Trade in all rhino products was banned by CITES in 1977 because it was judged too difficult to regulate. However, as is so often the case, the prohibition has failed to protect rhino populations in the wild, which continue to be hunted illegally while the existing stockpile of horns remains untouched. Such a situation inevitably, if unintentionally, rewards the poachers.

Meanwhile, financial resources for managing the National Parks are drying up, further threatening protection programs. Revenue from the sale of horns and ivory would be used to promote conservation.

The backing of other Sustainable Use countries will be necessary for the livelihood of South Africans working in the private games ranches, and to all those who wish to enjoy the nation’s wildlife. However, IWMC is concerned that this assistance may be less forthcoming than would have been expected because of South Africa’s recent inconsistencies on similar issues in international flora.

South Africa has recently irked its fellow advocates of sustainable use in two ways. First, it switched horses by opposing the principle of sustainable use for other species, such as the abundant minke whale, in order to gain some favor with animal rights campaigners. Second, it has actually paid off fundamentalist NGOs that oppose it, exchanging its sovereignty for cash from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). South Africa even opposed a resolution, proposed by Caribbean nations at the last meeting of the International Whaling Commission, that condemned NGOs for trying to subjugate the sovereign rights of nation states.

While scratching the backs of hard line opponents of sustainable use brought in $2.5 million for the National Parks Board in 1996 (in return for a guarantee not to submit a proposal to resume international trade in elephant products), the longer term damage to South Africa’s interests is substantial. The touted boost in eco-tourism did not materialize and IFAW, along with other militant campaign groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), continue to oppose any international trade in endangered (by their own standards) species. This should be no surprise since both groups earn over $65 million each year from these campaigns. The result for South Africa is that on the one hand it has little money for conservation and, on the other, it espouses inconsistent policies that undermine its overall arguments.

As with all racketeering schemes, the sale of sovereignty in one year did not guarantee support from campaigners in future years. South Africa may justifiably portray itself as a victim, rather than an accomplice, in these arrangements, but they should now publicly dissociate themselves from both IFAW and HSUS. It is time South Africa woke up to the perils of scratching the backs of opponents and reaffirmed its support for mainstream sustainable use conservationism, in the best interest of its people and wildlife.