Kenya's ivory burn will only destroy, not conserve

In less than two days after this piece is published, Kenya will troop its colours and, deservedly, catch the attention of the international press for boldness in the burning of ivory and other animal trophies.

Kenya will marshal the power of the Presidency for the fourth occasion in two decades and set on fire more than one hundred tonnes of ivory and rhino horn.

Most of the ivory being set on fire is contraband and the government of Kenya rightly determines how to dispose of it. That is a sovereign decision.

This occasion is guaranteed to be a spectacle, highlighting Kenya’s emphatic message that its leadership has consistently stood against any trade in ivory, rhino horn and banned animal products.

READ: KAHUMBU: Why it makes sense to burn the ivory

READ: All eyes on Kenya as global leaders to witness burning of ivory

READ: KWS to set aside biggest tusks for a new museum

A valid question in the policy that requires the burning of ivory is whether there are alternative uses for the ivory that would benefit elephant conservation.

My examination of the claims by the most prominent advocates for burning concludes they think that sending the message is enough, and that the CITES convention which classifies elephants as a species under threat makes it preposterous to think about any alternative uses for the captured contraband. 

I respectfully disagree with this view. Let’s start with the obvious fact that Kenya has already set to fire nearly half as much ivory as will be burned this week, with no effect on preservation of elephants both in Kenya and elsewhere.

FAILURE TO PROTECT

There remains a small but sensible group that questions the claims being made about the benefits of burning a large amount of ivory.

Here, the “burn the ivory” brigade quickly cites the clauses in the convention that preclude any trade in captured ivory.

My view is that even this drafting of the convention is more evidence for why it is incomplete, if not altogether wrongheaded.

I estimate that the 105 tonnes of ivory being set ablaze represents the cruel death of at least 2000 elephants, which would represent 5 per cent of Kenya’s total herd.

It is a stretch of facts to claim that burning this ivory will help any elephant that is alive. The elephants that have been killed and their tusks illegally extracted represent a failure to protect that which we undertook to defend.  

For a student of economics, the dead elephants represent an expensive sunk cost. It becomes a fallacy informed by ideology and wrong reasoning to hang on to their symbolic value.

So let me state this clearly. There is no evidence that releasing the existing stocks into the market or using it in another way is incompatible with conserving the elephants that are alive today.

It is not supported by economic reasoning. It represents an ideology which may be sincerely held but for which the evidence is conspicuously absent.

A sensible but unpopular alternative would be to seek dispensation, carefully release the ivory to market and use the proceeds of that sale to support conservation by experimenting with new conservation approaches.

LOTS OF FUEL

To my mind, new policy tools are required to improve the existing policy of ban, burn and the militarisation of wildlife conservation.

Recognising the sunk cost does not imply any surrender, or endorsement of the poacher and the ivory trader who exports the goods, but merely demonstrates willingness to consider alternative policy choices.

We shouldn’t be hoping that the poacher and the illicit trader will give up after seeing the pyrotechnics show that the government will put on later this week.        

After two decades of a solid trade ban, four occasions of burning ivory and the unwillingness to consider new policy tools, I realise that evidence is not always the first consideration in designing policy.

In this instance, pure ideology is the predominant determinant of conservation policy. In some instances, evidence is assumed to be consistent with that policy even where it does not exist.

So there will be a spectacular event in which lots of fuel and wood will be used to ensure the disintegration of ivory that could have been auctioned and used to reinforce existing conservation efforts.

A strong moral statement will issue, the property will go up in smoke and then we will surely have to sit back and think about where more resources will come from to protect the 40,000 elephants in Kenya that live in the wild.

The symbolism around the bonfire of ivory is real, but only those who mistakenly believe that it actually saves elephant lives will be certain about its meaning.

Kwame Owino is the chief executive officer of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA-Kenya), a public policy think tank based in Nairobi. Twitter: @IEAKwame