Red List of South African Species

Alternatively, Explore species
| National Red List categories | Partners |
Near Threatened (NT)
Assessors: Richard Emslie Keryn Adcock
Contributors: Matthew Child Craig Hilton-Taylor Carlo Rondinini Sam Ferreira Ben Okita Robert Brett Jo Shaw Kirsty Brebner Yolan Friedmann
Reviewers: Michael Hoffmann Mike Knight Dave Balfour Resit Akçakaya

Rationale

The White Rhino was brought back from the brink of extinction due to colonial overhunting and clearing of land for agriculture with only an estimated 20–50 animals left in 1895. These survived in one population in the Umfolozi area of what today is Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), South Africa. Umfolozi was proclaimed as one of Africa’s first Game Reserves in part to conserve the last few remaining White Rhino living there. Under protection, numbers increased, though by 1960 all remaining White Rhino still occurred in only one population. However, following the development of immobilisation and translocation techniques in the 1960s by the then Natal Parks Board, the process of re-establishing subpopulations of White Rhino into its former range began in 1961 with animals also being moved to zoos and safari parks worldwide. This combination of protection and biological management (translocations to keep established subpopulations productive whilst creating additional new subpopulations with the potential for growth) resulted in a rapid increase in numbers of White Rhino subpopulations, including those on private land and in former range states throughout Africa, such as Swaziland during the early 1980s. Regionally and continentally numbers continued to increase between 1992 and 2010. However, since 2008, increased poaching and the growing involvement of transnational organised crime networks have decelerated growth in numbers at a continental level, which represents an emerging threat to this subspecies. Estimated total White Rhino numbers in Africa showed a 0.4% / annum decline from 2012–15, although this was not statistically significant and within the margin of error around count estimates.

In recent years, South Africa as the major range state, and Kruger National Park (KNP) in particular, has borne the brunt of the White Rhino poaching. Encouragingly in 2015, poaching in South Africa declined for the first time since 2008. Current successful protection efforts in both South Africa and Swaziland have depended on significant range state expenditure and effort. Declining state budgets for conservation in real terms, declining capacity in some areas, rapidly escalating security costs and risks, declining economic incentives and increasing involvement of transnational organised crime in poaching and trafficking are all of concern. 

Red List modelling for this assessment examined what would happen under a range of poaching and underlying growth scenarios. For a detailed description and rationale behind the approaches taken see the Black Rhinoceros (hereafter Black Rhino; Diceros bicornis) assessment (Emslie & Adock 2016). Given the high levels of poaching, increasing disposable income in Southeast Asian consumer countries, and the fact that, in the absence of existing conservation measures, the subspecies would probably quickly decline, it is justified for the White Rhino to be listed as Near Threatened A4ad as a genuine uplisting within the assessment region. Rhino population estimates are revised by IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG) every 2–3 years with surveys of the status of White Rhino on private land every few years. It is planned to move to a system of annual status reporting in South Africa. This assessment will thus be revised regularly to monitor the impacts of poaching. 

Key interventions for this subspecies include enhanced protection efforts and enforcement of penalties combined with ongoing range expansion and reintroduction in the short-term, combined with demand reduction campaigns in the long-term. In parallel, there is a need to integrate and involve local communities more in the conservation effort and associated benefits; increase economic incentives for rhino ownership; and find ways to sustainably fund conservation efforts and associated benefits. White Rhino remain conservation dependent due to the immediacy of mitigating the poaching threat and because many subpopulations are restricted to small, fenced reserves or wildlife ranches, necessitating active translocation to conserve genetic diversity. 

Regional population effects: South Africa remains the stronghold of the White Rhino population and thus no significant rescue effects are anticipated. If South African and Swaziland populations were to decline significantly, a similar trend would be expected in other range states and thus unlikely to be in a position where they would have surplus rhinos available for restocking.

