An overview of the conservation status of and threats to ... · An overview of the conservation...

96 ELEPHANTS AND RHINOCEROS

Int. Zoo Yb. (2006) 40: 96–117 © The Zoological Society of London

An overview of the conservation status of and threatsto rhinoceros species in the wildR. AMIN1, K. THOMAS1, R. H. EMSLIE2, T. J. FOOSE3, 5 & N. VAN STRIEN4

1Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, United Kingdom,2IUCN/SSC African Rhino Specialist Group, Box 1212, Hilton 3245, KwaZulu-Natal,South Africa, 3International Rhino Foundation, 20 Pen Mar Street, Waynesboro,Pennsylvania 17268, USA, and 4IUCN/SSC Asian Rhino Specialist Group,Kondominium Taman Anggrek 3-23B, Jalan Parman. Slipi, Jakarta 11470, IndonesiaE-mail: [email protected]

5 Dr Tom Foose, International Rhino Foundation Program Director, died on 18 May 2006. One of the foun-ders of the IRF and with a passion for rhinoceros conservation, Tom will be remembered for the enormouscontribution he made to the shaping of rhinoceros conservation programmes.

This paper summarizes the recent status of rhino-ceros species, as provided by IUCN Species SurvivalCommission’s Rhinoceros Specialist Groups, anddescribes some of the current conservation measures.At the time of writing there are c. 14 950 rhinocerosremaining in Africa and c. 2850 in Asia. During thelast decade conservation initiatives have achievednotable successes; however, numbers of some speciesand subspecies have declined over this period andthree subspecies are close to extinction. The illegaldemand for rhinoceros horn and the subsequentpoaching this generates continue to pose a seriousthreat to rhinoceros populations worldwide. How-ever, experience indicates that where anti-poachingefforts are concentrated above minimum thresholdlevels population losses as a result of poaching canbe reduced to a low and sustainable level. However,not all populations receive sufficient protection anddeclining budgets of range-state governments forfield conservation are a major cause for concern. Therole of donor support is, therefore, becomingincreasingly important. For some subspecies lack ofadequate habitat protection rather than lack of suit-able habitat is a major constraint for populationexpansion and growth. Many rhinoceros popu-lations in Africa are managed as part of bigger meta-populations. However, sub-optimal biologicalmanagement is also reducing population growthrates in a number of populations.

Key-words: conservation status, endangered species,habitat, illegal trade, protected areas, rhinoceros,threats

Rhinoceros, like other charismatic megah-erbivores, require large areas to supportviable populations. They act as umbrella

species (Foose et al., 1995) for the ecosys-tems they inhabit because their conserva-tion requirements, by default, encompassthose of other smaller species. If rhino-ceros can be successfully conserved andprotected within an area, then the otherspecies in the area will also benefit. Beforeconsidering the status of each rhinocerosspecies in turn, it is worth first examiningthe main threats to rhinoceros speciesworldwide.

THREATS TO RHINOCEROS POPULATIONSRhinoceros have been hunted for centu-ries as agricultural pests, for trophies andmeat, their skin has been used for shieldsand good luck charms, and their horn hasbeen used in traditional medicines and ashandles for ceremonial daggers (Emslie &Brooks, 1999). Over the last century asignificant area of rhinoceros habitat hasbeen degraded or lost as result of land-management practices and humansettlement.

Increasing poverty in many Africancountries has often been associated withwar and civil unrest, and the associatedfree flow of weapons has also had a neg-ative impact on conservation efforts forrhinoceros. For example, insurgencies andcivil wars in Nepal, parts of Assam and

REVIEW: RHINOCEROS CONSERVATION STATUS AND IN SITU THREATS 97

the Democratic Republic of the Congohave led to considerable reductions innumbers in specific parks in recent years(Hillman-Smith & Ndey, 2005).

The use of large tracts of land for wild-life conservation is under continued threatin Asia and Africa, as demand for landfor subsistence farming, cattle grazing andcommercial use, such as plantations andlogging, increases. Human populationgrowth and rising unemployment add tothe pressure for land. In particular, hab-itat loss has had a significant impact onthe Sumatran rhinoceros Dicerorhinussumatrensis. However, many range statesstill have sufficient land to maintainrhinoceros populations.

Protection and conservation-manage-ment programmes for rhinoceros can beextremely expensive and beyond the reachof some range states. In both Africa andAsia effective anti-poaching efforts andmanagement of rhinoceros can cost up toUS$1000 annually for every square kilo-metre of habitat (N. Leader-Williams,pers. comm.; T. Conway, pers. comm.).Declining government budgets in realterms and, in some cases, decliningcapacity, pose a threat to the continuedsuccesses in a number of range stateswhere population numbers have beenincreasing under effective protection andmanagement strategies. Therefore, theassistance of donor agencies is becomingincreasingly important, as are attempts bya number of range states to increase rev-enue for conservation through eco-tourism. In some southern Africancountries rhinoceros contribute towardsthe cost of conservation through sustain-able-use ventures, such as ecotourism, livesales and limited sport hunting of old andsurplus ��.

The major threat to rhinoceros is theillegal demand for horn and the poachingpressure that this trade stimulates. Overthe last few decades poaching has been themain cause of decline in some areas. How-ever such declines have not been universalas populations in many well-protected

parks in Africa and Asia have increasedover the last 10 years. Evidence suggeststhat in order to be effective, anti-poachingefforts need to be concentrated aboveminimum threshold levels. Where this canbe achieved, poaching invariably has beenreduced to low and sustainable levels. Forthis reason many rhinoceros are main-tained in fenced sanctuaries or in intensiveprotection zones within larger nationalparks where manpower and resources canbe concentrated at effective levels (Leader-Williams, 1988; Emslie & Brooks, 1999).In contrast, attempting to reintroducerhinoceros into vast tracts of land withoutthe necessary budgets and manpower toprotect them successfully is notrecommended.

Rhinoceros poached in Africa and Asiaare targeted primarily for their horn butin some cases the entire carcass is used.However, the preparation and transpor-tation of other body parts is difficult andin practice only the horn is taken frommost poached animals (E. B. Martin,pers. comm.). Well-armed poaching gangsthat cross international boundaries insearch of rhinoceros have also impactedpopulations. While most of the profitfrom poaching goes to a few traders andmiddlemen, even the small amountsearned by poachers are enough incentiveto risk fines, imprisonment or death. Oneproblem is a tendency of the press to pub-licize the high value of rhinoceros horn.These are usually quotes of the final resaleprices for rhinoceros horn, which does notbear any relation to the much loweramount poachers may get for whole horns(especially in Africa). This can send themisleading message to potential criminalsthat there is a lot of money to be madefrom poaching, when the reality is that inAfrica the rhinoceros are worth far morealive than the horns are worth topoachers. There have been a number ofcases in Africa in recent years where localdealers have not been able to sell horn andhave in the end been caught in undercoversting operations, where it became clear


that the price poachers thought they couldcommand was much higher than theactual black-market price.

TRADEThere are two main uses for Rhinoceroshorn. It is carved to make ornate handlesfor jambiyas (ceremonial daggers worn inYemen). Rhinoceros horn is also used intraditional Chinese medicine (TCM)(Martin & Martin, 1982; Emslie &Brooks, 1999). Although the mediaroutinely claim that a major use of rhino-ceros horn is as an aphrodisiac, this hasbeen found to be largely a myth (Martin& Martin, 1982). Historically, the Guja-rati in India did use rhinoceros horn as anaphrodisiac but following the increase inthe price of horn this practice effectivelyceased (E. B. Martin, pers. comm.).

Since the early 1970s Yemen hasimported the largest quantity of Africanrhinoceros horn, which is preferred toAsian rhinoceros horn owing to its largersize, thus allowing more jambiya daggerhandles to be made per horn. Most illegalhorn from eastern Africa has been smug-gled by traders into Yemen. Africa’sBlack rhinoceros Diceros bicornis popu-lation fell from c. 65 000 in 1970 to 2450by the early 1990s. It is only in recentyears that Yemen became a party toCITES (Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of WildFlora and Fauna) and has outlawedimports of rhinoceros horn and exports ofhorn shavings to the East. Internal tradein rhinoceros horn was also prohibitedand the making of new rhinoceros-hornjambiya handles was banned. Attemptshave been made to lower demand byencouraging high-value substitutes for thehorn (e.g. agate: a hard, fine-grained semi-precious stone). For a time the amount ofrhinoceros horn entering Yemen declined(Martin et al., 1997; Martin & Vigne,2005). However, recent information indi-cates that Yemen remains the main recip-ient of rhinoceros horn from Africa andthe bulk of horn imported into Yemen in

2005 came from the Northern whiterhinoceros Ceratotherium simum cottoni(Vigne & Martin, 2006). Jambiya withnew rhinoceros-horn handles have beenfound on sale openly suggesting thatcraftsmen have little reason to hide thembecause government inspectors are notdoing enough to curb the trade (Vigne &Martin, 2006).

Even though the use of rhinoceros hornin TCM is now banned in most countries,rhinoceros horn is still being tradedthroughout Asia. It has been suggestedthat in the late 1980s and early 1990srhinoceros horn may have been stockpiledas a speculative investment (Emslie &Brooks, 1999). With the increased imple-mentation of domestic trade bans thetrade has gone underground and it is nowmore difficult to monitor and assess levelsof illegal trading.

While some TCM practitioners haveidentified a number of acceptable substi-tutes, others believe that rhinoceros hornis irreplaceable for the treatment of cer-tain, sometimes life-threatening, condi-tions. In TCM rhinoceros horn is usedprimarily for the treatment of ailments,such as epilepsy, fevers and strokes. Manypharmacists consider Asian rhinoceroshorn to be more effective than Africanrhinoceros horn. Although African rhino-ceros horns are bigger than the horns ofthe three Asian rhinoceros species, owingto the greater rarity, smaller size and per-ceived superior medicinal properties,Asian horn sells at a premium (Martin &Martin, 1982). Clinical studies testing theefficacy of rhinoceros horn to reduce feverhave concluded that it either had no effectin rabbits (Laburn & Mitchell, 1997) orhad only a small effect when given in mas-sive doses to rats (But et al., 1990).

Seizure of medicines containing rhino-ceros horn indicate that the majority wereproduced in China, with Hong Kong and,more recently, Singapore acting as majorholding centres for rhinoceros horn(Mills, 1997). Research by TRAFFIC hasshown that the principal consuming


nations are South Korea, Taiwan andmainland China, with manufactured med-icines also being exported to expatriateChinese communities around the world(Leader-Williams, 1992; Nowell et al.,1992; Mills, 1997).

The issue of trade bans is controversialbecause such bans have meant that rhino-ceros horn has had to be obtained unsus-tainably by poaching and this may haveencouraged black-market activity. Somehave argued that if this trade was legal-ized, the legal stockpiles in some rangestates could provide a supply of hornwithout killing rhinoceros; and that hornrecovered from rhinoceros that die fromnatural causes and routine harvesting ofhorn from live rhinoceros could also pro-vide much needed revenue for conserva-tion as well as creating a further economicincentive for the expansion of rhinocerosrange. This, in turn, would convey astrong message that rhinoceros are notbecoming extinct, which could lead to adrop in the black-market price of hornand thus reduce illegal demand and,hence, poaching. However, many othersare against re-opening a legal tradearguing that the combination of inter-national trade bans under CITES and themore recent imposition of domestic tradebans are starting to be effective inreducing poaching and the trade bansshould be given more time. Concerns havealso been expressed about whether anyproposed trade could be properly con-trolled and, in particular, whether itwould be possible to prevent poachedhorn from being laundered and smuggledinto the market illegally. No range stateproposed any downlisting to trade inrhinoceros horn at the last CITES Con-ference of the Parties (COP 13) and it ishighly unlikely that any such proposalwould gain the necessary two-thirds ofvotes needed for a downlisting. Thus, forthe immediate future it is unlikely that thetrade in rhinoceros horn trade will belegalized.

AFRICAN SPECIESOf the five extant rhinoceros species, theWhite rhinoceros Ceratotherium simumand the Black rhinoceros Diceros bicornisoccur in Africa. Historically, the Whiterhinoceros had a much more restricteddistribution than the Black rhinoceros(Emslie & Brooks, 1999). Currently, threeof the four Black rhinoceros subspeciesand one of the two White rhinoceros sub-species are listed as Critically Endangeredon the 2006 IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies (IUCN, 2006).

WHITE RHINOCEROSThere are two distinct subspecies thatdiffer greatly in their current conservationstatus: the Southern white rhinoceros Cer-atotherium simum simum and theNorthern white rhinoceros Ceratotheriumsimum cottoni. The Northern white rhino-ceros is extremely rare and only occurs inone wild population of just a few animalsin the Democratic Republic of the Congo(DRC) where recent surveys only con-firmed a minimum of three animals sur-viving following a major upsurge inpoaching since mid-2003, while theSouthern white rhinoceros is the mostnumerous rhinoceros taxa, with its mainstronghold in South Africa (Fig. 1).Because of the spectacular recovery innumbers of Southern white rhinoceros,the species is no longer listed in one of theIUCN (2006) threatened categories and israted as Near Threatened. The Whiterhinoceros is also the only species wherenumbers now exceed the currently rec-ommended Minimum Viable Population(MVP) size of 5000–7000 individuals(Reed et al., 2003).

Southern white rhinocerosCeratotherium simum simum

Once widespread in the bushveld areas ofsouthern Africa south of the ZambeziRiver, this subspecies was on the brink ofextinction by the end of the 19th centuryhaving been reduced to just one smallbreeding population of c. 20–50 animals


Fig. 1. Distribution of White rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum (as at end of 2003, updated from Emslie & Brooks,1999).

in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (Emslie& Brooks, 2002).

The development of translocation tech-niques in the 1960s and subsequent annualremovals has resulted in large-scalerestocking of many wild populations (pre-dominantly in South Africa but also in anumber of range states and some non-range states) with hundreds more beingexported to zoos worldwide. Under pro-tection by the end of 2003 Southern white

rhinoceros numbers had recovered to over11 300 animals in 379 wild populations ineight African countries with a further 737animals held in captivity (Emslie, 2004a).While Hluhluwe-iMfolozi National Park,South Africa, currently conserves 1900,the largest population of 4900 is inGreater Kruger National Park, SouthAfrica, and adjoining private reserves.

South Africa remains the strongholdfor this subspecies, with 93% (10 540


animals) of the total population as at theend of 2003. While the majority are stillconserved in state Game Reserves (GR)and National Parks (NP), by 2002 a min-imum of 2856 Southern white rhinoceroswere owned and conserved by the privatesector in South Africa (Knight, 2004).Smaller reintroduced Southern whiterhinoceros populations occur in Bot-swana, Mozambique, Namibia, Swazilandand Zimbabwe. Out-of-range populationshave also been established in Kenya,Zambia and most recently in 2005Uganda (a former Northern white rhino-ceros range state).

Kenya, Namibia and Zimbabwe are theonly countries outside of South Africa tomaintain populations of �175 Southernwhite rhinoceros. Together these ‘Big 4’rhinoceros range states conserve 99% ofthe subspecies in the wild. Interestinglythe same four countries also conserve 97%of Africa’s Black rhinoceros.

