n00b
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 10, 2008
- 1,015
- 2,680
A recent article in the Daily Mail questions the ethical ramifications of President Kikwete visiting London for a summit to address the illegal wildlife trade.
It makes the claim that Tanzania is killing thousands of elephants every year to feed the illegal trade in ivory and then goes into some detail about who may or may not be involved.
Of course Tanzania is pillaging its game parks for tusks and other animal products; what arent we selling to the highest briber at the moment?
The mass extermination of elephants is a colourful subject because sure, who isnt tired of reading about dead education systems and secret mining contracts and governance that raises incompetence to an art form? Yet these things are all related.
Because in truth the editors and reporters of the Daily Mail dont live here, the publication could afford to be a bit more daring in its finger-pointing than anything that has been attempted here so far about the issue, especially after the fiasco caused by the recent Operation Tokomeza.
What is interesting is the difference in levels of outrage that the killing of elephants has elicited. The contrast between that piece and those that appeared in the local press is quite sharp, since the media here has been more interested in the human element of the story than in the elephants themselves.
Tanzania has a fair chunk of land under some form or other of conservation, roughly 25 per cent of its total area, which is an impressive feat.
The way we do conservation here, however, seems to me particularly hostile to local residents. With the notable exception of the Maasai, whom I suspect of being commodified to sell some elemental aspect of the African Safari experience to folks from outside the region, generally speaking citizens arent particularly welcome in the fenced off areas where wildlife is supposed to thrive.
I suspect that one of the consequences of this approach is that at the end of the day there isnt much difference in the publics perception between an elephant and, say, a tanzanite gemstone or gas underground.
The tourism industry makes noises every so often to the effect that Tanzanians should really take advantage of our natural resources and enjoy them more than we do.
And I agree it would make conservation a more tangible concept for the many of us who dont live anywhere where large wildlife can make a nuisance of itself.
The absolute majesty of an elephant is one of those things that cannot be explained or even conceived of no matter how many nature programmes one watches.
In the way of vast creatures, they have the power to move onlookers to awe and appreciation. We have been conquering nature for so long that it is easy to forget there are still things out there that could step on a person without even noticing.
We humans can get a bit narcissistic when left to ourselves; we need instances that help us gain some perspective about our place in the biosphere.
Unfortunately, the reason why most of us wont spend our hard-earned shillings on looking at wildlife is because conservation has helped us absorb the idea that game parks and the like are not meant for us local folks.
hey are consistently presented as a way of earning tourist dollars, and the conservation aspect of it can be a bit unsettling, frankly.
Case in point: One of the solutions to poaching that rears its ugly head from time to time is the suggestion that poachers be shot on sight. Right. A supply-side solution, is it? People who come up with such heinous ideas are never the ones in danger of losing their own lives to the cause.
The Daily Mail article delved quite deeply into accusations that the Chinese are driving the illegal ivory industry. Take a moment to imagine, if you will, the Tanzanian conservationist lobby calling for a similar demand-side solution to even up the scales and tackle the problem at the root.
By which I mean, for every poacher shot on sight, every individual found with ivory products outside the country of origin meets a similar fate. Something tells me that Sino-African relations would cool somewhat if the issue were raised and framed thusly.
At the end of the day, however, we need to talk about the elephant in the room. We issue people guns, fashion-defying colonial-era khaki outfits, low salaries and then ask them to guard millions of dollars worth of treasure thats just idling there, frolicking in waterholes and eating acacia leaves.
And these folks are supposed to do this job out of what, the goodness of their hearts? Thats the story I suspect we all really want to read about.
Elsie Eyakuze is an independent consultant and blogger for The Mikocheni Report, The Mikocheni Report.
It makes the claim that Tanzania is killing thousands of elephants every year to feed the illegal trade in ivory and then goes into some detail about who may or may not be involved.
Of course Tanzania is pillaging its game parks for tusks and other animal products; what arent we selling to the highest briber at the moment?
The mass extermination of elephants is a colourful subject because sure, who isnt tired of reading about dead education systems and secret mining contracts and governance that raises incompetence to an art form? Yet these things are all related.
Because in truth the editors and reporters of the Daily Mail dont live here, the publication could afford to be a bit more daring in its finger-pointing than anything that has been attempted here so far about the issue, especially after the fiasco caused by the recent Operation Tokomeza.
What is interesting is the difference in levels of outrage that the killing of elephants has elicited. The contrast between that piece and those that appeared in the local press is quite sharp, since the media here has been more interested in the human element of the story than in the elephants themselves.
Tanzania has a fair chunk of land under some form or other of conservation, roughly 25 per cent of its total area, which is an impressive feat.
The way we do conservation here, however, seems to me particularly hostile to local residents. With the notable exception of the Maasai, whom I suspect of being commodified to sell some elemental aspect of the African Safari experience to folks from outside the region, generally speaking citizens arent particularly welcome in the fenced off areas where wildlife is supposed to thrive.
I suspect that one of the consequences of this approach is that at the end of the day there isnt much difference in the publics perception between an elephant and, say, a tanzanite gemstone or gas underground.
The tourism industry makes noises every so often to the effect that Tanzanians should really take advantage of our natural resources and enjoy them more than we do.
And I agree it would make conservation a more tangible concept for the many of us who dont live anywhere where large wildlife can make a nuisance of itself.
The absolute majesty of an elephant is one of those things that cannot be explained or even conceived of no matter how many nature programmes one watches.
In the way of vast creatures, they have the power to move onlookers to awe and appreciation. We have been conquering nature for so long that it is easy to forget there are still things out there that could step on a person without even noticing.
We humans can get a bit narcissistic when left to ourselves; we need instances that help us gain some perspective about our place in the biosphere.
Unfortunately, the reason why most of us wont spend our hard-earned shillings on looking at wildlife is because conservation has helped us absorb the idea that game parks and the like are not meant for us local folks.
hey are consistently presented as a way of earning tourist dollars, and the conservation aspect of it can be a bit unsettling, frankly.
Case in point: One of the solutions to poaching that rears its ugly head from time to time is the suggestion that poachers be shot on sight. Right. A supply-side solution, is it? People who come up with such heinous ideas are never the ones in danger of losing their own lives to the cause.
The Daily Mail article delved quite deeply into accusations that the Chinese are driving the illegal ivory industry. Take a moment to imagine, if you will, the Tanzanian conservationist lobby calling for a similar demand-side solution to even up the scales and tackle the problem at the root.
By which I mean, for every poacher shot on sight, every individual found with ivory products outside the country of origin meets a similar fate. Something tells me that Sino-African relations would cool somewhat if the issue were raised and framed thusly.
At the end of the day, however, we need to talk about the elephant in the room. We issue people guns, fashion-defying colonial-era khaki outfits, low salaries and then ask them to guard millions of dollars worth of treasure thats just idling there, frolicking in waterholes and eating acacia leaves.
And these folks are supposed to do this job out of what, the goodness of their hearts? Thats the story I suspect we all really want to read about.
Elsie Eyakuze is an independent consultant and blogger for The Mikocheni Report, The Mikocheni Report.
