Western groups under scrutiny as CITES ivory trade decision lands
Conservationist Margaret Jacobsohn has sparked a robust debate about the best path to protecting African wildlife, especially elephants, after a recent CITES decision on the ivory trade. In her assessment, Western animal-rights organizations have too often dictated approaches that fail to address the realities on the ground. She argues that lasting conservation must hinge on empowering and involving local communities rather than relying primarily on external advocacy and policy pressure.
The latest CITES rejection or restriction on certain ivory trade measures has intensified this debate. While many conservation groups laud international safeguards as a necessary shield for endangered species, Jacobsohn contends that such measures can be disconnected from local livelihoods and cultural contexts. Her argument is rooted in a long-standing view: wildlife protection is most effective when communities closest to the animals are active participants in decision-making, enforcement, and benefit-sharing.
Why local participation matters in elephant conservation
Historically, Western-led campaigns often emphasize bans and trade controls. Jacobsohn points to these efforts as well-intentioned but insufficient if they do not translate into tangible changes for rural communities who interact daily with wildlife. She notes that elephants, like many large mammals, roam across borders and through landscapes that require a mosaic of solutions—habitat protection, human-wear conflict mitigation, and sustainable livelihoods for people living alongside elephants.
“Conservation cannot be exported wholesale from Western capitals to African savannas,” she argues. “It must be co-created with communities, respecting traditional knowledge while integrating modern science and monitoring.” In her view, this approach not only reduces poaching incentives but also builds local investment in wildlife health and ecosystem services.
Practical steps toward community-led conservation
Jacobsohn outlines several pragmatic avenues through which local communities can assume a greater leadership role in the ivory trade conversation and broader wildlife protection:
- Equitable benefit-sharing: Ensuring communities receive a fair portion of revenue generated from wildlife-based tourism and conservation programs.
- Culturally informed enforcement: Training and empowering local patrols and rangers who understand terrain, social dynamics, and legitimate land-use practices.
- Alternative livelihoods: Supporting sustainable incomes that reduce dependence on elephant-related conflict or illegal ivory trade through microfinance, ecotourism, and value-added products.
- Transparency and accountability: Building community-led monitoring systems that track wildlife health, poaching trends, and the outcomes of conservation interventions.
Her emphasis on locally led action is not a rejection of international standards but a call to integrate them with on-the-ground insights. In practice, this means bilateral and multilateral negotiations that prioritize community consent, measurable results, and long-term stewardship rather than top-down mandates alone.
What this means for international policy and Western advocates
The Western conservation narrative often shapes international policy. If Jacobsohn’s perspective gains traction, it could steer CITES discussions toward more inclusive frameworks, where local communities are recognized as essential partners rather than peripheral actors. Such a shift could involve collaborative governance models, joint monitoring initiatives, and community-centered impact assessments that feed back into international decision-making.
Critics of the local-empowerment approach might worry about inconsistent outcomes or slower reform. Proponents, however, say that when communities have a seat at the table, protection becomes practical, sustainable, and culturally respectful. The debate ultimately centers on who benefits from conservation and who bears the costs when policy does not align with lived realities.
A path forward for Africa’s wildlife and its people
In this moment of policy reckoning, Margaret Jacobsohn’s critique of Western animal-rights strategies invites a broader, more participatory conversation. If Africa’s wildlife is to be safeguarded amid growing pressures—from habitat loss to illegal trade—solutions must be embedded in community leadership, transparent governance, and shared prosperity. In her view, the ultimate success of CITES and similar initiatives will be judged by the health of elephant populations and the resilience of the people living alongside them.
As the international community weighs its next steps, the question remains: can conservation be both globally principled and locally grounded? The answer, according to Jacobsohn, is a reinforced partnership with the communities for whom wildlife is a daily reality and a shared future.
