In Kenya, ivory tusks go up in smoke as wildlife guards watch on. |
Even when strictly controlled,
the ivory trade encourages elephant poaching and drives away tourists. Kenya’s position
on the trade prevailed at the most recent CITES meeting
 Kenyan conservationists still
shudder at the thought of the 1980s, when hardly a day went by without park rangers
discovering carcasses of elephants felled with increasingly sophisticated weapons,
their ivory tusks crudely hacked off. Short of funds and staff, Kenyan rangers could
neither adequately patrol their reserves nor match the poachers’ firepower.
So it is hardly surprising that conservationists and the Kenyan government breathed
a sigh of relief in 1989 when parties to the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) voted to ban all international trade in ivory products. Had it not been for
this decision, the country’s elephant population would be close to extinct today.
From an estimated 140,000 elephants in 1972, the population in Kenya’s parks fell
to a mere 19,000 in 1989.
Porous
borders
The ban, along
with world-wide campaigns against trade in elephant products, reduced the demand
for ivory and, consequently, its price. Poaching declined in Kenya and in other countries
with elephant herds. At the same time, the Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS) beefed up
its anti-poaching units in the country’s 26 national parks and 32 game reserves.
As a result, the elephant population gradually increased and today Kenya has about
27,000 elephants.
This recovery nonetheless suffered a setback in 1997, when CITES parties voted to
partially lift the ban on ivory trade to enable Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana to
conduct a one-off sale of 60 tonnes from their stockpiles. The operation brought
in three million dollars, which the countries concerned claimed to have channelled
into conservation efforts. But conservationists affirm that even this strictly controlled
trading fuelled demand for ivory and led to renewed elephant poaching. According
to Kenyan officials, 67 elephants were killed last year for ivory, up from an average
of about 15 in the previous years—a figure they claim is directly linked to the limited
trade allowed in 1997. ‘‘Poaching continues because there is still a demand and borders
within Africa are porous, thus making it easy for ivory to be transported across
the continent,’’ says Francis Mukungu, a senior KWS official.
Kenya’s vehement opposition to any lifting of the ivory trade ban during the April
2000 CITES conference can be understood in this light. Nor can tourism be overlooked:
officials are concerned that a return to the poaching levels of the 1980s will cut
into the country’s number one foreign exchange earner. Once again, Botswana, Namibia
and Zimbabwe, along with South Africa, urged a lifting of the ban to sell off legally
accumulated ivory stockpiles. Kenya argued that such a move would send out a message
saying there is no harm in buying ivory products, thus encouraging poachers.
As a compromise, CITES signatories agreed to continue with a total ban on international
trade in elephant ivory for the next three years while allowing a limited trade in
non-ivory elephant products such as hides, live animals and leather products.
Sharing
tourist revenue
While the Kenyan
government is determined to save its elephants from poachers, public opinion within
the country is divided on the issue. Rural communities living close to game reserves
complain that elephant herds often invade their farms and destroy crops, sometimes
causing casualties. In contrast to South African reserves, elephants are not fenced
off and freely roam over hundreds of acres. Rural populations also claim that tourism
revenues generated by entries to the game reserves are never invested in their poverty-ridden
areas. In their minds, efforts to save these animals at all costs are a case of misplaced
priorities in a country where the majority live below the poverty line. Conservationists
assert that in the long run, Kenya’s success in saving its elephant population will
lie in involving the local communities around the reserves in tourism and conservation
efforts, and making sure that they benefit economically from these initiatives.
|
