Ceratotherium simum (Burchell, 1817)
LEGAL STATUS
The Rhinoceros was listed on Appendix 1 of CITES in 1977, thus international trade in this species is prohibited. Laws controlling trade in rhino horn have been tightened since 1992. In October 1993 Korea, one of the major importers of rhino horn, joined
CITES. However, Yemen, another significant importer, still remains a non party.14 Oman issued a Ministerial decision banning the importation of rhino horn, effective from 18 October 1994. Penalties for violation of the legi
slation will be set at a later date.4 All countries protect rhinos under national legislation however, levels of enforcement vary and poaching remains widespread.8,9
On 11 April 1994 the USA imposed limited trade sanctions on Taiwan and threatened similar action against China because of their failure to stop illegal trade in rhino horn and tiger bone. This represented the first use of the Pelly Amendment (1978) of the
US Fisheries Act. This authorizes the use of trade sanctions if countries are identified by the US Secretary of the Interior as diminishing the effectiveness of any international programme for endangered or threatened species. Within 10 days Taiwan annou
nced a US $38m programme to strengthen protection of endangered species and clamp down on illegal trade in wildlife.8
At the 8th CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP) in Kyoto 1992, Zimbabwe and South Africa submitted a proposal to initiate controlled trade in rhino horn from dehorned animals and existing stockpiles.9 It is argued that, des
pite the trade ban, rhino populations are still declining and legalising trade would allow the use of rhino horn stockpiles to satisfy market demand thus simultaneously reducing the demand for poached goods whilst providing the funds for effective conserv
ation programmes.7,9 Stockpiles in Zimbabwe alone could satisfy the market demand for horn used in traditional oriental medicines for the next 10 years. Likewise, dehorning approximately 60 rhinos could supply Taiwan's requi
rements. This proposal was subject to considerable debate.7
The 9th CITES CoP (Florida 1994) urged Parties to identify, mark, register and secure any stocks of rhino horn they may hold. This overturned a previous resolution (1987) to destroy all stocks. This was considered inappropriate because of evidence that th
e destruction of horn stocks can actually cause prices to escalate as perceived supply diminishes. South Africa also won approval to transfer its population of Southern White Rhino to Appendix II of CITES for the purpose of sale of live animals and as hun
ting trophies. This decision will be reviewed at the next CoP.26
<---- Contents
|