NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Special

An elephantine problem

Trade in rare species should be permitted, but only if it can be monitored to ensure it does not endanger the species's survival

Nuke the whales' was a popular slogan among the politically incorrect in the 1980s. That is going a bit far. But the issue of whether and how to protect 'charismatic megafauna' (whales, elephants, tigers and so on) raises strong passions. These passions are now on view in Nairobi, at a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species -- CITES -- that ends next week.

The underlying question is whether exploiting wild animals destroys them or helps to preserve them. Most wildlife-conservation problems are about habitat destruction. Preserve the habitat and you preserve the wildlife. But a few creatures are in danger from people independently of their habitat. Whales supply large amounts of meat. Tigers have body parts that the ignorant believe will enhance sexual potency. And elephants, the animals generating most heat in Nairobi, yield ivory.

Conservationists no longer throw up their hands in horror at the very idea of wildlife being exploited (for anything other than tourism, which was always all right). Now even drawing-room greens accept that conserving wildlife requires that the people living nearby have a stake in its preservation. This is what makes the argument over elephants so ironic. It is not between western do-gooders and hungry Third-Worlders; it is between two groups of Third World countries that see each other’s plans as inimical to their financial interests.

Those countries that wish to reopen the ivory trade — Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe — claim to have elephants coming out of their ears. They are culling them in order to match numbers to available habitat, so why not turn a profit on the tusks? In Kenya, however, elephants are rarer. The Kenyans fear that restarting the trade is too risky.

Until 1989, limited trading in ivory was permitted. Then it was banned entirely. Surprisingly, the price of ivory responded by dropping, rather than rising, and poaching fell off. In 1997 the southern African states were allowed a one-off sale to Japan of ivory stockpiled from culls. This seems (although the evidence is disputed) to have stimulated poaching again; illegal ivory was traded under cover of the legal stuff.

Kenya's elephant population fell from 40,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 1988, and only began to rise when the trading ban was enforced. Another big bout of poaching now could wipe it out. That is the nub of the Kenyan objection to resuming the ivory trade. But it seems harsh to punish those who have done well for their elephants by supporting those who, for whatever reason, have let their populations shrink.

There may, however, be a way out. Poachers are interested only in ivory, which is valuable and easy to carry off. So trade in other products, notably leather, could be permitted at once. Second, better monitoring of where elephant products come from, and of the extent of poaching, is required.

The existing CITES system, known as MIKE (Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants) is widely seen as a laughing-stock, because it is underfinanced and not all countries give it full-hearted support. A recent infusion of European Union money should change that, but better management is also required. This should be assisted by DNA tests to allow a tusk to be traced to a particular place. And Japan, the main market for ivory, must be leaned on to enforce its ivory-trading laws.

Better monitoring should reduce poaching and smuggling to acceptable levels, allowing legal trade to proceed without stimulating the illegal sort. The carrot of legalised trading should encourage all countries to give full backing to MIKE. Another idea would be for rich countries to club together to buy part of the surplus southern African ivory before the trade ban is lifted. That would give the poor countries some cash; and the rich ones would get their money back when trading resumed. The resumption of the trade would then be seen to be in everybody’s interests — including the elephants'.

By arrangement with The Economist

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature