© Cyndy Sims ParrThere I was, at a public meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) Canada. Such meetings ended when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister and government scientists were severely muzzled or fired. But, as of the last federal election in Canada, it’s a new era.[teaserbreak]
And yet, there were some old faces and very old arguments against some of the proposals to be discussed at the next Conference of the Parties to CITES, which will be held in South Africa next fall.
Very generally, the argument for trading wild animal products goes like this: the monetary value of the species provides the most effective motivation for protecting it against extinction. A trade ban either takes away the incentive or enhances the “street value” of the species on the black market, thereby doing more harm than good in terms of conservation.
Like all clichéd arguments, it has elements of fact. It may have worked on, at least, a local level, here or there, but it most often does not—and certainly does not work with regard to trade in products most valued, such as elephant ivory. My own experience after three decades leads me to agree with the latest study.
It seems that there are always proposals made at CITES that will allow some elephant ivory to be sold or traded, made with all the usual demonstrably disproved claims that form this time-worn narrative, including that money from the product can be used for conservation. The only problem is that it usually isn’t; the money lines the pockets of the uber-rich when not funding revolutions, arms-dealing, or drug lords.
For most species, monetary value has proven to be the kiss of death. African elephants are a prime example.
The comment was made again at last week’s meeting: that we’ve tried everything to protect African elephants.
Not really. Again and again and again, there have been interests, corrupt and legit, that have fought to leave open loopholes—to find a way to have some legal trade. Invariably, as the above cited paper shows, this actually encourages poaching: not just by criminals-in-the-field (also known as poachers), but facilitated by corrupt regimes and funded by dictators, would-be dictators, and powerful criminal cartels (including the provision of arms, not just to kill elephants, but to fight brave but under-resourced rangers who must, at times, fight to the death). Born Free USA showed this with a study called Ivory’s Curse.
The one thing we haven’t tried is a complete ban on all trade of elephant ivory. Species like the whooping crane, for which millions of dollars were spent over decades, had success to show for it all—and with zero commercial trade. This proves the potential value of protection.
It’s not that a market could not be developed for them. Rather, it’s that they are safer with no trade: the one thing that we have NOT tried with elephants.
Keep wildlife in the wild,
Barry