Is legalizing the trade in rhino horn the solution to poaching?

There are a number of conservationists and independent rhino farmers lobbying for the international ban on rhino horn trading to be removed, and for a legal market to be created.  The South African government is currently considering this option, and could put forward a proposal at the 2016 Convention of Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).  This would allow for the legal sale of rhino horns.  However, the support of two-thirds majority from the 178 member states of CITES would be required.

Poachers killed 688 rhinos in South Africa last year.  This was mainly in the Kruger National Park, where the largest population of white rhinos is housed.  In April 2013, the government released a press statement indicating that 203 rhinos had been killed since the start of the year.  Poaching numbers in South Africa have just about doubled each year for the past five years.  According to scientists, if poaching continues to accelerate, all of Africa’s rhinos in the wild will be extinct in about 20 years.

Rhino horn is worth more than gold on the black market, which places rhinos in the centre of a bloody poaching war. (Image courtesy of Brent Stirton/ National Geographic)

Rhino poaching is widely known to be a major problem in South Africa.  There have been proposals to lift the ban since 1977, igniting debate concerning whether a legal market would actually reduce poaching.    It is difficult to draw a definite conclusion about the type of outcomes a legal market would evoke. Chris Galliers, the Biodiversity Programme Manager of WESSA Rhino Conservation said, “There may be pros and cons to legalizing the trade, and perhaps it may not be a case of whether to trade or not, but how to trade.”

Advocates look to a legal market as the solution to poaching.  A tightly controlled and regulated market could lend support to the persistent Asian demand, and, if it is effectively administered, provide a cheaper, wiser and more reliable option rather than trading in the black market with criminal cartels.  This would attract buyers to the legal trade, and hopefully terminate the illegal market.  However, as Galliers points out, there may not be an efficient enough mechanism which could effectively distinguish between a legally traded horn and an illegal one – “will this not end up ‘legalizing’ illegal rhino horn stocks?”

Advocates propose that, in order for a legal market to be effective, there must be an independent body that would act as a central selling organization.  This organization would report to CITES and control the selling of rhino horns to registered buyers.  A percentage of the income from sales would go towards conservation efforts and strengthening initiatives against poaching.  Galliers said, “Currently the hunting of rhinos may offer the most controllable opportunity for the trade in rhino horn as a trophy rather than for use.”  Perhaps a legal market could also prove to be more humane to rhinos, due to the fact that rhino horn is made of keratin, which is also found in human hair.  Keratin will grow back after being cut.  A minimal risk to the rhinos would be sedating them and shaving off their horns, opposed to hundreds of rhinos being slaughtered for their horns, and then left to die.

Opponents of a legal market argue that lifting the ban would stimulate black market trade that is already booming in parts of Asia.  Rhino horn is sold for 65 000 dollars per kilogram, this is more than its weight in gold or cocaine.  Galliers explains how it is unlikely for poachers to halt their trade in accordance to the creation of a legal market: “Will the current poacher give up ‘free’ access to a resource he currently enjoys?  The black market trade and all those involved will do their best to remain ‘employed’ in this lucrative business – they are acting illegally, and so who says that if trade is opened that they will come out and expose themselves?”  Of course criminal syndicates could still arrange ways around the legal market.  They could do this even through simple marketing strategies, as Galliers demonstrates: “Illegal traders may shift market preference as we have seen with other wildlife products, for example, they market the fact that wild rhino horns have great medicinal properties and therefore more value than farmed ones.”

There are a number of conservation groups opposing a legal market.  They believe that legislation would pump demand for rhino horn to a point which the market would be unable to sustain.  Criminals markets would then flourish parallel to the legal one, as is the case with abalone in South Africa being severely threatened due to poaching.  Galliers points out that creating a legal market could be both detrimental and beneficial, and we cannot say for certain.  We still do not fully understand the illegal trade.  Galliers reiterates how there is a lack of accurate information regarding the nature and the scale of the demand.  “Can supply meet demand? Will we not be fueling a demand that we will never be able to meet?  We need to be targeting the reduction of demand and breaking down the myths associated with the use of rhino horn.”

