The CITES conference failed to legalise the rhino horn trade. If you've read any of my previous posts on this issue (link here) then you'll know that I fully support legalising the trade, and really hoped CITES would vote in favour of Swaziland's proposal.

However, they didn't. Is this really surprising? Not really. This decision was placed into the hands of people who don't understand the issue; preservationists and NGOs who profit from the plight of rhinos. 

Countries/ Organisations such as the US and EU said a legal trade would reverse the work done to reduce the demand for rhino horn. This is ludicrous to me. It breaks my heart that these countries were listened to over Swaziland and South Africa, who are the ones actually protecting the rhino and the homes of the rhino. NGOs were listened to over the private owners. Most (not all, but most) rhino range countries supported Swaziland's proposal, yet the countries where rhinos are not living seemed to win. It seems ridiculous, doesn't it? Why do these countries think they know best? Why must they intervene on something they do not understand? Why would you ignore the experts?????

Manager of the WWF's South African rhino programme, Dr Jo Shaw, said "What we need now is firm action by CITES and all concerned to address poaching, trafficking and consumption of rhino horn." These are empty words until we see actions. This is exactly what should have been happening since the ban on trade began in 1977, so why are rhinos being killed at a rate of 3 a day? We need a change. How can they not see that!

The idea that legal trade goes against education is laughable. Leaving trade illegal gives the monopoly on trade to criminals. However, it also gives these same criminals the control of the supply, price and most importantly, the information. Legal trade means rhino horn products would be sold on the high street, manufactured and packaged legally. This means people will know exactly what they are buying. When you buy something on the black market, you are trusting people who are essentially just criminals that it is what they say it is, when they have every reason to lie to you. A legal trade goes hand in hand with increased awareness and education. Tell people when they buy paracetamol with rhino horn extract in it that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that rhino horn has medicinal value. Tell people that when they buy an expensive rhino horn ornament, they are essentially buying matted hair thats been sculpted, and is practically worthless. Decreasing the demand will be so much quicker and easier under a legal trade. 

I've said this so many times, and I'm going to keep saying it until people listen: There is no ONE solution to save the rhino. What we are trying to do with a legal trade is save the rhino from extinction. It is also going to have strong regulations and conditions. Legal trade is not the end; it's the beginning of a long road to save this species.

This vote is not the end either. We do not own this planet, and we never will. This vote is just motivation to keep fighting. 

This post is dedicated to a rhino I knew called Charlie. She spent her whole life fighting, even though the odds were always stacked against her. She just wanted to live.

Save the rhino, not it's horn. 

"If you are against a legal trade, you are for illegal trade." This is something I see written or heard said all the time and of course, it is not as black and white as that. However there is a lot to be said for this argument. If you are against a legal trade in rhino horn, you are probably not pro-poaching (unless you are a poacher/involved in poaching activity of course), but by preventing a legal trade, we are giving the monopoly on trade in rhino horn to criminals. 

As a general rule, people want to help people. I've been speaking to a lot of people since the debate who are pro-trade and I've learnt even more about the work being done in South Africa to help move the discussions along. What I want to talk about in this post is who benefits from illegal trade and who would benefit from a legal trade in rhino horn. This post is about people. 

In a nutshell, the only people who benefit from illegal trade are people who benefit from the plight of rhinos. This is anyone who makes money from rhinos being endangered. The obvious ones are the poachers and criminal syndicates; the people in Africa who poach the rhinos and sell the horn overseas for lots of money. But it's not just them who benefit. Without being too cynical, some charities and NGOs could be benefitting from the endangered status of rhinos. If rhinos weren't endangered, their existence would be unnecessary. Now I'm not saying that some organisations don't want to help rhinos, because I believe they all do. I'm also not saying that anyone who doesn't support legal trade doesn't want to help rhinos, because again, I'm sure they do. But wanting to help rhinos, and helping rhinos, are two different things. The rhino situation is complex, and too many people are looking for a quick fix, or one sole solution. There isn't one. As I said in my previous post, if the ban on trade in rhino horn is lifted, this is not the end. This is really just the beginning of a long journey to increase rhino numbers. That's just the reality of it; you cannot save an entire species over night. Another thing people seem to do is compare other animals in similar situations, and try and find one solution that can cater to all. This is also not feasible. Every animal and every situation is different and should be treated as such. With rhinos, a legal trade has the potential to allow rhinos to save themselves. That's why, to me, not supporting legal trade is controversial. 