The Southern white rhinoceros is nowthe most abundant and its numbers aregreater than all the other taxa of rhino-ceros combined (Table 1). This recoveryin only 110 years from c. 20–50 to�12 000 animals (including those in cap-tivity) represents one of the world’sgreatest conservation success stories.

Threats to Southern white rhinocerosIllegal poaching for the internationaltrade in rhinoceros horn is still the mainthreat to the subspecies, although it hasbeen infrequent in South Africa. Poachingincreased around the time of the inde-pendence elections and peaked at 26animals in 1994 but levels have sincedeclined (Emslie & Brooks, 1999; Knight,2004). In several range states a numbercases of poaching have been successfullyinvestigated, resulting in convictions andjail terms, which should act as deterrents.A major concern is a recent change tolegal interpretation in Zimbabwe wherebypoaching of rhinoceros no longer resultsin a mandatory jail sentence with con-

victed offenders instead now face paltryfines. However, jail terms of 5–20 yearshave been given in South Africa, Swazi-land and Namibia.

Undercover wildlife investigations indi-cate that the demand for horn is still high,so there is no room for complacency.Should the quality and intensity of fieldprotection efforts decline, poaching levelscould increase. Maintaining sufficientbudgets and field-conservation capacitywill therefore be critical in the yearsahead. Declining budgets for range-stateconservation agencies and, in some cases,declining capacity for field-conservationaction are a major concern (Emslie &Brooks, 1999).

Conservation measures The Southernwhite rhinoceros was listed on CITESAppendix I. However, since 1994 theSouth African population of Southernwhite rhinoceros was downlisted toAppendix II but only for trade in liveanimals to ‘approved and acceptable des-tinations’ and for the (continued) exportof hunting trophies. In 2004 the Swazilandpopulation was also similarly downlistedby CITES but with a fixed per cent upperquota for both live removals and theexport of hunting trophies. Trade in hornis still banned under CITES and at the lastCITES COP no White rhinoceros rangestates proposed downlisting to reopen alegal trade in horn. To help reduce illegaltrade and complement CITES inter-national trade bans, domestic anti-trademeasures and legislation were imple-mented in the 1990s by a number of con-sumer states. Effective protection ofrhinoceros populations has been criticaland many are now concentrated in fencedsanctuaries, conservancies, conservationareas and intensive-protection zones(Leader-Williams et al., 1997; Emslie &Brooks, 1999) where law enforcement canbe concentrated at effective levels.

Monitoring of rhinoceros numbers andperformance has provided the necessary


whiterhinoceros

Cer

atot

heri

umsi

mum

blackrhinoceros

Dic

eros

bico

rnis

cott

oni

sim

umtotal

trend

bico

rnis

long

ipes

mic

hael

im

inor

total

trend

Bot

swan

a67

67up

+in

tro

55

intr

oC

amer

oon

5*?

5*?

?D

RC

22†

22†

dow

nE

thio

pia

4‡4

?K

enya

218

218

up43

943

7up

Mal

awi

88

up+

intr

oM

ozam

biqu

e2

2?

0?0

exti

nct?

Nam

ibia

186

186

up12

3812

38up

Rw

anda

11

dow

nSo

uth

Afr

ica

1053

610

536

up§

7136

1177

1284

upSw

azila

nd61

61up

1515

upT

anza

nia

4224

66up

Zam

bia

33

dow

n5

5in

tro

Zim

babw

e25

025

0up

536

536

up

total

2211

345

1135

0up

§13

105?

520

1770

3610

up

*E

xten

sive

grou

ndsu

rvey

sar

eun

der

way

atti

me

ofw

riti

ngto

confi

rmho

wm

any

(if

any)

Wes

tern

blac

krh

inoc

eros

still

surv

ive.

The

reis

ach

ance

this

subs

peci

esm

ayno

wbe

exti

nct

inth

ew

ild.

†T

hem

inim

umco

nfirm

ednu

mbe

rin

Gar

amba

NP

and

surr

ound

ing

hunt

ing

area

sin

the

Dem

ocra

tic

Rep

ublic

ofth

eC

ongo

was

only

thre

eby

the

end

ofA

pril

2006

.‡

Dic

eros

bico

rnis

bruc

eii?

§T

hefig

ures

give

nar

efr

om20

03(s

tate

and

defe

nce-

forc

ear

eas)

and

2002

(pri

vate

,m

unic

ipal

,zo

oan

dbi

osph

ere

rese

rves

).

Tab

le1.

Num

bers

ofW

hite

and

Bla

ckrh

inoc

eros

inA

fric

aas

at31

Dec

embe

r20

03,

pres

ente

dby

coun

try

and

bysu

bspe

cies

(Em

slie

,20

04a)

.T

hese

num

bers

are

rout

inel

yup

date

dby

the

AfR

SG

ever

y2

year

san

dup

date

des

tim

ates

for

31D

ecem

ber

2005

will

bere

leas

edaf

ter

the

AfR

SG

mee

ting

inla

teJu

ne/e

arly

July

2006

.T

heta

ble

excl

udes

spec

ulat

ive

gues

stim

ates

.S

ubsp

ecie

sto

tals

�50

0ro

unde

dto

near

est

ten

rhin

ocer

os.

Num

bers

for

D.b

.min

orin

Tan

zani

a,D

.b.b

icor

nis

inN

amib

ia,

D.b

.mic

hael

iin

Ken

ya,

D.b

.lon

gipe

sin

Cam

eroo

nan

dC

.s.c

otto

niin

DR

Cm

aybe

high

erbu

tth

isre

quir

esco

nfirm

atio

n.N

umbe

rsof

D.b

.min

orin

Sw

azila

ndap

prox

imat

eto

the

true

num

ber.

Oth

ernu

mbe

rsco

mpi

led

byIU

CN

SS

CA

fric

anR

hino

Spe

cial

ist

Gro

upat

mee

ting

inK

enya

6–11

June

2004

;in

tro.

intr

oduc

tion

s.


information to allow wildlife managers tofocus on rapid population growth, whichhas resulted in a surplus of animals fortranslocation and to establish new popu-lations both within and outside the formerrange of the species. Increasingly attemptsare also being made to integrate localcommunities into conservation efforts.

While the majority of Southern whiterhinoceros live in South Africa, the factthat this subspecies is now managed by arange of different stakeholders (privatesector and state) in several countries withsignificant numbers also in captivityworldwide, increases long-term security.

In Southern Africa the non-consump-tive (ecotourism viewing and live sales)and consumptive sustainable use (sporthunting of limited numbers of surplus ��since 1968) of Southern white rhinoceroshas helped catalyse private-sector demandfor rhinoceros. By the end of 2003 it wasestimated that c. 29% (3252) of Southernwhite rhinoceros in Africa were privatelyowned. The commercialization of theSouthern white rhinoceros has allowedformal state conservation agencies toremove surplus rhinoceros, preventingoverstocking in the populations and thussolving a biological-managementproblem. At the same time this has gen-erated substantial additional revenue tocover some of the funding shortfall causedby declining state budgets for conserva-tion in real terms. On average the under-lying growth rates of Southern whiterhinoceros populations on private landhave been high, contributing to the overallgrowth in numbers. The movement ofSouthern white rhinoceros onto privateland has also significantly increased therange area for the subspecies. The eco-nomic value of rhinoceros has also beenused in some court cases to convince mag-istrates that crimes against rhinoceros areserious offences deserving of heavy deter-rent sentences. Their value has also helpedconservation-resource economists insouthern Africa to suggest to politicians

that conservation is a valid economicform of land use and not ‘a waste of land’.