A ranger holds a rhino horn that was taken from a dead rhino shot by poachers in Kenya. In Vietnam, a rhino horn is believed to have curative powers, and is sold for up to $65 000 dollars on the black market. (Image courtesy of Roberto Schmidt/APG/Getty Images)

An example of an effective legal market of animal parts, which also encouraged conservation, would be the trade of crocodile skins.  During the 1980s, this trade allowed a shift toward sustainable crocodile ranching, opposed to wild crocodiles being slaughtered.  However, the example of ivory is a very different case.  In 2008, China had legally bought ivory from stockpiles from Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa.  However, there was a significant spike in illegal ivory sales in China after this.  The Chinese government purchased ivory for 157 dollars per kilogram, but sold it for no less than 1500 dollars per kilogram.  Then there were retailers that traded ivory products for about 7000 dollars, according to an Environmental Investigation Agency report.  This same report states that up to 90% of ivory entering the market in China is illegal.   Illegal ivory is now cheaper than legal ivory, which has led to the greatest surge in poaching since it was banned in 1989.  In dealing with the possibility of legalizing the trade in rhino horn, Galliers has pointed out: “We need to learn lessons from the disastrous sale of ivory.”

Opponents of the legal trade are concerned that governments would be unable to effectively provide police support for the rhino horn market, and argue that corruption is very likely to be a problem.  Police arrested four South African National Parks officials last year, as they were connected with rhino poaching.  There is an obvious need for government to be offering more protection against rhino poaching.  Galliers points out a need for a less fragmented and more efficient approach to fight poaching, with increased investment into the acquisition. There must be access to more reliable information, as well as a selective process of people who are “employed with the right qualifications, skills and attributes for their job”.  Galliers also highlights the need for an increased capacity to deal with the situation, “from field rangers through to forensic specialists”.  There must also be an improved judicial system, “where rhino poaching is elevated in significance in terms of prosecution time and sentences.”  There must also be a greater political will to end rhino poaching.  Galliers explains how there must be greater pressure from international and diplomatic levels; he uses putting pressure on Mozambique and demand states as an example.  There should be a well run and accurate database of rhinos in South Africa, as well as improved education and awareness.  Galliers said, “Government needs to play their role at every level, as they hold the key to making the biggest difference.  However, this does not mean that civil society should not shoulder some responsibility as well.”

Legalizing the trade of rhino horn is indeed a highly controversial conservationist issue.  We may not know exactly what the demand for rhino horn really is, and we do not know how opening a legal market for rhino horn would affect this demand.  However, we know that if the door to a legal market is opened, it would be impossible to close that door if need be.

Government must take more effective action against rhino poaching, however, rhino poaching is a major issue that civil society should be aware about. (Image courtesy of James P. Blair/ National Geographic)

SA and Vietnam sign a deal against rhino poaching

This is a university assignment which involved analyzing three articles with topics that were high on the news agenda.  I chose to look at South Africa and Vietnam meeting to sign a deal which hopes to diminish the poaching of rhinos in South Africa.

Rhino poaching has been named South Africa’s top newsmaker for 2012.  The media has depicted Vietnam to be the main culprit in the slaughter of hundreds of these endangered species, because rhino horns are illegally traded for use in traditional Asian remedies.  The three articles, which this essay seeks to analyze, deals with the memorandum of understanding that was signed between Vietnam and South Africa.  This memorandum deals with efforts to diminish rhino poaching in South Africa.  This topic made major headlines, both nationally and internationally.

Article One: “Vietnam signs rhino-poaching pact with SA”

This article appeared on the IOL website on December 12, 2012.  IOL, or Independent Online news, is a news and information website based in South Africa, and reports on breaking news from across the country.  Independent Newspapers runs the IOL website, and controls several newspapers including The Cape Argus, The Star and The Cape Times; all included on the IOL website.  This is an example of synergy, where different parts of the same organisation collaborate in order to enlarge profit (Wasserman and Botman, 2008: 6).  However, this Independent Newspapers banner poses a problem for South African media, because it is able to monopolize the market by owning a number of newspapers.  This diminishes the opportunity for a broad range of opinion and news stories to circulate in the media, as each newsagent is expected to support the principle values of the monopoly that controls them.  Therefore, it raises the question of the possibility of a news source to be entirely objective (Boudana 2011: 385).

The article’s opening line reads as follows: “With SA having lost 618 rhinos so far this year, it is hoped that the signing of a memorandum of understanding with Vietnam could stem the poaching.”  This immediately places a large amount of blame and responsibility on Vietnam, as if Vietnam is the primary villain in rhino poaching.  Even if this is truthful, the audience is reading about Vietnam painted as the sole cause for the rhino deaths in South Africa.

