Poaching of elephants for ivory is an illegal menace that has continually threatened the existence of this endangered species globally. It is estimated that 675,000 African elephants disappeared in the 1980s through the hands of poachers leading to a huge decline in bull elephants (Messer, 2010). As a result, poachers resorted to female and young elephants whose ivory weighed much less than equivalent mature male elephants. Consequently, many elephants got killed in search of ivory, thus increasing the vulnerability of elephants as endangered species. Poaching has deprived low-income African countries of their economic benefits drawn from tourism and associated gains of elephant life. To eliminate this danger of losing African elephants, African countries have established traditional anti-poaching laws that impose fines and jail terms in vain. Studies have revealed that increased illegal poaching was motivated by the high prices of ivory. It is thought that the income generated from the sale of two elephant tusks weighing 20kg was much higher than the annual income for a non-poaching worker in the 1980s. This situation has escalated much more even in the wake of an era when poaching is banned internationally according to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). This paper explores the need for strategies that would, in its entirety, prevent poaching of elephants for ivory.
For decades now, there have been concerns on human-wildlife conflicts. Human rights activists have explored ethical concerns that the support for policies that undermine human life in efforts to curb poaching such as shoot-on-sight policies is inappropriate irrespective of how endangered they are because of the ethical consideration that animal life cannot be equated to human life. Furthermore, human rights activists argue that elephants and other large mammals cause significant economic loss to people’s agricultural activities. This argument poses great confusion among policymakers even as animal activists support the killing of poachers with the excuse that such animals have direct benefits to human life, hence the need for their conservation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Poaching of elephants for ivory, as proposed by Messer (2010), can be stopped by pursuing a number of strategies. His study suggests the total reduction of the ivory price the poacher receives, enacting more stringent anti-poaching laws that heftily raise the economic cost on poaching, and increasing non-poaching incentives for potential poachers (Messer, 2010). The zero-rating of ivory price, as envisaged by CITES, can be achieved through cutting down the consumer demand for both raw ivory and ivory-generated products. Unfortunately, criminal networks that smuggle and trade ivory with Chinese markets where it is curved into valuable items, thus favoring an attractive multi-billion dollar business. A major challenge is that the poaching of elephants involves a cruel cycle of profit with the argument that lesser elephant numbers translate to increased value of ivory. The higher the ivory price, the more poachers kill the remnant elephants.
It is a sin to kill animals of great economic value such as elephants and other endangered species because of the monetary value of their ivory. The Ivory Game documentary reveals how inhuman the ivory-for-money scheme operates. The black market in china undermines the international fight on elephant poaching (DiCaprio et al., 2016). The consumption of five tons of ivory and rhino horns per year in china is a leeway for illegal trade. The fight would all be in vain if the black market in china is allowed to exist. Until the Chinese government complies with other international partners in the fight against poaching, the evil act will continue thriving in the African range countries. The poachers, as represented by a character named “Shetani” in the documentary, are villains who execute elephant killings without mercy of their well–being. Animals have their rights to life as well and require protection.
Much as CITEs ban on international ivory trade has had remarkable effects in increasing African elephant population, not all states have witnessed its gains. Countries where poachers have access to unregulated ivory markets have registered loss in elephant numbers. Corruption and civil wars are associated with the existence of unregulated domestic markets in such countries. Therefore, in these countries, poachers, carvers and traders safely exploit the opportunity which enhances more elephant killings. The only hope in these countries is focused on the political will and initiative on the closure of the unregulated markets. This initiative should be a one-time event across all countries where domestic trade in ivory exists in order to achieve a universal result.
Criminologists have a role to play in the fight against poaching by mining systematic information from mappings on elephant carcass distribution and information extracted from apprehended poachers on the identities of cartels that facilitate illegal ivory trade and the process of their operations. Furthermore, the transportation networks of ivory from source to markets to trading destinations should provide more insight. The information is highly important in policy making and other prevention initiatives that seek to disrupt the markets. These disruption and other prevention strategies would only work if the people in range countries realize the economic value of elephants as a resource worth protecting (Lemieux & Clarke, 2009). People who view elephants as a source of meat and potential dangers to their agricultural produce and are aggrieved by the protection of parks for wildlife which limits them from grazing their livestock on game parks must be addressed in appropriate ways to ensure elephant life is protected. Local people who do not directly gain from elephants’ primary value of tourism have challenges understanding the economic benefits of elephants other than ivory sale and source of wild meat. This problem is necessitated by the fact that governments invest the income generated from tourism taxes in a wide range of programs. People would experience the economic benefits if the revenue generated from tourism would be dedicated to the improvement and development of local projects such as roads, healthcare infrastructure, education and employment of potential poachers as tour guides, wildlife conservation officers etc. among other benefits which improves the lifestyle of the common local people.
In addition, tour operators are foreign firms who employ skilled personnel in their game lodges, most of whom are not available in the local people. Further, these tour operators eventually direct the revenues collected into investments in their countries of origin, thus not benefiting the local people (Lemieux & Clarke, 2009). The poor local people are left with no alternative other than engaging in carvings and artworks of ivory from which sales they earn their living. Another grievous scenario for the locals is that they get constrained by controls that limit their farming, meat hunting, and grazing fields just because of the protection of wildlife such as elephants that sometimes break into their crop farms and cause great destruction. In order to enhance protection of elephants and other endangered species, governments must be in positions where they provide tangible tourism and game benefits to the local people.
Developing countries have economic challenges in responding appropriately to poaching of valuable endangered species. The fact that many African range countries lack the capacity to fully realize the tourism benefits of elephants makes conservation of such endangered species difficult. It is unfortunate that the existing policies that should guard against poaching are burdened with problems. The governance institutional structures in many African states are characterized by government corruption, low incomes, and absence of property rights among other characteristics deny them the ability to safeguard elephant populations. Given this insight, international agencies and developed countries must come in to support them not only through ivory trade bans, but also through financial aids and payments in order to enhance monitoring and enforcement of anti-poaching laws (Van Kooten, 2008). The African range countries require political goodwill that is free of corruption to make citizens realize the economic contribution of living elephants through tourism. Owing to the limitations of many of such countries, there is need for international facilitation and empowerment through funding in order to ensure elephants do not become extinct as a result of illegal poaching. Wildlife conservation should be a concern for all people from all walks of life as it is extremely necessary to maintain the natural ecosystem that not only adds to the aesthetic value, but also earns economic gains through tourism.
It is worrying that, in the past one century, there has been a 97% drop in the African elephant population. DiCaprio et al (2016) suggest that the drop implies that in every 15 minutes an African elephant is killed. It simply means that, if this rate is allowed to continue, then probably in the next one or so decades, African elephants will become extinct (DiCaprio et al., 2016). The documentary provides an emotional impact of what it means to brutally kill such huge mammals of economic benefit. The producers, through the documentary provide a lot of insight that it will take the collective initiative of all global stakeholders to protect aesthetic lives of the so cherished creatures that add to the beauty of a natural habitat. It breaks down emotions to watch an elephant get pinned down in a devastating and cruel manner that deprives the life of an innocent animal for a mere objective of getting its ivory.
CITES has had significant contributions on the conservation of endangered wild species especially the elephants and rhinos which are threatened to become extinct. One of its landmark efforts is the establishment of the international ban on ivory trade. African range countries have so far been compliant to the ban; however it is illogical to impose a ban selectively. Some of the states have before applied for permissions to trade off their piled up ivory confiscated from poachers and have been allowed to sell the tusks to Japan as the only allowed buyer. In a continent where integrity of the institutions of governance is questionable, it cannot be trusted that all the piled up ivory has actually been confiscated. The presence of a market for trading ivory alongside a ban facilitates the presence of a black market where individuals carry out unlawful trafficking and trading activities. The best case would have been if the international ban was absolutely universal such that no trade exists. This would halt all operations to do with poaching of endangered elephant species. Tougher laws must also be enacted both at national and international levels to ruthlessly deal with perpetrators who brutally kill these animals. It is commendable that some African states such as Kenya have before carried out a public confiscation of elephant tusks and rhino horns through burning as a show that poaching is totally unacceptable and thus the need for conservation (Van Kooten, 2008). However, it is known that even in the presence of such government efforts, cartels exist who are under the protection of states that carry out this unlawful business. Government agencies are vulnerable to engaging in deals with the cartels because of the economic challenges discussed above in this article.
