Christian James

February 24, 2017

Advanced Writing in the Sciences
Literature Analysis: Conservation of the Rhinoceros and Prevention of
Poaching
Background
South Africa harbors approximately 95% of the worlds white rhinoceros and
approximately 40% of the black rhinoceros. The white rhinoceros is considered
threatened, while the black rhinoceros is considered critically endangered. It is
because of their threatened status that conservation efforts are in place all over
southern Africa, specifically the Kruger National Park of South Africa. The
rhinoceroses are in such danger specifically because of illegal horn trade that has
targeted them for decades. A rhino horn is in especially high demand in many Asian
countries, where it is considered a traditional medicine, and it holds nearly as much
value as gold or narcotics (Biggs et al., 2012). A 2015 estimate supposes that if
poaching levels rise at current levels, the white rhino population in Kruger National
Park will fall from 8394-9564 in 2013 to 2879-3263 in 2018, which is a loss of about
two thirds (Ferreira et al., 2015). As the poaching industry is not slowing down,
other conservation efforts must be improved. Here, various articles have been
examined for ways to prevent poaching and improve conservation techniques to
ensure the survival of the rhinoceros. The information is organized into two broad
categories: ex situ policies (off-site) and in situ policies (on-site) and further
broken down therein.

Ex Situ Policies
Ex situ policies focus on undermining the demand for rhino horns, as well as
attacking the criminal organizations that employ poaching groups. These are two
parts of the larger goal of disrupting the horn market. In addition, ex situ
conservation efforts intend to cultivate and protect species away from their original
habitat. Ex situ policies are more general and theoretical than in situ policies, as
getting countries to cooperate has proven to be difficult
When attacking the market, modification of consumer behavior is one
method of alleviating the demand for horns. Such policies aim to educate the
consumers on the negative impact of poaching and demonstrate the lack of actual
medicinal qualities of the horns (Crookes et al., 2016). Educational policies can also
be aimed at local communities affected by poaching and hunter behavior
modification, but those are examples of in situ policies. In both cases, though,
supporting consumer education in Asia or supporting local (South African)
communities would strengthen the first line of defense against poachers, and
protect all species in an ecosystem rather than just rhinos (Hayward et al., 2017).
 On an international level, trade bans have been proposed to curb consumer
demand, but there are examples of them doing more harm than good. A trade ban
instituted by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
was intended to reduce demand, however rising income in Asian countries has
increased demand and has rendered the ban somewhat moot. As a consequence of
the resultant price escalation, an elimination of the trade ban would result in a
flooding of the horn market, reducing prices and thereby making the industry less
profitable (Crookes et al., 2016).
Aryal et al. propose that the entire globe should focus on international
collaboration to reduce rhino poaching, such as sharing intelligence, linking existing
initiatives, and improving trans-border planning. Basically, various nations should
work together like the multiagency partners in Nepal that support local communities
and are backed by legislation and effective enforcement policies (2017). Ferreira et
al. also state that countries targeted by poaching should work together to improve
legal agreements, preventing poachers from accessing the source (2016).
Additionally, conservation itself can be an ex situ process, by migrating
animals to an area outside of their natural habitat. For example, the Australian
Rhino Project (ARP) is a proposed movement to import about 80 rhinos from South
Africa to Australia. The intention is to create an insurance population in order to
build the species back up in the likely event of population extinction in Africa.
Though a well-intentioned movement, Hayward et al. have some arguments against
the ARP.
They argue that the required funds (over $US4 million) will be taken away
from in situ conservation policies. In addition, exporting 80 rhinos out of South
Africa is low priority considering the 706 white rhinos in captivity in zoos by the end
of 2011, plus another 141 already imported to China since 2000, which are all
sufficient for maintaining the populations genetic diversity. They also mention that
funds would be better spent educating Asian consumers to reduce demand for rhino
horns (an aforementioned ex situ policy) (Hayward et al., 2017)
Crookes notes that the effectiveness of many ex situ policies is inconclusive,
and that due to the potential risks associated, other policy options must be
considered, especially in situ management policies (2016).