Distribution

The White Rhino is now the most numerous of the rhino taxa, having ranged from Morocco to South Africa in the Pleistocene (Skinner & Chimimba 2005), with South Africa remaining the stronghold for this subspecies despite increased poaching. Sizeable populations occur in the greater Kruger National Park (KNP) (which incorporates adjacent private and state reserves) and Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), but also occur in numerous state-protected areas and private reserves throughout the country. For the latest numbers by country see Emslie et al. (2016). At the end of 2015, South Africa and Swaziland conserved 90.7% of the continent’s White Rhino, an estimated 18,413 and 76 individuals respectively out of a total of 20,378. Live sales, limited sport hunting and ecotourism have historically provided incentives that helped encourage a significant expansion of range and numbers on private land in South Africa. The private sector in South Africa now conserves more White Rhino than there are Black and White Rhinos in the whole of the rest of Africa. By the end of 2015, a third of South Africa’s White Rhino (~ 6,140) were conserved on private land. However, increased poaching, increased security costs, increasing numbers of incidents deemed threatening to human life, and perceived reduced incentives for their conservation, have resulted in reduced White Rhino live sale prices and an increasing number of owners seeking to remove their rhino. This worrying trend threatens to reverse the expansion of range and has the potential to significantly reduce conservation budgets (due to declining live sales), and possibly negatively affect metapopulation growth rates in future. 

There are smaller reintroduced populations within the historical range of the species in Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Swaziland, while a small number that crossed from KNP currently survive in Mozambique (after existing reintroduced populations had been poached out). Populations of White Rhino have also been introduced outside of the known former range of the subspecies to Kenya, Uganda and Zambia (Emslie & Brooks 1999; Emslie et al. 2007). Uganda was previously a Northern White Rhino range state and so the subspecies has been reintroduced to this country as the indigenous Northern White Rhino subspecies was not available for reintroduction. Similarly, in Kenya, paleontological evidence indicates the country once historically conserved White Rhino and the southern subspecies has therefore been reintroduced into the country. 

Note: At the request of certain rhino owners, managers and range states, the IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG) has a policy of not releasing detailed information or maps on the whereabouts and sizes of rhino subpopulations for security reasons.

Population trend

Trend

Once widespread in the bushveld areas of southern Africa south of the Zambezi river, the White Rhino was on the brink of extinction by the end of the 19th century (c. 1895) having been reduced to just one small population of approximately 20–50 animals in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), after settlers had over-hunted them for sport and to clear land for agriculture throughout almost all of their historical range (Emslie et al. 2009). By the end of 2015, after years of protection and many translocations (Emslie & Brooks 1999), the subspecies had grown to 20,375 animals in the wild and semi-wild. Rampant poaching and the failure to enforce the law or pass adequate sentences resulted in Swaziland’s population being reduced to 33 over the period 1987–93. However, changes to the law and very effective protection efforts by Swaziland’s Big Game Parks since then successfully halted the poaching in the country with only three rhino being poached between 2006 and 2015, and numbers currently at 76 by end of 2015 (Emslie et al. 2016). South Africa remains the stronghold for this subspecies, conserving an estimated 18,413 individuals by the end of 2015 (Emslie et al. 2016). Since 2008, increased poaching and the emerging involvement of transnational organised crime networks has decelerated growth in numbers at a continental level (Emslie et al. 2016), and within the assessment region.

Total numbers of White Rhino have increased since 1960 from an estimated 1,120 to 20,375 individuals by the end of 2015, but the opposite has happened to Northern White Rhino. Numbers of the latter were more common in 1960 with an estimated 2,230 in 1960 but have declined to currently number only three ex-zoo and non-breeding animals in a Kenyan reserve. The only way that any Northern White Rhino adaptive genes can be conserved will be through high-tech assisted reproduction techniques using semen and oocytes obtained from the remaining Northern White Rhinos. However, there are no guarantees this may be successful, and it is likely to take some time and be very expensive. Numbers of White Rhino under private ownership continues to increase, accounting for 33% of South Africa’s White Rhino (~ 6,140 individuals) by the end of 2015. Two thirds of the White Rhino in the country continue to be conserved on state land. The largest subpopulation in the assessment region is in Kruger National Park (KNP), currently (2015) estimated at 8,875 individuals. After becoming extinct in KNP in 1896, the subspecies was reintroduced in the 1960s (Pienaar 1993) and grew at a rapid rate for many years until low levels of removals and resultant increasing densities saw a reduction in breeding performance in some areas of the park (S. Ferreira pers. comm. 2016). The escalation of poaching since 2008 has affected KNP especially hard given its large size and lower field ranger densities as well as its long shared border with Mozambique. A bootstrap analysis based on count results suggests there is a 92% chance that numbers of White Rhino have declined from 2012–2014 in KNP (R. Emslie unpubl. data). As a result of the escalation in poaching, South African National Parks (SANParks) increased removals, especially from vulnerable areas, and has set up an intensive protection zone (IPZ). Anti-poaching efforts have also increased with increased cooperation from law enforcement agencies, including the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) from a joint operations centre. Innovative technological solutions are also being increasingly developed to protect rhinos in KNP. In 2015, total numbers of White Rhinos recorded poached in the country and in KNP declined slightly for the first time since poaching started to escalate in 2008. However, there is no room for complacency as the number of incursions into KNP remains high. The total number of White Rhino in the region (South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho) at the end of 2015 has been estimated by AfRSG at 18,489 individuals, with bootstrapped 90% confidence levels around the estimate from 17,836 to 19,156 (Emslie et al. 2016).

For the reasons outlined in the Black Rhino assessment, it was decided to use predicted numbers five years into the future in the Red List assessment. For illustrative purposes, population trends were also modelled up to ten years into the future. A range of poaching scenarios were modelled based on reported poaching trends over the last 1, 3 and 5 years (using trailing 12 months May to April in order to use the most up to date data available at the time of modelling). Average annual arithmetic and exponential changes (as a percentage of the population poached each year) were modelled based on assumptions that 100% and 80% of poaching mortalities were detected in KNP. A long-term average underlying growth rate of 7.7% (achieved over a period up to end 2007 just prior to the upsurge in poaching) was used in the modelling. For illustrative purposes, lower and higher underlying growth rates of 5% and 9% were also modelled. The results were graphed in relation to critical threshold levels under Criteria A4 and C1. For an explanation of how to interpret these graphs see the section on graphical display of predicted rhino numbers and Red List categories under Criteria A4 and C1 in the Black Rhino assessment In the graphs, the star symbol represents the average results (arithmetic and exponential) for the three poaching periods for the given detection rate using only the best long-term estimate of underlying growth (7.7% / annum). The first three graphs show predictions based on an assumed 100% poaching detection rate modelling a continuation of poaching trends over the previous 5, 3 and 1 year TTM periods. The following three graphs assume an 80% detection rate in KNP (given its vast size and lower field ranger densities).

The bottom row in Table 3 (averaging results across all three poaching periods modelled – effectively giving a greater weighting to more recent poaching trends) provides the best estimates of future numbers in five years used in this assessment. The modelled numbers show either a small total 1.9% projected increase over five years (if 100% detection in KNP) to a slight 3.9% total decline (if 80% detection in KNP).

The results show that in no instances did numbers after 5 years drop enough to come close to any of the threshold levels under A4 and C1 to be rated in any of the threatened Red List categories (including for the most extreme poaching scenario modelled based on last 5-year poaching trends). The results also show how the slowing of the rate of increase in poaching and most recent slight decline in poaching has significant implications for future projected numbers if this recent progress can be maintained. For example, Table 3 shows that if the reduction in poaching over the last year can be maintained, White Rhino numbers in the region are projected to grow over the next 5 years: modelling trends based on 1 year’s poaching trend resulted in numbers increasing even if only 80% of poached carcasses are being detected in KNP. Alternatively, if this proves to be a temporary improvement and poaching once again increases (as predicted based on previous 3- and 5-year trends), then White Rhino numbers will decline over the next 5 years. While numbers were projected to decline based on 3-year poaching trends, the projected declines were not as large as when modelling poaching trends over the last 5 years. The graphs show that only when projecting 10 years into the future, under the most extreme exponential poaching increases of just under +25% per annum (based on 5 year trends), did numbers decline enough for any of the modelled scenarios to cross the threatened criteria A3 and C1 thresholds, where numbers dipped into the Vulnerable (100% detection) or Endangered (80% detection) statuses.

Threats

The main threats facing White Rhinos are the markets for horn from Asia and the scale and involvement of transnational organised crime in meeting this demand through trafficking horns. Since 2007, there has been an upsurge in black market prices and demand for horn which has caused an increase in poaching in some range states (Thomas 2010). Until recently, at a continental level, poaching of White Rhinos has not had a serious impact on overall numbers of White Rhinos, with poaching losses in parts of the range being surpassed by encouraging growth rates in others. From reported figures, the historical annual average poaching incidents during 2003 to 2005 represented just 0.2% of the total number of White Rhinos at the end of 2005 (Emslie et al. 2007), whereas by 2015 this had increased to 5.3% of Africa’s White Rhino (Emslie et al 2016). White Rhino numbers in Kruger National Park (KNP) increased rapidly over many decades but under the face of heavy poaching are most likely now declining (Ferreira et al. 2015; Emslie et al. 2016).

