Should poor countries be free to harvest wildlife resources ?
The United Nations agency set up to monitor the trade in endangered species is meeting to consider 50 new proposals to its convention.
They include proposals from Namibia to relax the ban on the trade in elephant ivory and from Japan to relax the ban on hunting minke whales.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was drawn up to protect wildlife against over-exploitation and to prevent international trade from threatening species with extinction.
But many believe that the controls to protect some species, like elephants and whales, go too far and that trading bans should be relaxed to allow local communities to benefit.
Should poor countries be free to harvest wildlife resources to help generate income and jobs or are trade controls an essential way to protect wildlife from extinction?
What are your thoughts on this issue ?
In answering this question, I must confess a certain conflict of interests: I am totally against the use of mammals in any sort of economic trade (caged zoos, food, clothing, testing, &c), so my approval of the ban is in no small part related to this.
At work here is at least one axiom: wildlife preservation. Either you accept the notion that all extant varieties of animal life should remain biologically viable, or you don't. Discussion of this related topic belongs on another thread.
The ban made to Namibia was made with this notion in mind: African elephants were headed rapidly to extinction because of poaching; in over a decade the population was diminished in half (and since the turn of the century, the population was reduced to between 5-10% what it was before 1900). CITES listed elephants as 'most endangered' and banned the trade of ivory (the main reason for the elephants being poached). Since then the population has stablized, but not grown.
Nambia's initial request was to allow ten tons of stockpiled ivory and two tons of ivory and related products to be sold anually. This would come largely from ivory culled from elephants that died of natural causes or as 'population control.' Other countries, too, have asked that the ban be partially lifted (to allow a certain weight of ivory and related products to be sold).
Reviewing the case on the merits alone, there are some problems with it. First, the original reason for the ban -- the dramatic decrease in population -- has not resolved itself. There are somewhat fewer elephants since the ban in 1991 in Namibia (other countries such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Botswana have had an increase in elephant population). The total population of elephants is about 5% less today than when the ban was instituted. Reopening the ivory trade will subject the elephants to being poached soley for their tusks (elephant leather and meat are not nearly as lucrative; poachers tend to want the fast money).
One of the arguments for opening up the poaching is because the elephant population is encroaching upon human properties. This is because people in Namibia have been expanding rapidly and the result is the loss of wildlife preserves. Natrually, if you begin to build on land the elephants have considered theirs since time immemorial, they are going to 'trespass.'
Consider this argument:
Revenue from very limited sales could help impoverished rural communities that rely on subsistence farming realise the value of elephants and help to protect the herbivore's habitat, it added.
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1525964,00.html
This seems very positive, but the 'value' of elephants that will be 'realized' only comes in the form of dollar signs. Namibia (and other countries) are arguing for 'controlled poaching;' rather than clandestine poaching where the hunters kill, take the tusks, and run, the hunters will take the tusks, hide, and presumably the meat. The black market which basically gave up on ivory will reopen (before the ban ivory was $125/lb., after it dropped as low as $3/lb.). The controls will be very hard to enforce in such rural areas, and poachers who have since been inactive will see the fast dollar and do whatever they can to get it, reopening the black market and driving the price back up.
Consider this observation:
Because of their limited habitat, elephants naturally will spread out. But since human development hinders it, elephants must survive on the same lands. As elephants burgeon in these same areas, they become denser, and as a result, more quickly exhaust the resources. This means the elephants eat less and less food and become emaciated. As a counter to these problems, governments began to actively cull the animals- kill them to keep the population at a manageable, healthy number. The irony is that no ivory collected from the culled animals (or from poached, confiscated animals) can be sold for profits internationally to maintain the parks because of the very ban imposed to keep elephants alive.
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Africa/save/browning/browning.html
So, human expansion and the culling that results keeps the dwindling population from ever recovering adequately. Lifting the ban would result in a frenzy of poaching activity and, very likely the extinction of these animals.
Yes, the complete ban is flawed; certainly the ivory from animals that die a natural death and those who are culled for 'practical reasons' (though I disagree with them) should be sellable, if that money is used for their preservation. But the abuses that would likely stem from this would be almost unstopable.
The result? I believe if 'limited' poaching began, the black market would resurface, and the elephants, who are already highly endangered, will become extinct promptly.
The economic benefit? I don't see it. Namibia seeks to sell 10 metric tons immediately and 2 tons each year thereafter. Selecting a value at random, say, the absurdly high price of $2500/lb. (metric ton = 2200 lbs.), Namibia will make 55 million dollars at its initial sale and 11 million dollars each year following. Namibia has a 3.37 billion dollar gross national product. Assuming that Nambia grosses that extremely generous figure above, it will increase its GNP by 1.6% the first year and .3% the years after. This, of course, assumes that tourism (people visiting the elephants) continues to be as strong an industry after this point.
It's a bad idea, I think.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe ban should be maintained. But poor countries like Botswana or some of the other African countries should be compensated for compliance with these measures. Countries that are not poor, like Japan, would get nothing.
Should poor countries be free to harvest wildlife resources ?
The United Nations agency set up to monitor the trade in endangered species is meeting to consider 50 new proposals to its convention.
They include proposals from Namibia to relax the ban on the trade in elephant ivory and from Japan to relax the ban on hunting minke whales.
The Conventi ...[text shortened]... an essential way to protect wildlife from extinction?
What are your thoughts on this issue ?
Originally posted by rwingettI agree, but where would this money come from?
The ban should be maintained. But poor countries like Botswana or some of the other African countries should be compensated for compliance with these measures. Countries that are not poor, like Japan, would get nothing.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think animal rights probably come on a second place to feeding your child.
Should poor countries be free to harvest wildlife resources ?
The United Nations agency set up to monitor the trade in endangered species is meeting to consider 50 new proposals to its convention.
They include proposals from Namibia to relax the ban on the trade in elephant ivory and from Japan to relax the ban on hunting minke whales.
The Conventi ...[text shortened]... an essential way to protect wildlife from extinction?
What are your thoughts on this issue ?
Only by raising the social standards (food, housing, education, clothing, worker's rights) in these countries are you going to save wildlife.
But that would mean screwing with big company profits. And they certainly put wildlife second. But not to the poor feeding their children, of that you can be assured.