By Emmanuel Koro

Johannesburg, 13 November 2026

Emmanuel Koro argues for lasting regulated markets as wildlife authorities face the costs of protecting elephants and supporting neighbouring communities.

Southern Africa’s ivory debate turns on a difficult question: can wildlife wealth help pay for the survival of the animals that produce it? For governments holding ivory in secure stores, the issue is tied to the recurring costs of protecting elephants, maintaining habitat and supporting people who live alongside wildlife.

In this commentary, I argue that occasional sales cannot provide the predictable income conservation requires. The case for a lasting, tightly regulated system deserves scrutiny, alongside the risks that any market could create for elephants.

Stockpiled ivory is not cash in a conservation budget. Turning it into revenue requires lawful access to buyers, credible safeguards and proof that the benefits would reach wildlife and communities.

Beyond the once-off sale

Once-off sales offer an uncertain foundation for work that must continue every year and every day. Rangers, monitoring programmes and community conservation initiatives require reliable budgets. My argument is that Southern African governments should pursue a durable policy rather than depend on exceptional permission to sell accumulated ivory.

A regulated ivory exchange is one proposal worth examining. Its credibility would depend on independently verified inventories, traceable transactions, transparent pricing, and audited revenue. A trading platform alone, however, cannot create legal authority to export ivory or guarantee a conservation benefit.

Elephant abundance is not uniform across Africa. Local concentrations can create management pressures, while other populations remain vulnerable. That variation calls for evidence from particular landscapes, rather than a single continent-wide claim about overpopulation.

A deeper question about African resource wealth

Why is Africa resource-rich but poor? The ivory dispute offers one lens on that larger question. Ownership of a resource does not automatically produce public income. Market access, governance, bargaining power, and the distribution of benefits determine whether wealth improves people’s lives.

For communities sharing land with elephants, the debate reaches beyond stored tusks. Crop losses, safety concerns, and competing land uses can affect support for conservation. A credible funding model should show how neighbouring households benefit and how those benefits are measured.

My position is that wildlife authorities should evaluate lawful opportunities with greater urgency and publish the evidence behind their choices. Support for sustainable use should be matched by transparent institutions and a clear account of who gains, who bears the costs, and how elephants remain protected.

True stories. Real Experiences, Real Insights

These are the debates Conservation Challenge explores. The book presents my perspective on international conservation politics and asks whether existing approaches serve both wildlife and the people expected to conserve it. Readers are invited to examine the argument, question its assumptions, and engage with the choices ahead.

Ivory trade options within the rules

Expert ivory trade options that do not violate the current CITES international ivory trade ban must be distinguished from proposals to change that ban. Commercial international trade in African elephant ivory is generally prohibited under CITES; an exchange or a willing buyer does not remove that restriction.

Narrow exemptions, including qualifying pre-Convention specimens, require appropriate documentation and compliance with the laws of the countries involved. They do not provide a general route for exporting newly accumulated stockpiles. Domestic transactions are a separate question governed by national law and relevant restrictions; permission in one jurisdiction does not authorise an international sale.

A permanent international stockpile market should therefore be presented as a policy proposal requiring a lawful basis, rather than an already available solution. Any specific expert scheme needs its legal mechanism and safeguards explained before it can be described as compliant.

Explore the politics of ivory and rhino horn, the pressures on wildlife managers and the debate over conservation funding. Read the book Conservation Challenge – The Case of Doomsday for Elephants and Rhinos, to get a deeper insight into international ivory trade politics. To order your copy, email: emmanuelkoro96@yahoo.com

About the writer: Emmanuel Koro is a Johannesburg-based, international award-winning environmental and human rights journalist who writes independently on environmental and fassizgwsob issues.