By Alex Chen ’20, Commentary Writer

Recently, China has planned for the legalization of the rhinoceros horn trade. This is an overturn of the 1993 ban that limited that practice. On the surface, this overturn is alarming considering the history of China’s trade, but looking at it more deeply, one can better understand China’s decision.

China has a tumultuous history in regards to the wildlife trade. China is one of the largest consumers of some of the most endangered creatures on the planet. From elephant ivory, shark fin, tiger bone, pangolin scales and rhino horn, all of these items have a market within China. Most of this demand stems from these items having use in traditional Chinese medicine. Many of the consumers are rich businessmen, who have no trouble paying the exorbitant price that these products can reach. Tiger bone wine can go upwards of $80 a bottle. Shark fins are $65 per kg. Elephant ivory is currently at $730 per kg. Pangolin scales are $3k per kg. Rhino horn can reach upwards of $60k per kg, more than gold or even cocaine. This high price has made this trade so lucrative that the black market for these items has become a major issue for countries such as Vietnam and China.

The Chinese government has taken strides in reducing this trade, most notably in the illegal ivory market. In 2015 a joint agreement between China and the United States was made to almost completely ban the import and export of ivory goods. This meant however that some legal institutions in the ivory trade was kept legal within the Chinese market such as ivory carving. This is accompanied by a similar action taken in 2008 where a one-off sale of legally obtained ivory products were sold by African countries to licensed ivory traders in China. In December of 2017, however, the Chinese government agreed to completely ban the trade and manufacturing of ivory, marking a great leap forward in the protection of elephants.

It is a reasonable proposition to suggest that legalizing trade in ivory would increase the amount of corresponding smuggling. However, that claim is not supported by the data on the issue. CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, has studied the illegal ivory trade since 1999, and there has been no correlation found between the controlled ivory sales and poaching. Poaching seemed to be more related to the instability of the country and its inability to limit said practice.

This in turn means that we can learn from China’s past experience from its dealing with the ivory trade. It follows a gradual sort of pattern, in which the trade is slowly discouraged and dismantled following an initial ban. This sort of pattern has been proved to work in China in regards to ivory, and if logic is correct should similarly apply to rhino horns. The only part that needs to have continual work is the persuasion of public opinion, as getting rid of the idea of ivory being a sign of wealth could be a tricky one. This issue is being addressed according to National Geographic. “Working with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildaid, China Wildlife Conservation Association, and the China-based SEE Foundation, an environmental NGO, there will be posters, videos, and articles spread across traditional and social media outlets telling people to protect endangered elephants by respecting the law and saying ‘no to ivory.’”

There has been some valid criticism. The UNEP, among other UN agencies, has called this act “alarming”. To quote the UNEP, “To allow rhino horn and tiger bones to re-enter the market also falsely indicates that these products have medical value. We don’t know the impact this will have on stimulating demand.” This is a valid claim as elephant ivory was more or less only for decoration and not used in traditional medicines. Plus, the rhino market is much more lucrative than the elephant market. As rhino numbers continue to dwindle, prices of rhino horns will only go up. This highlights an important issue: regulation won’t solve poaching as it only pushes the poachers into more illegal actions to stimulate demand for rhino horns. As an anonymous interviewee  put it, in regards to saving the animals, “the solution is to allocate more resources into monitoring the individual animals,” rather than through government regulation. “The conservation efforts should be decided on by the Chinese. Their Country their rights.” A more controversial opinion was given by a person who has chosen to remain anonymous, stating that, “Who’s to say that letting rhinos get poached to extinction is a problem? If that is how natural selection takes place then so be it. We should not intervene in nature’s way.” Whether or not this argument is valid boils down to a matter of principle. The general ethos is to save endangered species, however a minority do believe that this goes against nature’s ways, and as such this fundamental difference is one that cannot be argued.

Legalizing rhino horn is a risky game for China to play. As The Conversation, an independent nonprofit media outlet, put it, “Whichever side of the debate you stand on, the priority should be conservation outcomes and making sure that China’s newly legalised domestic horn trade strengthens rather than dangerously undermines rhino protection efforts.” The Javan and Sumatran Rhinoceros species are very near extinction. The range of tigers has dramatically decreased and there are barely 4,000 tigers in existence today. The shark population has been almost wiped out by illegal fishing, with many species of shark losing more than 80% of their population since the 1970s. All pangolin species are facing population decline as well. If one of these species went extinct, this would create a massive imbalance in the ecosystem that most do not want to see the end result of.

Ultimately, the issue of conservation does fall onto countries own individual efforts to make their own policies, as the United Nations lacks the authority to impose these laws onto countries. It is fair to assume that the similar policies used for the elephant ivory trade will work for the rhino horn trade in limiting usage in China, as the ivory strategy’s success would indicate so. This would help limit to limit demand for the rhino horns, driving the price down, however Rhino horns would still be lucrative at such a price. Limiting demand is the easy part. We can raise prices, promote anti-ivory campaigns, and even outright ban it. Destroying the supplier is the hard part, and it may not be feasible. However feasible it is, this step is surely in the right direction for conservation.