The total number of both species of rhino poached annually in South Africa has increased from 13 in 2007 to peak at 1,215 in 2014 before declining slightly to 1,175 in 2015. Numbers of White Rhino poached for the last 6 TTM years (May–April) are given in Table 2. The significant escalation of poaching since 2007, increased protection costs, declining live sale prices and reduced incentives are leading to increasing numbers of private owners in South Africa seeking to remove their rhino. Balfour et al. (2016) estimated 63 owners had disinvested of rhino over 3 years 2012–14. If the disinvestment trend continues this may threaten to reverse the expansion of range and has the potential to significantly reduce conservation budgets due to declining live sales and probable impacts on future live sale demand and prices. Simultaneously, some private rhino owners have increased their herd sizes, including moves to manage White Rhino under more intensive semi-wild conditions with some partial supplementary feeding, resulting in consolidation within the industry.

Throughout South Africa, declining management capacity and budgets in some formal conservation agencies have reduced the ability of conservationists to effectively mitigate anti-poaching campaigns (for example Adcock 2016). Additionally, the growing involvement of transnational crime networks have resulted in increased levels of corruption associated with wildlife crimes. Corruption in the networks involved in rhino conservation (for example, game farmers, veterinarians and park rangers), as well as security personnel (such as customs officials and police), enhances the resilience of criminal syndicates by supplying criminals with false documentation, laundering facilities for wildlife or products, and transport and holding facilities (Ayling 2013). Corruption is similarly entrenched in the illegal ivory trade (Bennett 2015). However, research into what anti-corruption interventions should be implemented is lacking (for example, Smith & Walpole 2005). Further collation of evidence for interventions to counteract corruption should be amassed.

Additionally, the increased militarisation of anti-poaching efforts in the face of increasing and more aggressive poaching threats is reported as having a negative effect on attitudes of neighbouring communities. The need to involve local communities in the benefits of rhino conservation initiatives is increasingly being recognised as a fundamental aspect of an integrated solution to the poaching crisis.

Uses and trade

Rhino horn was used historically as a traditional medicine in countries such as China and more recently used as luxury goods and status symbols, particularly in Vietnam (Graham-Rowe 2011; Milliken & Shaw 2012), as well as an investment. Previous conservation efforts have been so successful that it was possible to start limited trophy hunting in South Africa in 1968, and, at the 9th CITES Conference of the Parties, a partial downlisting of South Africa’s White Rhino was approved for live sale to approved destinations and continued export of hunting trophies. A similar partial downlisting was also approved for Swaziland a decade later (2004). “Pseudo-hunting”, where sport hunting was undertaken by individuals from non-traditional hunting countries as a source for illegal markets, declined from around 20% of hunts to probably less than 3% following the introduction of a number of control measures by South Africa in 2012 (Emslie et al. 2016).

While most subpopulations are considered wild, many subpopulations exist on extensive or semi-extensive ranchlands and private protected areas (23%) while a minority exist in semi-intensive or intensive systems (10%). Extensive or semi-intensive systems are better than captive conditions to stimulate and sustain subpopulation growth (sensu Swaisgood et al. 2006), and can then be used to augment wild subpopulations. Thus, both extensive and semi-intensive systems, due to high growth rates and concentrated law enforcement, may support wild subpopulations as sources for supplementation. Illegal poaching, however, is reducing the number of rhinos available to be translocated, thus limiting population expansion.

Due to the increasing threats and security costs and declining economic incentives, it was estimated that 63 owners (mainly those with small numbers that were difficult to protect) removed their White Rhino from 2012–14. At the same time, some private owners have increased their numbers, including moves to manage White Rhino under more intensive semi-wild conditions with some partial supplementary feeding, resulting in consolidation within the industry. Partial supplementary feeding in the semi-wild operations enables the White Rhinos to be stocked at higher than normal densities and security efforts to be concentrated, though requires significant costs. Provided there is no selective breeding or overdominance of breeding by some males, and poaching can be kept lower than the national average, such operations may provide an insurance policy as they could potentially provide founder rhino to restock wild areas in future if needed. Unlike very intensive zoo situations that have a generally poor reproductive performance, some semi-wild operations have demonstrated very good reproductive performance and population growth.