The only other group that benefit from illegal trade, are the people in China and Vietnam who are selling rhino horn products. They are able to sell them at extortionately high prices for the sole reason that they contain rhino horn. Therefore, they are making more money than they would, by exploiting people's beliefs. They even put rhino horn in everyday medicines, such as paracetamol, and up the price, charging people extremely high prices for something no better than your standard pain relief. The governments in these countries, and countries in Africa, are doing little to nothing to improve this situation. Either they don't care about losing rhinos or scamming people, or they have something to gain (probably money) from this too. 

Therefore, my rather short list of those who benefit from illegal trade in rhino horn includes criminals, corrupt governments and salesmen, and perhaps some corrupt charities and NGOs.

On a lighter note, I want to talk about who would benefit from a legal trade. As I said at the beginning, people want to help people. I think by knowing more about what a legal trade in rhino horn can do for people, more people will support it. 

John Hume's model for legal trade encourages rural communities to get involved in the breeding and care of rhinos. By giving rural communities rhinos to look after, they can make money from selling the horns. It also gives them work, and is self-sufficient.  There are organisations in place, ready to do this, but they need a legal trade for it to work. For animals in Africa to survive, the local people need to be involved. There are areas identified for rhino breeding projects to begin, and donors ready to supply the rhinos. A legal trade can instantly begin make a difference, and will help rural communities in Africa. 
Legal trade will also massively help the current rhino owners. Rhinos have the means to protect themselves, but under the current laws they are unable to do this. With a legal trade, rhino owners will be able to sell off the stockpiles they have of horn, and use the money to continue to protect their rhino. The money they make from selling the horn can help fund APUs (anti-poaching units), fund further de-horning, which needs to be done every couple of years (rhino horn grows back!!!) and everything else they are currently struggling to pay for to keep their rhinos healthy, safe and alive.
The last group of people I'm going to talk about, even though there are many more (all good things come in 3s), are the people in Asia who are buying rhino horn products. I'm not talking about the rich, who buy rhino horn as elaborate gifts and a sign of wealth and power (although a legal trade would benefit them too). I'm talking about the poor, who spend ridiculous amounts of money on medicine that doesn't work, because they've been told it'll cure their loved ones. In my previous post I talked about how some people say it's unethical to legally sell this. If it's unethical to legally sell it, it's certainly unethical to continue allowing it to be illegally sold. No one is denying this trade exists. Even the people who don't support legal trade are fully aware that illegal trade exists and on a large scale. If the selling of rhino horn medicines was legal, there would be regulations on it. Again, in my previous post I posed the idea of warnings on the packet, as we have with cigarettes in the UK, to tell people there is no evidence that rhino horn possesses medicinal value. With a legal and regulated trade, we can help to educate people that this medicine is not going to do what they believe it will do; it cannot cure cancer and it's not an aphrodisiac. Education is so important, but with an illegal trade, we cannot control what people are promised and ideas they are sold. With a legal trade, we can try. A legal trade can also regulate the price. By providing competition with the black market, the price will drop and the black markets will crumble. Even if poaching doesn't stop completely, as it probably won't, it will dramatically decrease. Why risk your life to poach a rhino for less money? Why buy a black market product when you can buy the same thing legally? 

A legal trade makes sense. What doesn't make sense, is acknowledging that there is a trade in rhino horn, and allowing the criminals to be the only people to profit from it. 
A lot of people who are against legal trade believe that educating the people in China, Vietnam and elsewhere, that they shouldn't buy rhino horn is a far better solution. If we went down this route and convinced people not to buy it, by the time we got anywhere we would all be dead and rhinos would be extinct in the wild. It's not sustainable or realistic. I'm a strong believer in the power of education and awareness, and believe we should never stop promoting the truth, but this will be so much easier and more successful when partnered with a legal trade. 
Save the rhino, not its horn. 

A couple of days ago my friend and I went to the debate at the Royal Institution of Great Britain on whether the trade of rhino horn should be legalised internationally. It was between John Hume, the largest private rhino breeder in South Africa, and Will Travers, the CEO and President of the Born Free Foundation, and moderated by Craig Packer, a professor of ecology. 

We voted for or against at the beginning and the end. The initial vote showed that 62% were against, 30% were for and 8% were undecided. After the debate, 60% were against and 39% were for, with only 1% undecided. Therefore, more people were against legal trade, but more people changed their mind to support John Hume. I'm sure you all can guess that I voted for both times. I was disappointed that not more people did. 

