Why burning ivory to save elephants lacks the evidence of good economics

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 The loss of precious wildlife and natural habitat needs to be stopped but Kenya’s outdated approach to conservation won’t help.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 1989.

Here’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.