Conservation

White Rhinos were previously brought back from the brink of extinction through the establishment of protected areas on state and private land and reintroduction of rhinos back to their historic range (Emslie et al. 2009). By 1977, all African rhino species were listed on CITES Appendix I, and all international commercial trade in rhinos and their products was prohibited. However, following a continued increase in numbers, the South African population of Southern White Rhino was downlisted in 1994 to Appendix II, but only for trade in live animals to “approved and acceptable destinations” and for the (continued) export of hunting trophies. Numbers have almost trebled since then. In 2004, Swaziland’s Southern White Rhino were also downlisted to CITES Appendix II, but only for live export and for limited export of hunting trophies according to specified annual quotas. To help reduce illegal trade, and complement CITES international trade bans, domestic anti-trade measures and legislation were implemented in the 1990s by a number of the major consumer states and law enforcement efforts have been stepped up in many consumer countries. In addition to local, national, international and continental initiatives, there are a number of regional African rhino conservation initiatives: the SADC RMG, the recently formed East African Rhino Management Group and the Southern African Rhino and Elephant Security Group/Interpol Environmental Crime Working Group. The IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group is the continental coordinating body for rhino conservation in Africa.

Effective field protection of rhino subpopulations and their biological management has been critical to success. The majority of rhino remain in fenced sanctuaries, conservancies, rhino conservation areas and intensive protection zones where law enforcement efforts can be concentrated at effective levels. Monitoring has also provided information to guide biological management decision-making aimed at managing rhino subpopulations for rapid population growth. This has resulted in surplus animals being translocated to establish new subpopulations both within and outside the species’ former range. However, increasing black market prices for rhino horn, and increased poaching of rhino and involvement of criminal syndicates in recent years pose a significant emerging threat to rhino populations. 

Increasing efforts are being made to integrate local communities into conservation efforts and benefits. In South Africa, live sale of White Rhinos on auction (and limited sport hunting of surplus males) has also created incentives for private sector conservation and generated much needed funds which can help pay the high cost of successfully monitoring, protecting and managing rhino. In the region of 33% of South Africa’s White Rhino are now managed by the private sector in South Africa (AfRSG data). However, as discussed above, incentives are declining while protection costs and risks have increased resulting in increased disinvestment by some South African private rhino owners. In Kruger National Park (KNP), there have been increased translocations from vulnerable areas and concentrated law enforcement efforts in an IPZ where most of the rhinos occur to mitigate increased losses from poaching. However, the value of establishing reintroduced subpopulations and the revenue generated through live sales has been eroded as there are fewer surplus animals for sale as a result of poaching (Emslie et al. 2016). For example, live White Rhino annual sale turnover from parastatals SANParks and Ezemvelo-KZN Wildlife declined from 2007–2012 by nearly US$3.8 million, primarily as there were fewer surplus animals to sell due to poaching (Emslie & Knight 2014). Monitoring of trends in White Rhino sales and prices is becoming increasingly difficult as more and more sales now take place away from auctions and out of the public eye for security reasons (Emslie et al. 2016).

Anti-poaching enforcement alone is not a long-term solution as the scale of the economic drivers behind poaching is likely to overwhelm regulatory mechanisms (Challender & MacMillan 2014). Similarly, anti-poaching campaigns and operations alone will not reverse the poaching trend in KNP (Ferreira et al. 2015), as intensive anti-poaching programmes have at best slowed the escalation of poaching rates (Humphreys & Smith 2014). Unless fines are very high they may be viewed as a minor tax on turnover of criminal syndicates (and possibly an incentive to poach) and therefore handing down of custodial sentences is more likely to act as a deterrent. Additional measures such as dehorning can reduce the cost:benefit for poachers in smaller subpopulations but still requires good law enforcement as poachers will target whatever horn remains. In large areas, dehorning is unlikely to be a viable solution to complement anti-poaching patrols given the high financial and logistical costs (Lee & Roberts 2016) as well as aesthetic concerns in national parks and game reserves. Some have proposed that legal international trade in rhino horn could form part of the solution (for example, Biggs et al. 2013; Ferreira et al. 2014), such as through raising capital for reinvestment into rhino conservation. However, others point out that the market is not well understood and/or we should focus on reducing demand through social marketing, education campaigns, lobbying and inter-governmental cooperation (for example, Collins et al. 2013; Nadal & Aguayo 2014; Challender & MacMillan 2014; Olmedo 2015; Crookes & Blignaut 2015). Similarly, there is concern that the capacity to regulate a legal trade is inadequate to prevent the laundering of illegal horn and subsequent increased poaching of wild animals (for example, Taylor et al. 2014; Bennett 2015). 

In the longer term, integrated approaches, in addition to anti-poaching effort, are needed (Ferreira & Okita-Ouma 2012; Ferreira et al. 2014). These include: 

Greater use of technology, especially in very large areas where it is not possible to have one field ranger / 7 to 10 km2. 

