Kenya Tries to Burn Ivory

Source: www.weforanimals.com/free-pictures/wild-animals/elephants/1/elephant-3.htm

Asian and African elephants are without doubt threatened by illegal poaching and are faced with extinction of stocks in some parts of the world. The major risk for elephants comes from the strong demand for ivory for ornamental and other personal uses. And yet the approaches that advocates and some governments take are merely symbolic and have no demonstrable effect on conserving the species.

Looking at this piece in the BBC news site and another at the Kenya Wildlife Service site, it occurred to me that the symbolic value of setting alight a bundle of recovered elephant ivory was widely broadcasted internationally. Going by that story, that is the third occasion in which Kenya's president set fire to a pile of ivory in order to send the truly powerful message of the country's commitment to conserve its elephants. It is debatable whether the conservation effort would be better off with the sale of that stock of ivory in order to use the proceeds to finance conservation. What is clear to me is that knowing the chemical composition of ivory, it is unlikely that the product can really be set on fire and ultimately consumed. 

And that brings me to my main point about symbolism in conservation. It is undeniably important to send a clear signal that a country or territory intends to conserve its wildlife. What one wonders about is whether it makes sense to put together a spectacular pyrotechnics show and hope that many people are not familiar with simple precepts of chemistry. To my mind, to ban trade in ivory is not the optimal way of achieving conservation objectives but still understandable because a market design solution exists. It is worrying when the symbolism goes from rejecting discussion of market solutions and to ignore the laws of chemistry. Kenya may ban ivory trade but nobody can burn ivory. It pays to recall that like teeth, ivory does not catch fire.