Northern white rhinocerosCeratotherium simum cottoni

The situation facing the future of theCritically Endangered Northern whiterhinoceros is bleak (IUCN, 2004). Thissubspecies once ranged in large numbersthroughout north-central Africa south ofthe Sahara. In 1960 there were c. 2250animals remaining but in the 1970s(Emslie & Brooks, 1999) and early 1980s,poachers reduced the number of Northernwhite rhinoceros from 500 to 15 survivingin Garamba NP, DRC. However by 1995,under protection, the population hadrecovered to 31. Civil wars in neigh-bouring Sudan and in the DRC led to aninflux of automatic weapons into theneighbouring region and an upsurge inpoaching. Nevertheless, for many yearsbirths in Garamba NP balanced poachinglosses and overall numbers remainedstable.

However, in mid-2003 there was amajor upsurge in commercial poaching byex- or current Sudan People’s LiberationArmy (SPLA) members and othersouthern Sudanese, often in collaborationwith Congolese. The start of incursions bywell-armed groups of Arabic horsemenfrom northern Sudan soon after this fur-ther compounded the problem (Hillman-Smith, 2004). By September 2004 numbershad been reduced to c. 15 individuals buta subsequent count revealed even fewerrhinoceros and additional poached car-cases (Hillman-Smith & Ndey, 2005;K. Hillman-Smith pers. comm.). Recentintensive surveys in March 2006 con-firmed the presence of only one adult �and one adult �, although since the sur-veys an additional adult � has been seen,bringing the current known minimumnumber as at May 2006 to three. It ishoped one or more additional animalsmay still survive and further survey workis required to clarify numbers.


In May 2004 ten Northern white rhino-ceros were maintained in two zoologicalinstitutions; Dvur Kralove, CzechRepublic (seven animals), and San DiegoWild Animal Park, USA (three animals).However, most of these animals are oldand breeding has been poor (Hermeset al., 2006).

Threats to Northern white rhinoceros Themain threat to this subspecies has beenpoaching as a result of political instability,civil unrest and war. The small populationsize, with only one confirmed breeding �and two �� remaining, will limit popu-lation growth and increase the chance ofthe subspecies going extinct in the wild asa result of chance demographic effectsand/or genetic problems in the future(inbreeding depression). Despite improvedsecurity since Africa Parks Foundationbecame involved with Park management,with so few animals remaining and theinstability and general availability ofweapons in the area, poaching threatensthis subspecies to extinction in the wild.

Conservation measures The subspecies isincluded on CITES Appendix I. In 1984the Garamba NP Project began withrhinoceros conservation as its centralfocus. The increased protection affordedby anti-poaching efforts in Garamba NPallowed the population to double from 15in 1984 to 30 by 1991. Since then therehas been a long-running civil war inneighbouring Sudan and two civil wars inthe DRC. In response to the recentpoaching, an emergency strategy to movefive rhinoceros to a safe sanctuary inKenya as a temporary measure wasdeveloped by the protected-area authorityin DRC and a coalition of internationalorganizations in late 2004. The objectivewas to remove a small breeding group ofrhinoceros and conserve them on a cus-todianship basis with the long-term inten-tion to re-establish the Northern whiterhinoceros population in Garamba NPonce the Park was secured. The emer-

gency plan included increasing anti-poaching support to Garamba NP tocounter the current high levels ofpoaching. Unfortunately before a pro-tocol could be formalized and signed bythe DRC Government, the translocationfell victim to political manoeuvring andnational divisions. Conservation activitiesin Garamba NP were obstructed andfinally suspended, leaving the remainingrhinoceros defenceless for a period againstpoaching (Fauna & Flora Internationaland International Rhino Foundation,Press Release, 7 April 2005). Since then,Africa Parks Foundation has taken overmanagement of the Park in collaborationwith the national conservation agencyICCN (Institut Congolese pour la Con-servation de la Nature), and overallpoaching in the Park appears to havereduced significantly.

BLACK RHINOCEROSBlack rhinoceros exist wherever herb andwoody browse occurs in sufficientamounts to support a population. Thisspans a wide range of habitats coveringdeserts, semi-deserts, wooded savannahs,woodlands, forests and even sub-alpineheathlands. However, the densities atwhich Black rhinoceros can exist in thesehabitats vary 100-fold, from one rhino-ceros per 100 km2 in the desert plains ofWestern Kunene, Namibia, to more thanone rhinoceros per 1 km2 in thicket vege-tation. There are four recognized subspe-cies of Black rhinoceros occupyingdifferent areas of Africa (Fig. 2).

Western black rhinocerosDiceros bicornis longipes

This Critically Endangered subspeciesonce ranged throughout the savannahzones of central West Africa but wasreduced to only a few scattered animalsremaining in northern Cameroon withsome animals believed to be seasonal vis-itors to Chad. There are no animals incaptivity and in recent years the status ofthis subspecies has not been adequately


Fig. 2. Distribution of Black rhinoceros Diceros bicornis (as at end of 2003, updated from Emslie & Brooks,1999).

known. At time of writing, extensiveground surveys are under way to deter-mine the status of this subspecies and,indeed, whether or not any animals stillsurvive.

Threats to Western black rhinocerosPoaching, lack of finance, limited anti-poaching efforts, limited local capacity forconservation management, failure of

courts to give sentences that can act as adeterrent to potential poachers, andgenetic and demographic factors all poseserious threats to this subspecies. Over thelast decade remaining animals have beenscattered in highly vulnerable smallgroups that may not be in breeding con-tact (H. Planton, pers. comm.).

Conservation measures The Westernblack rhinoceros is included on CITES


Appendix I. An action plan for Cameroonwas developed in 1993, following an inter-national mission and workshop held atGaroua in northern Cameroon, but thiswas never implemented. A high-level stak-eholders workshop was held in Cameroonin 2000 to discuss potential strategies toprevent the extinction of the subspecies.Before fund-raising could begin it wasagreed that there should be evidence thatat least five Western black rhinocerosremained. New surveys in 2001 failed toconfirm and photograph at least fiverhinoceros. Surveys are nearing comple-tion to determine the status of this sub-species and whether or not it has goneextinct.

Eastern black rhinocerosDiceros bicornis michaeli

Historically this Critically Endangeredsubspecies ranged from southern Sudan,Ethiopia and Somalia through Uganda,Rwanda, Kenya and into north–centralTanzania (Emslie & Brooks, 1999). Itscurrent stronghold is Kenya with 458rhinoceros as at the end of 2003, mostlywithin protected areas, sanctuaries in bothprotected areas and on private land, andin a free-ranging population on county-council land. Tanzania has c. 42 Easternblack rhinoceros, mostly in free-rangingpopulations in unfenced protected areasand a few in one sanctuary. Rwanda andEthiopia hold relict populations of oneand two to four animals, in a protectedarea and on community land, respectively.At the end of 2003 South Africa had c. 36Eastern black rhinoceros of pre-dominantly Kenyan origin maintained onprivate land. As at December 2004 therewere 171 Eastern black rhinoceros in cap-tivity worldwide (Foose & Wiese, thisvolume).

Threats to Eastern black rhinocerosPoaching is the main threat to this sub-species. The majority of poached rhino-ceros horn ends up in Yemen to be made

into dagger handles (Martin et al., 1997;Martin & Vigne, 2005).

Some populations of the Eastern blackrhinoceros in enclosed areas appear to beoverstocked and are showing clear signsof density-dependent reductions in repro-ductive performance (Ouma, 2004). Insome cases competition from otherbrowsers, such as African elephants Lox-odonta africana and Giraffes Giraffacamelopardalis, appears to also be nega-tively affecting rhinoceros carryingcapacity (Birkett, 2002; Brett & Adcock,2002). Limited budgets for conservationare also a problem.

Conservation measures The Easternblack rhinoceros is included on CITESAppendix I. Effective field protection ofrhinoceros populations has been critical.Increasing efforts are being made to inte-grate local communities into conservationefforts. In Kenya, the major range state,Eastern black rhinoceros are now man-aged by a range of stakeholders from amunicipal county-council run area, tostate-managed parks and fenced, well-pro-tected sanctuaries, some of which aremanaged by the private sector.