Disrupting international criminal networks through the use of social network analysis (Haas & Ferreira 2015). Previously, poachers were unsophisticated and informal whereas the current poaching crisis represents highly organised criminal syndicates that are resilient to disturbance (Ayling 2013), which necessitates targeting key players by law enforcers. 

Congruent legal and extradition agreements between countries targeted by poachers and those harbouring poachers and horn dealers (Ferreira & Okita-Ouma 2012).

Demand reduction campaigns, including law enforcement action on those involved in illegal rhino horn consumption (Ferreira & Okita-Ouma 2012; Litchfield 2013; Emslie et al. 2016).

Provision of alternative economies in communities where poaching originates (Child 2012). Here it is proposed that devolving the ownership of rhinos to private, community and state landowners and providing bottom-up markets for legal hunting and trade might provide powerful economic incentives for rhino conservation (Child 2012). This also includes ongoing biological management efforts to maximise rhino subpopulation growth, coupled with land restitution processes and co-management that support community involvement and benefit-sharing from rhino conservation.
 The above holistic approach is echoed by the recently released recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry established by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA 2016), which comprise:Security, including the adoption and implementation of the National Integrated Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking;

Community empowerment, including the development, adoption and implementation of a Community Empowerment Plan;

Biological management, including the adoption of an African Rhino Conservation Action Plan;

Responsive legislative provisions that are effectively implemented and enforced, including incentives to rhino owners to support continued investment in the conservation of rhino; andDemand management, including information gathering to enhance our knowledge about demand for rhino horn and identifying the most effective interventions to manage demand. 

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners: 
  • Adhere to the draft Continental African Rhino Plan and South African White Rhino Biodiversity and Management Plan (Knight et al. 2015) and be an active contributor to regular annual status reporting once it is introduced. 
  • Submit DNA samples collected by trained collectors using Rhino DNA Index System (RhODIS) kits to a RhODIS-compatible lab for inclusion in the global rhino DNA database. The RhODIS Rhino DNA Project allows the linking of blood and horn samples taken from suspects to known rhino carcasses for court cases, increasing chances of effective prosecution (Harper 2011). 
  • Invest in monitoring and protection. 
  • Collaborate with other rhino conservationists in both state, community and private sector and use intelligence-driven law enforcement. 
  • Implement the recommendations from the Committee of Inquiry (DEA 2016).
Research priorities: 
  • Effectiveness of strategies to curb poaching and testing of new law enforcement and surveillance methods and equipment.
  • Improved intelligence analysis including that aimed at higher levels in criminal pyramids.
  • Use the RhODIS data for forensic use in court and to help guide biological management (Harper 2011).
  • Consumer demand profiles and what messaging may change behaviour.
  • Finding ways to substantively get communities more involved in and sharing benefits of rhino conservation.
  • Quantification of value and conservation benefits of sport hunting. 
  • Assessing the effectiveness and impacts of demand reduction and general education campaigns in end user markets. 
  • Quantify pros and cons of alternative policy options, including effects of legalising rhino horn trade.
  • Setting up an annual reporting format as called for by South Africa’s Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP; Knight et al. 2015). 
  • Biological management and security assessments of suitability of potential new areas for reintroducing rhinos.
  • Holding a follow-up rhino biological management workshop. 
Encouraged citizen actions: 
  • Provision of financial support for field conservation action. 
  • Landowners to continue to provide new land to allow for continued expansion of range and numbers (but will to some extent depend upon costs, risks and economic incentives). 
  • Become educated about wildlife trafficking and champion the reduction of illegal wildlife products.

