhino horn trade are addressed and proven. “Commercial international trade in rhino horn remains illegal under Cites. “We’ve previously questioned the logic of allowing domestic trade in South Africa – a country which has no real demand for horn – in the absence of legal commercial international trade. “In terms of the draft legislation, the proposed provision for export of two horns for personal effects should not be seen as appropriate response to this gap. “The inclusion of any international exports seems difficult to justify given the rampant illicit international trade and the recognition by Cites and others of the failure by key countries such as Mozambique and Vietnam to address this. “Lessons from previous abuses of hunting trophy permits show there is a lack of capacity in import markets such as Vietnam to retain records of imported trophies. “There are also practical concerns about the enforcement of the regulations nationally. “The concurrent national and provincial legislation and the lack of capacity and trust in some provincial agencies, present a serious risk... “In a nutshell, we aren’t convinced South Africa has the necessary resources to implement the proposed procedures for international exports of horn or for the management of domestic trade – and we fear that rhinos will pay the price.”
Tom Milliken, elephant and rhino programme leader at Traffic, the global wildlife trade monitoring network
“The DEA is proposing regulations for ‘domestic trade’. But there is no end-use market of any significance in the country. “Consumption of rhino is occurring primarily in Vietnam and China. This trade is illegal under the national laws of these consuming countries and globally under Cites. “At their most recent meeting in South Africa (CoP17), the Parties to the Convention rejected calls for the international ban on trade in rhino horn to be lifted. Our environment minister presided over its deliberations. So why the sudden aboutturn? “While at face value, the draft regulations deal with ‘domestic trade’, they paradoxically pivot to discussions of ‘export’, ‘a person from a foreign state’ and ‘a person who is not a citizen or a permanent resident of South Africa’ as the operative parts of the equation. “Such rhino horns would fall under Cites Appendix I rules, which forbid transactions that are ‘primarily for commercial purposes’. “In ‘near’ Cites-speak, the proposed regulations specify that exports by foreigners need to be for ‘personal purposes, without ever defining what that actually means. “To tick the box further, the regulations call for governments of importing countries to assert in writing that imported horns will not be used “in a manner in contravention with the provisions of Cites” for Appendix I specimens. “It’s called ‘passing the buck’. The DEA knows full well that they really can’t be held accountable for whatever happens once rhino horns leave the country. “In fact, similar conditions apply to rhino horn hunting trophies. But trophy exports to Vietnam, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Thailand and Lao PDR, have all gone into commercial black market trade in recent years. This policy change is the short end of the wedge to instigate a legal export trade in rhino horn without due process.”
Allison Thomson, founder and director of Outraged SA Citizens Against Poaching
“This is not the answer to ensuring the continued survival of rhino in the wild. Realistically, the number of rhino today is too small to take the risk of introducing trade into an already dire poaching crisis. “The DEA concluded in 2014 that legal domestic trade may provide a cover for illegal exports, ‘may lead to problems with compliance and enforcement’ and ‘may not reduce rhino poaching’. “Cabinet deliberated on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry (and) took the position last year they would not be submitting a (trade) proposal for sound reasons. “… Cabinet was clear that if trade was proposed (it) had to result in a reduction of poaching. “The DEA is not able to provide that assurance with regards to this draft. “… The (proposal) will mean cynically exploiting a loophole in Cites that allows export of listed species for non-commercial purposes. When hundreds, or thousands, of horns end up in east Asia and are sold illegally, the DEA will just shrug its shoulders… “We probably only have one shot at reducing demand, and although we know horn prices have dropped considerably in Vietnam and awareness has shot up, what will happen when legal horns come flooding in from South Africa? “Ironically, our only hope is importing countries refuse to allow our horns in. “Do we put heavy pressure on Mozambique to get their act together? No. Do we make any effort to reduce demand in destination countries? No. “We sign more toothless MoUs and then draft regulations that would allow us to export more horn to them. “Do we manage to prosecute the ‘Mr Bigs’ (involved in) rhino poaching? No. Most of the local rhino farmers, hunters and vets who have been charged are either allowed out on bail for years on end, or are permanently free because they managed to do a deal with the court.”