News

                                                                             Now what?

Recently, the destruction of seized ivory stockpiles has been much in the news. The Philippines, USA, France, Chad, Gabon, China, among others, have all destroyed such illegal ivory. It seems that Tanzania and Hong Kong are contemplating destroying part of their stockpile while Kenya remains silent on the issue.

Prince William has allegedly said he wants all the ivory held in Royal collections destroyed, a complicated move as much of that ivory comes under the category of gifts to the Crown. Many of the crown jewels are also gifts, for example the Cullinan Diamond – from South Africa, and the Koh-i-Noor diamond – from India. Saudi Arabian kings have also made many valuable gifts of jewellery. But these gifts do not belong to the monarch who happens to receive them – they are held in trust for their descendants and the Nation. It would take many steps to be able to fulfil William’s alleged wish – likely including approval by Parliament. 

Meanwhile, ivory destruction has received many positive and negative feedbacks. On the positive side, many say these acts indicate a zero tolerance of any ivory trade, rendering the ivory useless and out of possible circulation forever. Those arguing against say that it is a waste and only serves as a publicity stunt - and by taking such ivory off any potential market, it only increases the rarity value of ivory and sends prices higher.

Those opposed to destroying ivory say that placing a complete ban on any product has always been problematic  in the past, citing failures to control illegal trade in drugs, tobacco and alcohol. 

So what is the answer? I don’t have one, but let’s examine some fallacies in arguments always being trotted out. 

 First, you cannot equate the illegal trade of ivory with the illegal trade in drugs and alcohol. The latter are addictive substances and addicts behave very differently from buyers of ivory. Ivory buyers in China, for example, buy the product because it has always been rare, expensive and is closely associated with a visible display of wealth and status. Plus it has significant “cultural” value, both in terms of the status of owning ivory and the status of the top ivory carvers, celebrated as Rembrandts of their art. As just one example, those masters make intricate hollowed out ivory balls. Some have dozens of layers, cased one on top of another, each able to revolve. That said, most ivory “carvings” are sold as simple bangles, rings and chopsticks. 

In other places, for example the Philippines and Thailand, ivory carvings have religious values as diverse as the teachings of Catholicism and Buddhism. The Vatican is stuffed with ivory icons, and it is not only in the Philippines that religious icons made of ivory are currently being sold. That can also be called a cultural value of ivory.

Drugs and alcohol can also have a status value. For example, there are various “grades” of cocaine and associated value. For marijuana, the Oracle strain which is supposedly has a 45% content of THC is being sold at a price of $200 per SEED! As for showing off wealth, you can hardly do better than serving your guests a jeroboam of 1945 Chateau Mouton Rothschild wine at $114,000 per bottle or a 1926 Macallan Rare and Fine whisky at $75,000 per bottle. 

But those prices are based either on antiquity and/or rarity. In actual fact, drugs and alcohol can be supplied in quantities that exceed any form of demand. Alcohol is simple to make in vast quantities (all you need is a form of starch from wheat, potatoes, corn or sugar from grapes and add some yeast). Cocaine, heroin and marijuana come from plants. Laboratories can easily put together the chemical components of LSD and Ecstacy and make huge quantities. Ivory can only be made by elephants and they take a very long time to make their tusks. 

Second, the drug trade is by definition illegal (although marijuana has been legalized in some places and possession of small quantities of cocaine for personal use is usually not frowned upon). But what this means is that if you are found with large quantities of drugs you will be prosecuted and jailed. 

With ivory, it is not so simple as there are various categories of legal trade. The age of the ivory makes a difference – antiques are OK although defined differently in different countries and huge loopholes exist. China and Thailand openly trade in ivory, though much of the trade probably involves illegal ivory. There is a reluctance by authorities in those countries to use currently available techniques to differentiate legal from illegal ivory. For example, Thailand was not among the registered buyers of African ivory, so any product found with African origin should result in criminal procedures. In China, any ivory determined to be from a western or eastern African origin is by definition illegal. It is well documented that both nations continue to receive and trade illegal ivory but because they have a legal trade the illegal ivory becomes easily incorporated and subsumed. 

 Third, despite the existence of CITES, there are no internationally accepted norms and standards of what to do with ivory seized from illegal trafficking. This clearly needs to be decided, and quickly. Illegally trafficked drugs, alcohol and tobacco are only kept (well, depending on the country) as long as it takes to serve as evidence in criminal trials and then destroyed. Same with illegally trafficked weapons.

 Fourth, it has always been argued by those African range states which have a good record of elephant conservation (a shrinking community) that ivory resulting from natural deaths of elephants should be available for trade. That was the argument that allowed “one-off” ivory sales from South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Namibia in the past, especially since the profits from the sales were supposed to go straight back into elephant conservation. 

But that proof still remains to be established. Accounting of those funds remains at best opaque and at worst completely obscure. If the promises to those who approved the ivory sales are to be met, then why do we still not have a full record of how those funds were spent? Unless there is complete transparency, the justifications given and accepted by CITES for legal ivory sales will continue to ring hollow and should qualify as reasonable worries to oppose future sales. 

In sum, it all seems a mess.

• Does the value of ivory in circulation increase with the destruction of stockpiles seized from illegal traffickers?   Yes.
• Is the answer a trade of such ivory? I do not believe so – illegal trade products should not be returned to the market. 
• Has the legal trade in ivory via the CITES sales decreased poaching and increased levels of elephant protection? No. 
• Should there be further sales of legal ivory from stockpiles? No, as there has not been a proven conservation benefit in the past for elephants from such sales despite promises
• Should ivory trade be banned? Yes, completely, including within-country sales.              

Will a ban on ivory sales everywhere stop poaching? Not necessarily, as there will always be those speculators on the market to continue poaching and stockpiling. But with no “legal” markets it will then come down to a test of the political will and resolve of the African nations to adequately protect their elephants. A shift of responsibility in other words, and a challenge many elephant range states have yet to meet despite financial and other resources poured and pouring in. 

Picture credit: AFP/Getty images

If you have not already signed up to our mailing list, you can add your name here and keep up to date with our ongoing work and, most importantly, DONATE to support our work to conserve the remaining fragile lion populations. Thank you.