Keeping the rhino (debate) alive: Swaziland’s proposal at CITES CoP17 in 2016

• Author: Coetzee, L.
• Published date: 15 August 2018
• Date: 15 August 2018
• Pages: 217-254

217

KEEPING THE RHINO (DEBATE) ALIVE:

SWAZILAND’S PROPOSAL AT CITES

COP17 IN 2016

Laurenne Coetzee* and Ed Couzens†‡

Abstract

Rhinoceros poaching is currently at crisis levels, particularly in South Africa

– the country having lost more than 7,000 animals in the last decade from a

population of approximately 25,000. One of the most successful conservation

programmes of all time, the recovery of the rhinoceros, is now seriously

threatened. No single measure at present seems capable of preventing

poaching, given the strength of the criminal networks driving the illegal trade

and the capacity of the market which the illegal trade is supplying. At the

17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), in 2016, Swaziland

put forward a proposal to open a legal market for rhino horn – a proposal

which Swaziland must have known was doomed to fail, given the current

strength of international concern over the poaching crisis. That Swaziland

still thought it worth putting the proposal forward probably indicates that the

country wished to keep its sustainable use philosophy ‘on the agenda’. If a

legal trade is to provide part of the eventual solution, then it is unlikely that

it will ever do so on its own, however – what is therefore needed is for the

proponents of a legal market to demonstrate how exactly it would complement,

supplement and support other efforts. South Africa, following a Committee

of Enquiry’s recommendation that such an integrated approach be adopted,

did not put forward a proposal at CITES CoP 16 and is now moving toward

greater integration of strategies. Ultimately, it may be that a legal trade will be

an element in a successful suite of management options; and for that reason

Swaziland’s proposal, insofar as it kept this option in the public eye and

reminded Parties of the an interest that needs to be accommodated, is worth

considering and locating within the complicated overall context.

Keywords: Rhinoceros poaching, Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Swaziland

* Masters Env. Law candidate, University of Sydney Law School. B. Env.

Sci. (Geography) Hons (UNSW).

† Associate Professor, University of Sydney Law School; BA Hons LLB

(Wits) LLM Environmental Law (Natal & Nottingham) PhD (KZN); Attorney

of the High Court, RSA.

‡ The authors sincerely thank two anonymous reviewers, whose input

considerably improved this article.

(2017) 23 SAJELP 217

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

218

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY

1 INTRODUCTION

If asked what the most expensive renewable commodities on

earth currently are, most people would probably not include

keratin, yet it may be one of them. The current price of rhinoceros

horn on the illegal black market seems to be somewhere between

US$30-75,000 per kilogramme.1 Rhino horn may now therefore

be more valuable than gold, cocaine, platinum or heroin on the

black markets of South-East Asia2 despite its being essentially

comprised of a keratin-like substance – a substance similar to

human hair and fingernails.3 TRAFFIC reports that, in 2011, the

1 For the higher figures, see D Mander ‘Damned if you do and damned

if you don’t – legalising the rhino horn trade’ (10 June 2012) https://iapf.org/

wp-content/uploads/2017/03/vietnam.pdf cited in Julie Ayling ‘What sustains

wildlife crime? Rhino horn trading and the resilience of criminal networks’

(2013) 16 Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 57, 64; and P Clark

and D Fears ‘The horn and ivory trade’ (10 August 2014) Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/national/the-horn-and-ivory-

trade/1163/. For more recent somewhat lower figures, see Carrington ‘High

price of rhino horn leaves bloody trail across the globe’ (11 March 2017)

The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/10/high-

price-of-rhino-horn-leaves-bloody-trail-across-the-globe; and Kevin Leo-

Smith ‘Live white rhino horn trade scenario – why prices would rise 900%’ (3

October 2016) Fin24 https://www.fin24.com/BizNews/live-white-rhino-horn-

trade-scenario-why-prices-would-rise-900-20161003.

2 J Rademeyer Killing for Profit: Exposing the Illegal Rhino Horn Trade

(2012) ix [3]. A valuable consideration of the drivers of the price for rhino

horn can be found in T Haas & S Ferreira ‘Combating Rhino Horn Trafficking:

The Need to Disrupt Criminal Networks’ (2016) 11(11) PLoS ONE 1–26 at

6–12. The authors indicate that the price per kilogramme probably rose from

US$5,000 in 2009 to US$97,000 in 2014 (ibi at 10).

3 There appears to be scientific consensus on this point, although there

have been efforts made over the years to prove that rhinoceros horn does

indeed have medicinal qualities. Arguing for fever-reducing qualities, But,

Lung & Tam wrote in 1990, for instance, that:

[t]he aqueous extract of rhinoceros horn consistently demonstrated a significant antipyretic

effect … after which rectal temperature of [the subject] rats gradually returned to hyperthermic

conditions as in the control group given only saline.

Paul Pui-Hay But, Lai-Ching Lung & Yan-Kit Tam ‘Ethnopharmacology of

Rhinoceros Horn I: Antipyretic Effects of Rhinoceros Horn and other Animal

Horns’ (1990) 30 Journal of Ethnopharmacology 157–168 at 161.

In 2016 the Kingdom of Swaziland argued that ‘[w]ho are we to tell those

who believe in traditional Eastern medicine that it doesn’t work? For those

who use it and believe in it, it does work!’ This argument was then, however,

somewhat undermined by the next claim, that ‘[i]t is common cause that, what

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

219

KEEPING THE RHINO (DEBATE) ALIVE

annual illegal wildlife trade, even excluding both the illegal timber

trade and illegal, unregulated and unreported fisheries, could

be valued at between US$7.8-10 billion.4 Since the first listing

of the white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) on Appendix I

in 1975/77,5 at the first Conference of the Parties (CoP) of the

Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),6 the apparent levels

of success of the consequent prohibition on commercial trade has

fluctuated wildly. Until approximately 2007 it appeared as though

the listing had been relatively successful, based on comparatively

few rhinos being poached until then.

works in the mind also works in body and soul – religion is a good example

of this’. Ted Reilly ‘Rationale for the Kingdom of Swaziland’s Position on its

Proposal to CITES to Legalise its Rhino Horn Trade’ Kingdom of Swaziland,

Big Game Parks (13 June 2016) at 1, http://www.rhinoalive.com/wp-content/

uploads/2016/08/RATIONALE-SWAZILAND-PROPOSAL-TO-CITES-

COP17_Aletta-subbed.pdf.

A report prepared by TRAFFIC for the CITES Secretariat in 2012 found that:

A wide-ranging review found that most researchers in the field support application of the

modern standards of evidence-based medicine to determine efficacy of traditional medical

treatments. These standards have not been applied to rhino horn; without such scientific

validation, any future legal use of rhino horn as a medicine to treat illness, and especially life-

threatening ones, should be contemplated with caution.

Kristin Nowell/TRAFFIC ‘Species trade and conservation: Rhinoceroses:

Assessment of Rhino Horn as a Traditional Medicine’ (April 2012) SC62 Doc.

47.2 Annex (Rev. 2) https://cites.org/eng/com/sc/62/E62-47-02-A.pdf.

4 TRAFFIC.org ‘Wildlife Trade: What is it?’ http://www.traffic.org/

trade/. It has been suggested that collective environmental crime, including

resource exploitation, in 2016 can be estimated as being worth approximately

US$91-258 billion per annum. Christian Nellemann et al (eds) 2016. The Rise

of Environmental Crime – A Growing Threat To Natural Resources Peace,

Development And Security UNEP-INTERPOL Rapid Response Assessment

vernance/erl/resources/publications/

rise-environmental-crime> at 7.

5 One sub-species was listed (on Appendix I) when the CITES entered into

force in 1975, and the others were listed in 1977. See https://cites.org/sites/

default/files/eng/news/world/30special.pdf, for instance. (The listings are a

little confusing because the first CoP was in 1976. We have therefore in this

article chosen to refer to ‘the 1975/77 listing’.) See the weblink https://www.

cites.org/eng/cop/09/prop/E09-Prop-17_Ceratotherium.PDF for a record,

dated 1994, of the early listing of the rhinoceros.

6 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora (CITES), opened for signature 3 March 1973, 993 UNTS 243

(entered into force on 1 July 1975).

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd