| Revision as of 20:48, 5 September 2012 editHergilei (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users56,787 edits →The rise of China and the modern poaching crisis← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:43, 6 September 2012 edit undoOhconfucius (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers328,947 editsm style fixes (test), expand month namesNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2012}} | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| The '''ivory trade''' is the commercial, often illegal trade in the ] ]s of the ], ], ],<ref>{{cite book |title=The Natural History of Unicorns |last=Lavers |first=Chris |year=2009 |publisher=William Morris |location=USA |isbn=978-0-06-087414-8 |pages=112–150}}</ref> ],<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/world/europe/25iht-mammoth.4.11415717.html|title=Trade in mammoth ivory, helped by global thaw, flourishes in Russia |last= Kramer|first=Andrew E.|date=19 November 2008|work= |
The '''ivory trade''' is the commercial, often illegal trade in the ] ]s of the ], ], ],<ref>{{cite book |title=The Natural History of Unicorns |last=Lavers |first=Chris |year=2009 |publisher=William Morris |location=USA |isbn=978-0-06-087414-8 |pages=112–150}}</ref> ],<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/world/europe/25iht-mammoth.4.11415717.html|title=Trade in mammoth ivory, helped by global thaw, flourishes in Russia |last= Kramer|first=Andrew E.|date=19 November 2008|work=New York Times|accessdate=12 December 2009}}</ref> Rhino and most commonly, ] and ]. | ||
| Ivory has been traded for hundreds of years by people in such regions as Greenland, Alaska, and Siberia. The trade, in more recent times, has led to endangerment of species, resulting in restrictions and bans. | Ivory has been traded for hundreds of years by people in such regions as Greenland, Alaska, and Siberia. The trade, in more recent times, has led to endangerment of species, resulting in restrictions and bans. | ||
| ==Elephant ivory== | ==Elephant ivory== | ||
| Elephant ivory has been exported from Africa and Asia for centuries with records going back to the 14th century BC. Throughout the ] ivory was removed, often using ] to carry the ], to be used for piano keys, billiard balls and other expressions of exotic wealth.<ref name="Profound"/> | |||
| Ivory hunters were responsible for wiping out elephants in North Africa perhaps about 1,000 years ago, in much of South Africa in the 19th century and most of West Africa by the end of the 20th century. At the peak of the ivory trade, pre 20th century, during the colonisation of Africa, around 800 to 1,000 tonnes of ivory was sent to Europe alone.<ref>{{cite book|author=Reed Business Information|title=New Scientist|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=beBFR2Kyg3oC&pg=PA49|accessdate=2 February 2011|date=6 November 1986|publisher=Reed Business Information|pages=49–|issn=02624079}}</ref> World wars and the subsequent economic depressions caused a lull in this luxury commodity, but increased prosperity in the early 1970s saw a resurgence. |
Ivory hunters were responsible for wiping out elephants in North Africa perhaps about 1,000 years ago, in much of South Africa in the 19th century and most of West Africa by the end of the 20th century. At the peak of the ivory trade, pre 20th century, during the colonisation of Africa, around 800 to 1,000 tonnes of ivory was sent to Europe alone.<ref>{{cite book|author=Reed Business Information|title=New Scientist|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=beBFR2Kyg3oC&pg=PA49|accessdate=2 February 2011|date=6 November 1986|publisher=Reed Business Information|pages=49–|issn=02624079}}</ref> World wars and the subsequent economic depressions caused a lull in this luxury commodity, but increased prosperity in the early 1970s saw a resurgence. Japan, relieved from its exchange restrictions imposed after ], started to buy up raw (unworked) ivory. This started to put pressure on the forest elephants of Africa and Asia, both of which were used to supply the hard ivory preferred by the Japanese for the production of '']'', or name seals. Prior to this period, most name seals had been made from wood with an ivory tip, carved with the signature. But increased prosperity saw the formerly unseen solid ivory hankos in mass production. Softer ivory from East Africa and southern Africa was traded for souvenirs, jewellery and trinkets. By the 1980s, Japan consumed about 40% of the global trade; another 40% was consumed by Europe and North America, often worked in Hong Kong, which was the largest trade hub, with most of the rest remaining in Africa. China, yet to become the economic force of today, consumed small amounts of ivory to keep its skilled carvers in business.<ref name="Geographical Dossier">. Geographical.co.uk. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref><ref name="To Save">"To Save An Elephant" by Allan Thornton & ], Doubleday 1991 ISBN 0-385-40111-6</ref> | ||
| ===African Elephant=== | ===African Elephant=== | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
| Some CITES parties (member states), led by Zimbabwe, stated that wildlife had to have economic value attached to it to survive and that local communities needed to be involved. This was widely accepted in terms of non-lethal use of wildlife but a debate raged over lethal use as in the case of the ivory trade. It was recognised that the "sustainable lethal use of wildlife" argument was in jeopardy if the ivory trade could not be controlled. In 1986 CITES introduced a new control system involving CITES paper permits, registration of huge ivory stockpiles and monitoring of legal ivory movements. These controls were supported by most CITES parties as well as the ivory trade and the established conservation movement represented by ] (WWF), ] and the ] (IUCN).<ref name="To Save"/> | Some CITES parties (member states), led by Zimbabwe, stated that wildlife had to have economic value attached to it to survive and that local communities needed to be involved. This was widely accepted in terms of non-lethal use of wildlife but a debate raged over lethal use as in the case of the ivory trade. It was recognised that the "sustainable lethal use of wildlife" argument was in jeopardy if the ivory trade could not be controlled. In 1986 CITES introduced a new control system involving CITES paper permits, registration of huge ivory stockpiles and monitoring of legal ivory movements. These controls were supported by most CITES parties as well as the ivory trade and the established conservation movement represented by ] (WWF), ] and the ] (IUCN).<ref name="To Save"/> | ||
| In 1986 and 1987 CITES registered 89.5 and 297 tonnes of ivory in ] and ] respectively. Burundi had one known live wild elephant and Singapore none. The stockpiles were recognised to have largely come from poached elephants.<ref name="A System">"A System of Extinction – the African Elephant Disaster" ] 1989</ref><ref name="New Scientist">{{cite book|author=Reed Business Information|title=New Scientist|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XHy_8wjYLW8C&pg=PA30|accessdate=2 February 2011|date=7 January 1988|publisher=Reed Business Information|pages=30–|issn=02624079}}</ref> The CITES Secretariat was later admonished by the USA delegate for redefining the term "registration" as "amnesty".<ref name="To Save"/> The result of this was realised in undercover investigations by the ] (EIA), a small under-funded |
In 1986 and 1987 CITES registered 89.5 and 297 tonnes of ivory in ] and ] respectively. Burundi had one known live wild elephant and Singapore none. The stockpiles were recognised to have largely come from poached elephants.<ref name="A System">"A System of Extinction – the African Elephant Disaster" ] 1989</ref><ref name="New Scientist">{{cite book|author=Reed Business Information|title=New Scientist|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XHy_8wjYLW8C&pg=PA30|accessdate=2 February 2011|date=7 January 1988|publisher=Reed Business Information|pages=30–|issn=02624079}}</ref> The CITES Secretariat was later admonished by the USA delegate for redefining the term "registration" as "amnesty".<ref name="To Save"/> The result of this was realised in undercover investigations by the ] (EIA), a small under-funded NGO, when they met with traders in Hong Kong.<ref name="To Save"/><ref name="A System"/> Large parts of the stockpiles were owned by international criminals behind the poaching and illegal international trade. Well known Hong Kong-based traders such as Wang and Poon were beneficiaries of the amnesty, and elephant expert ] commented on the Burundi amnesty that it "made at least two millionaires".<ref name="New Scientist"/> EIA confirmed with their investigations that not only had these syndicates made enormous wealth, but they also possessed huge quantities of CITES permits with which they continued to smuggle new ivory, which if stopped by customs, they produced the paper permit. CITES had created a system which increased the value of ivory on the international market, rewarded international smugglers and gave them the ability to control the trade and continue smuggling new ivory.<ref name="To Save"/><ref name="A System"/> | ||
