Apr 28 2008
The intersection of global politics and wildlife conservation
I’ve been following the events in Zimbabwe fairly closely. I spent part of my toddler-hood there. I also have a few people there who are very important to me.
TB the ostrich’s “quiet diplomacy” is thankfully being replaced by more decisive actions from southern africans. Of particular interest is the 77 tons of arms that were due to be offloaded in South Africa, origin: China. Destination: Zimababwe.
To my mind, 3 million AK-47 bullets, 1500 rockets and 3500 mortar shells are not going to help the people of Zimababwe recover from their currently desperate economic situation. Nor will they give citizens the freedom to express their political views. Nor will they promote peace and stability in the SADC.
I’m pleased to read here that even though the big man’s TB’s head is still firmly stuck in the sand, the SA Transport Allied Worker’s Union members refused to offload the ship in Durban. And futhermore that Mozambique has refused to allow the ship into its territorial waters.
Back to the subject of the title of this post. The Zim government coffers are not adequate to pay for this consignment. So uncle Bob, chose to trade 8 tons of Zim ivory for his weapons. This sale has not been appoved by CITES.
I’d be curious to hear some different points of view on this. I haven’t read any of the other wildlifedirect blogs which may have dealt with this, but will do so today. The story is well-covered in the South African dailies.
10 responses so far
How many dead elephants does eight tons of ivory represent, approximately?
s.
Seamus, a couple of months ago, both Sheryl and I tried to find out the truth from the Zimbabwe government, on their elephant culling program. We both called their embassy in Washington, and were treated disrespectfully. I contacted both CITIES and MIKE, and was told that there was nothing they could do. I also have learned from the CIA fact sheet on Zimbabwe, they have the worst mortality rate in the world. Average age a person lives to is 38 years old!
Ethics and Animals has a comprehensive post on this issue:
http://ethicsandanimals.com/2008/04/26/ivory-for-arms.aspx
Thanks, Dipesh. That’s a very informative post from Colleen.
s.
To answer Sheryl’s question about the number of dead elephants in a tonne of ivory, here is a discussion on elephant tusks http://www.elephantfriends.org/tusks.html. from which you could run some ballpark numbers.
It should be noted that there are several significant variables to Sheryl’s question: male and female elephant tusks differ in size and the average weight of elephant tusks has been declining over the years.
Well the ivory stockpile didn’t just appear overnight, this is not the worst of Mugabes crimes, it’s just one more (like western tourists buying pink-tinged forest ivory openly from market stalls in Angola - just a matter of scale surely?)
Unpopular though the notion may be, I’m of the opinion that conservation concerns are a huge luxury and somewhat academic in this particular context. How many dead Zimbabweans would 77 tons of arms represent approximately? Who’s protecting the people?
There are going to be no safe havens without first securing social stability and that may be a long time coming even if Mugabe goes (as he inevitably will unless he cheats death too), stern rebuke from CITES or not.
But how wonderful that those South African workers took an independent moral stand, actually did what they could in support of other people and in so doing shamed the world.
So yes, I’d like to see habitats and watersheds and animals conserved, I think it’s very important indeed, but…
If the people are safe, the animals will be too.
Wim,
You raise some interesting points here. Most notably, that having an ivory stockpile does not constitute a breach of ethics or CITES.
Point taken, there are many actions that Mugabe could be faulted on, and some could be said to be far more grevious than exporting disused pachyderm dentition. I mention the arms for ivory story because its a topic that seems appropriate for this (conservation) forum, and I am more comfortable writing about african conservation than undiluted human rights and advocacy issues.
I’d like to counter your suggestion that conservation (in this context) is either a “luxury” or “academic”. Here is some of my thought process:
1. you don’t have to believe that conservation is a valid pursuit. You can even believe its a luxurious endeavour if you like. However, CITES is a legal instrument that can be used to pressure China and Zim not to go ahead with the trade. Less guns = less dead, maimed or opressed people in Africa.
2. This might not even be a conservation issue. It may in fact be a matter of pure economics. If Zim go ahead with this transaction, and damage their credibility with CITES, this will make it really, really difficult for them to liquidate their ivory assets once the country is stable and needs to build its economy again. Hands up anyone who knows of any other significant natural resources that Zim has left, that can be stockpiled?
