A framework to evaluate animal welfare implications of policies on rhino horn trade

Abstract

Abstract There is currently fierce debate among rhino conservation stakeholders, scientists, and policy-makers over the legalisation of trade in rhino horn. Despite the prominent voice of animal welfare organisations in this debate and conservation more broadly, the welfare implications of a legal trade versus a trade ban have not been addressed. To explore this gap, we developed a framework to assess the welfare implications for white rhino (Ceratotherium simum) under different rhino horn trade policies. We surveyed rhino stakeholders in order to rank eleven welfare issues under a hypothetical legal trade versus a trade ban, and then calculated the resulting rhino welfare compromise under each policy. Results from expert input suggest that welfare compromise of legally-dehorned rhinos is substantially lower than welfare compromise of a poached animal. This is largely due to the differences in a rhino s physiological and psychological distress in response to being shot versus being immobilised with anaesthetics. Through a sensitivity analysis, we show how rhino welfare compromise changes with respect to the degree poaching levels could respond to legal trade (or a continued ban), from the scenario of low poaching pressure to the alternative scenario of increased poaching pressure. This analysis suggests that the policy that leads to the least poaching is likely best for improving rhino welfare because welfare compromise to poached individuals is much higher than the compromise from legally-dehorning a rhino. Our paper provides a framework to estimate and assess the welfare impacts of a hypothetical trade in rhino horn to inform policy debates.