News & updates


Originally published in Business Day.

The contribution of the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to the conservation of African rhino over the past 40 years has been ineffective. Their trade ban has been a failure but there has been little attention paid to changing strategy. There is no indication that CITES will be of any value to rhino in the future. The continental picture is that CITES has been of little net value to African wildlife. Again, there is no indication that the future will be any different.

CITES is an anachronism that lives and grows without being very effective and yet it is supported by national environmental agencies. Why? Perhaps, the reason is that it is established and countries like to belong to a large international organisation that appears to have some purpose. Also, all the rules and permits give bureaucrats more power and they like that. Significantly, it provides the bureaucrats with frequent and luxurious travel opportunities, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Donor agencies (NGOs) like it because it underwrites continued conservation crises and that gives the agencies purpose. Criminals love it because it allows them a trade monopoly and large profits.

It makes no sense for South Africa to belong to CITES in its current form. Either CITES must change and become more effective or we should resign. But, we make no attempt to change CITES and we are far from having the courage to resign. Instead, we are in awe of and kowtow to an organisation that may well do more harm than good.

An example of this absurdity is the current debate around domestic trade in rhino horn in South Africa. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) is currently testing public opinion on all manner of costly regulations, permits and penalties to restrict internal trade. Why should South Africans not be entitled to trade horn domestically in the same way as we are allowed to trade everything else? Because, DEA are afraid that unrestricted domestic trade will lead to the export of horns, which would be in contravention of CITES’s rules.

Market logic suggests that supplying the market with horn (blood free) will reduce poaching and reducing poaching is what we all want. So, horn leaking out of the country would be a good thing for rhino but a bad thing for CITES compliance.

There should be no restriction on internal trade and if horn leaks out, which it will, then that will be good for rhino. It will not be good for the pretence of CITES having control over the horn market, but our rhino are more important than maintaining that fallacy. It may even be an inducement for CITES to change and to regulate a legal horn trade, sensibly, rather than banning trade which has not worked and will never work and simply enriches criminals and

charlatans. About 1,100 poached horn-sets, with a retail value of R3.4 billion, are exported annually without any attention being paid to CITES’s rules.

CITES needs to change and, for one thing, incorporate the potential to appeal decisions made at Conferences of the Parties (CoPs), such as the illogical decision not to allow Swaziland to sell its horn. If there was an “Appeal Court” that reviewed and disallowed illogical decisions, that would make a big difference to the standard of debate and decision making at the CoPs and to the effectiveness of CITES.

Parks in Africa need the income that horn and ivory could provide and that income can only come from legitimate exports. Preventing parks, which are essential to conservation in Africa, from earning much needed income, just hastens their demise.

South Africa needs to spend its time and money on finding conservation solutions rather than propping up a system that has been and is a failure.

Michael Eustace 27th February 2017

Related content


New rhino conservation approach

By Emmanuel Koro. Originally published in The Herald. Against a background where it has been losing approximately 3 394 rhinos annually to poaching, with one


Rah-rah for rhino reserves!

By Tanya Jacobsen. Originally published on Rhinos throughout South Africa are being brutally killed for their horns. In this article, I would like to

IWMC Feature

Conservation Influencers

Conservation Influencers is a searchable directory of the animal activist, environmental and ecological lobby. It examines the history, mission, methodology and reputation of NGOs to assess their impact on the global conservation cause.

Franz Weber Foundation

From 1990 until 2015, Franz Weber Foundation (FFW) managed the Fazao-Malfakassa National Park in Togo, which was, according to an in-depth investigation by Duke University, ‘established by forcing the local communities off their land and without taking into consideration their point of view’. That same study cited convincing evidence from reports published in 1990, confirming that competition for land use was already ‘creating conflict between the local communities and park managers’. In 2015 Togo refused to renew FFW’s contract because, the report says, ‘local communities were still excluded from the management of the natural resources of their land’ and FFW had ‘failed to fulfil its contract’. Franz Weber Foundation plays a major role within CITES because it funds and manages from Switzerland the African Elephant Coalition (AEC), which represents 32 African range states, some of which have barely any elephants and others none at all. Contrary to the wishes of the range states in Southern Africa, which manage most of the world’s wild elephant populations, the AEC at CITES’ CoPs repeatedly tables proposals to put all of the world’s elephants in appendix I. And the AEC uses its voting power to keep in place prohibitions on ivory sales and all other trade in elephant-related derivatives, including skins and hair, which Southern African nations wish to legalise.