3. I come across these arguments for seperating development, politics, economic growth and environmentalism / conservation quite often in my line of work. I think its at best misguided, at worst damaging to development. That is to say, I very much doubt your assertion that its a straightforward causal relationship (”safe people = safe animals”). I’m not a James Lovelock or Rachel Carson fanatical disciple, but there is something to be said for the idea that people’s well-being is intimately connected with the health of their environment. I posit that healthy, functional ecosystems make human development (social and economic) much easier.
So to round off… I would be happy to stay away from words like “conservation”, “animal welfare”, “environmentalism”, and gravitate more towards “resource management”, “national economic recovery” and “movable assets”, if only this could encourage people to view my thinking as less luxurious and academic.
Seamus
thank you very much for your considered response to my response.
It seems to me that CITES persits because of consensus. If that consensus is breached (Japanese or Scandinavian “cultural” whaling for example), then there’s little that can be done to actually force compliance. It’s a gentleman’s agreement of sorts. In Zimbabwe the rule of law is compromised and protesting this scandal via the CITES breach seems to be missing the bigger picture.
Surely there are many Zimbabwe nationals who have shown a long term commitment to conservation (as well as the wellbeing of their compatriots )? They’re not currently being listened to on many levels. These are not normal times; the usual standards really don’t apply. I’m not sure that Zimbabweans should be censured retrospectively for breaches perpetuated by a failing or former regime. They have shown good faith before, even, in better times, under this leader.
I’m not remotely arguing for any separation of the various issues, quite the contrary; they all intersect and are all indivisible. Every interest group has to be partisan in support of its own cause but I do wonder if we don’t blinker ourselves against those things which we consider inconvenient or sometimes have to be complicit in, to win smaller battles (if not the war).
I respond that healthy infrastructure, economics and governance make environmental management possible. There doesn’t seem to be a single blog on this site where the absence of at least one (and they are all three mutually dependent), of those basic prerequisites is not the underlying cause of the problem. There is not a single “wild” ladscape which does not exist wholly at the grace (or negligence), of it’s surrounding human population.
Demographics are the greatest threat.
Whatever the semantics, conservation is a hugely Political issue but it’s not currently the most important in the case of Zimbabwe (the original subject of this post). The Ivory/Arms deal is not the sickness, it’s the symptom. Basic needs must be met before the quality of lives is enhanced.
Which is absolutely not to say that the superstructures of single cause advocacy and creative thought don’t have an intrinsic, enduring and significant value, just better perhaps that, in so far as we are able, we try to ensure that they are built on strong and stable foundations. We have to place our support with local people so that they can then have the luxury of securing the health of their own environment.
So keep thinking Seamus, because when circumstances change they’ll be needing you.
Wim,
Thank you for your response. Its refreshing to be able to engage in discussion with thoughtful, responsive readers.
I think I have to concede that conservation is probably not the most important Zimbabwean agenda, but that it can be, once the political, social and economic crisis has been ameliorated. I think my tendency to dwell on conservation in Zimbabwe may be because my contact with friends there is usually within the context of wildlife conservation. I think you are probably correct: I am a “single-cause advocate” (ie. conservationist). I do acknowledge though that the majority of modern conservation concerns pivot around the tolerance or intolerance of humans for wildlife. And that this in turn depends on far more basic human concerns such as food, shelter, security, rights etc.
The news (as of an hour or two ago) was that the MDC seems to have taken the lead in the polls, but not by a very large margin. Perhaps the winds are changing. Lets hope so.
I find it unbelievable that I have to do a google search to find current news about the An Yue Jiang, and why it’s still off the African Coast. What I did find were two short and completely contradictory articles. Kenya’s a distant memory… and if things become out of control in Zimbabwe… They’ll all say “how tragic” (for about a week).
A few years ago I really didn’t know very much about Africa. Now , because of conservation, I keep up daily with the political situation. I am outraged that my government does so little. Most of the people I know are educated, fairly intelligent people, but very few of them seem to have more than faint idea of what’s really going on in the rest of the world (or really care). I feel invested in the Lion Guardians and care just as much about the people as I do the animals. I pay attention now to America’s foreign policies toward Africa and I speak out. So conservation may not be the most important issue, but it does encourage people’s interest in the world they live in. I believe conservation will play a large part in Africa’s future and provide a source of income for it’s people for generations (if it’s protected).