By Emmanuel Koro in
Johannesburg, SA
WHILE a 250-year-old British tradition dictates that the wife of a newly crowned king openly displays a special ivory sceptre as a symbol of her new position, Queen Camilla was apparently directed to ignore history at Charles III’s recent coronation.
Instead of holding the sceptre for her subjects to see, it was quietly bought to her by an Anglican Church official.
Camilla looked at it and gently touched it.
In that instant it was taken back by the same official and carried away.
Camilla never gripped, lifted or held the most significant symbol of her new status as queen of England.
About four weeks before the coronation, an ivory-hating vegan group publicly insisted that the ivory sceptre should be banished from the ceremony on the grounds that it would further endanger African elephants through poaching.
The group cited King Charles III’s dedication to conservation and Prince William’s previous demand that his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, destroy all the ivory in her possession as further justification for its position.
When the Ivory Education Institute (IEI), a US-based NGO, learnt of the vegan demand, it issued a statement ridiculing the ivory-haters for insisting that use of a treasured ivory antique would have an impact on the elephants of Southern Africa.
In an interview, managing director for US-based IEI Godfrey Harris said, “…there is no proof, nor evidence that an ivory object attracts an increase in poaching or is a danger to elephants.”
Harris added: “Queen Camilla’s refusal to hold the ivory sceptre in favour of stroking it with a curious smile reminded me of a farewell pat for a dying cat.”
Harris added: “Queen Camilla refused to hold the ivory sceptre in favour of stroking it with a curious smile as if she were stroking a red-hot iron.”
In the end, the question of who won has to be asked — those who wanted Queen Camilla to banish the ivory sceptre altogether or those who hoped tradition would prevail?”
“It isn’t important,” Harris said in answer to his own question.
“The Royal Household decided to take a middle ground on the matter.
“They had the sceptre ‘involved’ in the ceremony but never made ‘part’ of the Queen’s regalia.”
In short, neither the ivory-haters nor the ivory traders could claim a victory for all the effort they made to use the coronation to support their point of view.
“The real question,” Harris went on, “still remains: It isn’t which of these two forces are winning in the matter of the future value of African ivory, but which of the two is losing?
“Unfortunately, the answer is the elephants, the people who live among them and conservation in general.”
Harris sees Camilla’s decision to stroke the ivory rod as signalling the influence of the animal rights groups on the whole world.
He said, “They use their enormous fund-raising capability to intimidate leaders or governments into their bidding.
“It doesn’t make for sound policymaking or good politics, but it is an example of how modern democracies function today.
“Without any proof or substance behind their claims, know-nothing groups and neo-colonial individuals can destroy historical precedent and change the symbolism of something as historic as a king’s coronation—going back to before 1066.”
This thought of how interest groups and outside money have changed government practice led Harris to ponder the cultural and economic future of ivory.
He asked, “How do we wrest the discussion back to fact-based policy considerations?
“How do we find a credible, willing individual to lead the discussion on conservation questions that are well beyond the ken (understanding) of any one government or even regional organisation?”
He noted that the recent effort undertaken by the Ivory Education Institute to introduce the concept of a League for Sustainable Conservation “…has met with disappointing hesitancy.”
Harris said: “No African government has shown any willingness to take that first step to try to change the current trajectory of wildlife conservation.
“No-one in Africa seems especially interested in new and legal ways to use ivory, rhino horn and antique collectors to pay for elephant management in particular and wildlife conservation in general.
“As a result, we have to stop waiting for some Messiah to arrive.
“Those who are interested and those who are truly concerned about the future of wildlife conservation in Africa have to do it themselves.
“There is another reason sustainable conservation interests better do something now—and the coronation highlighted it. The British Royal Family’s global influence on the use and trade in wildlife products will only grow with the money provided by animal rights groups.
“Think about what comes after King Charles III and Queen Camilla. When King William and Queen Catherine assume their thrones, as they inevitably will in the passage of time, the use of a material treasured, preserved and honoured since well-before Biblical times will be avoided, its artisans shunned, and its special beauty forgotten.”
Harris said if current African governments are reluctant to challenge eco-colonial tendencies that devalue precious resources such as ivory by treating it as a no-longer-needed-natural product, “…then the sustainable conservation leaders need to go into the political arena to throw those governments out.”
He said: “They need to find one strong local voice willing to challenge the racist and ignorant animal rights groups to insist that elephant-rich African countries be allowed to engage in sustainable international trade of their natural wildlife resources.
“History proves that one person can make a difference.
“Ralph Nader got safety into cars; Rachel Carson identified the dangers of pollution; Greta Thunberg organised against climate change and Malala Yousefsai argued for women’s rights.
“Who is the African with the voice and courage to join these individuals?”
Emmanuel Koro is a Johannesburg-based international award-winning environmental journalist who writes independently on environment and development issues.