National conservation strategies havealso been implemented. Kenya’s revisedrhinoceros conservation strategy hasplaced increased priority on improvedmonitoring and biological managementfor rapid metapopulation growth fol-lowing lower than average increases inrecent years. The Kenyan Darwin Initia-tive project has implemented these key ele-ments and the national populationestimates over 2004 and 2005 have shownan annual increase of over 5% (Amin,Ouma-Okita et al., this volume).

South-western black rhinocerosDiceros bicornis bicornis

The original range of this Vulnerable sub-species included Namibia, southernAngola, western Botswana and probablyalso south-western South Africa. Signifi-cant populations have remained in the


desert and arid savannah areas ofNamibia and this country is the strong-hold for the taxon, conserving 1238 rhino-ceros as at the end of 2003 (Emslie,2004a), with South Africa conserving afurther 71. There are no South-westernblack rhinoceros in captivity.

Threats to South-western blackrhinoceros The main threat to this sub-species is poaching. Illegal hunting hasbeen blamed for the disappearance of theSouth-western black rhinoceros from aridhabitats in at least two range states(Angola and Botswana). Since 1979 con-servation efforts in Namibia havestemmed poaching activities and thepopulation has increased steadily. As inother range states, declining budgets forconservation are a problem.

Conservation measures The South-western black rhinoceros is included onCITES Appendix I. In Namibia poachingduring the war of independence causedpublic outcry and increasing support forlocal protection efforts by internationaland local conservation agencies and com-munities living in areas with rhinoceros,have stemmed poaching activities in thecountry and the population has shown asteady increase since 1980 when therewere only c. 300 animals (Emslie &Brooks, 1999). Effective field protectionof South-western black rhinoceros popu-lations has been critical to the rapidincrease in numbers. Monitoring has alsoprovided information to guide biologicalmanagement decision making aimed atmanaging rhinoceros populations forrapid population growth. This hasresulted in surplus animals being trans-located to establish new populations.Increasing efforts are also being made tointegrate local communities into conser-vation efforts. Namibia pioneered the useof community-based game guards to pro-tect rhinoceros living in communal areas.Namibia’s South-western black rhino-ceros are now managed by a range of

stakeholders from community conservan-cies, state parks and the private sector (ona custodianship basis for the state). South-western black rhinoceros have also beenreintroduced to South Africa and num-bered 71 by the end of 2003 (Emslie,2004a). At the recent CITES COP,Namibia was granted an annual quota forthe sport hunting of up to five surplusSouth-western black rhinoceros ��. Notonly will this deal with the problem of sur-plus �� in some populations but also itshould generate significant revenue tofund and stimulate conservation efforts.Namibia has indicated that if any surplus�� are hunted in communal areas, localcommunities will have access to all the netrevenue raised via Namibia’s Game Prod-ucts Trust Fund. In this way Namibia islooking to deliver tangible benefits to thecommunities that have successfully beenconserving the desert rhinoceros in thenorth-east of the country.

South-central black rhinocerosDiceros bicornis minor

This Critically Endangered subspecies isthe most numerous of the Black rhino-ceros subspecies. Historically, this subspe-cies occurred from western and southernTanzania through Zambia, Zimbabweand Mozambique to the northern andeastern parts of South Africa. It probablyalso occurred in southern DRC andnorthern Angola. Today its stronghold isSouth Africa and to a lesser extent Zim-babwe, with smaller numbers remaining insouthern Tanzania. The South-centralblack rhinoceros is now thought to beextinct in Angola and Mozambique butsmall numbers have been reintroducedinto Swaziland, Malawi and, morerecently, Zambia and Botswana. TheItalian funded Southern African Develop-ment Community (SADC) Regional Pro-gramme for Rhino Conservation hasplayed an important catalytic role in pro-moting translocation of rhinocerosbetween countries and as at May 2004there were 69 South-central black rhino-


ceros in captivity (Foose & Wiese, thisvolume).

Threats to South-central blackrhinoceros Poaching is still the mainthreat to the subspecies. Conservative bio-logical management appears to havelimited metapopulation growth rates insome key populations (Emslie, 2001). Inparts of Zimbabwe, land transformationfollowing re-settlement has negativelyaffected habitat in some areas and hasresulted in a number of snare-relateddeaths. There is a plan to create an addi-tional intensive-protection zone in Zim-babwe. Declining conservation budgets,an apparent increase in poaching andlosses of animals to snaring, and the pros-ecution of rhinoceros offences understatues without deterrent sentences are ofconcern.

Conservation measures The subspecies isincluded on CITES Appendix I. Effectivefield protection of rhinoceros populationshas been critical. Increasing efforts arebeing made to integrate local communitiesinto conservation efforts. A range of stak-eholders, from state-run conservationagencies to privately owned sanctuaries,manage this subspecies. Increasing num-bers have enabled translocations of sur-plus animals to establish new populationswithin the former range of the subspecies.However, overly conservative removalsfrom some South African populations inthe past resulted in density increases anddeclining population performance.Removal levels appear to be on theincrease. Ongoing monitoring of indivi-dual rhinoceros occurs in the majority ofpopulations and annual status reportingand improved estimates of ecologicalcarrying capacities provide usefulinformation to assess performance andassist biological decision making. Indivi-dual rhinoceros populations form part ofa bigger metapopulation and there havealso been occasional transfers for genetic-conservation reasons. Efforts are also

made to investigate and prosecutepoachers effectively to act as a deterrent.

Although threats to some managedpopulations on state and private land inZimbabwe cause concern, some of theSouth-central black rhinoceros popu-lations in that country have been amongthe best performing in Africa. LikeNamibia, at the recent CITES COP,South Africa was granted annual quotasfor the sport hunting of five surplusSouth-central black rhinoceros ��. Sporthunting should generate significant rev-enue to help fund and stimulate conser-vation efforts. Similar to the limitedSouthern white rhinoceros hunting, thehunting quota for South-central blackrhinoceros represents �0·5% of the popu-lation and, therefore, will be sustainable.Indeed it has been argued that theremoval of old surplus �� may counter-intuitively help increase overall metapo-pulation performance (Emslie, 2004b).

ASIAN SPECIESThere are three species of Asian rhino-ceros and all three are threatened withextinction: two are Critically Endangeredand one Endangered as listed by IUCN(2004) (Table 2).

Asian greater one-horned or Indianrhinoceros

Rhinoceros unicornisThe Endangered Indian rhinoceros wasonce abundant throughout the floodplainsof the Ganges, Brahmaputra and SindhRivers and their large tributaries betweenIndo–Burmese border in the east and Pak-istan in the west. Currently, rhinocerosare restricted to protected areas mainly inIndia and Nepal. In India, the majorityare in Assam (Kaziranga NP, PobitoraWS and Orang NP) but also in WestBengal (Jaldapara WS and GorumaraWS) and a few in Uttar Pradesh (DudwaNP). In Nepal rhinoceros occur mainly inRoyal Chitwan NP but have also beenreintroduced to Royal Bardia NP andRoyal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve


indianrhinoceros

javanrhinoceros

sumatranrhinoceros

Rhi

noce

ros

unic

orni

sR

hino

cero

sso

ndai

cus

Dic

eror

hinu

ssu

mat

rens

is

total

trend

sond

aicu

san

nam

itic

ustotal

trend

sum

atre

nsis

harr

isso

nitotal

trend

Indi

a21

00up

Indo

nesi

a40

–50

40–5

0st

able

200

200

stab

leor

upM

alay

sia

7525

100

stab

leN

epal

400

dow

nV

ietn

am�

5�

5do

wn

total

2500

dow

n40

–50

dow

n30

0st

able

orup

Tab

le2.

App

roxi

mat

enu

mbe

rsof

Indi

an,

Java

nan

dS

umat

ran

rhin

ocer

osin

Asi

aas

at20

05,

pres

ente

dby

coun

try

and

subs

peci

es.

Ath

ird

subs

peci

esof

Java

nrh

inoc

eros

Rhi

noce

ros

sond

aicu

sin

erm

is,

form

erly

inIn

dia

and

Ban

glad

esh,

isex

tinc

t.A

thir

dsu

bspe

cies

ofS

umat

ran

rhin

ocer

osD

icer

orhi

nus

sum

atre

nsis

lasi

otis

,m

aysu

rviv

ein

very

smal

lnu

mbe

rsin

nort

hern

Mya

nmar

and

onth

eIn

dia–

Mya

nmar

bord

er.


Fig. 3. Historic and current distribution of Indian rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis.

(Fig. 3). Reintroduced Indian rhinocerospopulations in Duduwa NP in Uttarpra-desh, India and Royal Suklaphanta WR,Nepal, are small with only Bardia NP sofar receiving a founder number greaterthan the minimum 20 recommended.

Indian rhinoceros numbers haverecovered from �200 earlier in the20th century and the total wild populationhas increased from 600–700 individuals in1975 to c. 2500 in 2006. Periodic out-breaks of insurgency in parts of its rangehas often resulted in certain populationsbeing eradicated or reduced significantly.The two major range states, India andNepal, have invested significant commit-ment, effort, manpower and resources inprotecting and conserving this speciesand, as a result, there have been notablesuccesses.

The largest population of Indian rhino-ceros is conserved in Assam’s KazirangaNP (also a World Heritage Site), whichcelebrated its centenary in February 2005.The recovery of numbers in this Parkunder protection in many ways mirrorsthe recovery of Southern white rhinocerosnumbers. By 1905 numbers may havebeen as low as ten individuals but the lastcensus estimated a population of 1850 by2006. However, in contrast to theSouthern white rhinoceros recovery, in thepast little attention was paid to biologicalmanagement or expanding the number ofpopulations and range. As a result therehave been few translocations and Kazir-anga NP holds at least two-thirds of theremaining Indian rhinoceros numbers inthe wild. Apart from the strategic dangersof having so many ‘eggs in one basket’,


there are clear signs of a density-dependent reduction in populationperformance and possible habitat degra-dation following the increase in numbers(R. Emslie, pers. obs). In an encouragingdevelopment the Assam government hasrecently approved and launched a rangeexpansion project called Rhino Vision2020, which will use translocations fromKaziranga NP to re-establish Indianrhinoceros in other parks with the aim ofconserving 3000 rhinoceros in Assam by2020 (Williams et al., 2005).

Royal Chitwan NP holds the secondlargest population of the species. Its popu-lation recovered through intensive protec-tion from 60–80 individuals to c. 540 by2000 (DNPWC, unpubl.). However,poaching has escalated dramatically inrecent years following the removal ofmany of the army anti-poaching unitsfrom the Park because of the Maoistinsurgency in the country. A recent census(2005) identified only 372 individuals, rep-resenting a 31% decrease since 2000. Sincethat 2005 census 15 or more rhinoceroshave been poached. As at 2004 there were154 animals in captivity worldwide (Foose& Wiese, this volume).

Threats to Indian rhinoceros Humanpopulation growth has resulted in signifi-cant habitat loss. Figure 3 shows that thereduction in the range of the Indian rhino-ceros has been caused mainly by the dis-appearance of alluvial plain grasslands.Despite this there are still several potentialareas and parks for reintroduction. How-ever, proposed hydroelectric schemes inthe Bramhaputra River pose a majorthreat to the habitat of this species.

The existing populations in India andNepal remain vulnerable to poaching.Records of poaching in India show that266 rhinoceros were poached between1989 and 1993. Manas NP had an esti-mated population of 90–100 rhinoceros in1990 but during a period of insurgencyvirtually the entire population was lost,although a few Indian rhinoceros that

may have eluded the poachers or emi-grated from refuge in Bhutan have reap-peared. The population in Orang NP hadbeen reduced by poachers from c. 100 toc. 50 by 1999, with poaching still occur-ring (three more were lost in 2005). Never-theless, overall protection has improvedand the most recent census in 2006 located81 rhinoceros including 13 calves. Therehas also been recent poaching in PobitoraWS. In Nepal, the rise in Maoist insur-gency has also led to a significant increasein poaching, with numbers declining inRoyal Chitwan NP by about a third in thelast 5 years: 544 in 2000 to c. 350 today.In Royal Bardia NP, at least 40 of 100Indian rhinoceros have been lost(K. Chapagain, Kathmandu Post,2 August 2005; C. Williams, pers. comm.).

Increasing conflicts between Indianrhinoceros and people inhabiting thevicinities of the parks and reserves hasalso created negative attitude towards theconservation of this species among somelocal communities. The economy of themarginalized communities in the buffer-zone areas is particularly affected by cropdamage caused by the species.

In addition, domestic grazing pressureand illegal burning of grassland hasresulted in further habitat degradation.Encroachment of invasive alien plantspecies, such as Micania micarantha andLantana camara, over natural riparianvegetation has further increased the riskof survival of the Endangered megaher-bivores that primarily inhabit the riverineenvironment (G. J. Thapa &S. R. Jnawali, pers. comm.).

Conservation measures The Indianrhinoceros has been included on CITESAppendix I since 1975 and has beenintensely protected by the Indian andNepalese wildlife authorities. However,poaching has remained high and conser-vation efforts will require continued sup-port. New anti-poaching strategies arebeing implemented by the Nepal parksfollowing significant losses. The recently


Fig. 4. Historic and current distribution of Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus.

launched rhinoceros range-expansion pro-ject (Rhino Vision 2020) in Assam is amajor positive development that will con-tribute to both increased metapopulationgrowth rates as well as having strategicbenefits (Williams et al., 2005).

More extensive education and commu-nity programmes are being planned by theauthorities in Nepal and India to improveawareness so that the communities livingaround the reserves are sympathetic toand benefit from the Indian rhinoceros.


Asian lesser one-horned or Javanrhinoceros

Rhinoceros sondaicusThis Critically Endangered species onceranged over a vast portion of south-eastAsia, occurring in three distinct subspeciesinhabiting coastal plains and river valleys.The dominant form Rhinoceros sondaicussondaicus survives only in Ujung KulonNP. Rhinoceros sondaicus inermis, oncefound in Bengal, Assam and Myanmar, isnow extinct and a third subspecies, Rhino-ceros sondaicus annamiticus, was fearedextinct until the 1980s, when a populationof �10–15 animals was discovered in anunprotected forest in Vietnam (Fig. 4).The area has subsequently been includedin the Cat Tien NP but the number ofJavan rhinoceros in that area is now prob-ably less than five and no successfulbreeding has been observed since 1998.

At time of writing 40–50 animalsremain in Ujung Kulon NP on the west-ernmost tip of Java. This only survivingviable population has been stagnant forthe last 30 years. Either limited poachingcontinues to cancel out births, althoughno poaching has been recorded since 1991and the rhinoceros are protected andmonitored by three Rhino ProtectionUnits, or (more probably) the populationhas reached carrying capacity and popu-lation performance has been negativelyaffected as a result. To date there has notbeen an attempt to establish a secondpopulation elsewhere. This is unfortunateon biological-management (demographicand genetic) and strategic grounds. How-ever, the recently formulated and adopted(by the government) Indonesian RhinoConservation Strategy, known as theRhino Century Project (Proyek AbadBadak), is proposing a vigorous initiativeto establish a second population. The onlyother Javan population, currently esti-mated to be less than five individuals, isat the Cat Loc part of the Cat Tien NPin Vietnam. There are no Javan rhino-ceros in captivity.

