Surprise Sale of 40 White Rhinos from Namibia to American Buyers in Texas Raises Questions about CITES Compliance
On October 8th, Namibian media outlets reported that 40 southern white rhinos had been exported from a private game farm in Namibia to the U.S. state of Texas the previous day. The news sent shockwaves through the conservation community and raises serious questions about the legality and conservation implications of this surprise international rhino relocation.
The most pressing questions from EIA’s perspective are the following:
- Did the trade in these rhinos from Namibia to the U.S. violate the legally-binding provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)?
- Is Namibia’s CITES implementing legislation fit for purpose?
- What are the conservation implications of moving 40 wild rhinos from southern Africa to private properties in the state of Texas?
Did the trade in these rhinos from Namibia to the U.S. violate CITES?
The southern white rhino is the prime target for wildlife trafficking and poaching networks that control the illegal international trade in rhino horn, and the species has experienced severe population declines as a result. In some areas that were once considered rhino strongholds, like Kruger National Park in South Africa and the Okavango Delta in neighboring Botswana, severe poaching pressure has resulted in thousands of rhinos killed and populations that have yet to recover.
Because poaching and illegal trade pose such grave threats to the survival of white rhinos and other rhino species in the wild, all five species of rhino are listed on Appendix I of CITES which prohibits international trade for commercial purposes.
However, at the most recent CITES Conference of the Parties in 2022, Namibia’s white rhino population was given a unique, highly restrictive listing on Appendix II “for the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade of live animals for in-situ conservation only, and only within the species’ natural and historical range in Africa. All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly.” (emphasis added)
At the time of writing there has been no public comment from the U.S. Government on the rhino imports. Namibia’s Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT), for its part, released a statement intending to clarify the authorization of the rhino exports, but this raises a number of additional questions.
According to the MEFT, despite the CITES Appendix II listing and annotation, under existing Namibian law the government is powerless to prevent transactions and international exports of white rhinos that are privately owned by Namibian citizens. As a result the MEFT apparently decided to treat the trade in these 40 rhinos as export of a species listed in Appendix I for allegedly non-commercial purposes. Namibia has employed this legally dubious interpretation of CITES rules before for elephants, which prompted a years-long, and still unresolved, debate among CITES Parities over the legitimacy of this trade.
The CITES rules governing trade in species listed on the CITES appendices, including any annotations to an appendix listing, are legally binding for countries that have ratified CITES – which includes the United States and Namibia. It is therefore deeply concerning that the CITES authorities in both Namibia and the United States would issue CITES permits authorizing a transaction that appears to be a blatant attempt to circumvent the CITES export restrictions for Namibia’s white rhino population.
Because the Appendix II annotation language for Namibia’s population of southern white rhino – which the United States voted to approve at CITES CoP19 in 2022 – is quite explicit and specific, this would seem to warrant an examination by the CITES Secretariat as to whether the United States and Namibia were non-compliant with the Convention by approving trade in these rhinos.
Moreover, even if CITES Parties ultimately do determine that electing to treat the trade as Appendix I is acceptable, because the final destination of the rhinos is still unknown it remains unclear as to whether the nature of the trade was truly non-commercial – which is an explicit requirement for all trade in species listed in Appendix I of CITES.
Is Namibia’s CITES implementing legislation fit for purpose?
In an apparent attempt to demonstrate the legal bind in which Namibia finds itself, the MEFT press release goes on to state that it is the Namibian government’s “conviction that the export of live white rhinoceros outside the natural range, if not well managed, will be detrimental to the conservation of this species”, that the MEFT “sees no conservation value in ex situ [white rhino populations],” and that “a notice will be published in the Government Gazette soon to better regulate the export of live white rhinoceros outside the natural range in the future.”
It is reassuring that the formal position of the Namibian Government with respect to live rhino exports is that such trade should focus on improving the conservation status of the species in the wild throughout its natural and historic range, and EIA eagerly awaits the promulgation of proposed legislative reforms for the regulation of live rhino exports.
However, if Namibia’s national legislation is indeed insufficient to allow the government to prohibit trade in CITES-listed species in violation of the Convention, the CITES Secretariat should conduct a thorough review of Namibia’s CITES implementing legislation to determine whether it is appropriate to downgrade Namibia’s Category 1 standing under the CITES National Legislation Project to Category 2 – legislation that is believed generally not to meet all the requirements for implementation of CITES – until and unless the planned legal revisions referred to in the MEFT statement are sufficiently implemented.
What are the conservation implications of moving 40 wild rhinos from southern Africa to private properties in the state of Texas?
While few details about where exactly these rhinos ended up in Texas are publicly available, there are unlikely to be any meaningful conservation benefits for the species as a result of this international transaction. White rhinos are native to the grasslands of Africa, not North America, where they fulfill a vital role maintaining the health the ecosystem as a keystone species. Most African rhino range states are actively trying to increase their respective rhino populations and reintroduce rhinos to areas where they once ranged before overhunting, habitat loss, and poaching nearly drove rhinos to extinction.
For instance, South Africa recently adopted a policy to authorize the export of live rhinos only for reintroduction into the wild on the African continent precisely to ensure that live trade in its rhinos will contribute to expanding the range and increasing the population of the species in the wild – which has actually led the Namibian government to raise concerns that some game traders are using Namibia to import rhinos from South Africa and then re-export them abroad to circumvent South Africa’s trade restrictions. The same logic and vision underpin the Appendix II annotation for Namibia’s white rhinos, which is clearly intended to restrict trade in live white rhinos only to instances where it will improve the conservation status of the species in the wild.
Barring the possibility for some extremely exceptional circumstances, removing wild rhinos from their natural habitat in Africa and sending them to the United States – regardless of whether they end up in zoos, private ranches, or some other wildlife exhibition facility – does not contribute to the recovery and conservation of the species in the wild.
Still More Questions Than Answers
More details surrounding this international rhino deal will likely come to light in the coming weeks and will hopefully provide information critical to understanding whether this transaction was in compliance with CITES. Ascertaining the ultimate end use of the rhinos will be essential to determining the true purpose – and legality – of the trade. The upcoming CITES meeting in February 2025 will present a key opportunity for the United States and Namibia to face scrutiny over the decision to treat the trade as involving a species listed in Appendix I and to answer any questions that may still remain unanswered.
EIA will continue to seek full transparency on this case and will provide updates as we obtain more information about whether the export of these 40 rhinos to the United States complied with the CITES rules concerning live trade in Namibia’s white rhinos.