References 

[@book{275,
 address = {Cambridge},
 author = {Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T.},
 publisher = {Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom},
 title = {The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion},
 year = {2005}
}
,@techreport{4185,
 author = {Emslie, R. H., Milledge, S., Brooks, M., Strien, N. J., van and Dublin, H.},
 title = {African and Asian Rhinoceroses – Status, Conservation and Trade},
 year = {2007}
}
,@article{4185,
 author = {Groves, C.P., Fernando, P. and Robovský, J.},
 journal = {PLoS ONE},
 number = {4},
 pages = {e9703. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009703},
 title = {The sixth Rhino: a taxonomic re-assessment of the Critically Endangered Northern White Rhinoceros},
 volume = {5},
 year = {2010}
}
,@electronic{4185,
 address = {http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/html/SSC-OP- 039/cover.html.},
 author = {Emslie, R.H., Amin, R. and Kock, R.},
 publisher = {IUCN, Gland, Switzerland},
 title = {Guidelines for the <i>in situ</i> re-introduction and translocation of African and Asian rhinoceros},
 year = {2009}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ayling J},
 journal = {Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy},
 pages = {57--80},
 title = {What Sustains Wildlife Crime? Rhino Horn Trading and the Resilience of Criminal Networks},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Biggs D, Courchamp F, Martin R, Possingham HP},
 journal = {Science},
 pages = {1038--1039},
 title = {Legal Trade of Africa’s Rhino Horns},
 volume = {339},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Child B},
 journal = {South African Journal of Science},
 pages = {21--25},
 title = {The sustainable use approach could save South Africa’s rhinos},
 volume = {108},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Collins A, Fraser G, Snowball J.},
 journal = {Science},
 pages = {1167--1167},
 title = {Rhino poaching: supply and demand uncertain},
 volume = {340},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Crookes DJ, Blignaut JN},
 journal = {Journal for Nature Conservation},
 pages = {11--18},
 title = {Debunking the myth that a legal trade will solve the rhino horn crisis: A system dynamics model for market demand},
 volume = {28},
 year = {2015}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 address = {Pretoria},
 author = {DEA},
 institution = {Committee of Inquiry recommendations, Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {Minister Edna Molewa on the Committee of Inquiry into the feasibility of a legal trade in rhino horn, or not},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Everatt KT, Andresen L, Ripple WJ, Kerley GI},
 journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment},
 pages = {65--67},
 title = {Rhino poaching may cause atypical trophic cascades},
 volume = {14},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ferreira SM, Greaver C, Knight GA, Knight MH, Smit IPJ, Pienaar D},
 journal = {PLOS ONE},
 pages = {e0127783},
 title = {Disruption of rhino demography by poachers may lead to population declines in Kruger National Park, South Africa},
 volume = {10},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ferreira SM, Okita-Ouma B.},
 journal = {Pachyderm},
 pages = {52--59},
 title = {A proposed framework for short-, medium-and long-term responses by range and consumer States to curb poaching for African rhino horn},
 volume = {51},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Ferreira SM, Pfab M, Knight M.},
 journal = {South African Journal of Science},
 pages = {1--8},
 title = {Management strategies to curb rhino poaching: Alternative options using a cost-benefit approach},
 volume = {110},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Haas TC, Ferreira SM.},
 journal = {Security Informatics},
 pages = {1},
 title = {Federated databases and actionable intelligence: using social network analysis to disrupt transnational wildlife trafficking criminal networks},
 volume = {4},
 year = {2015}
}
,@inbook{6557,
 address = {Mokala National Park, South Africa},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {RhODIS–DNA profiling and a DNA database as a tool to protect the rhino},
 editor = {Harper C},
 pages = {169--170},
 title = {Proceedings of the tenth meeting of the IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Humphreys J, Smith MLR},
 journal = {International Affairs},
 pages = {795--818},
 title = {The “rhinofication” of South African security},
 volume = {90},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Litchfield CA},
 journal = {Science},
 pages = {1168--1168},
 title = {Rhino poaching: apply conservation psychology},
 volume = {340},
 year = {2013}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 author = {Nadal A, Aguayo F},
 institution = {The Leverhulme Centre for the Study of Value, University of Manchester, UK},
 title = {Leonardo’s sailors: A review of the economic analysis of wildlife trade. LCSV Working Paper Series No. 6},
 year = {2014}
}
,@phdthesis{6557,
 author = {Olmedo A},
 school = {Imperial College London},
 title = {Evaluating behaviour change interventions: A case study in Vietnam},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Smith RJ, Walpole MJ},
 journal = {Oryx},
 pages = {251--256},
 title = {Should conservationists pay more attention to corruption?},
 volume = {39},
 year = {2005}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 address = {Pretoria, South Africa},
 author = {Taylor A, Brebner K, Coetzee R, Davies-Mostert H, Lindsey P, Shaw J, ‘t Sas-Rolfes M},