Threats to Javan rhinoceros Theincreasing human population means thatthe demand for land is high in the twoprotected areas that Javan rhinoceros areknown to exist. Clearance of forests foragriculture and commercial logging areoccurring in and around these protectedareas and poaching is an ever-presentthreat.

The lack of growth in the main popu-lation is of concern as numbers of thisspecies are low and in order to minimizeloss of genetic diversity it is necessary toincrease the population as soon aspossible. The low number of individualsin a single viable population makes thespecies extremely vulnerable to extinctionbecause of uneven sex ratios, unbalancedage structure, reduced rates of reproduc-tion, natural catastrophes, disease,poaching, political disturbances andgenetic drift. If no reproduction occurs inthe Cat Loc population it is doomed. Thelack of appropriate wildlife-conservationlaws and effective field law enforcement inVietnam are major threats to the survivalof the Cat Loc population (P. Hartleypers. comm.; G. Polet, pers. comm.).

Conservation measures Protecting theJavan rhinoceros has been the primaryconservation focus. There are currentlythree trained and well-equipped RhinoProtection Units (RPUs) maintainingpatrols in Ujung Kulon NP. The RPUshave been highly successful with noknown improbable losses of Javan rhino-ceros in the last 5 years.

Faecal-DNA analysis and camera trapsare being used to assess the populationstructure in Ujung Kulon NP as the popu-lation in the region is poorly known.Studies are being carried out on habitatand food availability, and to determine ifBanteng Bos javanicus are limiting popu-lation growth of the Javan rhinoceros bycompeting for food. The feasibility oftranslocating rhinoceros to establish anew viable population in another suitablehabitat is also being considered in order


to initiate the recovery of numbers. Thepopulation in Cat Loc Reserve is headingfor extinction partly as a result of humanpressure, a lack of appropriate laws andpenalties, and inadequate lawenforcement.

Asian two-horned or Sumatranrhinoceros

Dicerorhinus sumatrensisThe Critically Endangered Sumatranrhinoceros once ranged from the foothillsof the Himalayas in Bhutan and easternIndia, through Myanmar, Thailand andthe Malay Peninsula, and on the islandsof Sumatra and Borneo. At the beginningof the 20th century, the Bornean form ofthe Asian two-horned rhinoceros Dicer-orhinus sumatrensis harrissoni, also knownas the Eastern Sumatran rhinoceros, wasfairly widespread and commonthroughout Borneo, in both the Malay-sian (Sabah and Sarawak) and Indonesian(Kalimantan) parts of the island.

The population was c. 600 in 1994 buthas declined to c. 300 worldwide in 2006.About 200 occur in Sumatra but are con-fined to only three national parks, exceptfor a few solitary animals in remote loca-tions. Bukit Barisan Selatan NP andGunung Leuser NP are the highest-pri-ority areas each with c. 60–85 Sumatranrhinoceros. About 20–25 Sumatran rhino-ceros occur in Way Kambas NP.

Outside Sumatra small populationsoccur in a few areas in Malaysia. In Pen-insula Malaysia, the only populationswith more than a few Asian two-hornedor Sumatran rhinoceros are in TamanNegara NP and the Belum Forest Com-plex. Danum Valley (with an estimatedminimum of 13 rhinoceros) and TabinWR in Sabah, Malaysia on the island ofBorneo, contain the only known popu-lations of the subspecies Dicerorhinussumatrensis harrissoni. The status of thespecies in other parts of the region isunknown (Fig. 5), although a few arelikely to survive in remote parts of Thai-land and Myanmar, and possibly also in

Kalimantan. In Sarawak the species is nolonger found. There are ten Sumatranrhinoceros in captivity: four in NorthAmerican zoos, four at the SumatranRhino Sanctuary in Sumatra and two atSepilok in Borneo. The attempt todevelop a captive-propagation pro-gramme as part of the conservationstrategy under the auspices of the AsRSGhas been very challenging. From theinception of the programme in 1984 until2001, mortality was high and no repro-duction occurred among the 40 ‘doomed’rhinoceros rescued from unviable situa-tions in the wild. However, two birthshave occurred (in 2001 and 2004) at theCincinnati Zoo & Botanic Garden andthere is renewed hope that the captive-propagation programme for this speciescan now succeed, especially with the guid-ance of the Global Management andPropagation Board (GMPB) that hasbeen formed for Sumatran rhinoceros.

Threats to Asian two-horned or Sumatranrhinoceros The Sumatran rhinocerossurvives in several small isolated popu-lations so some metapopulation manage-ment for genetic-conservation reasonsmay be necessary in the longer term. Withfew animals surviving in each populationthere is a much greater chance of thereproductive process being disrupted byan uneven sex ratio, unbalanced age struc-ture or declining reproduction. Evidencesuggests that this has already occurred inmany areas, most recently in the Kerinci-Seblat NP in central Sumatra (van Strien,pers. obs.).

Poaching is the major threat for thisspecies. The financial commitment givento Asian two-horned or Sumatran rhino-ceros conservation by the two main rangestates is also less than that provided by theGreater one-horned rhinoceros rangestates or the major range states in Africa.The threat is still severe in most areasbecause of the continuing demand forAsian rhinoceros horns for the TCMmarket. Strict protection of the rhinoceros


Fig. 5. Historic and current distribution of Sumatran rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis.

in their habitat is, therefore, currently theonly conservation option. In the past,anti-poaching patrolling inside thenational parks was inadequate. However,in recent years the introduction of fieldanti-poaching teams known as Rhino Pro-tection Units (RPUs) has made a signifi-

cant difference, in Indonesia andMalaysia. In addition, more vigorousprosecution of wildlife crimes means thatpoaching has ceased almost completely inseveral key areas, such as Bukit BarisanSelatan NP, Way Kambas NP andGunung Leuser NP.


Habitat encroachment is a more seriousproblem in most areas. The land sur-rounding rhinoceros habitat is generallydensely populated and large parts areunder severe pressure for land andresources. Significant areas within thenational parks, and often all of the pro-tected forests in the buffer zones, havebeen converted for agriculture. Occasion-ally important habitat is de-gazetted forlogging and illegal logging is alsoincreasing, particularly in Sumatra. Overthe last 15 years c. 30% of Bukit BarisanSelatan NP has been converted and WayKambas NP has lost 15% of its area. For-tunately, in Way Kambas NP, little of theactual rhinoceros habitat has been lost butif the trend continues, the entire Park is injeopardy. Natural disasters may alsoimpact the survival of this species, eitherdirectly, such as the El Nino induced firesof 1997, or indirectly, such as the tsunamiin December 2004, which may have long-term repercussions on economic and polit-ical development thus intensifying thepressure on the conservation areas.

Conservation measures The Asian two-horned or Sumatran rhinoceros has beenincluded on CITES Appendix I since1975. Anti-poaching, habitat protection,and captive-breeding, research and moni-toring programmes have been initiated bylocal and international organizations, inco-operation with governmental authori-ties and local communities. Perhaps thelongest-running and most effective pro-gramme is the RPUs, which have beenoperating since 1995. The RPUs operatein all key areas, concentrating on anti-poaching and law enforcement, and havebeen highly successful.

In Bukit Barisan Selatan NP a mobileIntelligence and Law Enforcement Unithas been established to assist the RPUsand the National Park to detect andapprehend poachers. With the assistanceof the Intelligence and Law EnforcementUnit many cases of wildlife poaching havebeen prosecuted successfully. Because of

the effective RPUs and more vigorousprosecution, poaching of the Asian two-horned or Sumatran rhinoceros hasceased almost completely in a number ofareas including Bukit Barisan Selatan NP,Way Kambas NP and Gunung Leuser NP(Foose & van Strien, 1998, 2005). Anumber of external agencies have contrib-uted financially and technically to thedevelopment of the RPU programme.Major new initiatives to invigorate effortsto protect the Sumatran rhinoceros havebeen inaugurated in Indonesia (ProjectRhino Century) and Malaysia (RhinoRescue).

