Illegal trade in ivory has been a main driver of the high mortality of elephants in the African continent for several decades now. For most of that time, the approach has involved using legal instruments at the international level to reduce trade in ivory either by getting rid of existing ivory stocks or by banning trade altogether. The result has been that in most of east, west and central Africa, the elephant populations have continued to fall because the price of ivory has kept rising with increased incomes from China and other Asian nations.
In a very poignant story from the NYT here, Jeffery Gettleman ties the rise in elephant poaching to organized crime and civil wars in parts of the continent of Africa. The most plausible part of his argument is that large and poorly governed territories of Africa leave some opportunities for fighting units to fund their war operations through killing of elephants and trade in ivory. In addition, he states that the rising demand for ivory has made turned armies of the Democratic Republic of Congo and its neighboring countries into organized poaching units who use sophisticated aerial surveillance and choppers to find herds of elephants.
That the populations of the African elephant in the central and eastern African regions are in danger is indubitable. Still, I find that the story is written as if the poaching mechanisms are so sophisticated that the elephant populations throughout the continent are doomed. The connection between state weakness and inability to enforce law is well made but it is clear that not all elephant populations are doomed and neither is every conservation effort failing. What I am less convinced of is the nebulous story tying US government funding to elephant deaths. It is perhaps an attempt to awaken US citizens to pressure their government to give this matter more support in reviewing existing conservation policy.
In a very poignant story from the NYT here, Jeffery Gettleman ties the rise in elephant poaching to organized crime and civil wars in parts of the continent of Africa. The most plausible part of his argument is that large and poorly governed territories of Africa leave some opportunities for fighting units to fund their war operations through killing of elephants and trade in ivory. In addition, he states that the rising demand for ivory has made turned armies of the Democratic Republic of Congo and its neighboring countries into organized poaching units who use sophisticated aerial surveillance and choppers to find herds of elephants.
That the populations of the African elephant in the central and eastern African regions are in danger is indubitable. Still, I find that the story is written as if the poaching mechanisms are so sophisticated that the elephant populations throughout the continent are doomed. The connection between state weakness and inability to enforce law is well made but it is clear that not all elephant populations are doomed and neither is every conservation effort failing. What I am less convinced of is the nebulous story tying US government funding to elephant deaths. It is perhaps an attempt to awaken US citizens to pressure their government to give this matter more support in reviewing existing conservation policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment