Topic Area: Ivory trade and Elephant Preservation
Geographic Area: Africa, especially Botswana
Title: Economic Influences on the African Elephant
Population
Focal Question: What are the effects of the CITES ivory trade
ban on the African elephant? What are the implications for the
biodiversity and the elephant population of the region?
Sources:
Barnes, J. I. 1996. "Changes in the economic use value of elephant in
Botswana: the effect of international trade prohibition." Ecological
Economics 18 (3): 215-230.
Khanna, J. and J. Harford. 1996. "The ivory trade ban: Is it
effective?" Ecological Economics 19 (2): 147-156.
Loomis, J. B. and D. S. White. 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and
endangered species: summary and meta-analysis." Ecological Economics
18 (3): 197-206.
Norton-Griffiths, M. and C. Southey. 1995. "The Opportunity costs of
biodiversity conservation in Kenya." Ecological Economics 12 (2):
125-140.
Swanson, T. M. and E. B. Barbier, ed. . Economics for the Wilds:
Wildlife, Diversity, and Development. (Covelo, CA: Island Press,
1992).
Reviewer: Amy Bennett, Colby College '97
This study focuses on the primary problem today of the conservation
of individual species and biodiversity. This is because the vast
majority of world's remaining in situ habitats are in the developing
world. There is a need to conserve not only a given stock of genetic
capital (through zoos, crowded parks, reserves and other ex situ
forms of conservation), but also the evolutionary process itself.
This means that natural land is to be preserved from the encroachment
of livestock, desertification and development. This Catch 22 makes
preservation difficult because these nations need to use their
resources for economic development and poverty alleviation. They need
to "Maximize revenues from the consumptive use of this resource while
at the same time maintain a stable population to maximize the non
consumptive use and to protect the ecosystem."
I will focus on the African elephant as a case study for the problems
facing the developing world of preservation and trade.
The African elephant (Loxodonta africana), has a current estimated
population of 600,000 individuals down from about 1.2 million in
1979. One of the difficulties facing the elephant preservation is the
over exploitation of the species for their ivory and skin. This
occurs because elephants are an open access resource (absence of
well-defined property rights) and the states in which they inhabit
lack enforcement and monitoring. Elephants have been illegally
harvested throughout all attempts of control. This is because one
elephant can yield $3,600 for the middleman, at a time when the
average worker's wage is no more than $1,000 a year. This illegal
harvesting, which is also known as poaching, is the reason for the
decimation of the population by almost half between the years of
1979-1989. Studies projected that with that rate of harvesting there
is a possibility of extinction by 2010. Similar population trends can
be seen in other species, such as the black rhino which has declined
by 95 percent since 1970.
This economic value of the elephant and the decline of the
populations led to it being placed on Appendix II (regulates
commercial trade the only restriction being exporting countries
determination of what is or is not detrimental to the species) of the
Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES began
in 1973 ) in 1978.
In June of 1989 the United States and many European nations, imposed
a moratorium on ivory imports to save the remaining populations. The
African elephant was added to Appendix I (which bans trade in the
products of these species, the species must be threatened by
extinction) that October. Many African nations such as: Zimbabwe,
Botswana, Namibia, Malawi and South Africa took reservations and many
formed the South African Center for Ivory Marketing (SACIM), (which
is yet to function because of the lack of buyers).
In the first few years the upgrading was viewed as a success by
western nations and conservation groups. The ban on ivory changed the
economic environment for elephants. It helped the elephant trade
collapse, which led to the decline of the average annual number of
elephants killed by poaching from 3,500 elephants per year in Kenya
in the early 1980s, to about 50 in 1993. The ivory market collapsed,
in March 1993, decreasing the black market price from $125 to $5 per
pound. And the value of ivory exports declined over the past ten
years: in Kenya 3.62 mil to 0.46 mil; Sudan 2.25 mil to 1.29 mil;
Tanzan 2.34 mil to 1.29 mil; Uganda 1.7 mil to 0.21 mil; Zaire 13.2
mil to 0.89 mil. The ban slowed the population decline in many of the
range states.
Several difficulties arose due to this collapse. The loss of ivory
revenues in Zimbabwe led to a decrease in enforcement which increased
illegal deaths from 10 to 100 in one year. In many countries, five
years after the ban poaching climbed to pre-ban levels (it continues
due to speculation that legal trade will resume). Many signed nations
suffered caused by financial strain from required enforcement. Legal
trade hid illegal trade and ivory cartels allowed countries to sell
confiscated ivory from poachers.
In Botswana, the ban has jeopardized future elephant populations,
which currently stand at between 54,700 and 60, 935 individuals
(poaching levels are historically low). Before July 1989 the nation
had well-developed markets for consumptive elephant products and
stable populations. When trade was banned the country lost about half
of potential economic use values, it lost 53 percent of direct use
values. Before the ban 44 percent of potential use was of
non-consumptive use, while after the ban 70 percent was. These values
are not sufficient enough to counteract the opportunity costs or
increase investment in elephant preservation. The same was found in
Kenya. Of the use values ivory made up only 42 percent (28 percent
was raw ivory), while 58 percent of the use value relates to other
products. The ban has made tourism into the only way use value of
elephants has been maintained. The loss of use value of the products
may lead to much land conversion into livestock ranges in the next 15
years unless local communities can realize high elephant use values.
The ban along with empowerment of community property rights to manage
and directly benefit from their wildlife, has led to a 25 percent
increase in the population. The increase in population has led to
added stress on the human elephant interaction. This ban ended up
being retrogressive for Botswana as well as for other countries with
growing populations.
As seen above, the trade ban had varying effects depending on the
state. There are three types of states, producer, entrepot, and
consumer. All have different incentives to comply with the ban.
Producer states realize too much economic gain for the government to
intervene and put pressures on poachers. Entrepot states are the
middlemen who store large quantities of ivory until conservation
pressures are released. These two states respond to the demands of
the consumer states. Producing countries with stable or growing
populations and good management and enforcement suffered from the ban
(after the ban an increase in Botswana, Zimbabwe and Namibia occurred
and population increased beyond its carrying capacity). In support of
the ban, some countries with declining populations use the ban as a
substitute for effective law enforcement at the national level and
are covering up decades of mismanagement and corruption. This can be
seen by a population decrease of 74 percent between 1979 and 1989 in
nations voting for the ban and 9 percent in those against it.