Conservationists in Kenya have often found reason to bemoan the country’s shared border with Tanzania. In the past, the fact that great energies and funding was put to the protection of animals in Kenya was undermined by a less than equal response to the same issue south of the border.
When the international trade in ivory was banned in 1989, Kenya, was at the forefront of the movement that brought this ban about. With its elephant population drastically reduced, the then government, headed by Daniel Arap Moi, lobbied hard for the CITES ban on the international traffic of elephant ivory.
Months before the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species enacted a ban on the trade in elephant ivory, the Kenyan government sent a message to the world that Kenya’s elephant were not to be poached and commodified. Kenya’s elephant population had fallen by around 100,000 individuals between 1973 and 1977. The population loss was staggering and simply unsustainable.
In a move that is often heralded as a precursor to the CITES ban, the Moi government burned its sizeable stockpile of confiscated ivory. It was the first mass ivory destruction event recorded in history and a large part of the reasoning behind it was in its symbolic value. Kenya, its government said, would not stand for the commodification of this living creature’s body parts.
Tanzania’s history with the ivory trade: different and, at points, dangerously so?
Despite the shared language and similitudes of culture and landscape, Kenya and Tanzania’s post-colonial development is more notable for its differences than its similarities. For those concerned with the conservation of elephant, the diverging paths for these, East Africa’s two largest, countries is most chilling with regards to its treatment of elephant ivory.
In Kenya, the hunting of elephant has been illegal since 1973. In present day Tanzania, and indeed much of Southern Africa, it is, in fact, still legal. In order to hunt elephant in Tanzania, one does have to apply for special licensing from CITES and the Tanzanian government. There are also regulations on what can and cannot be hunted, however, this practice still horrifies conservationists in Kenya.
Where successive Kenyan governments have continued to burn ivory stockpiles as symbolic reaffirmations of their desire to end the trade, Tanzania’s government recently lobbied CITES for a relaxation of the ban.
Now, of course, these differences of approach to the issue of elephant hunting and ivory sale should not be so quickly condemned or celebrated. We at the Trust, quite obviously, condemn any killing of all wildlife. With our respect for the creatures as individuals as strong as our desire to protect the species as a whole, we cannot condone the unnatural death of any wild creatures.
However, as conservationists, we are not so naïve as to be ignorant of the broader debates around what is best for the preservation of wild animals. Unfortunately, the realities of the world dictate that without a clear indication of the profitability in preserving wildlife it will not happen.
There have long been arguments to suggest that controlled hunting is an effective measure in maintaining stable population sizes and in ensuring that wildlife preservation generates revenues that can be put into the conservation of species in general. Those from both the pro- and anti-hunting lobby both point to instances of success in their long-standing, and inconclusive, argument.
In fact, even the Tanzanian government’s 2010-2013 lobby of CITES for a one-off ivory sale was argued as being to the benefit of the country’s wildlife. Having never destroyed any of its confiscated ivory, Tanzania may well have the world’s largest cache of ivory.
The facility in which the ivory is stored is heavily protected and shrouded in secrecy. A 2013 documentarian who was allowed limited access to the ‘ivory room’ suggested that there were 90 tonnes of raw ivory housed there. At that time, also the period in which Tanzania was lobbying for the one-time sale, this ivory cache was valued at around 50 million USD.
With that money, the Tanzanian government argued that their wildlife services would be in a better position to preserve and protect their wildlife. And, of course, if that money was applied appropriately, it is hard to argue otherwise.
However, there were, critics at the time argued, no guarantees that it would be so applied. What’s more, there were fears that one-off sales preserved the impression of ivory as a commodifiable item. These are fears we share today.
To give those in charge of the stockpile their due, in what would have been a best-case scenario, the Tanzanian government would have accepted a payment for the right to have the stockpile burnt. As is the case with the issuance of hunting licenses, the issue of the ivory room’s cache became a question of value as it applied to conservation.
How Kenya has managed to marry the two (value and conservation) and whether recent trends suggest Tanzania might be now following suit:
As has been made clear, the differences between Kenya and Tanzania have, by close comparison, been made more obvious than the similarities. Tanzania is the poorer country and it’s wild spaces do not contribute to national GDP as favourably.
Kenya has been privileged in that sense. It is a country famed for safari tourism and despite that it has less land protected as national parkland, Kenyan tourism generated 8.1 billion US dollars towards GDP in 2019. That is compared with Tanzania’s 6.7 in the same year.
This revenue-generation has made it easy to see the value in protecting wildlife. And the results of this are clear. Kenya’s elephant population is growing. In 2020, only 11 elephant were poached in the whole country. That is down from 34 in 2019 and 80 in 2018. And, perhaps, this cause and effect relationship is cyclical. The greater seems Kenya’s handle on poaching, the more attractive the country becomes as a destination for the conscientious tourist.
The fact that poaching is down is due to a number of factors, including increased powers given to the Kenyan wildlife services in their battle against poaching. However, at it’s real core this success is down to one perception: Kenya’s elephant are more valuable alive than they are dead.
Since 2013, when the Tanzanian government decide to drop their appeal to CITES, the elephant/ivory conversation in the country has changed. Less often, now, is the notion of the ivory room’s stockpile discussed as a means toward aiding conservation.
A few months ago we wrote an article on why Kenya’s successes in alleviating poaching must be considered a launching pad. We argued that conservationists in Kenya must use the positive results to push forward and prove to the rest of Africa that conservation can bring value to the country.
And perhaps what we have witnessed in Tanzania is the effect of Kenya’s inspirational example. Between 2009 and 2014, poachers reduced the Tanzanian elephant population by 60% according to government statistics. That made it the international hub for the sourcing of illegally traded ivory. It also meant that between 2009 and 2014, the elephant population of Tanzania dropped by 60% according to government statistics.
This is backed up by findings made by the Environmental Investigation Agency, a London-based non-profit. According to the EIA, 87 tonnes of ivory seized worldwide originated in Tanzania. That made it the global hotspot for elephant poaching.
Responding to this rising number of elephant poached, the Tanzanian government set up the National Taskforce on Anti-Poaching (NTAP). Since, between 2015 and 2019, only five tonnes of ivory seized can be linked to Tanzania.
So, it seems, Tanzania, like Kenya, is now getting a handle on poaching. This is encouraging in its own right. It is even more encouraging as an indication of an attitude shift. The Tanzanian government of today seems to be more encouragingly incentivised to protect its elephants.
These signs are encouraging for all elephant conservationists. And for the elephant that migrate between both countries, this can only be good news.