In Situ Policies
In situ policies focus on eliminating the supply of rhino horns, through
attacking poachers and enforcing private area management. In situ conservation
has a primary goal of maintaining genetic diversity and a self-sustaining
population/ecosystem in the original habitat.
When considering effective anti-poaching policies, Aryal et al. analyzed the
poaching effort in Nepal; from 2011 to 2015, the country had zero poaching,
demonstrating the success of its legislation. In comparison, the number of poaching
arrests has actually decreased in South Africa, and there are no strict penalties for
rhino poaching in Mozambique (2017).
In terms of legislation, Nepal now incurs greater penalties for poaching and
has streamlined its judicial system when it comes to wildlife crimes. Park authorities
now have greater power, including the ability to issue fines and imprison criminals,
allowing for more efficient control of poaching, specifically of rhinos. Additionally,
Nepal established the National Wildlife Crime Control Coordination Committee
(NWCCCC) that provides intelligence on poachers and smugglers, as well as
implementing more efficient ground forces (Aryal et al., 2017). The changes to
Nepals system can provide a baseline for the future of South African policies
concerning poaching.
As Crookes et al. explain, other anti-poaching efforts can come in the form of
extreme command and control measures. These measures are considered
extreme because they combat poaching on game reserves in a militaristic manner,
and some proposed measures would result in the dissolution of scientific services in
favor of military centers. These measures can make use of sophisticated
biotechnology, such as radio-frequency identification tags, DNA testing, and even
satellite imagery. However, low-income countries may rely heavily on shoot-to-kill
enforcement (Crookes et al., 2016).
One such sophisticated biotechnology is being researched in the form of
miniature real-time anti-poaching tags. Animals (not just rhinos) would be outfitted
with bio-loggers that provide real-time information on poaching events and can
relay the data accurately and efficiently to ranger teams. The purpose of the real-
time technology is to expedite the legal actions taken by the rangers, as they
regularly arrive to the crime scene days or even weeks late and are unsuccessful
in arresting the poachers. The system is estimated to raise an alarm within
approximately ten seconds, and poachers would be able to reach the site within
tens of minutes via helicopter, with drones arriving even sooner. The proposed
biologging system involves outfitting animals with miniature electronic tags that
sense the death of the animal and transmit the information to satellites or ground
receivers, after which it is transmitted directly to anti-poaching forces. In order to
make the tags more effective, multiple sensors could be used with a single tag, so
that an alarm is only triggered if multiple sensors are tripped. In order to alleviate
some of the costs of implementing the technology, the researchers propose
distributing dummy tags on parts of the populations, so that poachers would be led
to believe all the animals are tagged (ODonoghue et al., 2017).
In contrast to the more severe actions taking place in South Africa, nonviolent
actions can be taken by removing rhinos from areas that are focal points for
poachers, such as areas near international borders, and translocating them to areas
of lower risk (Ferreira et al., 2015). The tags mentioned above also have a less
severe end-goal of acting more as a deterrent to poachers, creating an unfavorable
cost-benefit ratio for hunters, and allowing for more arrests rather than shoot-to-kill
enforcement (ODonoghue et al., 2017). Additionally, hunter behavior modifications
are a form of peaceful efforts; these involve creation of hunting seasons, species
restrictions, and firearm restrictions, which begin to fall under the category of
private area management (Crookes et al., 2016).
Private area management policies are intended to limit access to the horn
supply. In South Africa currently, private property rights are not being enforced, and
large game reserves are experiencing difficulty in defending from hunters. This is
evident in South Africas Kruger National Park, as in 2014, 68% of the countrys
poached rhinos came from the reserve. The Kruger National Park also borders the
Sabi Sand game reserve (the two have different laws concerning poaching), and
some areas lack fences, allowing open access between the two (Crookes et al.,
2016). Enforcing private property rights would help protect the species within the
National Park and increase the effectiveness of in situ conservation efforts; private
properties can be emphasized in order to help create a more sustainable rhino
population than would be found in publicly accessible areas.
In situ conservation itself is important for the conservation of not only rhinos,
but the threatened fauna (like elephants and lions) that occupy the same areas as
wild rhinos, and the parasites commonly associated with rhinos that lend
themselves to the development of a rhinos immune system (Hayward et al., 2017).
In order to increase birth rates and decrease mortality in the populations, Ferreira et
al. propose removing rhinos from areas of density-dependent population regulation,
and/or moving them to areas with more rainfall, allowing access to more forage and
water resources. Most importantly, moving the populations allows management to
focus operations on smaller areas, allowing for both stronger governance and better
protection from poachers (2015). A strong foundation between the parks and the
local communities in Nepal allows for a third of park incomes to be distributed to the
rural communities, which in turn can be allocated towards in situ conservation
initiatives, again improving the efforts (Aryal et al., 2017).

