Saving the elephants

Photo from the dinner with Hon. Netumbo NANDI-NDAITWAH, Namibian Minister for Environment and Tourism in the Hotel Stanhope. On the left of the photo at the rear is Namibian Ambassador Hanno B. Rumpf and to the right is Norbert Ullmann of Safari Club International.

We have a CITES (Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species) meeting in Brux currently, and lobbyists have descended in droves, including the serried ranks of IFAW and WWF. So yesterday evening saw me dining in the Stanhope Hotel with the Namibian Environment Minister The Hon. N. Nandi-Ndaitwah, plus Namibian Ambassador Hanno Rumpf. The dinner was hosted by the US Safari Club International, the world’s largest Hunting and Conservation organisation, in conjunction with the European organisation FACE, of which our own Countryside Alliance is a member.

The touchstone question is, how do we save the elephant? Although very similar considerations apply to other species, not least the polar bear.

Across the parliament we see the hideous regiment of assorted socialists and lefties and greens, the bunny-huggers and the bleeding-hearts, who have a simple solution. Ban the ivory trade, and save the elephant. It appeals to the softer sentiments in all of us.

But socialism and sentiment are simplistic. They fail to account for incentives and human motivation. If you’re a dirt-poor third-world farmer, and you’ve spent six months growing the very modest crop that you hope will sustain your family until the next harvest, you’re not very sympathetic to an elephant that decides it has a prior claim on the crop. So the best strategy for that farmer is to shoot the elephant, and then sell the ivory on the black market. That’s a win-win deal for the farmer, but a death-knell for elephants.

A better way is to make the elephant a sustainable resource, and to give the farmer a real incentive to tolerate the elephants, who in some parts of Africa are encroaching on agricultural land quite severely (indeed in parts of Africa, elephant numbers have exceeded sustainability, but that’s another story). The plan is to allow a limited and controlled trade in ivory, but to use the proceeds to provide an insurance fund against which farmers can claim for elephant damage.

That removes the incentive for farmers to kill elephants to defend their crops, and potentially provides a source of revenue for local people which gives them an interest in sustaining the elephant population. That, at any rate, is the view of the Namibian and Tourism Minister, and I am convinced that she is sincerely concerned for the elephants, not merely looking for a quick profit by selling ivory.

I am sorry that some people who would normally support free-market solutions will viscerally shy away from the idea of selling ivory. But I fear they have to choose between a warm cuddly feeling on the one hand, and on the other the survival of the world’s most magnificent mammal.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Saving the elephants

  1. ChrisP says:

    Mr Helmer
    I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the campaigning work you do on Industrial Wind Turbines. And like you, I am disappointed when people resort to insulting terms, like NIMBY, and Climate ‘Denier’. Which completely lower the standard of debate. Show a lack of understanding or concern, for the issues. And are often untrue, in any event. Its as if some people cannot put forward an intelligent view without resorting to such terms. No matter the subject, or position held by the offender. I look forward to wiser, politer, and more considered times. Its possible you may agree?

  2. Absolutely, Chris. The IPCC seems to be falling apart, together with the “consensus” on AGW, and the rationale for wind.

  3. John Bull says:

    Good article Roger, and you are quite right, trophy hunting is often the best means of conservation, the best article I have so far come across can be found in the journal Biological Conservation 134 (2007) pp.455-469, it shows that revenues from hunting have resulted in improved attitudes towards wildlife in local communities and that in Namibia revenues from trophy hunting have been the primary stimulus for the development of wildlife conservancies. Yet all of this is accomplished without the need for a legal trade in ivory. In your article you conflate the issue of making the elephant a sustainable resource with the need to legalise the ivory trade, as if they are mutually dependent, they are not. Elephants, as a trophy, have brought massive amounts of revenue to Southern Africa without a legal ivory trade being required. The real problem with allowing the trade of ivory is the fallibility of the certification system and while the loss of population in countries with large elephant stock would most likely remain sustainable (such as Namibia), it other areas with marginal populations it would not. We have seen how fragile populations in West Africa are, and I would be very cautious before considering any limited trade.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s