 institution = {Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)},
 title = {The viability of legalising trade in rhino horn in South Africa.},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Thomas R},
 journal = {TRAFFIC Bulletin},
 pages = {2},
 title = {Surge in rhinoceros poaching in South Africa},
 volume = {23},
 year = {2010}
}
,@techreport{6557,
 author = {Adcock K, editor},
 institution = {SADC Rhino Management Group Report for the South African Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {Status and management of black rhino in South Africa January 2012 to December 2014},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Bennett, E.L.},
 journal = {Conservation Biology},
 number = {1},
 pages = {54–60. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12377},
 title = {Legal ivory trade in a corrupt world and its impact on African elephant populations},
 volume = {29},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{6557,
 author = {Challender, D.W.S. and MacMillan, D.C.},
 journal = {Conservation Letters},
 pages = {484–494},
 title = {Poaching is more than an enforcement problem},
 volume = {7},
 year = {2014}
}
,@book{10170,
 address = {Cambridge, UK},
 author = {Owen-Smith, N.},
 publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
 title = {Megaherbivores: the Influence of Very Large Body Size on Ecology},
 year = {1988}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Emslie, R. and Brooks, M. (compilers)},
 title = {African Rhino Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.},
 year = {1999}
}
,@techreport{39317,
 address = {Pretoria},
 author = {Balfour D, Knight M, Jones P},
 institution = {Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {Status of White Rhino on Private and Communal Land in South Africa: 2012 – 2014},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Cromsigt JPGM, te Beest M.},
 journal = {Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {566--575},
 title = {Restoration of a megaherbivore: landscape-level impacts of white rhinoceros in Kruger National Park, South Africa},
 volume = {102},
 year = {2014}
}
,@electronic{39317,
 author = {Emslie RH, Adcock K},
 publisher = {South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust},
 title = {A conservation assessment of <i>Diceros bicornis</i>},
 year = {2016}
}
,@proceedings{39317,
 editor = {Emslie RH, Knight MH},
 title = {Update on African Rhino Status and Poaching Trends from IUCN SSC African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG)},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Graham-Rowe D},
 journal = {Nature},
 pages = {S101--S103},
 title = {Biodiversity: endangered and in demand},
 volume = {480},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Harley, E.H., de Waal, M., Murray, S. and O’Ryan, C.},
 journal = {Conservation Genetics},
 number = {6},
 pages = {1285–1291. DOI: 10.1007/s10592--016--0861--2},
 title = {Comparison of whole mitochondrial genome sequences of northern and southern white rhinoceroses (<i>Ceratotherium simum</i>): the conservation consequences of species definitions},
 volume = {17},
 year = {2016}
}
,@techreport{39317,
 address = {Pretoria. South Africa},
 author = {Knight MH, Emslie RH, Smart R, Balfour D},
 institution = {Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {Biodiversity Management Plan for The White Rhinoceros (<i>Ceratotherium simum</i>) in South Africa 2015-2020},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Lee TE, Roberts DL.},
 journal = {Ecological Modelling},
 pages = {73--78},
 title = {Devaluing rhino horns as a theoretical game},
 volume = {337},
 year = {2016}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Milliken T, Shaw J.},
 journal = {TRAFFIC},
 title = {The South Africa—Viet Nam rhino horn trade nexus: a deadly combination of institutional lapses, corrupt wildlife industry professionals and Asian crime syndicates},
 year = {2012}
}
,@phdthesis{39317,
 author = {Pienaar DJ},
 school = {University of Pretoria},
 title = {The landscape preference and horn attributes of the white rhinoceros <i>Ceratotherium simum simum</i> (Burchell, 1817) in the Kruger National Park},
 year = {1993}
}
,@phdthesis{39317,
 author = {Shrader AM},
 school = {University of the Witwatersrand},
 title = {The use of food and space by white rhinos},
 year = {2003}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Shrader AM, Owen-Smith N},
 journal = {Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology},
 pages = {255--261},
 title = {The role of companionship in the dispersal of white rhinoceroses (<i>Ceratotherium simum</i>)},
 volume = {52},
 year = {2002}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Shrader AM, Owen-Smith N, Ogutu JO},
 journal = {Functional Ecology},
 pages = {376--384},
 title = {How a mega-grazer copes with the dry season: food and nutrient intake rates by white rhinoceros in the wild},
 volume = {20},
 year = {2006}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Swaisgood RR, Dickman DM, White AM},
 journal = {Biological Conservation},
 pages = {468--476},
 title = {A captive population in crisis: Testing hypotheses for reproductive failure in captive-born southern white rhinoceros females},
 volume = {129},
 year = {2006}
}
,@article{39317,
 author = {Waldram MS, Bond WJ, Stock WD},
 journal = {Ecosystems},
 pages = {101--112},
 title = {Ecological engineering by a mega-grazer: white rhino impacts on a South African savanna},
 volume = {11},
 year = {2008}
}
,]
Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Lead agencies, Partners and Funders

See the partners page