| Further failures of this "control" system were uncovered by the EIA when they gained undercover access and filmed ivory carving factories run by |
Further failures of this "control" system were uncovered by the EIA when they gained undercover access and filmed ivory carving factories run by Hong Kong traders, including Poon, in the ]. They also collected official trade statistics, airway bills and further evidence in UAE, Singapore and Hong Kong. The UAE statistics showed that this country alone had imported over 200 tonnes of raw and simply prepared ivory in 1987/88. Almost half of this had come from ] where they had a complete ban on ivory. It underlined that the ivory traders rewarded by CITES with the amnesties were running rings around the system.<ref name="To Save"/><ref name="A System"/> | ||
| To indicate how important the principle of "lethal use" of wildlife was to WWF and CITES, despite these public revelations by EIA, followed by media exposures and appeals from African countries and a range of well respected organisations around the world, WWF only came out in support of a ban in mid-1989 and even then attempted to water down decisions at the October 1989 meeting of CITES.<ref name="To Save"/> | To indicate how important the principle of "lethal use" of wildlife was to WWF and CITES, despite these public revelations by EIA, followed by media exposures and appeals from African countries and a range of well respected organisations around the world, WWF only came out in support of a ban in mid-1989 and even then attempted to water down decisions at the October 1989 meeting of CITES.<ref name="To Save"/> | ||
| ] ]s from the ], ], |
] ]s from the ], ], Tanzania]] | ||
| Tanzania, attempting to break down the ivory syndicates that it recognised were corrupting its society, proposed an Appendix One listing for the African Elephant (effectively a ban on international trade). Some southern African countries including |
Tanzania, attempting to break down the ivory syndicates that it recognised were corrupting its society, proposed an Appendix One listing for the African Elephant (effectively a ban on international trade). Some southern African countries including South Africa and ] were vehemently opposed. They claimed that their elephant populations were well managed and they wanted revenue from ivory sales to fund conservation. Although both countries were implicated as ] in illegal ivory from other African countries, WWF, with strong ties to both countries, found itself in a difficult position. It is well documented that publicly it opposed the trade but privately it tried to appease these southern African states.<ref name="Profound"/><ref name="To Save"/> | ||
| At the October meeting of CITES after heated debates, the African elephant was put on Appendix One of CITES, and three months later in January 1990 when the decision was enacted, the international trade in ivory was banned.<ref name="Profound"/><ref name="To Save"/><ref name="Washington">. washingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref><ref name="NPR">. NPR ( |
At the October meeting of CITES after heated debates, the African elephant was put on Appendix One of CITES, and three months later in January 1990 when the decision was enacted, the international trade in ivory was banned.<ref name="Profound"/><ref name="To Save"/><ref name="Washington">. washingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref><ref name="NPR">. NPR (31 October 2002). Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref> | ||
| It is widely accepted that the ivory ban worked. The poaching epidemic that had hit so much of the African elephants' range was greatly reduced. Ivory prices plummeted and ivory markets around the world closed, almost all of which were in Europe and the USA. It has been reported that it was not simply the act of the Appendix One listing and various national bans associated with it, but the enormous publicity surrounding the issue prior to the decision and afterwards, that created a widely accepted perception that the trade was harmful and now illegal.<ref name="Geographical Dossier"/><ref name="Factsheet"/><ref name="Washington"/><ref>CIA released , |
It is widely accepted that the ivory ban worked. The poaching epidemic that had hit so much of the African elephants' range was greatly reduced. Ivory prices plummeted and ivory markets around the world closed, almost all of which were in Europe and the USA. It has been reported that it was not simply the act of the Appendix One listing and various national bans associated with it, but the enormous publicity surrounding the issue prior to the decision and afterwards, that created a widely accepted perception that the trade was harmful and now illegal.<ref name="Geographical Dossier"/><ref name="Factsheet"/><ref name="Washington"/><ref>CIA released , 18 January 1991</ref><ref name="Living">"Living Proof", ] & Helen Moore, A report by ] Sept 1994</ref><ref name="return">, The Independent, 12 July 2008</ref> ] stated that stockpiles remained unclaimed in Kenya and it became cheaper and easier for authorities to control the killing of elephants.<ref name="Geographical Dossier"/> | ||
| ==== Southern African opposition to the ban ==== | ==== Southern African opposition to the ban ==== | ||
| Line 37: | Line 38: | ||
| The two countries leading the attempt to overturn the ban immediately after it was agreed were South Africa and Zimbabwe. | The two countries leading the attempt to overturn the ban immediately after it was agreed were South Africa and Zimbabwe. | ||
| South Africa's claim that its elephants were well managed was not seriously challenged. However, its role in the illegal ivory trade and slaughter of elephants in neighbouring countries was exposed in numerous news articles of the time, as part of its policy of destabilisation of its neighbours. 95% of South Africa's elephants were found in ]<ref name="Under Fire">"Under Fire – elephants in the front line", Austin, ], Galster, Reeve, Thornton, Watts, 1992, EIA report</ref> which was partly run by the ] (SADF) which trained, supplied and equipped the rebel Mozambique army ].<ref>"Train killers", New Nation (SA) 19 July 1991</ref> Renamo was heavily implicated in large scale ivory poaching to finance its army.<ref name="Under Fire"/><ref>Elephant Conservation Plan for Mozambique, AECCG, Olindo, Woodford, Oct 1991</ref><ref>US Defense Intelligence Agency report, April 1991 "Renamo deserter talks of SA support to Renamo"</ref><ref>"Renamo's secret SA bases", The Weekly Mail (SA) 16–22 |
South Africa's claim that its elephants were well managed was not seriously challenged. However, its role in the illegal ivory trade and slaughter of elephants in neighbouring countries was exposed in numerous news articles of the time, as part of its policy of destabilisation of its neighbours. 95% of South Africa's elephants were found in ]<ref name="Under Fire">"Under Fire – elephants in the front line", Austin, ], Galster, Reeve, Thornton, Watts, 1992, EIA report</ref> which was partly run by the ] (SADF) which trained, supplied and equipped the rebel Mozambique army ].<ref>"Train killers", New Nation (SA) 19 July 1991</ref> Renamo was heavily implicated in large scale ivory poaching to finance its army.<ref name="Under Fire"/><ref>Elephant Conservation Plan for Mozambique, AECCG, Olindo, Woodford, Oct 1991</ref><ref>US Defense Intelligence Agency report, April 1991 "Renamo deserter talks of SA support to Renamo"</ref><ref>"Renamo's secret SA bases", The Weekly Mail (SA) 16–22 March 1990</ref> | ||
| Zimbabwe had embraced "sustainable" use policies of its wildlife, widely seen by some governments and the WWF as a pattern for future conservation. Conservationists and biologists hailed Zimbabwe's Campfire programme as a template for community empowerment in conservation.<ref>New Scientist, 26 |
Zimbabwe had embraced "sustainable" use policies of its wildlife, widely seen by some governments and the WWF as a pattern for future conservation. Conservationists and biologists hailed Zimbabwe's Campfire programme as a template for community empowerment in conservation.<ref>New Scientist, 26 August 1989</ref> The failure to prevent the Appendix One listing through CITES came as a blow to this movement. However, Zimbabwe may have made the career of some biologists but it was not honest with its claims. Arguments that they needed the revenue from the ivory trade for conservation were untrue since ivory sales' revenue was returned to the central treasury.<ref name="Under Fire"/> Its elephant census was accused of double counting elephants crossing its border with Botswana by building artificial water-holes. The ivory trade was also wildly out of control within its borders, with ] (ZNA) involvement in poaching in ] and other areas.<ref name="Under Fire"/> Perhaps more sinister was the alleged murder of a string of whistle blowers, including Capt. Nleya who claimed the ZNA was involved in ] and elephant poaching in Mozambique. Found hanged at his army barracks near Hwange National Park, reported as suicide by the army, declared as murder by a magistrate, Nleya's widow was reportedly later threatened by anonymous telephone calls.<ref>Post mortem report 189/135/89, 17 March 1989</ref><ref>"Mystery callers torment murdered captain's widow" Parade Mag (Zim) Sept 1990</ref><ref>"Zimbabwe smugglers kill another officer" New African Nov 1991</ref><ref>"Nleya's enquiry 3 suspects die mysteriously" Sunday Times, 17 November 1991</ref> | ||
