Subscribe now

Letter: Letters : Trading places

Published 8 March 1997

From Juan Ovejero, Africa Resources Trust

Brussels, Belgium

Your article (“Too dangerous to trade”, 8 February, p 12) targets three
African countries, but uses press quotes from a panel of CITES experts on the
unfortunate discovery of illegal ivory sales in Zimbabwe, to discredit a
successful regional rural development and conservation strategy which enjoys
increasing international support by leading conservation organisations and
governments.

What has happened in Zimbabwe cannot negate overnight this country’s good
record on wildlife conservation policy. But sadly, animal rights organisations
seem to be happy each time bad news on wildlife issues is reported in the
press.

The article also omits the fact that the panel’s report on Namibia indicates
that this country’s elephant management and legal controls do meet all the
criteria for renewed trade in elephant products. Why? Because this is good news
for conservation.

A number of Southern African countries believe that the long-term future of
the elephant will only be secure when its full economic value is realised and
reinvested in conservation incentives. If this does not happen in the near
future, in a few years elephants will be confined to protected areas and the
species will have disappeared from communal lands.

Finally, could someone answer the following question: why have elephant
populations in countries which have practised proactive management, including
culling and a regulated ivory trade, remained healthy or even grown while those
elsewhere on the continent have declined?

Issue no. 2072 published 8 March 1997

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

Sign up
Piano Exit Overlay Banner Mobile Piano Exit Overlay Banner Desktop