On April 25, 2015, I
joined up with two friends to debate elephant conservation policy at an
event hosted by the Brookhouse School in Nairobi.
Our
side that argued that elephant conservation policy in Kenya was
wrong-headed and reform is required today. This debate was the
culmination of intense publicity under the catchphrase#Tweet4Elephants.
While
the debate was conducted before an audience of more than 200 people,
there was no straw poll to determine which side won by persuading the
larger audience about its case. Thanks to technology, the full debate
can be found here(the main debate starts at 00:49).
Instead
of rehashing the points made by opposing teams, I choose to consider
the lessons that I learned about how professionals form and communicate
policy ideas in Kenya.
The
team that I was on argued that Kenya should rethink conservation policy
and develop a wider portfolio of economic instruments in conservation.
The
standing argument for conservation has involved the maintenance of ban
on trade in ivory, augmenting the resources available to the Kenya
Wildlife Services (KWS) and to burn stockpiles of existing ivory in
Kenya.
I
refer to this strategy as the policy trifecta: “Ban, more Money and
Burn”. This trifecta has been the major approach and produced the
unacceptable result that now confronts this generation.
It
implies that the major refrain in Kenya is ‘if a familiar policy idea
fails to work, then double up on it’, an idea not only manifested in
conservation policy but also in agriculture, where sugar-milling firms
that have been losing public money for 30 years still argue that if the
policy were applied strictly for one more year, then all would be well.
In
other words, ‘our policy is good but just suffers from poor
implementation’. In general, the ability to admit that a policy
experiment has failed and needs replacement is a huge problem in Kenya.
STATUES AND TRINKETS
Also,
like most issues that require multilateral solutions, banning ivory
trade puts Kenya in situation where conservation policy is consistent
with the US policy position, but in conflict with China’s.
So
while Kenyan citizens may advocate a tougher stance in Kenya’s
diplomacy, they are not sure the government is willing to take that
stand. Thus the communication that filled the hall alluded to what
Chinese feelings would be if “Kenyans slaughtered pandas”. This doesn’t
work because the Chinese government would need to be persuaded to
restrict the rights of its citizens to purchase statues and trinkets
that many really want to buy.
Congo's President Denis Sassou-Nguesso (C) and
Chad's President Idriss Deby (2nd L) light afire a five-ton stockpile of
ivory tusks siezed from poaching and trafficking on April 29, 2015, in
Brazzaville. AFP PHOTO | LAUDES MARTIAL MBON
Thus,
while I consider that the trifecta is neither necessary nor sufficient
to save elephants, the argument needs to be framed in less polarising
terms.
More
informed communication that is focused on results would try and
persuade the government of China that ensuring elephant conservation is
in its interest too. This is one area in which trying to use US power as
leverage against China would delay positive reform substantially.
While
our team conceded that there is a place for ideology in informing
policy discourse, we were alarmed by the absence of data-driven analysis
to inform Kenya’s conservation policy. One member of our team stated,
to the consternation of the audience, that a century and a half ago,
this continent had 27 million elephants. That we are now down to under a
million suggests that this majestic animal is heading towards
extinction.
SELECTED AUTHORS
I
was surprised as well by hands-on conservationists in the region who
communicated with me, claiming that there is a dearth of economic
analysis to inform conservation policy.
This
confirms the danger facing policy communities in which the majority
have contact with selected authors within their discipline and not
others. Policy discourse on conservation will benefit greatly from
cross-disciplinary thinking.
At
the end of the debate, it was evident that there are many well-meaning
people who worry about the fate of the African Elephant. It is upon
those in my team to persistently invite them to the view that markets
are appropriate instruments for achieving broad goals.
It
is possible to experiment with a variety of market solutions, stabilise
the population of elephants and even see them thrive beyond this
generation. That would ensure that the debate was not just fun on a
rainy evening. Using government’s coercive power through the trifecta
will not suffice.
Kwame
Owino is the Chief executive Officer of the Institute of Economic
Affairs (IEA-Kenya), a public policy think tank based in Nairobi.
Twitter: @IEAKwame
No comments:
Post a Comment