| As with many international decisions, the debate over ivory trade pits some national interests against other national interests because of the international nature of the issue. To make it more complex it spans different disciplines which include biology, census techniques, economics, international trade dynamics, conflict resolution, criminology – all reported to CITES delegates representing over 170 countries. The decisions made within this agreement have often been highly political. Inevitably, it attracts misinformation, skulduggery and crime. | As with many international decisions, the debate over ivory trade pits some national interests against other national interests because of the international nature of the issue. To make it more complex it spans different disciplines which include biology, census techniques, economics, international trade dynamics, conflict resolution, criminology – all reported to CITES delegates representing over 170 countries. The decisions made within this agreement have often been highly political. Inevitably, it attracts misinformation, skulduggery and crime. | ||
| Line 45: | Line 46: | ||
| The southern African countries continue to attempt to sell ivory through legal systems. In an appeal to overcome national interests, a group of eminent elephant scientists responded with an open letter in 2002 which clearly explained the effects of the ivory trade on other countries. They stated that the proposals for renewed trade from southern Africa did not bare comparison with most of Africa because they were based on a South African model where 90% of the elephant population lived in a fenced National Park. They went on to describe South Africa's wealth and ability to enforce the law within these boundaries. By comparison, they made it clear that most elephants in Africa live in poorly protected and unfenced bush or forest. They finished their appeal by describing the poaching crisis of the 1980s, and emphasised that the decision to ban ivory was not made to punish southern African countries, but to save the elephants in the rest of the world.<ref>{{cite web|url =http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3879214 | title = Lifting the Ivory Ban Called Premature – Scientists Offer a Perspective on Elephants and Ivory| author = Katy Payne, Cornell University; Iain Douglas-Hamilton, Save the Elephants; Vivek Menon, Wildlife Trust of India; Cynthia Moss, Amboseli Elephant Research Project; Joyce Poole, Savanna Elephant Vocalization Project; Andrea Turkalo, Wildlife Conservation Society| date = 31 October 2002 | publisher =npr.org | accessdate = 28 January 2011}}</ref> | The southern African countries continue to attempt to sell ivory through legal systems. In an appeal to overcome national interests, a group of eminent elephant scientists responded with an open letter in 2002 which clearly explained the effects of the ivory trade on other countries. They stated that the proposals for renewed trade from southern Africa did not bare comparison with most of Africa because they were based on a South African model where 90% of the elephant population lived in a fenced National Park. They went on to describe South Africa's wealth and ability to enforce the law within these boundaries. By comparison, they made it clear that most elephants in Africa live in poorly protected and unfenced bush or forest. They finished their appeal by describing the poaching crisis of the 1980s, and emphasised that the decision to ban ivory was not made to punish southern African countries, but to save the elephants in the rest of the world.<ref>{{cite web|url =http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3879214 | title = Lifting the Ivory Ban Called Premature – Scientists Offer a Perspective on Elephants and Ivory| author = Katy Payne, Cornell University; Iain Douglas-Hamilton, Save the Elephants; Vivek Menon, Wildlife Trust of India; Cynthia Moss, Amboseli Elephant Research Project; Joyce Poole, Savanna Elephant Vocalization Project; Andrea Turkalo, Wildlife Conservation Society| date = 31 October 2002 | publisher =npr.org | accessdate = 28 January 2011}}</ref> | ||
| Southern African countries have continued to push for international ivory trade. Led by Zimbabwe's ], they have had some success through CITES.<ref name="Big Q">, The Independent |
Southern African countries have continued to push for international ivory trade. Led by Zimbabwe's ], they have had some success through CITES.<ref name="Big Q">, ''The Independent'' via ''Africa Geographic'', 28 October 2008</ref> Mugabe himself has been accused of bartering tonnes of ivory for weapons with China, breaking his country's commitment to CITES.<ref>, The Zimbabwean, April 2008</ref> | ||
| ==== African voices ==== | ==== African voices ==== | ||
| Line 51: | Line 52: | ||
| The debate surrounding ivory trade has often been depicted as Africa vs. the West.{{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} | The debate surrounding ivory trade has often been depicted as Africa vs. the West.{{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} | ||
| A novel ''Heart of Darkness'' by Joseph Conrad describes brutal ivory trade as wild wielding senseless of power for resource-hungry economic policies of Imperialists and describes situation in Congo between 1890 and 1910 as "the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human conscience".<ref>, |
A novel ''Heart of Darkness'' by Joseph Conrad describes brutal ivory trade as wild wielding senseless of power for resource-hungry economic policies of Imperialists and describes situation in Congo between 1890 and 1910 as "the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human conscience".<ref>, 11 July 2011, rediff.com, an excerpt from the order of the Supreme Court of India</ref> | ||
| In reality the southern Africans have always been in a minority within the African elephant range states.{{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} To reiterate this point, 19 African countries signed the "Accra Declaration" in 2006 calling for a total ivory trade ban, and 20 range states attended a meeting in Kenya calling for a 20 year moratorium in 2007.<ref>. |
In reality the southern Africans have always been in a minority within the African elephant range states.{{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} To reiterate this point, 19 African countries signed the "Accra Declaration" in 2006 calling for a total ivory trade ban, and 20 range states attended a meeting in Kenya calling for a 20 year moratorium in 2007.<ref>. ''The Brunei Times'', 31 May 2007. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref> | ||
| ==== Renewed sales ==== | ==== Renewed sales ==== | ||
| Using criteria that had been agreed upon at the 1989 CITES meeting, among much controversy and debate, in 1997 CITES parties agreed to allow the populations of African elephants in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to be "downlisted" to Appendix Two which would allow international trade in elephant parts. However the decision was accompanied by "registering" stockpiles within these countries and examining trade controls in any designated importing country. CITES once again was attempting to set up a control system.<ref></ref> | Using criteria that had been agreed upon at the 1989 CITES meeting, among much controversy and debate, in 1997 CITES parties agreed to allow the populations of African elephants in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to be "downlisted" to Appendix Two which would allow international trade in elephant parts. However the decision was accompanied by "registering" stockpiles within these countries and examining trade controls in any designated importing country. CITES once again was attempting to set up a control system.<ref> WWF</ref> | ||
| 49 tonnes of ivory was registered in these three countries, and ] assertion that it had sufficient controls in place was accepted by CITES and the ivory was sold to Japanese traders in 1997 as an "experiment".<ref></ref> | 49 tonnes of ivory was registered in these three countries, and ] assertion that it had sufficient controls in place was accepted by CITES and the ivory was sold to Japanese traders in 1997 as an "experiment".<ref></ref> | ||
| In 2000, South Africa also "downlisted" its elephant population to CITES Appendix Two with a stated desire to sell its ivory stockpile. In the same year, CITES agreed to the establishment of two systems to inform its member states on the status of illegal killing and trade.<ref>. Cites.org. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref> The two systems, Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) have been highly criticised as a waste of money for not being able to prove or disprove any causality between ivory stockpile sales and poaching levels – perhaps the most significant reason for their establishment.<ref>"Elephants, Ivory & trade" Wasser et al March 2010 Science Magazine</ref><ref></ref> They do pull together information on poaching and seizures as provided by member states, although not all states provide comprehensive data. | In 2000, South Africa also "downlisted" its elephant population to CITES Appendix Two with a stated desire to sell its ivory stockpile. In the same year, CITES agreed to the establishment of two systems to inform its member states on the status of illegal killing and trade.<ref>. Cites.org. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref> The two systems, Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) have been highly criticised as a waste of money for not being able to prove or disprove any causality between ivory stockpile sales and poaching levels – perhaps the most significant reason for their establishment.<ref>"Elephants, Ivory & trade" Wasser et al March 2010 Science Magazine</ref><ref>, Species Survival Network</ref> They do pull together information on poaching and seizures as provided by member states, although not all states provide comprehensive data. | ||
| The effect of the sale of ivory to Japan in 2000 was hotly debated with Traffic, the organisation which compiled the ETIS and MIKE databases, claiming they could not determine any link. However, many of those on the ground claimed that the sale had changed the perception of ivory, and many poachers and traders believed they were back in business.<ref name="Business">, Hastie, Newman, Rice, 2002 an EIA report |
The effect of the sale of ivory to Japan in 2000 was hotly debated with Traffic, the organisation which compiled the ETIS and MIKE databases, claiming they could not determine any link. However, many of those on the ground claimed that the sale had changed the perception of ivory, and many poachers and traders believed they were back in business.<ref name="Business">, Hastie, Newman, Rice, 2002 an EIA report</ref> | ||
| A seizure of over 6 tonnes of ivory in Singapore in 2002 provided a stark warning that poaching in Africa was not for only local markets, but that some of the ivory syndicates from the 1980s were operating again. 532 elephant tusks and over 40,000 blank ivory hankos (Japanese name seals) were seized, and the ] carried out investigations which showed that this case had been preceded by 19 other suspected ivory shipments, four destined for China and the rest for Singapore, though often en route to Japan. The ivory originated in ] and was collected in ] before being containerised and shipped out of |
A seizure of over 6 tonnes of ivory in Singapore in 2002 provided a stark warning that poaching in Africa was not for only local markets, but that some of the ivory syndicates from the 1980s were operating again. 532 elephant tusks and over 40,000 blank ivory hankos (Japanese name seals) were seized, and the ] carried out investigations which showed that this case had been preceded by 19 other suspected ivory shipments, four destined for China and the rest for Singapore, though often en route to Japan. The ivory originated in ] and was collected in ] before being containerised and shipped out of South Africa. Between March 1994 and May 1998, nine suspected shipments had been sent by the same company ''Sheng Luck'' from Malawi to Singapore. After this, they started to be dispatched to China. Analysis and cross-referencing revealed company names and company directors already known to the EIA from investigations in the 1980s – the Hong Kong criminal ivory syndicates were active again.<ref name="Business"/> | ||
| In 2002, another 60 tonnes of ivory from South Africa, Botswana and Namibia was approved for sale, and in 2006, Japan was approved as a destination for the ivory. Japan's ivory controls were seriously questioned with 25% of traders not even registered, voluntary rather than legal requirement of traders, and illegal shipments entering Japan. A report by the Japan Wildlife Conservation Society warned that the price of ivory jumped due to price fixing by a small number of manufacturers who controlled the bulk of the ivory – similar to the control of stocks when stockpiles were amnestied in the 1980s.<ref name="Japan">"Destination Japan – an investigation into the Japan seizure and laundering of illegal ivory" Japan Wildlife Conservation Society, May 2007</ref> Before the sale took place, in the wings China was seeking approval as an ivory destination country.<ref name="Big Q"/> | In 2002, another 60 tonnes of ivory from South Africa, Botswana and Namibia was approved for sale, and in 2006, Japan was approved as a destination for the ivory. Japan's ivory controls were seriously questioned with 25% of traders not even registered, voluntary rather than legal requirement of traders, and illegal shipments entering Japan. A report by the Japan Wildlife Conservation Society warned that the price of ivory jumped due to price fixing by a small number of manufacturers who controlled the bulk of the ivory – similar to the control of stocks when stockpiles were amnestied in the 1980s.<ref name="Japan">"Destination Japan – an investigation into the Japan seizure and laundering of illegal ivory" Japan Wildlife Conservation Society, May 2007</ref> Before the sale took place, in the wings China was seeking approval as an ivory destination country.<ref name="Big Q"/> | ||
| Line 71: | Line 72: | ||
| ==== The rise of China and the modern poaching crisis ==== | ==== The rise of China and the modern poaching crisis ==== | ||
| To many conservationists with knowledge of China and its failure to control trade in ], |
To many conservationists with knowledge of China and its failure to control trade in ], bear parts, ] and a range of ] and vulnerable CITES listed species, it seemed unlikely that China would be given "buyer approved" status for ivory. This is because that status would be based on China's ability to regulate and control its trade.<ref name="Geographical Dossier"/> To demonstrate the lack of ivory controls in China, the EIA leaked an internal Chinese document showing how 121 tonnes of ivory from its own official stockpile, (equivalent to the tusks from 11,000 elephants), could not be accounted for, a Chinese official admitting "this suggests a large amount of illegal sale of the ivory stockpile has taken place."<ref name="return"/><ref>, EIA-CITES briefing 2008</ref><ref>, EIA report, May 2007</ref> However, a CITES mission recommended that CITES approve China's request, and this was supported by WWF and Traffic.<ref>. Africageographic.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref> China gained its "approved" status at a meeting of the CITES Standing Committee on 15 July 2008.<ref>CITES summary record of Standing Committee 57 2008</ref><ref>. ''The Independent'', 16 July 2008. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref> | ||
| China and Japan bought 108 tonnes of ivory in another "one-off" sale in November 2008 from Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. At the time the idea was that these legal ivory sales may depress the price, thereby removing poaching pressure, an idea supported by both Traffic and WWF.<ref>, Economist, July 2008</ref> | China and Japan bought 108 tonnes of ivory in another "one-off" sale in November 2008 from Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. At the time the idea was that these legal ivory sales may depress the price, thereby removing poaching pressure, an idea supported by both Traffic and WWF.<ref>, ''The Economist'', July 2008</ref> | ||
| ] and the purchase of natural resources has alarmed many conservationists who fear the extraction of wildlife body parts is increasing. Since China was given "approved buyer" status by CITES, the smuggling of ivory seems to have increased alarmingly. Although, WWF and Traffic who supported the China sale, describe the increase in illegal ivory trade a possible "coincidence"<ref>WWF – , |
] and the purchase of natural resources has alarmed many conservationists who fear the extraction of wildlife body parts is increasing. Since China was given "approved buyer" status by CITES, the smuggling of ivory seems to have increased alarmingly. Although, WWF and Traffic who supported the China sale, describe the increase in illegal ivory trade a possible "coincidence"<ref>WWF – , November 2009</ref> others are less cautious. Chinese nationals working in Africa have been caught smuggling ivory in many African countries, with at least ten arrested at Kenyan airports in 2009. In many African countries domestic markets have grown, providing easy access to ivory, although the Asian ivory syndicates are most destructive buying and shipping tonnes at a time.<ref name="Threatens">, Jason Strazjuso, Michael Caesy, William Foreman, May 2010</ref> | ||
| Contrary to the advice of CITES that prices may be depressed, and those that supported the sale of stockpiles in 2008, the price of ivory in China has greatly increased. Some believe this may be due to deliberate price fixing by those who bought the stockpile, echoing the warnings from the Japan Wildlife Conservation Society on price-fixing after sales to Japan in 1997, and monopoly given to traders who bought stockpiles from Burundi and Singapore in the 1980s.<ref name="A System"/><ref name="Japan"/><ref name="Threatens"/> It may also be due to the exploding number of Chinese able to purchase luxury goods.<ref>FT Magazine – , |
Contrary to the advice of CITES that prices may be depressed, and those that supported the sale of stockpiles in 2008, the price of ivory in China has greatly increased. Some believe this may be due to deliberate price fixing by those who bought the stockpile, echoing the warnings from the Japan Wildlife Conservation Society on price-fixing after sales to Japan in 1997, and monopoly given to traders who bought stockpiles from Burundi and Singapore in the 1980s.<ref name="A System"/><ref name="Japan"/><ref name="Threatens"/> It may also be due to the exploding number of Chinese able to purchase luxury goods.<ref>FT Magazine – , August 2009</ref> | ||
| Despite arguments prevailing on the ivory trade for the last thirty years through CITES, there is one fact that virtually all informed parties now agree upon: poaching of African elephants is now seriously on the increase.<ref>, Epoch Times, March 2010</ref><ref>, ENS, March 2010</ref><ref>, Big Life, Sept 2010</ref> In 2012, '']'' reported on a large upsurge in ivory poaching, with about 70% flowing to China.<ref name=nyt120903>{{cite news | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/world/africa/africas-elephants-are-being-slaughtered-in-poaching-frenzy.html?pagewanted=all | title = Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profits | first = Jeffrey | last = Gettleman | work = The New York Times | date = September |
Despite arguments prevailing on the ivory trade for the last thirty years through CITES, there is one fact that virtually all informed parties now agree upon: poaching of African elephants is now seriously on the increase.<ref>, ''Epoch Times'', March 2010</ref><ref>, ENS, March 2010</ref><ref>, Big Life, Sept 2010</ref> In 2012, '']'' reported on a large upsurge in ivory poaching, with about 70% flowing to China.<ref name=nyt120903>{{cite news | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/world/africa/africas-elephants-are-being-slaughtered-in-poaching-frenzy.html?pagewanted=all | title = Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profits | first = Jeffrey | last = Gettleman | work = The New York Times | date = 3 September 2012 }}</ref> | ||
| ===Asian Elephant=== | ===Asian Elephant=== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 89: | ||
| ==Walrus ivory== | ==Walrus ivory== | ||
| ] produced by ] in ]]] | ] produced by ] in ]]] | ||
| Trade in walrus ivory has been conducted for hundreds of years in large regions of the northern hemisphere by such groups as the ], |
Trade in walrus ivory has been conducted for hundreds of years in large regions of the northern hemisphere by such groups as the ], Europeans, the ], ], the people of ] and ]s. | ||
| ===North America=== | ===North America=== | ||
| Line 94: | Line 95: | ||
| ===Bering Strait fur trade network=== | ===Bering Strait fur trade network=== | ||
| In the nineteenth century, ] Eskimos traded, among other things, walrus ivory to the |
In the nineteenth century, ] Eskimos traded, among other things, walrus ivory to the Chinese, for glass beads and iron goods. Prior to this, the Bering Strait Eskimos used ivory for practical reasons; harpoon points, tools, etc., but about the only time(s) walrus ivory was used otherwise, it was to make games for festivities, and for children's toys.<ref>. h-net.msu.edu. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref> | ||
| ===Russia=== | ===Russia=== | ||
| Moscow is a major hub for the trade in walrus ivory, providing the commodity for a large foreign market.<ref></ref> | |||
| ==Narwhal ivory== | ==Narwhal ivory== | ||
| Line 116: | Line 117: | ||
| The Canadian government has stated that if it fails to restrict export of narwhal tusks, then the international community might completely ban exports under CITES. | The Canadian government has stated that if it fails to restrict export of narwhal tusks, then the international community might completely ban exports under CITES. | ||
| Tusks are still allowed to be traded within Canada.<ref>. Cbc.ca ( |
Tusks are still allowed to be traded within Canada.<ref>. Cbc.ca (13 January 2011). Retrieved on 2011-02-02.</ref> | ||
| ==Mammoth ivory== | ==Mammoth ivory== | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| The first known instance of ] reaching western Europe was in 1611, when a piece, purchased from ] in ], reached |
The first known instance of ] reaching western Europe was in 1611, when a piece, purchased from ] in ], reached London. | ||
| After 1582, when ] conquered Siberia, the ivory became a more regularly available commodity. Siberia's mammoth ivory industry experienced substantial growth from the mid-18th century on. In one instance, in 1821, a collector brought back 8,165 kg of ivory, (from approximately 50 mammoths), from the ]. | After 1582, when ] conquered Siberia, the ivory became a more regularly available commodity. Siberia's mammoth ivory industry experienced substantial growth from the mid-18th century on. In one instance, in 1821, a collector brought back 8,165 kg of ivory, (from approximately 50 mammoths), from the ]. | ||
Revision as of 07:43, 6 September 2012
The ivory trade is the commercial, often illegal trade in the ivory tusks of the hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal, mammoth, Rhino and most commonly, Asian and African elephants.
Ivory has been traded for hundreds of years by people in such regions as Greenland, Alaska, and Siberia. The trade, in more recent times, has led to endangerment of species, resulting in restrictions and bans.
Elephant ivory
Elephant ivory has been exported from Africa and Asia for centuries with records going back to the 14th century BC. Throughout the colonisation of Africa ivory was removed, often using slaves to carry the tusks, to be used for piano keys, billiard balls and other expressions of exotic wealth.
Ivory hunters were responsible for wiping out elephants in North Africa perhaps about 1,000 years ago, in much of South Africa in the 19th century and most of West Africa by the end of the 20th century. At the peak of the ivory trade, pre 20th century, during the colonisation of Africa, around 800 to 1,000 tonnes of ivory was sent to Europe alone. World wars and the subsequent economic depressions caused a lull in this luxury commodity, but increased prosperity in the early 1970s saw a resurgence. Japan, relieved from its exchange restrictions imposed after World War II, started to buy up raw (unworked) ivory. This started to put pressure on the forest elephants of Africa and Asia, both of which were used to supply the hard ivory preferred by the Japanese for the production of hankos, or name seals. Prior to this period, most name seals had been made from wood with an ivory tip, carved with the signature. But increased prosperity saw the formerly unseen solid ivory hankos in mass production. Softer ivory from East Africa and southern Africa was traded for souvenirs, jewellery and trinkets. By the 1980s, Japan consumed about 40% of the global trade; another 40% was consumed by Europe and North America, often worked in Hong Kong, which was the largest trade hub, with most of the rest remaining in Africa. China, yet to become the economic force of today, consumed small amounts of ivory to keep its skilled carvers in business.
African Elephant
1980s poaching and illegal trade
In 1979, the African elephant population was estimated to be around 1.3 million in 37 range states, but by 1989 only 600,000 remained. Although many ivory traders, with the support of some conservationists, repeatedly claimed that the problem was habitat loss, it became glaringly clear that the threat was primarily the international ivory trade. Throughout this decade, around 75,000 African elephants were killed for the ivory trade annually, worth around 1 billion dollars. About 80% of this was estimated to come from illegally killed elephants.
The international deliberations over the measures required to prevent the serious decline in elephant numbers almost always ignored the loss of human life in Africa, the fueling of corruption, the "currency" of ivory in buying arms, and the breakdown of law and order in areas where illegal ivory trade flourished. The debate usually rested on the numbers of elephants, estimates of poached elephants and official ivory statistics.
Solutions to the problem of poaching and illegal trade focused on trying to control international ivory movements through CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora).
CITES debate, attempted control and the 1989 ivory ban
Some CITES parties (member states), led by Zimbabwe, stated that wildlife had to have economic value attached to it to survive and that local communities needed to be involved. This was widely accepted in terms of non-lethal use of wildlife but a debate raged over lethal use as in the case of the ivory trade. It was recognised that the "sustainable lethal use of wildlife" argument was in jeopardy if the ivory trade could not be controlled. In 1986 CITES introduced a new control system involving CITES paper permits, registration of huge ivory stockpiles and monitoring of legal ivory movements. These controls were supported by most CITES parties as well as the ivory trade and the established conservation movement represented by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Traffic and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
In 1986 and 1987 CITES registered 89.5 and 297 tonnes of ivory in Burundi and Singapore respectively. Burundi had one known live wild elephant and Singapore none. The stockpiles were recognised to have largely come from poached elephants. The CITES Secretariat was later admonished by the USA delegate for redefining the term "registration" as "amnesty". The result of this was realised in undercover investigations by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a small under-funded NGO, when they met with traders in Hong Kong. Large parts of the stockpiles were owned by international criminals behind the poaching and illegal international trade. Well known Hong Kong-based traders such as Wang and Poon were beneficiaries of the amnesty, and elephant expert Iain Douglas-Hamilton commented on the Burundi amnesty that it "made at least two millionaires". EIA confirmed with their investigations that not only had these syndicates made enormous wealth, but they also possessed huge quantities of CITES permits with which they continued to smuggle new ivory, which if stopped by customs, they produced the paper permit. CITES had created a system which increased the value of ivory on the international market, rewarded international smugglers and gave them the ability to control the trade and continue smuggling new ivory.
Further failures of this "control" system were uncovered by the EIA when they gained undercover access and filmed ivory carving factories run by Hong Kong traders, including Poon, in the United Arab Emirates. They also collected official trade statistics, airway bills and further evidence in UAE, Singapore and Hong Kong. The UAE statistics showed that this country alone had imported over 200 tonnes of raw and simply prepared ivory in 1987/88. Almost half of this had come from Tanzania where they had a complete ban on ivory. It underlined that the ivory traders rewarded by CITES with the amnesties were running rings around the system.
To indicate how important the principle of "lethal use" of wildlife was to WWF and CITES, despite these public revelations by EIA, followed by media exposures and appeals from African countries and a range of well respected organisations around the world, WWF only came out in support of a ban in mid-1989 and even then attempted to water down decisions at the October 1989 meeting of CITES.
Tanzania, attempting to break down the ivory syndicates that it recognised were corrupting its society, proposed an Appendix One listing for the African Elephant (effectively a ban on international trade). Some southern African countries including South Africa and Zimbabwe were vehemently opposed. They claimed that their elephant populations were well managed and they wanted revenue from ivory sales to fund conservation. Although both countries were implicated as entrepots in illegal ivory from other African countries, WWF, with strong ties to both countries, found itself in a difficult position. It is well documented that publicly it opposed the trade but privately it tried to appease these southern African states.
At the October meeting of CITES after heated debates, the African elephant was put on Appendix One of CITES, and three months later in January 1990 when the decision was enacted, the international trade in ivory was banned.
It is widely accepted that the ivory ban worked. The poaching epidemic that had hit so much of the African elephants' range was greatly reduced. Ivory prices plummeted and ivory markets around the world closed, almost all of which were in Europe and the USA. It has been reported that it was not simply the act of the Appendix One listing and various national bans associated with it, but the enormous publicity surrounding the issue prior to the decision and afterwards, that created a widely accepted perception that the trade was harmful and now illegal. Richard Leakey stated that stockpiles remained unclaimed in Kenya and it became cheaper and easier for authorities to control the killing of elephants.
Southern African opposition to the ban
Throughout the debate which led to the 1990 ivory ban, a group of southern African countries supported Hong Kong and Japanese ivory traders to maintain trade. This was stated to be because these countries claimed to have well managed elephant populations and they needed the revenue from ivory sales to fund conservation. These countries were South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and Swaziland. They voted against the Appendix One listing and actively worked to reverse the decision.
The two countries leading the attempt to overturn the ban immediately after it was agreed were South Africa and Zimbabwe.
South Africa's claim that its elephants were well managed was not seriously challenged. However, its role in the illegal ivory trade and slaughter of elephants in neighbouring countries was exposed in numerous news articles of the time, as part of its policy of destabilisation of its neighbours. 95% of South Africa's elephants were found in Kruger National Park which was partly run by the South African Defence Force (SADF) which trained, supplied and equipped the rebel Mozambique army Renamo. Renamo was heavily implicated in large scale ivory poaching to finance its army.
Zimbabwe had embraced "sustainable" use policies of its wildlife, widely seen by some governments and the WWF as a pattern for future conservation. Conservationists and biologists hailed Zimbabwe's Campfire programme as a template for community empowerment in conservation. The failure to prevent the Appendix One listing through CITES came as a blow to this movement. However, Zimbabwe may have made the career of some biologists but it was not honest with its claims. Arguments that they needed the revenue from the ivory trade for conservation were untrue since ivory sales' revenue was returned to the central treasury. Its elephant census was accused of double counting elephants crossing its border with Botswana by building artificial water-holes. The ivory trade was also wildly out of control within its borders, with Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) involvement in poaching in Gonarezhou National Park and other areas. Perhaps more sinister was the alleged murder of a string of whistle blowers, including Capt. Nleya who claimed the ZNA was involved in rhinoceros and elephant poaching in Mozambique. Found hanged at his army barracks near Hwange National Park, reported as suicide by the army, declared as murder by a magistrate, Nleya's widow was reportedly later threatened by anonymous telephone calls.
As with many international decisions, the debate over ivory trade pits some national interests against other national interests because of the international nature of the issue. To make it more complex it spans different disciplines which include biology, census techniques, economics, international trade dynamics, conflict resolution, criminology – all reported to CITES delegates representing over 170 countries. The decisions made within this agreement have often been highly political. Inevitably, it attracts misinformation, skulduggery and crime.
The southern African countries continue to attempt to sell ivory through legal systems. In an appeal to overcome national interests, a group of eminent elephant scientists responded with an open letter in 2002 which clearly explained the effects of the ivory trade on other countries. They stated that the proposals for renewed trade from southern Africa did not bare comparison with most of Africa because they were based on a South African model where 90% of the elephant population lived in a fenced National Park. They went on to describe South Africa's wealth and ability to enforce the law within these boundaries. By comparison, they made it clear that most elephants in Africa live in poorly protected and unfenced bush or forest. They finished their appeal by describing the poaching crisis of the 1980s, and emphasised that the decision to ban ivory was not made to punish southern African countries, but to save the elephants in the rest of the world.
Southern African countries have continued to push for international ivory trade. Led by Zimbabwe's President Mugabe, they have had some success through CITES. Mugabe himself has been accused of bartering tonnes of ivory for weapons with China, breaking his country's commitment to CITES.
African voices
The debate surrounding ivory trade has often been depicted as Africa vs. the West.
A novel Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad describes brutal ivory trade as wild wielding senseless of power for resource-hungry economic policies of Imperialists and describes situation in Congo between 1890 and 1910 as "the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human conscience".