South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, is importantly portrayed and seems to take an active, crucial role in the anti-poaching actions in South Africa.  However, the Vietnamese farms minister Dr Cao Duc Phat, the Vietnamese “counterpart” who signed the agreement, is not quoted at all.  The audience is unaware of his opinion, or of his stance in dealing with anti-poaching.  The only information we have from the Vietnam side is that of a spokesman stating the farms minister has proposed a ban on the import of all rhino specimens.  A quote in the article states: “demand in Vietnam is believed to be driving ‘the rapacious illegal trade in rhino horn'”.  The article also includes information of a “booming market” for luxury products and conspicuous consumption in Vietnam.  Agenda setting is the process regarding the angle at which issues are reported, or the issues that are portrayed as being the most important (Scheufele and Tewsbury, 2007: 297).  In this article, the news source has placed the issue of rhino poaching, and Vietnam’s role in this, on the media agenda.  This is indicative of priming, which is the effect that agenda setting has on audience perspective on topics that the media presents.  The audience will develop ‘activation tags’ effecting how the information is processed (Scheufele and Tewsbury, 2007: 298).  The audience will rely on previous activation tags about rhino poaching, which has been very prominent in South African news in recent years.

How the story is organised, and the meanings that are imagined around it, is how the story is framed (Scheufele and Tewsbury, 2007: 306).  There are media frames and audience frames.  How the journalist frames the article is the media frame, and how the audience processes the received information is the audience frame (Scheufele and Tewsbury, 2007: 306).  This article is obviously not told from a personal or intimate account, yet it is quite emotional in its portrayal of the rhinos being poached and slaughtered.  Vietnam is portrayed as being rather relentless and ruthless in its consumption.  The diction includes ‘rapacious’, ‘illegal’, ‘unprecedented’, ‘conspicuous consumption’, ‘criminal syndicates’, ‘end-use market’, ‘tarnishing’, and ‘unmitigated tragedy’.  This all frames Vietnam’s role in rhino poaching in South Africa in a very specific manner, and guarantees the audience framing the ordeal in a very particular manner.

Article Two: “South Africa signs rhino deal in Vietnam”

This article appeared in the Mail and Guardian on December 10, 2012.   The Mail and Guardian is an important and trusted South African newspaper.  This article reads very similarly to the IOL news article.  A large focus is again placed on Edna Molewa.  It highlights her hope for both countries to come together and work towards a memorandum.  The opening line reads; “Edna Molewa, minister of water and environmental affairs, has finally signed a memorandum with her counterpart in Vietnam.”  The use of the word “finally” suggests that there has been some kind of a delay or postponement in the action against rhino poaching.  It is unclear whether the blame is placed upon South Africa or Vietnam, until further on in the article where it explains how Molewa had tried other attempts that were “turned down” because Vietnamese officials were “not available”.  The article’s format emphasizes the story’s typical hard news feature (Bull, 2010: 330).  It is written in the ‘inverted triangle’ format, with the most pressing questions being answered first: the memorandum itself and the agreement between the two countries, as well as what South Africa is doing in particular against the rhino poaching scourge.  The peripheral information comes towards the end of the article: information about Vietnamese cooperation in the middle of the article, and concluding with wildlife monitoring groups, and their role in the issue of the signing of the memorandum.

The sources for this story come mainly from quotes from the prominent people involved in the memorandum.  This is namely, Edna Molewa, Dr Cao Duc Phat and Dr Naomi Doak, the coordinator of Traffic (a wildlife trade monitoring group) of Southeast Asia.  It is crucial to look at the issue of objectivity when analyzing news pieces.  Objectivity is not necessarily about detachment or neutrality, but it concerns the truth, and cooperation between reality and thought (Boudana, 2011: 385).  In this particular article, we can see that the reporter seems to have tried to be objective and fair.  The reporter has included information from the South African side, the Vietnamese side, and even peripheral groups.  Vietnam is given more of a chance at an explanation, and their thoughts and goals are able to come through in the article.  However, it still seems as though Vietnam is framed as somewhat of a villain in this article.  The audience is invited to view South Africa and its rhinos, Vietnam, and outside wildlife monitoring groups in a triangular relationship.  The audience can then construct opposing relationships, trustworthy versus unreliable sources, and ultimately good versus evil.

Agenda setting in this article again shows how the issue of rhino poaching in South Africa has been engaged on the media agenda.  This agenda setting is part of priming the audience to view the issue of poaching of one of South Africa’s “treasures” as a major problem.  This is not inevitably a biased point of view, as there does not have to be bias involved in order for the audience to be primed in a particular way (Boudana 2011: 392).  Even in the absence of bias, priming will always occur.

Article three: “Rhino poaching: South Africa and Vietnam sign deal”

This article is sourced from BBC News Africa.  BBC news has a global network of journalists reporting on regional and current world news.  This is very different from the first two articles which both came from South African news sites.  It is clear that the issue of rhino poaching, and the memorandum that was signed between South African and Vietnam gained international attention and is globally newsworthy.  This article includes more information about rhino poaching statistics, the demand and value of rhino horn for use in Asian remedies, the profits urging Vietnamese hunters and general information about the effects and results that this new memorandum could lead to.  This article seems to be more objective to the previous two, perhaps because the reporter and news site is further removed from the issue at hand, and is reporting from a peripheral point of view.  The agenda seems to include broader issues, as that of rhino slaughtering in recent years, the consequences for the conservation and the issue of traditional remedies that exploit this endangered species.  In this article, the audience is primed to see South African and Vietnamese authorities as equals as they sign the deal to curb rhino poaching, this is particularly evident in a quote which is used in the article: “The deal could mark a turning point in efforts to protect rhinos because it represents the first official pact signed by both countries”.

In general, one can conclude that the media has largely casted Vietnam as a major cause and felon of rhino poaching in South Africa. These three articles all focus on the same issue, yet the different strategies that are applied by the news sources all foreground different views.  One can take a part and analyze the articles by looking particularly at the newsworthiness, objectivity, news-site ownership and monopoly, framing, priming and agenda setting of the articles.

South Africa fights for its Black rhinos

In 1961, the front page of a UK newspaper read “DOOMED” and was accompanied by a full-page photograph of 2 Black African rhinos.  The article claimed that these rhinos were doomed to extinction due to man’s greed, folly and neglect.  As a South African, the endangerment and poaching of rhinos seems to have more of a personal effect.

These remarkable mammals have ranged across Africa and formed an important part of our natural and cultural heritage for thousands of years.  African royalty has revered rhinos as they epitomised the golden rhino buried with King Mapungubwe 800 years ago.  South Africans should be proud of their rhino history.  According to WWF Rhino Conservation, more than 75% of all rhinos are found in South Africa today.

Rhino horns are worth more than their weight in gold. Black rhinos have 2 horns, which makes them lucrative targets in the illegal trade in rhino horn.  96% of Africa’s black rhinos were killed between 1970 and 1992.  Today there continues to be a rise in demand for rhino horn, which resulted in black rhinos being critically endangered.  There has been an increase in rhino poaching, particularly in South Africa. This is driven by a growing demand from Asian consumers, especially in Vietnam, for remedies containing rhino horn, despite that it being scientifically proven that traditional medicines, aphrodisiacs and beauty treatments made from rhino horn have absolutely no effect.  To ensure future survival of rhinos, conservation and protection efforts have reached a critical status.

Political instability and wars have greatly hindered rhino conservation work in Africa, especially in Rwanda, Angola, Sudan and Somalia.  This situation has aggravated threats such as illegal trade in rhino horn and increased poaching due to poverty.  Habitat changes have also contributed to population declines.  For example, In Zimbabwe, privately owned rhino conservancies were invaded by landless people, reducing safe habitat and increasing the risk of snaring and poaching.  However, this is still a secondary threat compared to poaching.

The current wave of poaching is being committed by sophisticated and coordinated criminal networks that use night-vision equipment, helicopters, veterinary tranquilisers and silencers to poach rhinos at night, whilst attempting to avoid law enforcement patrols.  The number of poached rhino has increased drastically from 2010 to 2012, with 333 poached rhino in 2010, 448 in 2011, 668 in 2012 and already 146 in 2013, according to South African Government Information.

The most recent rhino poaching statistics indicate that the Kruger National Park, the world famous safari park that houses the largest numbers of Black and White rhinos in the country, is still the hardest to be hit.  15 rhinos have been poached since February 20th 2013.  This brings the number of slaughtered rhinos in this conservation area to 107 since the beginning of 2013.

Black rhinos in the Kruger National Park

The South African government has reacted by intensifying its law enforcement efforts.  50 people have been arrested; of these 47 are alleged poachers and 3 have been charged with illegal trading in rhino horn, as well as being in possession of rhino horn following a raid in Johannesburg in February.  Since the beginning of March, 2 poachers were arrested in the Kruger National Park, and 2 in Limpopo.

Recent success in black rhino conservation is encouraging, but much work must still be done to restore the population back up to even a fraction of what it once was, and to make sure that it stays there. WWF has launched an international effort to save Black rhinos, among other species, from the brink of extinction.  Conservation efforts have led to the increase in black rhino numbers from 2 410 in 1995, to 4 880 in 2010.  In order to bring the rhino to a state of complete safety, we have to work to stop poaching, increase rhino numbers, bring down the illegal rhino trade and improve law enforcement.

This is a video of the promising and encouraging work that was done by the Black Rhino Range Expansion Project (BRREP), in partnership with WWF-South Africa, Ezemvelo, KZN Wildlife and Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism.  Nineteen Black “Flying Rhinos” were transported via helicopter to a land vehicle.  They spent 10 minutes in the air, then woke up in new safer and more spacious home where they would have a greater opportunity to increase in number.