There are also ongoing efforts todevelop captive-breeding centres in Indo-nesia and Malaysia (N. van Strien &T. Foose, pers. obs). While so far thesehave not been successful as more deathsare recorded than births, there is renewedoptimism based on the success that hasrecently been achieved in reproducing thisspecies as well as the advent in captivityof younger and presumably more fertileanimals (van Strien, 2005).

REFERENCESBirkett, A. (2002): The impact of giraffe, rhino andelephant on the habitat of a black rhino sanctuaryin Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 40: 276.Brett, R. A. & Adcock, K. (2002): Assessment ofthe options for the expansion of the black rhinopopulation at Ngulia rhino sanctuary, Tsavo WestNP, Kenya. In African Wildlife Foundation report:71. Nairobi: African Wildlife Foundation.But, P. H., Lung, L. C. & Tam, Y. K. (1990): Eth-nopharmacology of rhinoceros horn. I. Antipyreticeffects of rhinoceros horn and other animal horns.Journal of Ethnopharmacology 30: 157–168.DNPWC (Unpublished): Count rhino 2000: initialreport. Unpublished report, Department of NationalParks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, 2000.Emslie, R. (Ed.) (2001): Workshop on biologicalmanagement to meet continental and national blackrhino conservation goals. In Proceedings and work-shop report: 130. Harare: Southern African Develop-ment Community, Regional Programme for RhinoConservation.Emslie, R. (2004a): Rhino population sizes andtrends. Pachyderm 37: 107–110.Emslie, R. (2004b): Black rhino hunting quotasapproved for Namibia and South Africa at CITESConference of the Parties 13. Pachyderm 37: 92–97.


Emslie, R. & Brooks, M. (1999): African rhino statussurvey and conservation action plan. Gland and Cam-bridge: IUCN/SSC African Rhino Specialist Group.Emslie, R. & Brooks, M. (2002): How manysouthern white rhinos were there? A response toKees Rookmaaker. Pachyderm 33: 100–101.Foose, T. J. (2004): Rhinos in captivity, currentstatus and performance. In Confidential proceedingsof the seventh meeting of the IUCN African RhinoSpecialist Group held at Kilaguni Lodge, Tsavo West,Kenya, from 6–11 June 2004: 72–80. Brooks, M.(Ed.) & Brooks, L. (Compiler). Pietermaritzburg:IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group.Foose, T. J. & van Strien, N. J. (1998): Conserva-tion programmes for Sumatran and Javan rhinos inIndonesia and Malaysia. Pachyderm 26: 100–115.Foose, T. & van Strien, N. (2005): Rhino protec-tion units for Javan and Sumatran rhinos in Indo-nesia. In EAZA rhino campaign 2005/6. Info pack:145–146. Amsterdam: EAZA.Foose, T. J., de Boer, L., Seal, U. S. & Lande, R.(1995): Conservation management strategies basedon viable populations. In Population management forsurvival and recovery: 273–294. Ballou, J. D., Gilpin,M. & Foose, T. J. (Eds). New York, NY: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Hermes, R., Hildebrandt, T. B., Walzer, C.,Go»ritz, F., Patton, M., Silinski, S., Anderson, M.J., Reid, C. E., Wibbelt, G., Tomasova, K. &Schwarzenberger, F. (2006): The effect of longnon-reproductive periods on the genital health incaptive female white rhinoceroses (Ceratotheriumsimum simum, C. s. cottoni). Theriogenology 65:1492–1515.Hillman-Smith, K. (2004): Democratic Republic ofthe Congo. Country report. In Confidential proceed-ings of the seventh meeting of the IUCN AfricanRhino Specialist Group held at Kilaguni Lodge, TsavoWest, Kenya, from 6–11 June 2004: 12–16. Brooks,M. (Ed.) & Brooks, L. (Compiler). Pietermaritzburg:IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group.Hillman-Smith, K. & Ndey, J. A. (2005): Post-wareffects on rhinos and elephants of GarambaNational Park. Pachyderm 39: 104–113.IUCN (2006): 2006 IUCN red list of threatenedspecies. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN. http://www.redlist.orgKnight, M. (2004): South Africa: country report. InConfidential proceedings of the seventh meeting of theIUCN African Rhino Specialist Group held at Kila-guni Lodge, Tsavo West, Kenya, from 6–11 June2004: 43–50. Brooks, M. (Ed.) & Brooks, L. (Com-piler). Pietermaritzburg: IUCN African RhinoSpecialist Group.Laburn, H. P. & Mitchell, D. (1997): Extracts ofrhinoceros horn are not anti-pyretic in rabbits.Journal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and Pharma-cology 8(1–2): 1–11.

Leader-Williams, N. (1988): Patterns of depletionin a black rhinoceros population in Luangwa Valley,Zambia. African Journal of Ecology 26: 181–188.Leader-Williams, N. (1992): The world trade inrhino horn: a review. Cambridge: TRAFFICInternational.Leader-Williams, N., Brett, R. A., Brooks, P. M.,du Toit, R. F., Emslie, R. H., Knight, M. H.,Stanley-Price, M. H. & Stockil, C. (1997). Ascheme for differentiating and defining the differentsituations under which rhinos are conserved. Pach-yderm 23: 24–28.Martin, E. B. & Martin, C. B. (1982): Run rhinorun. London: Chato & Windus.Martin, E. B. & Vigne, L. (2005): Combatting theillegal trade in and demand for rhino horn in Yemen.In EAZA rhino campaign 2005/6. Info pack: 139–140.Amsterdam: EAZA.Martin, E. B., Vigne, L. & Allen, C. (1997): On aknife’s edge: the rhinoceros horn trade in Yemen.Cambridge: TRAFFIC International.Mills, J. A. (Ed.) (1997): Rhinoceros horn and tigerbone in China: an investigation of the trade since the1993 ban. Cambridge: TRAFFIC International.Nowell, K., Wei-Lien, C. & Chia-Jai, P. (1992).The horns of a dilemma: the market for rhino horn inTaiwan. Cambridge: TRAFFIC International.Ouma-Okita, B. (2004): Population performance ofblack rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis michaeli) in sixKenyan rhino sanctuaries. MSc dissertation, DurrellInstitute of Conservation and Ecology, University ofKent, UK.Reed, D. H., O'Grady, J. J., Brook, B. W., Ballou,J. D. & Frankham, R. (2003): Estimates of min-imum viable population size for vertebrates and fac-tors influencing those estimates. BiologicalConservation 113: 23–34.van Strien, N. (2004): Status of Indian, Javan andSumatran Rhinos. In Confidential proceedings of theseventh meeting of the IUCN African Rhino SpecialistGroup held at Kilaguni Lodge, Tsavo West, Kenya,from 6–11 June 2004. Brooks, M. (Ed.) & Brooks,L. (Compiler). Pietermaritzburg: IUCN AfricanRhino Specialist Group.van Strien, N. (2005): Report of the Asian RhinoSpecialist Group. Pachyderm 39: 13–17.Vigne, L. & Martin, E. (2006): The Gar-amba–Yemen link and the near extinction of thenorthern white rhino. Oryx 40: 13–14.Williams, C., Aziz, T. & Foose, T. (2005): Indianrhino vision 2020. In EAZA rhino campaign 2005/6.Info pack: 141–142. Amsterdam: EAZA.

Manuscript submitted 4 September 2005;accepted 13 February 2006; revised16 May 2006

An overview of the conservation status of and threats to ... · An overview of the conservation...

Documents

Transcript of An overview of the conservation status of and threats to ... · An overview of the conservation...