海角大神

Imagine that an elephant approaches a village inhabited by blind men. Having never encountered such a creature, each approaches with arms outstretched eager to feel what they cannot see.

One man, touching a leg, declares the beast thick and strong like a tree trunk. Another, after encountering the trunk, describes the animal as squirmy like a snake. A third, after feeling the tip of a tusk, notes it is sharp like a spear. Eventually, a sighted man arrives and informs the men that they are all partly right but that they are also all wrong, a product of perceptions formed in isolation.

This ancient Indian parable offers a valuable lesson for the challenge facing elephant conservationists today, says wildlife researcher Gao Yufang. For decades, two distinct camps of elephant advocates have butted heads over how best聽to protect elephants. Each group has been so focused on their unique perspective that they have become blind to the entirety of the issue 鈥撀燼nd the common ground they share.

鈥淲e are all limited by our own perspective,鈥� says Mr. Gao, a PhD student at Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies in New Haven, Conn. 鈥淧eople tend to see the same problem in very different ways.鈥�

Elephant conservationists share a common goal to halt the slaughter of elephants for their ivory. But they diverge into two distinct approaches toward that mutual aim: some advocate for a total prohibition of ivory on moral grounds while others see practical value in overseeing a regulated market.

At the root of the debate lies a fundamental clash of perspectives on the best way to discourage undesirable behavior, through blanket prohibition or through controlled regulation. It's a theme that has surfaced repeatedly in聽conversations around controlling the abuse of alcohol, gambling, and smoking.

Little cooperation so far

Elephant conservationists have seen some success in recent years.聽According to 2016 data, from the聽Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), poaching of African elephants has declined since its peak in 2011. However, poaching rates still remain higher than natural population growth, which means the overall population continues to decline. Advocates argue that is evidence a more concerted effort is needed to stem the tide.

Advocates for a regulated market assume there will always be a demand for ivory. They presume it best to satiate that demand with tusks harvested from elephants that have died of natural causes and invest the profits in conservation. Advocates of a total ivory ban counter that an absolute prohibition provides consumers and law enforcement officials a clear line of demarcation that eliminates any possible gray area.

There has been little cooperation between these two groups, as evidenced by the contradictory proposals that each have advanced over the years. Frustrated by nearly 30 years of debate, Gao and nearly two dozen scientists have banded together in a call to unite these two causes for good.

On Dec. 14, the researchers outlined a five-step process to break through the current impasse in the journal Science. The first step, they say, is to bring the two sides to discuss their goals for elephant conservation, with the aim of highlighting not just where their objectives diverge but also where there is common ground.

The truly difficult work needs to begin with a respectful discussion of 鈥渢aboo trade-offs鈥� between conflicting secular and sacred values 鈥撀爄n other words, a search for common ground between one stakeholder鈥檚 sense of morality and another鈥檚 practicality. During this discussion, stakeholders should prepare to feel uncomfortable and to address 鈥渕oral outrage,鈥� says Robert Scholes, a co-author of the report and ecologist at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg,聽South Africa.

鈥淵ou can鈥檛 sweep the emotional aspect under the rug and say that doesn鈥檛 count,鈥� says Professor Scholes. 鈥淵ou have to develop a process that considers people鈥檚 values, the evidence, and uses both to come to a workable outcome.鈥�

Getting both sides to the table

Getting stakeholders to the table may be prove difficult, as some see these suggestions as more cycling through the same debate that has been hashed out for years.聽Even some among the original group of scientists who collaborated on the recent report had trouble reaching total consensus.

Some felt that the paper should advocate for one position over the other, but the majority of collaborators felt this would 鈥渞aise the stakes, not calm them,鈥� explains Scholes.聽This choice meant that a few original authors who fell on the extreme sides of the debate backed out of the paper during production because they felt that placing each side on equal footing created a false equivalency.

Still Scholes is confident that common ground can be found, because this approach has worked before.

In the mid-to-late 20^th century conservationists were at a similar impasse over how to keep elephant herds in check. Advocates of controlled kills argued that culling was necessary to disrupt the cycle of spikes in population leading to shortages of food. Between 1967 and 1995, wildlife managers in South Africa鈥檚 Kruger National Park killed more than 14,500 elephants, a practiced that was strongly opposed by anti-culling advocates.

But the conversation changed when the two groups came together and realized that they had the same objective.

鈥淚t was by understanding that we weren鈥檛 fighting about elephants,鈥� says Scholes, 鈥渨e were fighting about the appropriate way to treat them in different circumstances.鈥�

Now, instead of culling, the park鈥檚 wildlife managers rely on indirect methods such as reducing artificial water supplies that had allowed elephants to survive droughts and fostered unnatural population booms.

The solution to resolving the ivory impasse could be similarly simple, says Duan Biggs, lead author of the report and ecologist at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia.

鈥淭his is not rocket science,鈥� says Professor Biggs. 鈥淲e now need to have the political will to implement common sense so we can move forward, get past this deadlock, and focus on conserving elephants.鈥