Interested parties and stakeholders have started making submissions to the committee of inquiry investigating the “feasibility of a rhino horn trade” ahead of the 17th Conference of Parties (CoP17) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which takes place in 2016. Should the committee take a position to legalise trade, SA will lobby CITES to lift the current ban on trade of rhino horn.

Opening the session, Nana Magomola, who is chairing the committee, emphasised that no decision on trade had been made. “The department has not taken a position in terms of rhino trade,” she said. “That is why it is important that we hear what different parties have to say.”

The panel heard 19 submissions on Tuesday and will be hearing more for the remainder of the week. While a few organisations did not take a position for or against trade, presenting instead on current technology available that the panel should consider, the majority of presentations were passionately for or against trade. The one thing agreed by all parties was the urgent need to conserve rhinos in the face of poaching, which has soared in recent years.

On the pro-trade side were many private rhino owners who emphasised the high costs of securing rhinos, often at personal risk, and argued that legalising rhino horn trade would provide the funds necessary to conserve the species.

Carmela Lattanzi, a private rhino owner, said that it cost millions to protect rhinos and owners were being forced to sell their rhino because they could no longer afford the security required to prevent poaching.  She emphasised that the challenge was particularly difficult for private owners who did not receive any support from the state and were also excluded from the donations to State entities such as SANParks. Lattanzi said trade should be legalised so that the profits could be invested in conservation.

Jacques Malan, President of Wildlife Ranching SA, likewise argued that legalising trade would provide the funds necessary to secure rhinos. Both Malan and Lattanzi said that DNA profiling could be used to prevent the laundering of poached rhino. They also called for more support from government, suggesting tax rebates on rhino losses. Malan said owners lost R500 000 for every rhino poached.

Representing the Balepye and Selwane communities, Reubin Malema, said the communities were in favour of trade because they needed the income that trade could generate. He explained that the communities were land claim beneficiaries with land that was used by game farmers, but these businesses would be forced to close down if trade was not legalised because they could not afford to protect rhino.

Malema argued that trade should be legalised in a way that included communities, who would then be incentivised to protect rhinos. “A hungry man is a dangerous man,” he said, adding that communities would be a threat to rhinos if they were not considered.

Those against trade warned that legalising trade would increase demand for rhino horn to unsustainable levels, while a legalised trade was not unlikely to decrease poaching. Adam Welz, of WildAid, also warned that legalising trade would undo the work of demand reduction campaigns. Welz said the organisation had engaged with governments on its campaigns and had experienced success. For example, he said following engagement with the Chinese government, it was rolling out a ban on shark fin at state functions and the country has seen an 82% drop in sales between 2012 and 2014.

Claire Atwood, who was representing the Network for Animals on behalf of David Barritt, also warned that legalising trade would legitimise rhino horn consumption and reawaken dormant markets. She also called on the government to make rhino crime a higher national priority, work in partnership with NGOs and scale up its diplomatic efforts with Vietnam, one of the largest consumer countries for rhino horn. She also called on the government to burn its rhino horn stockpile to send a strong message to the world.

Conservationist Colin Bell warned that CITES was unlikely to lift the ban on rhino horn trade. He pointed out that SA was out of step with international sentiment, adding that 67 countries had signed a declaration against trade in endangered species. Bell also argued that SA was unable to meet the demand for rhino horn should trade be legalised.

Bell also suggested that, because of the increasing costs of protecting rhinos, a fund should be started that could be used to cover these costs. He suggested that this be collected by the tourism industry in a similar form to the TOMSA levy, with 1% added to guest bills. Like the TOMSA levy, this would be on a voluntary basis and would be added to the bill and not come out of the profit margin, Bell explained.