 Reference Base  Rhinoceros in South and South West Africa. Proceedings o... |
|
Mundy, P.J., 1984. Rhinoceros in South and South West Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop held at Pilanesberg Game Reserve, Bophuthatswana, 15 and 16 February 1984. Johannesburg, Endangered Wildlife Trust, pp. 1-25
|
|
|
|
| |
| Location: |
World |
| Subject: |
Trade |
| Species: |
All Rhino Species |
 |
|
The price of rhino horn has little if any effect on the demand. A total ban on trading in rhino products for a number of years is necessary, so that substitutes can be developed and accepted. Currently, there are hardly any rhinos left in Angola, and it is unlikely that horns are being trans-shipped through that country. Earlier however, rhino horn was imported legally from Angola, but surely it couldn't all have originated there? Natal holds about 200 horns, Harare about 90. However, horns are leaking out from Tanzania and Zambia.
Twenty countries in Africa have black rhinos, and five have not yet signed CITES.
The South African Police have an important role to play in protecting game against illegal exploitation, particularly by stopping organised smuggling across borders. The game ordinances of the four provinces are more or less the same, but refer to 'specially protected game' and 'protected game' rather than black rhino and white rhino respectively. One of the biggest loop-holes is here, that the trade in rhino products is controlled by provinces and not nationally, and we therefore need closer cooperation among the authorities. At the same time, rhino horn is accumulating, due to natural mortalities from the increasing numbers of rhino. Whilst the rhino products are too valuable to destroy, they may not be sold internationally due to the CITES agreement. Unfortunately CITES has three major shortcomings:-
(i) it is a 'gentlemen's' agreement. and cannot be enforced.
(ii) the countries that really matter are either not members or are not enforcing the agreement.
(iii) no embargo or sanction has ever worked anyway.
Under very strict government supervision, rhino horn could be put onto the world market and much finance could be generated for nature conservation. At the same time, the illegal traders could be priced out, though both anti-poaching activities and court penalties should also be greatly increased.
There is no real difference between controlling rhino products and controlling trade in gold and diamonds, though it must be admitted that no horn has been confiscated in the Republic of South Africa. It would be possible to have a retired detective looking into the illegal trade, as is the case in Zimbabwe. At the moment much horn enters the Republic of South Africa illegally from South West Africa.
Already, Natal numbers its horns by a steel punch, and horn-marking would be an essential prerequisite of trade. In the Transvaal there is much horn in private hands. A theft from the Pilanesberg Game Reserve ended up with a Pretoria trader. Traders should be checked out monthly, but they don't need a permit to possess rhino horn. However, the ordinances do mention 'unlawful' possession, and the sale of protected game is prohibited without a Permit - are these laws enforced?
Trade in rhino products is a very small portion of the overall wildlife trade in Africa which is dominated by ivory. There is a massive wildlife trade in Zimbabwe, though little of the rhino horn comes south. Wildlife products go to countries with hard currency. Anomalies exist - for example, how can the Natal Parks Board be selling rhino horn three years after the Republic of South Africa signed CITES?
Staff at the Johannesburg zoo have been offered considerable bribes for the rhino horn and shavings.
Rhino populations in southern Africa are well managed, but in view of the problems north of the Limpopo, the Republic of South Africa should store its accumulating rhino horn and hold back on the trade. In this respect South Africa should certainly not contemplate resigning from CITES. Few South African officials have been bribed (as in the Natal case), and CITES is powerless against bribes anyway - CITES has no 'teeth'. Bad publicity has had the effect of curtailing trade in certain countries such as the Sudan, but is a poor way of practising conservation. Is it possible to set up a disciplinary committee within CITES, and lean on the importing countries to stop imports?
South West Africa and the homelands within the Republic of South Africa are not CITES members. However, S.W.A. and Bophuthatswana comply with CITES regulations.
But in order for us to know what's happening internationally with regard to the trade in rhino products, someone must monitor it. Currently, nobody is monitoring either the local or the international trade. Yet monitoring is very feasible: one man is needed to go from country to country interviewing the traders. IUCN no longer budgets for this, yet it is an essential aspect of rhino conservation. It would be a waste of funds to monitor trade locally, however, if it were not being monitored internationally. Besides, how can the Republic of South Africa make a good decision on its stockpile of rhino horns if it has no information (from IUCN) on the international trade?
The Republic of South Africa should bear in mind that as pressure mounts on the Zimbabwe rhinos (and they may decline), then pressure will be put on to its own stocks. For a job such as protecting rhinoceroses we need effective and practical men in the field (and in their head offices! - most rhinos live on land owned by nature conservation authorities). There should be liaison among all the organisations involved in protecting them, including the police force, the customs officials and the national government.
|
|
|
File available
details
Original text on this topic: