The South Africa – Viet Nam Rhino Horn Trade Nexus (PDF ... - WWF

situation at the source: south africa
changes. A new Directorate to address Biodiversity Enforcement issues was created to co-ordinate and
investigate biodiversity crimes on a national basis. Furthermore, a cross-sectoral National Biodiversity
Investigators’ Forum was established in March 2009 as a contact point for exchanging and discussing law
enforcement information on biodiversity-related issues. In September 2009, the South African government
made the first attempt to integrate the efforts of different provinces to curb rhino poaching via a MINMEC
meeting in KwaZulu-Natal. The subsequent launch of a National Wildlife Crime Reaction Unit (NWCRU)
in February 2010 was widely seen to be a positive and pro-active response to enhance collaboration and
information exchange between different government bodies at both provincial and national levels. The
SAPS has designated an endangered species co-ordinator for each province and a select team of the SAPS
DPCI is now focused on rhino poaching activities at a national level. In addition, the National Prosecution
Authority has designated prosecutors at provincial and national level to specifically address organized
environmental crime, including rhino crimes.
Sadly, none of these interventions have yet led to a decline in the annual poaching totals of rhinos,
although they may have had some effect in reducing the rate of poaching in the past few months. In
October 2010, Buyelwa Sonjica, the then Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, hosted a Rhino
Summit in Pretoria to address the growing poaching crisis in South Africa. This Summit formed part of
the implementation of the National Strategy for the Safety and Security of Rhinoceros Populations and
Horn Stocks in South Africa designed to combat the increasing poaching threat (Table 8).
StRAtegy outcome – ActionS
1. Implementing an immediate action plan aimed at mitigating the current threat to the rhino
population posed by the escalation in poaching and the illegal trade in rhino horns and
associated by-products;
2. Securing the shared commitment of government (at national and provincial level), private
land owners, local communities and international stakeholders, as well as the necessary
financial and manpower resources and political will to implement this policy;
3. Supporting the establishment of a national co-ordination structure for information management,
law-enforcement response, investigation and prosecution;
4. Developing an integrated and co-ordinated national information management system for
all information related to rhino species in order to adequately inform security related
decisions; and
5. Investigating proactive security-related measures aimed at possibly facilitating a better
understanding for any possible future regulated and controlled international trade in the
species, and any associated by-products.
Table 8 National Strategy for the Safety and Security of Rhinoceros Populations and Horn Stocks in South Africa
A further outcome of the Rhino Summit was the development of tenders for three research studies
designed to better understand the rhino horn trade dynamic and guide the South African government’s
response. The terms of reference were released in August 2011, with a deadline for tender submission
in September 2011. One study assessed the impact of dehorning rhinos and was concluded
in October 2011 (Lindsey and Taylor, 2012). Of the two other studies, one is a feasibility study to
determine the viability of legalizing trade in rhino horn in South Africa. This work was conceived to
guide the government and support decision making on whether or not to lift the national moratorium
on internal trade in rhino horn, and is due for completion in August 2012. The final study was a
broad-scale assessment of the global market for rhino horn to identify uses and users of rhino horn
and the drivers of current demand.
In other developments, the concept of a fence along the South Africa/Mozambique border on the east
of KNP was briefly proposed by the Minister. Later it was concluded that a fence would be too expensive
and difficult to maintain and a buffer zone between Kruger and the private reserves/farms in
Mozambique was proposed as an alternative measure.
Further, the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs held a public hearing in Cape
Town entitled, “Rhino poaching: a threat to hard-won population increases achieved by conservation authorities”
on 26 January 2012. The hearing provided all stakeholders with an opportunity to air their views on the
rhino crisis and the government’s responses to date, and to propose alternative solutions and strategies.
During the meeting, serious concerns were raised by the chair, Johnny de Lange, regarding the apparent
lack of communication and collaboration between the many government departments involved in
addressing the problem. A further meeting for all affected government departments (DEA, NPA, SARS,
Customs, SAPS and provincial nature conservation authorities) was proposed for the Parliamentary recess
period in March/April 2012 to review the strengths and weaknesses in current processes and regulations;
it is not known whether this meeting went ahead or whether there were any outputs.
Most recently, DEA have called Mavuso Msimang, a former CEO of SANParks, to become their “Rhino
Issue Manager”. Mr Msimang has been tasked with convening a series of meetings to guide the South
African government in the sustainable conservation of its rhino populations. In this regard, Msimang
oversaw the first National Rhino Conservation Dialogue in Midrand, Gauteng, on 30 May 2012.
Private sector response to the crisis
Private security for wildlife and anti-poaching services seem to have proliferated in South Africa in
response to the rhino poaching crisis. Professional anti-poaching units, often led by ex-military personnel,
now offer tailor-made packages to private landowners wishing to provide protection to their animals.
Training forms a significant part of their activities, both for personnel supplied by the security
firms themselves and for existing staff on State or private reserves. Training typically covers topics such
as firearms handling, tracking, first aid and map reading as well as legal aspects such as arrest and court
procedures. In addition, many groups offer intelligence gathering and informer network capacities, as
well as communication forums for landowners. However, the peace of mind associated with improved
security does not come cheap. Private rhino owners indicated that they are spending approximately
ZAR30 000–40 000 (approximately USD4000–5300) per property per month to secure their rhinos. On
the other hand, it is known that some owners lack the financial means or motivation to commit to this
level of expense and are contemplating selling their animals. There are reports that in some areas in
Limpopo province, the Limpopo Province Private Rhino Owners are training volunteers to act as antipoaching
units to protect their animals.
A related problem has been the long delays which private rhino owners experience in obtaining firearm
licences to allow them to be adequately equipped to deal with threats posed by well-armed syndicate
gangs. Senior representatives of the army and police committed to a maximum 90-day approval period
for such licences at the 1st National Rhino Conservation Dialogue workshop held in May 2012.
Other private sector approaches have focused on reducing the benefits gained from killing rhinos and
increasing the security risks associated with poaching. Some private, as well as State, reserve managers
have engaged in dehorning operations to make their rhinos less attractive to poachers. However, this is
not a universal solution. A study commissioned by DEA concluded that the efficacy of dehorning
depends on a number of factors, including the level of the poaching threat, the level of security in
place, the availability of funds and the size, location and distribution of the rhino population in question
(Lindsey and Taylor, 2012). In 2010, a private rhino owner in Gauteng widely publicized the fact
he had injected his rhinos’ horns with an acaricide that would make whoever ingested the horn sick, in
order to deter poachers from attacking his animals. More recently, this approach has been adapted to
include infusion of an indelible pink dye. Although these actions may have potential value at a small
scale, they do not offer a solution to large populations of rhinos within protected areas and may simply
shift the poaching threat elsewhere. In addition, any activity requiring immobilization carries an inherent
risk, as demonstrated by the death of a White Rhino during a horn poisoning exercise near
Johannesburg in February 2012 (Child, 2012a).
It is widely known within South Africa that all Southern White Rhinos alive today originated from the
small population that survived in the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Game Reserve in South Africa about 100 years
ago. The recovery of the White Rhino represents one of the few great conservation success stories and
the rhino clearly retains a special place in the South African consciousness. There has been a groundswell
of public support and awareness-raising around the rhino poaching crisis, partially through the
LeadSA media initiative and support of radio stations such as Radio Jacaranda. Substantial funds have
been raised through these activities and the establishment of national fundraising initiatives, such as
those by stoprhinopoaching.com and the Endangered Wildlife Trust, which have supported antipoaching
activities and the training and deployment of sniffer dogs.
88 the south africa – viet nam rhino horn trade nexus TRAFFIC 89