I don't know much about Will Travers and I do not want to overly criticise him, however I was surprised he won. The audience was very passionate and so the debate was actually an hour longer than expected, because people felt so strongly on both sides. 

To me, Will Travers seemed like a preservationist/protectionist. He talked about how we shouldn't interfere with nature and the wild should be left wild. He talked a lot about the risks associated with a legal trade. I wanted to ask him, although I didn't get the chance, at what point would he risk extinction? He never really acknowledged that rhinos are heading for extinction. We don't live in the ideal world he seemed to want where humans don't interfere with wildlife. Whether you think it's right or wrong, there reaches a point where it is necessary for the sake of the wildlife; conservation vs preservation. It's idealistic and I think it helped win people over. 

John Hume spoke a lot about his rhinos. He spoke with emotion and passion, and used his own life to demonstrate the rhino crisis. Although some people felt he was making too much of a point of his own rhinos, and Will Travers was talking more globally, I disagreed. I think it is so important to listen to the people who are actually looking after the rhinos. No one knows better than them exactly what problems they are facing. I think it is easy for people from London to go and listen to the debate, and hear some facts, figures and stories and then make a decision without fully understanding the issue. John Hume understands it better than anyone. Now I'm not saying to understand rhino poaching you have to go to Africa and live on a rhino reserve, but I think we should take into account what the people who are doing that think. It's their whole lives. When we don't listen to the people who fight this war every single day, then what's the point?

It also worries me because people like John Hume need our support. The results of this debate worried me because it showed that people will listen to a man in a nice suit over a rhino breeder. They are both experts in their field, and I do not doubt Will Travers' research and experience, but John Hume has given his money and life to this cause. He risks everything to help save these animals, and people didn't listen to him. 

What annoyed me about the debate was that Will Travers referred to other solutions that would be less risky and more helpful. As far as I can tell, he didn't name them. The only other solution I heard was to stamp out the demand. Members of the audience were vocal about this as they know that when the buying stops there will be no need for any trade in rhino horn, legal or otherwise. I do not dispute this. Of course I want to continue increasing awareness globally, and particularly in countries such as China and Vietnam that rhino horn has no medicinal purpose whatsoever, for their own sakes just as much as for the rhino's. However, I do not think we have enough time to do this before rhinos reach extinction in the wild. Time is not on our side and the market is too big. I think people who believe killing the market is the only solution, are naive. Will Travers tried to point out the negatives of a legal trade without presenting a realistic solution to replace this. 

Another argument Will Travers made was that it is arguably unethical to sell a product we know does not do what people who buy it think it does. I agree, but how many products do people buy on a daily basis that don't do what they think they're going to? Now this doesn't make it right, but its not as if it's unheard of. Secondly, as I said previously, education should work along side a legal trade. We should continue to tell people that rhino horn does not have medicinal value, even while selling the products legally. An analogy I sometimes use is smoking. When you buy cigarettes in the UK (and possibly elsewhere, I'm not sure) it says in big letters on the packet "Smoking Kills" or something similar, such as a nasty side effect, and a picture of often someone's lungs or arteries that have been effected by smoking. This is a legal requirement to make people aware of the health risks. 

People still smoke!

The moral of the story being, people are going to do what they want. If they like something or believe in it; they're going to buy it. I also think this analogy highlights a good way to package rhino horn products. In the ingredients section on the label I think it should read "keratin" and not rhino horn to remind people it's just hair, and it should even have written that there is no scientific proof that it has medicinal value. Then people know what they're buying, and it's their choice if they still buy it. This doesn't happen with illegal trade because there are no regulations. Legal trade has regulations that can be put in place and controlled. 

Will Travers made a point about a legal trade not necessarily meaning the end of poaching. He pointed out that if the price to buy rhino horn legally is say $30,000; then the poaching syndicates can sell rhino horn at $20,000. Obviously this makes sense at face value, but a legal trade will severely harm the black market. Rhino poaching is a very dangerous job. When you enter a reserve to poach a rhino, you are risking your life. It's appeal is the huge sums of money made (although of course those actually doing the poaching do not receive the bulk of this money, but it's still a lot more than they could make elsewhere). If this prize money gets lower and lower, it becomes less appealing. 

John Hume acknowledged that legal trade will probably not mark an end on all poaching, but it will dramatically decrease it. What John Hume did so well was focus on the fact we are talking about keeping a species alive. There's no easy option; no quick fix; no one solution. We have to do what we can, and fast, to prevent losing this iconic species. 

No one is arguing that a legal trade is perfect. No one is suggesting that we legalise the trade, sit back, relax and let things happen. It does not mark the end of saving rhinos. 

What I believe it can do, is bring the species back from the point of extinction. 

This blog post is my opinion. Obviously, based on the debate results and the opinions flying around the room, it is not the only opinion to have on the topic. I know not everyone will always share my view, but I urge people to consider what could happen to the species if a legal trade is not introduced. 

Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa

I have mentioned rhino horn trade several times already on this blog, namely here: Legalise the Rhino Horn Trade and here: Swaziland Propose Lifting the Ban to CITES. I have also written for LRRF about this (see this post). But I realised I have never properly explained on this blog why I support it so strongly. 

Now seems like a perfect time to talk about it, following the Ivory burning in Kenya a few days ago. Lots of people have asked my opinion on this, or asked me why it is happening. Kenya wanted to make a statement: a world without Ivory trade. 

Of course I sympathise with this idealism; a world without Ivory Trade, and rhino horn trade, is the ideal solution to an ever-growing problem. However, it is unsustainable. Burning the ivory has made elephants a bigger target. The poachers are now going to be even more eager for ivory as so much has been lost. 

This burn is a statement against legalising the trade, and although they may have had good intentions, it is not going to help elephants, or rhinos. Lifting the ban in trade seems like ridiculous notion. but it is becoming more and more necessary everyday. People fighting for it need to be listened to and it needs to be given a chance to show people it can work.

IMPORTANT: Lifting the ban on Ivory trade is unfortunately, NOT a solution. You cannot remove elephant tusks without harming the animals, and broken tusks can cause life threatening infections. However, it is certainly a solution for rhinos, and an important one. Hopefully I can explain to you why I think it will work. 

As I have said before, I am on the side of the private rhino owners. I do believe they are the main future for these animals; they know them so well and care so passionately. They also understand the extreme measures needed now for protecting them, how much it is currently costing them, and how unsustainable it is. 

The main reasons I support lifting the ban is that I believe it will actually work. Time is not on our side and so extreme action is needed. Many rhino owners have already de-horned their rhino, to protect them from poachers. Therefore, there are millions of dollars worth of rhino horn stock piled away. If trade was legalised, these could be sold and the owners could afford to protect their rhinos. The money would go back into conserving the species, and so would benefit the animals. 

If the trade was legal, the black market price would come crashing down, and so the dangers and costs associated with poaching would be a lot less desirable. 

Another key reason I support legalising trade is so that rhinos as a species become economically valuable. You can safely remove a rhino's horn without hurting the animals, and especially without brutally murdering them. More funding would go into breeding programmes, to increase the population; the more rhinos, the more rhino horn there is to sell. 

This comes back to the old conservation vs preservation argument, which I wrote about here. A lot of people I have spoken to about this issue think it's wrong, or even cruel to de-horn a rhino. I agree that it is not ideal, and of course I wish it wasn't necessary. But there are very few things more cruel than the inhumane and utterly brutal way rhinos are murdered by poachers. 

This is just a brief explanation as to why I agree with lifting the ban, and I would love to hear what you guys think about it. If you want to read more on this, check out LRRF's blog as there is more detail on how this change can come about, and/or my other previous posts about this (use the LRRF quick-link). I hope I can convince you that lifting the ban will help, and we can together spread this idea and help bring out important change. 

#LiftTheBan

Swaziland have made the decision to propose lifting the ban on rhino horn trade to CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). 

In my post entitled "Legalise the Rhino Horn Trade" (click here), I spoke about how South Africa did not choose to do this, and how really the proposition needed to come from South Africa. The proposal from Swaziland is much less likely to work than if it had come from South Africa (which still had no guarantee of working).

BUT this decision is important and will start important conversations that need to happen. It has brought this issue right into the forefront of conversation, and will be formally discussed and voted on at the CITES Conference of Parties in Johannesburg in September. 

This is why this proposal is so important. It means this issue has been given a voice; and will be discussed at the biggest conference on illegal trade in the world. 

"100% of the proceeds from the sale of rhino horn are taken by criminals, while rhino custodians pay 100% of the costs of rhino protection" - quote from the guardian article on this announcement. 

I fully support Swaziland in their proposal and wish them luck this September. I congratulate them for speaking out when South Africa didn't. I hope they know how many people want this change to happen, and how determined we all are that it will. This is an important step towards saving our rhino, and I hope CITES sees that. I hope CITES take this seriously, and put the value of the rhino above the greed of the rich and powerful.

#LiftTheBan