Is the international ban on the trade of ivory consistent with the principles of sustainable development?

Authors Avatar by kaytie (student)

Is the international ban on the trade of ivory consistent with the principles of sustainable development?

The population of the African elephant declined considerably in the 20th century, with the species aggregate falling from 5 – 10 million to 1.3 million between the 1930s and 1980s (Barzdo, Caldwell and Martin, 1986). This lead to the upgrade of the elephant’s status from Appendix 2 (monitored trade) to Appendix 1 (trade only in special circumstances), as determined by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES, n.d); essentially illegalising the worldwide trade of ivory in 1989. This essay will assess if the ban on ivory trading is in concurrence with the ideals of sustainable development, focusing on four universally accepted core principles of equity, democracy, the precautionary principle and policy integration and planning (Carter, 2007). The definition of sustainable development used throughout is that established by the Brundtland Commission (1987), ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’

          To begin the equitable effects of the ban must be taken into account, particularly as the majority of the negative distributional implications fall on lesser-developed countries. The pertinent forms of equity regarding sustainable development are intergenerational and intragenerational, with the former referring to exchanges between different generations and the latter interactions occurring within one generation (Vojnovic, 1995). Enforcing the trade ban complies strongly with intergenerational equity as it preserves elephant populations for future generations, but it appears to do so to the detriment of the current generation, who are denied the use of a valuable resource. Of the 37 countries that house elephants all have at least 50% of their population living below the poverty line (CIA World Factbook, 2011), which suggests that the ivory ban is not in accordance with sustainable ideals as it curtails the ability of those currently in poverty to meet their own needs.

           With regard to intragenerational equity, if it is accepted that people must profit from a resource in order to conserve it (Moore, 2011) then it can be argued that there are other methods of commodifying elephants that are far more in line with the ethos of sustainable development than harvesting them for ivory, such as eco tourism. This capitalises on the non-use value of elephants and has become a profitable market in all of the range states that provide such services, with the contribution to the Gross Decimal Percentage of the three countries with the largest national parks (Arica Almanac, 2004) totalling 8.5% for Namibia (NTB, 2011), 12% for Botswana (USBAA, 2011a) and 17% for Tanzania (USBAA, 2011b). This method of profiting from elephants appears the most sustainable as it conserves their populations whilst ensuring the burden of their cost (in terms of financial compensation for the damage they can inflict on crops and people, and also the preservation of habitat that cannot be used for houses and crops) is redistributed to those who can afford it.

          The notion of democracy as a prerequisite for sustainable development was included in the Brundtland Commission (P65, 1987) report,  ‘Sustainable development requires: a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making’, but it is somewhat unclear as to how large a part it played in the ivory trade ban. On the surface the ban appears in good standing, as the elephant became a member of Appendix 1 following a vote at the 1989 CITES Conference, with 76/91 member countries in favour of the motion (Sand, 1997), although with no greater weight given to the preferences of range states during the initial vote despite the majority of those that voted against being countries that contained populations of elephants (Sand, 1997).

Join now!

          However there is indication that it may have compromised the ability of local organisations that provide rural communities a platform to participate in and profit from the harvesting of their resources. One example is Zimbabwe’s Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), which stands to gain approximately half the revenue of any legal ivory sold (Hutton, 1997). The stockpile of ivory in Zimbabwe is currently estimated at €10 million (Mushawevato, 2011), so in essence the ban is currently preventing the organisation from accessing €5 million, reducing the financial incentive for indigenous people to protect ...

This is a preview of the whole essay