China's Legalization of Domestic Rhino Horn Trade: Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioner Perspectives and the Likelihood of Prescription

Hubert Cheung,Duan Biggs,Lorraine Mazerolle,Hugh P Possingham

doi:10.3389/fevo.2021.607660

Abstract

Despite the international ban on the trade of rhino horn that has been in place since 1977, persistent demand for horn in Asia has driven a spike in poaching over the past decade. This has embroiled the conservation community in a debate over the efficacy of banning trade relative to other solutions. Proposals for trade to be legalized and supplied through the dehorning of live rhinos or the production of synthetic horn are contentious. The need for empirical research into the potential impacts of legalization on demand was made more urgent in 2018 when China publicized its intentions to reopen its domestic trade and permit the use of rhino horn in medical treatment. In this study, we interviewed 84 Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioners in the Chinese province of Guangdong. While 58 (69.05%, n = 84) of our interviewees were in favor of trade legalization, only 32 (38.10%, n = 84) thought it likely that trade legalization would cause them to increase their prescription of rhino horn over current levels. This is probably because clinical cases in which rhino horn is medically appropriate are uncommon. We also found that 33 (39.29%, n = 84) practitioners were open to using synthetic horn for patient treatment, which has implications for the viability of synthetic horn as a conservation tool. This research contributes empirical insight to advance the discourse on rhino horn trade policy.

Highlights

People and communities around the world consume wildlife products for diverse reasons (ThomasWalters et al, 2020), making wildlife trade a tremendously lucrative industry
We focused on four questions: 1. What are the perspectives of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioners with regards to the present ban on the trade and medicinal use of rhino horn?
The increase in rhino poaching over the last decade and a half has called the efficacy of existing trade controls into question, and has stimulated a heated debate over policy alternatives like trade legalization (Biggs et al, 2013; Dang et al, 2020)

Summary

Introduction

People and communities around the world consume wildlife products for diverse reasons (ThomasWalters et al, 2020), making wildlife trade a tremendously lucrative industry. International trade for commercial purposes is prohibited for species listed on Appendix I (Smith et al, 2011; Harfoot et al, 2018), and CITES signatories are expected to implement these trade controls and enact domestic legislation as appropriate (‘t Sas-Rolfes et al, 2019). All extant species have been listed on Appendix I since 1977 (with the sole exception being the South African white rhino population’s inclusion in Appendix II, for which international trade of live animals and of hunting trophies is conditionally permitted). The rise in poaching is attributed to growing wealth and demand in Asia, China and Vietnam, where rhino horn is used in cultural, social and medicinal settings (Di Minin et al, 2015). It is thought to impart potent “cold” properties, most appropriately used against heat that has been trapped deep within the body (But et al, 1990)

Methods

Results

Conclusion