I found an article about conservation efforts regarding elephants. The Associated Press published an article regarding the efforts to maintain the African Elephant populations primarily in Kenya. There are a few key elements that I see as predominantly driving this issue. First, the elephants tusk ivory is considered economically valuable. The economic value is driven first by the intrinsic value of the ivory, which is derived from its utility to society. The illegality factor further modifies the economics, limiting the supply of the commodity, thus driving the base price of the ivory and thereby the economic viability up further. However, there is a curious stipulation to this. There is a regional aspect to the economic viability, which is mentioned briefly in the article: "Most cases involve ivory being smuggled from Africa into Asia, where growing wealth has fed the desire for ivory ornaments and for rhino horn that is used in traditional medicine, though scientists have proved it has no medicinal value." This cultural statement suggests that the economic profit is considerably increased in Asia, due to the expanded uses for the tusk ivory. The manner in which Western culture lives today would support this supposition. Ivory is not as highly valued in most Western societies, hence why the tusk ivory is shipped to Asia where it fetches the highest price. The second aspect of the ivory trade is that the organized crime organizations involved in this trade, hamper the ability of the African governments to control the poaching in their borders.
Based on the above reasons, it would be wise for the governments presiding over the nature preserves in Africa to utilize companies from cultural regions where ivory is not as valuable and places where the companies will not likely allow corrupt individuals to enter into their countries illegally. It may be more expensive for African governments to execute construction projects, but such is the price of conservation efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment