A stockpile of ivory burns at the Nairobi National Park last week:
Conservation that works should be pro-wildlife and pro-people. PHOTO |
AFP
By WOLF KRUG
In Summary
- Destroying tusks worth billions of shillings is misinformed and lacking in scientific proof.
Kenya and her supporters around the world have in
recent days been celebrating Saturday’s burning of tonnes of ivory as a
great day for wildlife conservation in Africa.
But those of us who have spent many years researching the
economics of biodiversity conservation and conservation finance couldn’t
disagree more.
This enthusiasm with the destruction of elephant
tusks worth billions of Kenyan shillings is rather misinformed and
lacking in practical experience or scientific evidence.
It is a rather expensive PR exercise with little
impact on conservation. The millions of dollars that went up in flames
that Saturday afternoon instead turned the whole affair into another sad
day for conservation.
If sold, the ivory could have been put to good use, such as funding innovative community conservation and anti-poaching efforts.
At the centre of Kenya’s conservation challenges is
the fact that the discourse is still dominated by Western NGOs and
elitist conservationist groups with selfish agenda.
Those who face the harsh reality of making a living
in marginal African rangelands have little or no say. The loss of
precious wildlife and natural habitat needs to be stopped but Kenya’s
outdated approach to conservation won’t help.
In fact, it is largely to be blamed for the
dramatic loss of wildlife outside protected areas because it does not
reach out to local communities.
The new conservancy movement and the few private
ranches in Laikipia working with surrounding communities are a step in
the right direction but only a drop in the ocean.
Kenya’s rather elaborate wildlife conservation
policy, which has grossly failed to protect natural habitat outside
protected areas, is a study in failure.
Yet the nation’s elite and those in charge of State
apparatus have refused to appreciate that Kenya’s success in keeping
its rich wildlife heritage does not lie in celebrity PR events but a
paradigm shift towards a modern pro-wildlife and pro-people conservation
policy.
What the country needs is to tackle the critical
issues that go to the heart of trade in wildlife and related products
starting with the all-important question of demand and supply.
President Uhuru Kenyatta and Richard Leakey have
talked about the need “to stop the growing demand for ivory” or “to
destroy the market for ivory”.
No first year economics student would dare to make
such a statement. Instead they would argue that not a single prohibition
has ever succeeded in destroying trade in illegal commodities,
including drugs.
The truth is that if demand can’t be satisfied by
legal means an illegal market develops. But Leakey and his peers have a
point, as the price of ivory did briefly drop following the last burning
of ivory in 1989Here’s the explanation. First, many illegal traders not knowing
what would follow immediately flooded the market with stockpiles of
ivory leading to a short-lived drop in prices.
Besides, an international anti-ivory publicity campaign did
partly succeed in reducing demand for ivory but only in the western
world.
Demand in Asia remained strong and remains a key
driver of Africa’s poaching problem. The pro-ivory-burning lobby
believes that it will work again but I am afraid time will prove them
wrong.
PR campaigns of the type Mr Kenyatta staged at the
Nairobi park last Saturday are mainly preaching to the converted and are
unlikely to have an impact on the level of demand in Asia.
The fact is that there will always be some level of
demand in the global ivory market and if it can’t be satisfied through
some form of sustainable, highly controlled legal trade, an illegal
market will emerge to drive poaching.
Widespread poverty and corruption in Africa do and
will continue to cause local communities to turn a blind eye to poaching
or will provide incentives to actively participate in game killing.
This draws the grim reality of the ivory burning resulting in a spike in ivory prices and an increase in poaching.
Second and most important is the fact that the
failure to deal with corruption remains a big point of exposure in
Africa. Asian ivory syndicates would have a hard time were they not
supported by corrupt government officials.
Quite a few “big names” in Kenya and Tanzania have benefited directly or indirectly from illegal sale of ivory.
Not to mention the so-called “cattle barons”, a
group of wealthy families storing their ill-gotten gains in large cattle
herds and using their influence to graze their cattle in protected
areas and other environmentally sensitive rangelands.
Pro-conservation publicity campaigns should name
and shame the perpetrators of such environmental crimes. One wonders;
How does the pro-ivory-burning lobby chooses to remain silent here?
Some critics claim that the group enjoys political
support from influential individuals allegedly associated with such
environmental crimes.
And it is not just poaching that should worry us.
Very few people appreciate that poaching for ivory is not the biggest
threat to elephant conservation. The greater challenge is the dramatic
loss of natural habitat to human settlements and agriculture.
Elephants are threatened by an ever decreasing
habitat that comes with population growth resulting in destructive
human/wildlife conflict. Protected areas alone will not be sufficient to
save elephants.
The survival of the living giants will ultimately
depend on conservation models that succeed in maintaining elephants and
their natural habitat inside as well as outside protected areas. This
can only be achieved with the support of local communities.
Which brings me to the next point. The value to humanity is the
reason cattle, goats and chickens are not endangered. There is a huge
demand for cattle, goat and chicken meat and we have more and more of
them every year.
The reason is that domestic animals are of value to local
farmers. Elephants are unfortunately not. To the contrary, elephants are
a nuisance to rural communities because they are dangerous, they
compete for scarce water and grazing resources and destroy crops.
As long as elephant conservation is only supported
by foreigners and affluent urban elite, local communities living with
elephants will have no incentives to protect them.
A paradigm change in conservation means that we
need to create conservation models that will place an economic value on
elephants and other wildlife to allow rural communities to benefit from
conservation as a form of sustainable land use.
Protectionist policy
When local farmers stand to benefit from elephants
they would protect them just as they protect livestock. Examples from
Southern Africa show that it can work.
Starting 40 years ago with roughly the same number
of animals, Kenya, following a protectionist policy, has lost 80 per
cent of wildlife while South Africa, where wildlife became fully
fungible, has created a multi-billion dollar wildlife industry with 20
times more wildlife.
The lesson is that if we can’t destroy markets, we
need to make them work for conservation. In an ideal context those who
want to protect elephants should pay those who have to bear the costs of
living with elephants.
But with the exception of a few great projects
allowing for such a trade, this is wishful thinking, as those who want
to preserve elephants are unable or unwilling to pay the full price.
The other alternative is to turn conservation into
an economic activity benefiting local communities. Tourism is one
example but doesn’t work everywhere.
The message is that we need more innovative
conservation models in Kenya that allow placing an economic value on
wildlife, otherwise the loss will continue.
Big publicity events such as the last week’s ivory
burning won’t help the elephants unless they bring serious cash to the
table for habitat conservation and pro-people projects.
If this is not the case such events run the risk of
only comforting the egos of so-called conservation celebrities and
achieving little for the environment.
Rural communities in marginal African rangelands
will ultimately decide on the fate of elephants. So let’s make
conservation work for them.
Dr Krug is biodiversity economist who lives in South Africa
No comments :
Post a Comment