Elephants have a lot of friends at a U.N. meeting on international trade in endangered species in the Hague this week — but why are those arguing the merits of the ivory trade so silent?

The first display that met me walking to the meeting hall today was a life-sized elephant sculpture on the forecourt outside, made shockingly from the wire used by elephant trappers in Kenya.

Over the street is an electronic sign saying that hundreds of the mammals are falling victim to poachers every week to feed demand for illegal ivory.

Yet another set of posters splashed down the street has pictures of the giant mammals made out of the word “Elephant” and asking “Will only words remain? Give them a break. Vote for the 20-year moratorium.”

Kenya and Mali want the June 3-15 conference to vote for a two-decade halt to trading elephants, building on a 1989 ban that has rarely been relaxed to allow sales of ivory from stocks. They say elephants are under threat and need better protection.

I think it’s a pity the countries in favour of limited ivory trade have totally failed to put their argument alongside the animal rights’ and conservationists’ posters, which also campaign for tigers, whales, polar bears and penguins.

With the blitz of publicity, it’s easy to get the impression that Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia have no hope with their argument that that strictly limited trade might actually help conserve the mammals in areas where poor farmers now see elephants simply as a threat to their livelihoods.

Elephant populations in the region are rising at 5 percent a year, sometimes kill or injure people, trample crops and displace other wildlife, they say.

Why are there are no posters up with pictures of a school or a hospital, for instance, saying: “We built this with the proceeds of legal ivory sales”. Or perhaps one asking Europeans: “If you want to restore wildlife, start by putting the wolf at your own door.”

Or would people tear down posters advocating elephant trade?