In reality the southern Africans have always been in a minority within the African elephant range states. To reiterate this point, 19 African countries signed the "Accra Declaration" in 2006 calling for a total ivory trade ban, and 20 range states attended a meeting in Kenya calling for a 20 year moratorium in 2007.
Renewed sales
Using criteria that had been agreed upon at the 1989 CITES meeting, among much controversy and debate, in 1997 CITES parties agreed to allow the populations of African elephants in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to be "downlisted" to Appendix Two which would allow international trade in elephant parts. However the decision was accompanied by "registering" stockpiles within these countries and examining trade controls in any designated importing country. CITES once again was attempting to set up a control system.
49 tonnes of ivory was registered in these three countries, and Japan's assertion that it had sufficient controls in place was accepted by CITES and the ivory was sold to Japanese traders in 1997 as an "experiment".
In 2000, South Africa also "downlisted" its elephant population to CITES Appendix Two with a stated desire to sell its ivory stockpile. In the same year, CITES agreed to the establishment of two systems to inform its member states on the status of illegal killing and trade. The two systems, Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) have been highly criticised as a waste of money for not being able to prove or disprove any causality between ivory stockpile sales and poaching levels – perhaps the most significant reason for their establishment. They do pull together information on poaching and seizures as provided by member states, although not all states provide comprehensive data.
The effect of the sale of ivory to Japan in 2000 was hotly debated with Traffic, the organisation which compiled the ETIS and MIKE databases, claiming they could not determine any link. However, many of those on the ground claimed that the sale had changed the perception of ivory, and many poachers and traders believed they were back in business.
A seizure of over 6 tonnes of ivory in Singapore in 2002 provided a stark warning that poaching in Africa was not for only local markets, but that some of the ivory syndicates from the 1980s were operating again. 532 elephant tusks and over 40,000 blank ivory hankos (Japanese name seals) were seized, and the EIA carried out investigations which showed that this case had been preceded by 19 other suspected ivory shipments, four destined for China and the rest for Singapore, though often en route to Japan. The ivory originated in Zambia and was collected in Malawi before being containerised and shipped out of South Africa. Between March 1994 and May 1998, nine suspected shipments had been sent by the same company Sheng Luck from Malawi to Singapore. After this, they started to be dispatched to China. Analysis and cross-referencing revealed company names and company directors already known to the EIA from investigations in the 1980s – the Hong Kong criminal ivory syndicates were active again.
In 2002, another 60 tonnes of ivory from South Africa, Botswana and Namibia was approved for sale, and in 2006, Japan was approved as a destination for the ivory. Japan's ivory controls were seriously questioned with 25% of traders not even registered, voluntary rather than legal requirement of traders, and illegal shipments entering Japan. A report by the Japan Wildlife Conservation Society warned that the price of ivory jumped due to price fixing by a small number of manufacturers who controlled the bulk of the ivory – similar to the control of stocks when stockpiles were amnestied in the 1980s. Before the sale took place, in the wings China was seeking approval as an ivory destination country.
The rise of China and the modern poaching crisis
To many conservationists with knowledge of China and its failure to control trade in tiger parts, bear parts, rhinoceros horn and a range of endangered and vulnerable CITES listed species, it seemed unlikely that China would be given "buyer approved" status for ivory. This is because that status would be based on China's ability to regulate and control its trade. To demonstrate the lack of ivory controls in China, the EIA leaked an internal Chinese document showing how 121 tonnes of ivory from its own official stockpile, (equivalent to the tusks from 11,000 elephants), could not be accounted for, a Chinese official admitting "this suggests a large amount of illegal sale of the ivory stockpile has taken place." However, a CITES mission recommended that CITES approve China's request, and this was supported by WWF and Traffic. China gained its "approved" status at a meeting of the CITES Standing Committee on 15 July 2008.
China and Japan bought 108 tonnes of ivory in another "one-off" sale in November 2008 from Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe. At the time the idea was that these legal ivory sales may depress the price, thereby removing poaching pressure, an idea supported by both Traffic and WWF.
China's increased involvement in infrastructure projects in Africa and the purchase of natural resources has alarmed many conservationists who fear the extraction of wildlife body parts is increasing. Since China was given "approved buyer" status by CITES, the smuggling of ivory seems to have increased alarmingly. Although, WWF and Traffic who supported the China sale, describe the increase in illegal ivory trade a possible "coincidence" others are less cautious. Chinese nationals working in Africa have been caught smuggling ivory in many African countries, with at least ten arrested at Kenyan airports in 2009. In many African countries domestic markets have grown, providing easy access to ivory, although the Asian ivory syndicates are most destructive buying and shipping tonnes at a time.
Contrary to the advice of CITES that prices may be depressed, and those that supported the sale of stockpiles in 2008, the price of ivory in China has greatly increased. Some believe this may be due to deliberate price fixing by those who bought the stockpile, echoing the warnings from the Japan Wildlife Conservation Society on price-fixing after sales to Japan in 1997, and monopoly given to traders who bought stockpiles from Burundi and Singapore in the 1980s. It may also be due to the exploding number of Chinese able to purchase luxury goods.
Despite arguments prevailing on the ivory trade for the last thirty years through CITES, there is one fact that virtually all informed parties now agree upon: poaching of African elephants is now seriously on the increase. In 2012, The New York Times reported on a large upsurge in ivory poaching, with about 70% flowing to China.
Asian Elephant
International trade in Asian elephant ivory was banned in 1975 when the Asian elephant was placed on Appendix One of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). By the late 1980s, it was believed that only around 50,000 remained in the wild.
There has been little controversy in the decision to ban trade in Asian elephant ivory. However, the species is still threatened by the ivory trade, and many conservationists have supported the African ivory trade ban because evidence shows that ivory traders are not concerned whether their raw material is from Africa or Asia. Decisions by CITES on ivory trade affect Asian elephants. For intricate carving, Asian ivory is often preferred.
Walrus ivory
Trade in walrus ivory has been conducted for hundreds of years in large regions of the northern hemisphere by such groups as the Norse, Europeans, the Inuit, Russians, the people of Greenland and Eskimos.
North America
According to the United States government, Alaska natives (including Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts) are allowed to harvest walrus for subsistence as long as the harvesting is not wasteful. The natives are permitted to sell the ivory of the hunted walrus to non–natives as long as it is reported to a United States Fish and Wildlife Service representative, tagged and fashioned into some type of handicraft. Natives may also sell ivory found within 0.25 miles (0.40 km) of the ocean—known as beach ivory— to non–natives if the ivory has been tagged and worked in some way. Fossilized ivory is not regulated, and can be sold without registering, tagging or crafting in any way. In Greenland, prior to 1897, it was purchased by the Royal Greenland Trade Department exclusively for sale domestically. After that time, walrus ivory was exported.
Bering Strait fur trade network
In the nineteenth century, Bering Strait Eskimos traded, among other things, walrus ivory to the Chinese, for glass beads and iron goods. Prior to this, the Bering Strait Eskimos used ivory for practical reasons; harpoon points, tools, etc., but about the only time(s) walrus ivory was used otherwise, it was to make games for festivities, and for children's toys.
Russia
Moscow is a major hub for the trade in walrus ivory, providing the commodity for a large foreign market.
Narwhal ivory
Greenland
The people of Greenland likely traded narwhal ivory amongst themselves prior to any contact with Europeans. For hundreds of years since, the tusks have from Greenland to international markets.
In the 1600, the Dutch traded with the Inuit, typically for metal goods in exchange for narwhal tusks, seal skins, and other items.
Trading continues today between Greenland and other countries, with Denmark by far being the leading purchaser.
Canada
There is an international export ban of narwhal tusks from 17 Nunavut communities imposed by the Canadian federal government. The Inuit traders in this region are challenging the ban by filing an application with the Federal Court. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans restricts the export of narwhal tusks and other related products from these communities, including Iqaluit, the territorial capital.
Tusks in good condition are valued at up to $450 CAD per metre. The ban affects both carvings and raw tusks.
The Canadian government has stated that if it fails to restrict export of narwhal tusks, then the international community might completely ban exports under CITES.
Tusks are still allowed to be traded within Canada.
Mammoth ivory
The first known instance of mammoth ivory reaching western Europe was in 1611, when a piece, purchased from Samoyeds in Siberia, reached London.
After 1582, when Russia conquered Siberia, the ivory became a more regularly available commodity. Siberia's mammoth ivory industry experienced substantial growth from the mid-18th century on. In one instance, in 1821, a collector brought back 8,165 kg of ivory, (from approximately 50 mammoths), from the New Siberian Islands.
It is estimated that 46,750 mammoths have been excavated during the first 250 years since the Russian occupation of Siberia.
In the early 19th century mammoth ivory was used, as substantial source, for such products as piano keys, billiard balls, and ornamental boxes.
Some estimates suggest that 10 million mammoths still remain buried in Siberia.
See also
References
- Lavers, Chris (2009). The Natural History of Unicorns. USA: William Morris. pp. 112–150. ISBN 978-0-06-087414-8.
- Kramer, Andrew E. (19 November 2008). "Trade in mammoth ivory, helped by global thaw, flourishes in Russia". New York Times. Retrieved 12 December 2009.
- ^ Profound changes. Biothinking.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- Reed Business Information (6 November 1986). New Scientist. Reed Business Information. pp. 49–. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2 February 2011.
{{cite book}}:|author=has generic name (help) - ^ Magazine / Geographical. Geographical.co.uk. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- ^ "To Save An Elephant" by Allan Thornton & Dave Currey, Doubleday 1991 ISBN 0-385-40111-6
- ^ Kenya Elephant Forum Factsheet 02
- Lemieux, A. M.; Clarke, R. V. (2009). "The International Ban on Ivory Sales and its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa". British Journal of Criminology. 49: 451. doi:10.1093/bjc/azp030.
- ^ "A System of Extinction – the African Elephant Disaster" Environmental Investigation Agency 1989
- ^ Reed Business Information (7 January 1988). New Scientist. Reed Business Information. pp. 30–. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2 February 2011.
{{cite book}}:|author=has generic name (help) - ^ Increased Demand for Ivory Threatens Elephant Survival. washingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- Lifting the Ivory Ban Called Premature. NPR (31 October 2002). Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- CIA released memoEnforcement of the Ivory Trade Ban – 1 yr Assessment, 18 January 1991
- ^ "Living Proof", Dave Currey & Helen Moore, A report by Environmental Investigation Agency Sept 1994
- ^ Return of the Ivory Trade, The Independent, 12 July 2008
- ^ "Under Fire – elephants in the front line", Austin, Currey, Galster, Reeve, Thornton, Watts, 1992, EIA report
- "Train killers", New Nation (SA) 19 July 1991
- Elephant Conservation Plan for Mozambique, AECCG, Olindo, Woodford, Oct 1991
- US Defense Intelligence Agency report, April 1991 "Renamo deserter talks of SA support to Renamo"
- "Renamo's secret SA bases", The Weekly Mail (SA) 16–22 March 1990
- New Scientist, 26 August 1989
- Post mortem report 189/135/89, 17 March 1989
- "Mystery callers torment murdered captain's widow" Parade Mag (Zim) Sept 1990
- "Zimbabwe smugglers kill another officer" New African Nov 1991
- "Nleya's enquiry 3 suspects die mysteriously" Sunday Times, 17 November 1991
- Katy Payne, Cornell University; Iain Douglas-Hamilton, Save the Elephants; Vivek Menon, Wildlife Trust of India; Cynthia Moss, Amboseli Elephant Research Project; Joyce Poole, Savanna Elephant Vocalization Project; Andrea Turkalo, Wildlife Conservation Society (31 October 2002). "Lifting the Ivory Ban Called Premature – Scientists Offer a Perspective on Elephants and Ivory". npr.org. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "Big Question: Is it right to sell ivory, or does it just encourage the poaching of elephants", The Independent via Africa Geographic, 28 October 2008
- "Ivory for arms deal", The Zimbabwean, April 2008
- 'The horror! The horror!', 11 July 2011, rediff.com, an excerpt from the order of the Supreme Court of India
- African countries set to lock horns over ivory. The Brunei Times, 31 May 2007. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- Wildlife Trade – elephant ivory FAQs WWF
- HSI Ivory trade timeline
- Mike And Etis. Cites.org. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- "Elephants, Ivory & trade" Wasser et al March 2010 Science Magazine
- factsheet 2002, Species Survival Network
- ^ "Back in Business", Hastie, Newman, Rice, 2002 an EIA report
- ^ "Destination Japan – an investigation into the Japan seizure and laundering of illegal ivory" Japan Wildlife Conservation Society, May 2007
- "China, Ivory Trade & the future of Africa's Elephants", EIA-CITES briefing 2008
- Made in China – how china's illegal ivory tradeis causing a 21st century African elephant disaster, EIA report, May 2007
- Ivory sales. Africageographic.com. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- CITES summary record of Standing Committee 57 2008
- Return of ivory trade as Britain backs China – Nature, Environment. The Independent, 16 July 2008. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- "Campaigners fear for elephants and their own credibility", The Economist, July 2008
- WWF – "data shows illegal ivory trade on rise", November 2009
- ^ "Ivory Trade threatens African Elephant", Jason Strazjuso, Michael Caesy, William Foreman, May 2010
- FT Magazine – Shopping habits of China's "suddenly wealthy", August 2009
- China fuels East African Poaching, Epoch Times, March 2010
- "Elephant Ivory Sales Denied to Halt Worldwide Poaching Crisis", ENS, March 2010
- "Massive surge in elephant poaching", Big Life, Sept 2010
- Gettleman, Jeffrey (3 September 2012). "Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profits". The New York Times.
- Asian Elephant. Cites.org. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- "Elephant sized loopholes sustain Thai ivory trade", Science Daily, July 2009
- "Ivory trade hits Asia's elephants", BBC News, Feb 2009
- "Revival of ivory carving in India", 2002
- ^ Hunting and Use of Walrus by Alaska Natives alaska.fws.gov. Retrieved 2011–02-03
- Born, Erik W., Heide-Jorgensen, Mads P., Davis, Rolph A (1994), The Atlantic Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in West Greenland Museum Tusculanum Press, ISBN 87-635-1227-0, p. 26
- H-Net Reviews. h-net.msu.edu. Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- Russian fur farms
- Würsig, Bernd; E W Born; R Dietz; R R Reeves (1995). "Review of Studies of White Whales (Delphinapterus Leucas) and Narwhals (Monodon Monoceros) in Greenland and Adjacent Waters". Quarterly Review of Biology. 70 (1): 95–96. doi:10.1086/418923. ISBN 978-87-635-1226-8. ISSN 0033-5770. Retrieved 2010 01 28.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - CBC News – North – Inuit seek review of narwhal tusk trade ban. Cbc.ca (13 January 2011). Retrieved on 2011-02-02.
- Mammoths : giants of the ice age, Lister, Adrian & Paul G Bahn, 2007, University of California Press ISBN 978-0-520-25319-3
External links
- EIA 25 yrs investigating the ivory trade, reports etc
- EIA (in the USA) reports etc
- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
- Species survival network – over 80 NGOs working on wildlife trade
- World Wide Fund for Nature
- Traffic – wildlife trade monitoring
- International Fund for Animal welfare