Evidence or delusion: a critique of contemporary rhino horn demand reduction strategies

Abstract

Considerable effort has been devoted to reducing rhinoceros (i.e., rhino) horn demand by changing consumer behavior. Implementing organizations often claim that their campaigns are based on reliable insights into rhino horn demand and that there is no scientific support for any medicinal effects of rhino horn. In this opinion piece, we evaluate the scientific evidence supporting this claim and discuss how campaigns using a delusive and paternalistic approach may backfire. As the use of rhino horn in traditional medicine has a thousandyear history, it is unlikely that such deeply entrenched beliefs will be swayed by a one-sided representation of the limited scientific evidence evaluating its efficacy. Difficulties in interviewing rhino horn consumers have further contributed to lacking information about their values and characteristics. We call for more scientific evidence and a more culturally nuanced approach to rhino horn demand reduction campaigns.

A survey of traditional Chinese medicine consumers to investigate the impact of China's legalization of rhino horn trade on stigmatization and likelihood of use

“…The failure of existing conservation measures to control the rhino poaching crisis has opened an ongoing debate over trade legalization (Biggs et al, 2013;Dang & Nielsen, 2020;Eikelboom et al, 2020). Polarized views over sustainable use have deadlocked both debate and international policymaking (Biggs et al, 2017;CITES, 2019b;Hutton & Leader-Williams, 2003).…”

“…More research is needed to support decision-making on this issue (Dang & Nielsen, 2020), including research on the potential impacts of trade legalization. This includes understanding how the perspectives and behaviors of key stakeholders in the trade chain, including TCM practitioners (physicians) and consumers, may be influenced by trade legalization (Cheung, Mazerolle, Possingham, & Biggs, 2021a).…”

“…The rhino poaching crisis has drawn substantial global concern and remains a critical threat to species (Dang & Nielsen, 2020). Rising wealth in Asia has driven the increase in poaching and illegal trade, and China is recognized as a major source of demand (Di Minin et al, 2015;Emslie et al, 2016;Milliken & Shaw, 2012).…”

Global biodiversity conservation requires traditional Chinese medicine trade to be sustainable and well regulated

“…Ethnocentrism might pose a further barrier, whereby TCM might simply be regarded as a superstitious belief that can be tackled by “education” without the need for in‐depth research. This view is reflected in many conservation campaigns, which label TCM ingredients such as rhino horn as having no medicinal value (Dang Vu & Nielsen, 2020 ).…”

A framework for conducting research on consumer demand for high-value wildlife products in Asia

“…Demand reduction interventions have been criticized for being based on delusion rather than evidence, and campaign designs often do not enable rigorous impact assessments (Dang and Nielsen, 2021;Greenfield and Veríssimo, 2019;Olmedo, 2018). Understanding consumer demand for high-value wildlife products represents a significant challenge.…”