China ivory markets closure game changer but challenges remain

It is a move that is billed to cut the demand for legal ivory in China drastically; that is, for all uses that are aesthetic in character and not based on real human needs but variety on the market.

It is close to how conservationists ended the fur coats business in most of Europe and North America, to end wanton hunting of wolves and endangered aquatic animals.

There are other animals whose skins are commercially useful, say, for instance, crocodiles, but we hear little of such use of the resources despite having plenty of crocodiles in the country or elsewhere.

In various cultures crocodiles are harvested for their meat, and if Tanzania did the same a lot of people would be saved from the danger of being harmed each year as thousands of crocodiles wait in prey for users of river water or for wildlife, such as large herds of wildebeest crossing rivers.

At times there is a problem of underutilization of such resources, especially for destructive species. In the country, for instance, there are two types of elephant talk that cross each other on daily basis, one dominant in the airwaves and the other scarcely being heard.

What is liked by the media and conservation fraternity is ending poaching and increasing elephant populations, but with considerable deforestation all over the country and drought in many areas, elephants often stray from known habitats to feed on crops, destroying incomes of a whole village or a section of community for the whole year.

The government is often loath to talk of compensating such farmers. In that case the closure of official ivory markets in China won’t be good news to some of those living near national parks, facing dangers of rising elephant populations, wanton destruction and government policy of ‘cost sharing’ in conservation.

Under the policy, the government pays wardens to keep the animals in place or ward off poachers, while peasants assist by kindly forgetting about their crops if they are destroyed by wildlife, or in the case of crocodiles, if their dear ones are mauled by the beasts. Some livestock keepers recently used poison against a pride of lions.

There is also another dilemma where government attitude over the past years does not help to clear the air, as to whether to destroy ivory stockpiles or seek to dispose them in ways that help national coffers.

The latter option is virtually anathema to Western conservationists, but the authorities here toy with it. Should we burn the heap? Second phase Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi once showed in a resolute way how to combat poaching when he put to the flames a huge pile of captured ivory as well as what might have been government stocks.

No one said if there was first grade ivory that was spared and a less useful heap that was destroyed, as for instance we haven’t made such distinctions in Tanzania in the past decade. We rarely destroy ivory stockpiles the way we often torch rifles and home-made guns the police capture, and it is unclear if a proper resource strategy on ivory exists.

There is also the question of public moods or governance stance, that the fourth phase and earlier governments were more inclined to follow the dictates of global conservation movements, while the current authorities have at times showed a clear sense of independence in deliberations.

So far there is no indication that there is a choice to be made in conservation terms, whether to sell legal ivory needed, for instance in Asian medicinal markets despite Westerners’ frown at any such idea.

But isn’t world trade much about so many things that others frown upon?

Graft, tax evasion not major hindrances for industrialization

FINANCE and Economic Affairs Minister Dr Philip Mpango has had a difficult time in the National Assembly to explain plenty of unmet expenditure targets and provide a roadmap for the realization of an industrial economy as promised by the fifth phase government.

He also took time to meet with former colleagues and fellow researchers at the development research outfit, REPOA, where he cited the public sector cleansing campaign as major precondition for industrialization. The minister gave a good image of government action, not a plan for industrialization.

There was a number of statements by leading REPOA associates and researchers, who backed the minister’s view, urging more spirited work in terms of seeking to realize targets in specific areas, including revenue collection to beef up capacity for industrialization.

The technical condition that the minister underlined as leading to industrial economy was scaling up infrastructure and power supply, which indeed boost investment chances.

Still it is one thing to have roads and power supply and another to make an investment decision as the latter needs more.

Certain remarks that the minister made during a presentation in the legislature earlier, as MPs queried budget realization for the current financial year, help to make head and tail out of limitations to realize an industrial economy in the near future.

He talked about the need for a genuine private sector that follows the laws of the country, pays taxes and thus becoming a credible partner of the government in its industrialization quest.

It would appear on the basis of those remarks that the problem is behavioural change, that if each of us acts correctly, that is, steadfast in a moral sense it is likely that the government plan for industrialization shall be met.

Let it be said that this has been the country’s vision since 1967 at the time of the Arusha Declaration, and most economists and political leaders (often drawn from the same experts) always held that it could be implemented.

They explain failures like the initial period (1967 to 1977) of the first East African Community collapse and then the war with Uganda, to circumstantial factors.

As a matter of fact all circumstantial factors merely exacerbate structural limitations, and this is what is hindering realization of lofty goals like an industrial economy.

When Dr Mpango announced his industrialization plan during last year’s budget, it was clear that it hinged on banning used clothing imports to locally make fabrics.

It was a plan that would not work as the new clothing would often be much more expensive than imported fabrics, while any ban risks making urban unemployment a far worse problem than what it is at present as purchasing power is diminishing owing to forfeiture of the used fabrics.

There are also warnings that the United States is likely to remove us from the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) if used clothing imports are banned, as they are a handy income source for scores of US companies trading with Africa.

What works is that people invest in new fabrics as variety on the market; Uganda for instance leads in this direction. The minister is avoiding using academic training and prefers to issue platform formulas which sound nice at the political level but remain wanting as economic policy.

No country has waited until it has eradicated corruption in order to start industrialization, as often the money that investors put up for industry depends on how far they can avoid taxes.

Proper government earnings are positive for public services rather than industrialization, as it is not the government that spares the cash for industries but the private sector.

That is why a balance between the two is vital as revenues are crucial for medical care, schools, etc; industrial investment needs rising purchasing power so that a new product strikes a lower price and sell massively.