Conclusion
Conservation of the rhinoceros is a multi-step process. Not only must ex situ
policies be in place to dismantle criminal organizations that fund poaching and
lower the demand for horns, but in situ policies must be in place to stop poachers
on-site and protect private reserves. In addition, both ex situ and in situ policies
must be in place to actually conserve and allow species to flourish, rather than just
defending from outside threats.
I propose that that threatened countries create an international wildlife crime
control committee (basically Nepals NWCCCC on a grander scale). The international
committee would focus on 1) dismantling the poaching business by enforcing
stricter policies on criminal networks, 2) dismantling the poaching business by
providing large scale education on the lack of benefits from use of rhino horns to
both the consumers (Asian market) and the hunters (local communities), 3)
enforcing the private property rights and regulations for game reserves and
providing funding for the areas, allowing for hunting/species/firearm restrictions
where applicable (not for rhinos specifically, as they are endangered and serve no
commercial purpose), and 4) boosting conservation efforts intended to maintain
genetic diversity and population sustainability.
To approach the matter of international criminal activity, intelligence should
be exchanged between countries, and an active police force should be able to
more easily make arrests and expedite the process of prosecuting criminals.
Different countries have different laws, which creates a legal barrier, but new laws
can be made in order to increase the effectiveness of the judicial systems. Basically,
legal agreements need to be improved between countries.
The horn market can be easily downsized by large scale education efforts,
particularly focusing on younger generations. The legal enforcement mentioned
above will approach the issue of current buyers/sellers and education will help
prevent newcomers from entering the market. Educational policies can also raise
awareness as to why rhinos need to be conserved, and can potentially lead to
stronger conservation efforts for all species.
Enforcing private property rights allows reserves to maintain protection and
increases the effectiveness of anti-poaching rangers. With more funding, rangers
will be able to implement new technology, like the real-time anti-poaching tags,
allowing for fewer bloody conflicts and higher criminal apprehension rates.
Stronger anti-poaching forces also creates more deterrents for the poachers,
helping to downsize criminal activity.
Finally, boosting ecological conservation and maintaining the species
diversity is the end-goal for all the efforts listed above. In situ efforts are best,
allowing for the maintenance of the populations in their natural habitat, which in
turn conserves more than just rhinos. Exporting rhinos to another country would not
be ideal, when the chances of survival are slimmer and the original ecosystem may
be disrupted, and that money could be better applied elsewhere. Moving rhinos to
zoos is an entirely different ethical discussion, and does not have a place in this
analysis at this time.
In conclusion, many steps can and need to be taken to preserve the
rhinoceros. Focusing solely on ecological conservation or solely on stopping the
criminal networks behind poaching are not enough. All of the above efforts must be
implemented in conjunction with one another in order to get the most effective
result.

Works Cited
Aryal, A., Acharya, K. P., Shrestha, U. B., Dhakal, M., Raubenhiemer, D. and Wright,
W. (2017), Global lessons from successful rhinoceros conservation in Nepal.
Conservation Biology. Accepted Author Manuscript. doi:10.1111/cobi.12894
Biggs, D, Courchamp, F, Martin, R & Possingham, HP, 2012. Legal trade of Africas
rhino horns. Science 339, 10381039
Crookes, Douglas J. and Blignaut, James N. (2016), A categorisation and evaluation
of rhino management policies. Development Southern Africa, 33:459-469.
Ferreira SM, Greaver C, Knight GA, Knight MH, Smit IPJ, Pienaar D (2015) Disruption
of Rhino Demography by Poachers May Lead to Population Declines in Kruger
National Park, South Africa. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127783. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0127783
Hayward, M. W., Ripple, W. J., Kerley, G. I. H., Landman, M., Plotz, R. D. and Garnett,
S. T. (2017), Neocolonial Conservation: Is Moving Rhinos to Australia Conservation
or Genetic Theft?. CONSERVATION LETTERS. Accepted Author Manuscript.
doi:10.1111/conl.12354
O'Donoghue, P. and Rutz, C. (2016), Real-time anti-poaching tags could help prevent
imminent species extinctions. J Appl Ecol, 53: 510. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12452