The realities of ivory trade and the solutions that work

Two weeks ago I wrote this piece, arguing that Kenya’s conservation policy consisted of ineffective policy tools.

In summary, the argument was that the mere addition of rangers, the militarization of conservation and harsher penal sanctions are unlikely to reduce incidences of poaching in light of the high prices recorded for rhino horn and ivory.

Responses by those who fully read the piece clustered around those who noted the absence of any solutions and those who viscerally opposed to any suggestion that shooting poachers and public education alone would not work. I respond to the first group only.

First, it’s clear that there is a business opportunity for poachers and traders in illegally acquired ivory. It serves no purpose to shout that only elephants should wear ivory when the rent extracted from ivory sale makes the trade lucrative.

Kenya’s conservation policy reform should start with a candid, less emotional re-examination around what ivory stocks are available and whether all trade is unconscionable. That is a difficult but necessary task to revisit without allowing any side to dominate by mentioning objections to any trade.

SPECTACLE OF PRETENCE

Secondly, conservation policy must stop communication based on pyrotechnics and lies.

It is a scientifically known fact that ivory is made of a substance that does not catch fire and get consumed. Asking the leaders of any country to appear in public and set ivory stocks alight is to play a cruel joke on Kenyans while subjecting leadership to ridicule for being scientifically illiterate.

If dispassionate discourse leads to the agreement that no trade of ivory products will be countenanced, then conservation policy must find a more truthful way for the destruction or storage of recovered ivory stocks. Poachers and illegal traders of ivory smile broadly when they see the spectacle of pretence around burning ivory. Symbolism is not policy.

Rhinos and elephants are important for Kenya’s biodiversity and tourism industry, but that does not mean countries in Asia share the affinity for a complete ban of trading or possession of objects.

Impliedly therefore, Kenya’s commercial and political diplomacy must be realistic around this issue. A policy posture that involves demonizing the nationals of Vietnam and China alone will not help to restrain trade and poaching.  

Regional cooperation must be brought to the fore to mobilize countries such as South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe towards a position compatible with conservation. These countries are indispensable because eastern and southern Africa together hold more than 70 per cent of the elephant population in Africa.

These populations are prime targets for illegal killing and effective policy would ensure species stabilization and growth. In other words, elephants and rhino conservation will benefit most from multilateralism.

To achieve this, it is conceivable that the policy would allow modest, tightly regulated trade together with greater law enforcement. In essence, I am unconvinced that conservation policy cannot integrate limited trade with better surveillance and law enforcement. Trade in ivory and conservation of the African elephant must not be mutually exclusive. 

CONSISTENT INCENTIVES

Kenya’s situation also calls for policy innovation and non-conventional policy thinking. The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) admits that it bears legal responsibility for wildlife conservation for Kenyans and the world. To my mind, the institution should then bear financial and other incentives consistent with conservation. Public subvention and direct remuneration for the director and staff of this institution should be anchored to successful conservation of these and other species.

TheElephants Database for 2013 shows that Kenya’s elephant population is close to 30,000 animals. Serious conservation policy should require that the KWS be funded and resources availed based on an agreed growth rate and reductions to rhino and elephant poaching. In that manner, the leadership of the institution will manage internal resources by according greater attention to the goal.

The final piece of policy response requires experimentation with new models for conservation. If the KWS completed a census of the elephant and rhino populations, it could ask then government to pay for an open competition for a well-laid approach to ensuring elephant conservation and growth. The plans would be independently evaluated and tested on a small scale to establish their effectiveness.

Part of the problem with conservation is that elephants roam large areas and are faced with human demands for land use in Kenya. Closed ecosystems for conserving elephants must be given consideration. This is where independent thinking would assist the KWS, which needs ideas and not condemnation.

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