ELEPHANTS & IVORY

sustainable development and “sustainable use”,
among other distractions, are human activities
that occur within the environment. Without a
functioning environment, both society and the
economy collapse.
The recognition of the continuum that exists
between humans and other animals, including
elephants, in terms of a common evolutionary
legacy, shared genes, anatomy, physiology,
intelligence and social behaviour, has led to the
argument that “there should be some continuum in
moral standards”, a view that seems logical but one
that has yet to gain general acceptance. Regardless,
it is now widely accepted that living organisms and
the nonliving components of the biosphere have
values other than economic value. In particular,
individual organisms and populations have intrinsic
value, i.e. value beyond their utility to humans.
A KNOWLEDGE-BASED
APPROACH TO ELEPHANT
CONSERVATION
It has been said that “…there is no other basis for
sound political decisions than the best available
scientific evidence”. If we take that statement to
be true, it has much to say about conservation
generally, and elephant conservation in particular.
It says, for example, that we must reject the
myths and fables that dominate many discussions
in modern conservation because they do not
reflect current knowledge and understanding. It
also tells us that everything is interrelated and
interconnected. And it suggests that we need to
develop a new Earth-centred conservation ethic,
and an approach to conservation management
that is consistent with “the best available
scientific evidence”.
An Earth-centred conservation ethic would
reflect evolutionary and ecological relationships;
it would recognize that Planet Earth is finite and
cannot support continuous growth, either of the
human population or its economy. The former
realization speaks to the urgent need for better
family planning on a global scale; the latter supports
the argument that the economy (or commerce)
desperately “needs…a new way of seeing itself”.
An Earth-centred conservation ethic would
also remove the artificial separation of individual
animals and populations and put animal welfare
where it naturally belongs – squarely in the middle
of the conservation agenda.
While the best available science reminds us
that all animals, including humans, are related, it
also tells us that some animals – such as elephants
– are sufficiently different from others to warrant
special consideration. Elephants, because of
their biology, are more likely to go extinct as
a result of human activities than many other
species. That elephants possess large brains, are
both sentient and sapient, exhibit complex social
organization, and possess an identifiable culture,
all raise important ethical questions about our
relationships and interactions with elephants.
It is becoming abundantly clear that if science
and knowledge, generally, underpinned our
conservation policies, our approach to elephant
protection and conservation would be radically
different from that currently being advocated and
practiced today.
At a minimum, we would recognize the need
to protect critical habitats for elephants where
they continue to survive. We would also provide
them with movement corridors to allow natural
processes to better regulate their numbers, and
implement a transnational approach to elephant
conservation, such as that now being advanced in
parts of southern Africa.
In order to combat the continued killing of
elephants by poachers, society would unilaterally
close all markets for elephant products, and
ban all international trade in elephant products.
While such a suggestion may seem extreme,
closing markets and imposing trade bans are
commonplace when dealing with other species,
especially marine mammals. So, why not extend
the idea to elephants and, for that matter, other
threatened species in commercial trade?
The international community would also
support and enhance the efforts of some national
13
© IFAW/J Hrusa