International support is critically important in reinforcing African states’ efforts in the fight against poaching. The problem with international financing and payments to African range states is that countries with fewer endangered species are highly funded to conserve the species whereas those countries with high numbers of the same species receive less funding. This proposition is dangerous because these states will kill their existing species so as to have lower numbers, thus attract higher financing from international agencies and rich countries willing to keep the endangered species protected (Hutchens, 2013). It is sustainable that the payments are made based on the number of elephants and other endangered species a country has so that countries are motivated to increase their animal numbers through conservation. In addition, the proposition whereby countries sell the piled up confiscated ivory in order to raise wildlife conservation funds is uncalled for and must be discouraged in the strongest ways possible as it sustains the market for ivory.
In conclusion, elephants contribute to a nation’s economic development through tourism benefits. If properly managed, the tourism returns contribute considerable sustainability that can be appreciated even by the local people. Poaching should be treated as a serious crime that is highly punishable through expensive fines and long jail terms. In some parts of the world, shoot-on-sight measures have been found to successfully eliminate the vice. Such stringent measures and policies must be adopted to protect elephants as endangered species threatened with extinction. In addition, a universal ban on international trade must be in place to cut down all ivory markets across the globe. Countries found to be in violation such as china must face strict trade embargos that will see them comply. Equally, efforts to ensure wildlife conservation of endangered species must be addressed alongside addressing the human-wildlife conflicts experienced in range communities. The delinquent behavior of such animals as elephants must be addressed as much as illegal killing of elephants should (Lemieux & Clarke, 2009). The locals need to experience the economic benefits of elephants fetched through tourism. These benefits must be seen in creation of conservation employment opportunities among the local communities as well as raising the incomes of potential poachers. Finally, international support for range countries must not only fund wildlife conservation projects, but also take part in ensuring integrity in the governance and resource utilization is practiced. Governments have an overall role in the control and prevention of poaching and, thus should take central stage in the fight.
References
Brennan, A. J., & Kalsi, J. K. (2015). Elephant poaching & ivory trafficking problems in Sub-Saharan Africa: An application of O'Hara's principles of political economy. Ecological Economics , 120 , 312-337. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.013
Bulte, E. H., & Van Kooten, G. (1999). Economic efficiency, resource conservation and the ivory trade ban. Ecological Economics , 28 (2), 171-181. doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(98)00048-2
DiCaprio, L., Davidson, D., Knopfler, W., & Kohler, W. (2016). The ivory game [Video documentary].
Hutchens, E. (2013). The law never forgets: An analysis of the elephant poaching crisis, failed policies, and potential solutions. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 31(4), 934-962 .
Lemieux, A. M., & Clarke, R. V. (2009). The international ban on ivory sales and its effects on elephant poaching in Africa. British Journal of Criminology , 49 (4), 451-471. doi:10.1093/bjc/azp030
Messer, K. D. (2010). Protecting endangered species: When are shoot-on-sight policies the only viable option to stop poaching? Ecological Economics , 69 (12), 2334-2340. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.017
Scriber, B. (2014, August 18). 100,000 elephants killed by poachers in just three years, landmark analysis finds. National Geographic . Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140818-elephants-africa-poaching-cites-census/
Van Kooten, G. C. (2008). Protecting the African elephant: A dynamic bioeconomic model of ivory trade. Biological Conservation , 141 (8), 2012-2022. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.016
