Ivory Trade

[Lisbeth]

BUSINESS MAVERICK: OP-ED

A solution to the ivory trade conundrum: Buy it and burn it

By Ed Stoddard• 12 June 2019

Some southern African states want to reopen trade in ivory, generally extracted from dead elephants. Opponents argue it could foster commercial ivory consumption and encourage poaching. The vogue now is an ‘ivory burn’ in which national stockpiles are put to the torch to much fanfare. But what if animal welfare organisations and donor states buy the ivory themselves and then hold their own burns? That would allow ivory to be capitalised — which can go to conservation without allowing additional supplies to enter the market.

About every three years, the “white gold” known as ivory becomes a red-hot conservation and animal-welfare issue. It is always bubbling, given well-founded concerns about elephant poaching. But it really hits the radar screens when the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which is effectively a UN treaty, holds its Conference of the Parties (COP).

At such gatherings, governments decide what restrictions to place or retain on the international trade in wild animals or their harvested body parts, such as ivory or rhino horn.

A global ban on trade in ivory, spearheaded by conservationists such as the Kenyan Richard Leakey, has been in place since 1989, though CITES has since sanctioned occasional one-off sales. At the last CITES COP in 2016 in Johannesburg, Namibia and Zimbabwe made unsuccessful bids to auction ivory. In 2019, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe are lobbying CITES to allow the sale of national stockpiles, which accumulate over time from seizures or ivory taken from elephants that have died from natural causes.

The COP was to have started in Sri Lanka in May, but has been delayed in the wake of the church bombings there. It will now be held in Geneva in August.

Debates around ivory are always emotional, not least because elephants are large, social and intelligent animals, so they pull the heartstrings of modern Homo sapiens — at least those of us who don’t have to live in close and dangerous proximity to them. Policies need to rise above emotion and be implemented in a way that benefits both people, especially the rural poor who bear the brunt of human-wildlife conflict, and wildlife. That includes the wider ecosystem, of which elephants, as a “keystone species”, play a critical part.

In Botswana, which has lifted a ban on elephant trophy hunting, two issues have taken centre stage. One, according to the government, is growing human-wildlife conflict. The other is the widespread perception that Botswana, with about 150,000 elephants (or much more, depending on the source), a third of the continent’s numbers, has too many of the pachyderms for the ecosystem. As a consequence, they are destroying it.

Ron Thomson made this argument in Daily Maverick earlier this week, citing reports from the 1960s of the dense bush around the Chobe area — dense bush which is now gone, riparian strips harbouring birds and smaller mammals stripped away by swelling numbers of elephants.

Yet the 1960s is perhaps not the best yardstick to use to measure the ecological impact of Chobe’s elephants. A growing number of scientists now argue that the Chobe landscape is merely reverting back to what obtained before the late 19th century, when the elephant population in the region was decimated by industrial-scale ivory hunting.

The area was a natural draw for such hunters precisely because it held a profusion of the pachyderms — and a corresponding dearth of trees and thick vegetation. Writing in 1908, Frederick Selous, a British soldier of fortune and renowned big game hunter, noted that “bushbuck in the area live in forest and bush which is seldom very dense, and through most of which the sunlight plays constantly.”

But the sunlight would soon be deflected by the advancing sylvan tide. Even as Selous was putting pen to paper in the early 20th century, Chobe’s elephant numbers were fast dwindling. By the 1930s, there was only one breeding herd left. In the 1960s and 1970s, tourists found an environment thick with a tangled mass of vegetation and cover that Selous and other 19th-century ivory hunters in the vicinity would not have recognised.

Basically, Botswana’s elephant population has quite possibly reverted to its natural numbers, which undermines ecological arguments about the need to reduce them. And neither trophy hunting nor the ivory trade will make much of a dent in Botswana’s elephant population unless tusk hunting reaches the industrial scale of the past — and that is not going to happen.

Still, there are other pro-trade arguments that can be made. The main one is to raise revenues for conservation purposes, including finding ways to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts, such as fencing and other initiatives. Since the ivory stockpiles already exist, why not extract value from them and direct the proceeds to conservation, or to compensate rural dwellers who have suffered crop damage or the loss of loved ones to elephants?

There are counter-arguments, and they are not without their merits. Aside from ivory found in the tundra from extinct mammoths and a handful of other living species such as warthogs, fresh supplies in a significant quantity (and quality) can only come from one source — dead elephants. (Rhino horn, by contrast, can be farmed, as it grows back).

Like campaigns to shame consumers from wearing fur, anti-ivory campaigners want to drive home the point that your carving or bracelet was pried from the carcass of a poached elephant. The aim is to make ivory unacceptable as an item of consumption. Any sales of legal stockpiles will send the opposite message while presenting opportunities for laundering.

This is where the pro-burning crowd waves its torches. The first ivory burn took place in Kenya in 1989, when then president Daniel Arap Moi put 12 tons to the torch.

“The next day pictures of the ivory fire filled the front pages of newspapers around the world… The whole world knew about the African elephant crisis, and Kenya had taken the lead,” Richard Leakey later wrote.

Kenya certainly blazed a trail for ivory bonfires. Many such events have subsequently been held, with ivory stockpiles burnt, crushed or destroyed in other ways. Gabon, Zambia, China, Ethiopia, Chad, Sri Lanka, the United States and the Philippines among several others have destroyed tons and tons of ivory. This, of course, is applauded by anti-trade activists and organisations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

There are several critics who have poured cold water over the idea of ivory burns. Some have noted that ivory destruction can also send a message of scarcity, triggering a spike in black-market prices and poaching. Independent verification of national stockpiles is also not always possible.

In countries with reputations for graft and poor governance (areas in which Kenya, for example, has also been a long-time trailblazer), it is plausible that not everything gets put to the torch, with the burning used as a smokescreen to secretly sell some of the stockpiles. On the opposite spectrum of IFAW, organisations such as the pro-hunting group Safari Club International have noted that forensic evidence required in criminal cases may go up in smoke at ivory burns, allowing poachers who would otherwise face prosecution to strike another day.

Still, there are many donor states (which are pointedly not elephant-range states) and animal welfare and conservation groups which enthusiastically endorse the principle of ivory burns. They have a legitimate point of view and one that has wide resonance. At the same time, there are ivory stockpiles out there in relatively poor emerging market states that could fund conservation projects that benefit human and pachyderm alike.

One plausible compromise to this conundrum is what I dub the “buy it and burn it” approach. If there are conservation actors out there, be they governments or NGOs, who want to extinguish ivory markets and regard the destruction of supplies as a tool to achieve this, why not buy it and burn it yourself? There are a number of advantages to this approach.

For starters, it means national stockpiles (which could be subject to pilfering) are bought, providing the revenue stream that some southern African states are seeking. But instead of finding its way to the market, it can be put to the torch — a win-win for governments seeking to sell ivory and opponents of the trade. Both get to achieve their stated objectives.

Of course, there will be costs involved, and those are not easy to calculate. The size of ivory stockpiles is opaque — CITES member states are supposed to make annual submissions to the convention regarding the status of their stockpiles, but for security reasons, these are not made public.

But it does not seem far-fetched to suggest that tens of millions of dollars might be required, especially if other countries decided to follow suit. Could such amounts be raised between governments and NGOs? Of course, it’s possible, and there are templates at hand.

Norway is paying Indonesia $1 billion to protect its rainforests — a “buy it and burn it” campaign would likely cost far less. China has said it wants to crack down on the ivory trade and it certainly has spare change. The hat could also get passed to several European countries and Canada. And NGOs love a good campaign. One built around this could raise money to buy the ivory and then they could hold a high-profile bonfire with their name firmly branded to it. A win-win all around.

This will not resolve all the underlying issues around elephants, nor will it address all the concerns that have been expressed regarding ivory burns. But those who back them should underline that support by putting their money where their mouths are, and hold their own ivory braais.

[Lisbeth]

Excellent idea, but is it doable? Who is going to pay large sums of money for a lot of smoke? The NGOs? I doubt it very much even if they are against trade. Spend a lot of money for nothing? Maybe some rich countries, but not having a real personal interest, they will be very few. Maybe Switzerland who is already spending loads of money in order to resolve a lot of poor countries problems. Maybe China in order to clean their hands off a lot of Rhino and Elephant blood

I hope that I am wrong but IMO it is not realistic unfortunately

[Richprins]

I'm all for selling stockpiles!

In the Zim case, we all know the money won't go for conservation, but in general it can be a sustainable resource and bring the price down?

[Lisbeth]

I am not an expert, but if they use the money for something useful and not for the pockets of the few it might be better to allow trade. I really don't know and there are most likely a lot of consequences that I have not even thought of

[Richprins]

Nothing else is working...same with rhino, so only one way to find out?

[Lisbeth]

African Elephant Coalition (AEC): Japan your ivory market !

BY JUERGEN T STEINMETZ - 17TH JUNE 2019 - ETURBO NEWS

The Council of Elders of the African Elephant Coalition (AEC) comprising 32 African countries and the majority of African elephant range states is calling on the government of Japan to close its ivory market, among the world’s largest, and support stronger protection of Africa’s elephants.

“We’re calling on Japan to follow the example of China and close its domestic ivory market. We believe that doing so will strengthen Japan’s international conservation image ahead of the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics”, said Azizou El Hadj Issa, Chairman of the AEC’s Council of Elders, in an appeal to Taro Kono, Japan’s foreign minister to support the Coalition.

The AEC’s Council of Elders has written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Japan, Taro Kono, asking for assistance and collaboration to strengthen international measures in reducing the demand for elephant ivory “so that elephant tusks are no longer desirable objects”.

The AEC has submitted several documents for the 18th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and is asking Japan to support their proposals to strengthen the protection of elephants.

Specifically, the AEC wants:

— All countries to follow China’s example in closing their domestic ivory markets by strengthening a resolution (10.10) at the Conference of the Parties.

— To up-list all African elephants to Appendix I, the strongest possible protection under CITES. Currently, elephants in Africa are split-listed with elephants in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe in Appendix II, which allows trade under certain circumstances.

The AEC has long held the view that if elephants are to be fully protected it is imperative that they all be up-listed to Appendix I.

The split-listing has led to confusion in consumer demand and resulted in a continued trade in ivory, which soared after the sale of ivory stockpiles from southern Africa to China and Japan in 2008. China closed its market in 2017, but Japan’s ivory market remains one of the largest in the world, and substantial evidence exists that ivory from Japan is being illegally exported to China in significant amounts, undermining the ban.

The Coalition is urging significant domestic ivory markets – particularly those of Japan and the European Union – to follow China’s example. The letter to Minister Kono appeals to Japan to close its ivory market, and is copied to the Ministers for Environment, Yoshiaki Harada, as well as the Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshige Seko, who are both responsible for policy-making on ivory trade, controls over domestic ivory trade and implementation of the ivory-related CITES resolution (10.10) in Japan. The Council believes that closing its ivory market “will strengthen Japan’s international conservation image ahead of the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics”.

The Chairman of the Council of Elders, Azizou El Hadj Issa, has also written to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, expressing gratitude for China’s “historic conservation policy in closing its domestic ivory market under the leadership of President Xi Jingping”, and asked China to support the AEC’s proposals.

The letters to both countries cite the recently released Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which highlights the urgency in protecting endangered species like elephants. The report found that exploitation of elephants in trade is accelerating their demise. The AEC’s Council of Elders warns that CITES has so far failed African elephants, the very symbol of the Convention.

Both letters stress that the AEC represents a unified voice of the majority of African elephant range states and aligns with the sentiment of the global public and most elephant scientists. A few African countries – led by Botswana – still want to exploit elephants for their ivory. However, the mission of the 32-country Coalition is to maintain a viable and healthy elephant population free of threats from the international ivory trade.

https://www.eturbonews.com/255489/afric ... ry-market/

[Lisbeth]

African Elephant Coalition (AEC): Japan your ivory market !

BY JUERGEN T STEINMETZ - 17TH JUNE 2019 - ETURBO NEWS

The Council of Elders of the African Elephant Coalition (AEC) comprising 32 African countries and the majority of African elephant range states is calling on the government of Japan to close its ivory market, among the world’s largest, and support stronger protection of Africa’s elephants.

“We’re calling on Japan to follow the example of China and close its domestic ivory market. We believe that doing so will strengthen Japan’s international conservation image ahead of the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics”, said Azizou El Hadj Issa, Chairman of the AEC’s Council of Elders, in an appeal to Taro Kono, Japan’s foreign minister to support the Coalition.

The AEC’s Council of Elders has written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Japan, Taro Kono, asking for assistance and collaboration to strengthen international measures in reducing the demand for elephant ivory “so that elephant tusks are no longer desirable objects”.

The AEC has submitted several documents for the 18th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and is asking Japan to support their proposals to strengthen the protection of elephants.

Specifically, the AEC wants:

— All countries to follow China’s example in closing their domestic ivory markets by strengthening a resolution (10.10) at the Conference of the Parties.

— To up-list all African elephants to Appendix I, the strongest possible protection under CITES. Currently, elephants in Africa are split-listed with elephants in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe in Appendix II, which allows trade under certain circumstances.

The AEC has long held the view that if elephants are to be fully protected it is imperative that they all be up-listed to Appendix I.

The split-listing has led to confusion in consumer demand and resulted in a continued trade in ivory, which soared after the sale of ivory stockpiles from southern Africa to China and Japan in 2008. China closed its market in 2017, but Japan’s ivory market remains one of the largest in the world, and substantial evidence exists that ivory from Japan is being illegally exported to China in significant amounts, undermining the ban.

The Coalition is urging significant domestic ivory markets – particularly those of Japan and the European Union – to follow China’s example. The letter to Minister Kono appeals to Japan to close its ivory market, and is copied to the Ministers for Environment, Yoshiaki Harada, as well as the Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshige Seko, who are both responsible for policy-making on ivory trade, controls over domestic ivory trade and implementation of the ivory-related CITES resolution (10.10) in Japan. The Council believes that closing its ivory market “will strengthen Japan’s international conservation image ahead of the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics”.

The Chairman of the Council of Elders, Azizou El Hadj Issa, has also written to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, expressing gratitude for China’s “historic conservation policy in closing its domestic ivory market under the leadership of President Xi Jingping”, and asked China to support the AEC’s proposals.

The letters to both countries cite the recently released Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which highlights the urgency in protecting endangered species like elephants. The report found that exploitation of elephants in trade is accelerating their demise. The AEC’s Council of Elders warns that CITES has so far failed African elephants, the very symbol of the Convention.

Both letters stress that the AEC represents a unified voice of the majority of African elephant range states and aligns with the sentiment of the global public and most elephant scientists. A few African countries – led by Botswana – still want to exploit elephants for their ivory. However, the mission of the 32-country Coalition is to maintain a viable and healthy elephant population free of threats from the international ivory trade.

https://www.eturbonews.com/255489/afric ... ry-market/

[Lisbeth]

Elephant ivory trafficking possibly controlled by only 3 major cartels, says research
Posted on 15 July, 2019 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Poaching, Research, Wildlife and the Decoding Science post series.



Recent research has revealed that a large proportion of the elephant tusks trafficked internationally can be traced to ONLY THREE MAJOR CARTELS. With 40,000 elephants slaughtered annually to supply this illegal industry, this finding has enormous potential implications for the fight against wildlife poaching and trafficking.

The report, published in the journal Scientific Advances, was based on DNA extracted from 38 large ivory seizures that occurred between 2011 and 2014 – a peak period for the illegal ivory trade. Other samples were obtained from dung, hair and tissue samples.

One major finding from the report was that the two tusks from the same elephant were usually split up for transport, allowing the scientists to connect two separate shipments to the same cartel.

The rapid growth in world trade volumes in all goods has enabled transnational criminal networks to conceal their contraband, including wildlife parts such as ivory, amongst more than 1 billion containers shipped worldwide per annum. Seventy percent (70%) of all ivory seized is in large shipped containers.

If the ivory seizures are reported timeously, careful DNA analysis and geographical pinpointing of known poaching hotspots can create a chain of interconnectedness that points at specific traffickers.


Genetically matched tusks between large ivory seizures map
Wasser’s process to identify and pair tusks from poached elephants uses DNA testing to match the pairs smuggled in separate shipments to the same smugglers. The maps indicate different deliveries – showing location, date and weight of the seizure. Using the process, geographic origins of the tusks are determined, as noted by the blue circles. Using open red circles, some of the recovered tusks have been matched to a number of poached elephant corpses. Connection of tusk pairs are notated by double-headed arrows. © Wasser et al. 2018 / Science Advances

When individual poachers are caught with one or two pieces of ivory, the likely consequences for the traffickers higher up the food chain are limited. Individual poachers are seldom prosecuted, and even when they are, there are many more to take their place.

Most ivory coming from individual poachers makes its way up a pyramid-shaped network, and ivory is consolidated as it makes its way up the crime chain before it ends up with the major export cartels.

Successful cartels tend to use the same smuggling routes and transport hubs, because of the difficulty in setting up and maintaining the necessary illegal networks. These same cartels are in all likelihood also directly or indirectly funding the trade in weapons and ammunition required to kill elephants and other wildlife. And so, when major cartels are successfully prosecuted, the impact on trafficking volume can be significant.


Conservation biologist Samuel Wasser surveys ivory tusks from a six-tonne seizure of the contraband that was made in Malaysia in 2012 © Malaysia Department of National Parks

Most ivory traffickers facing prosecution are charged for a single seizure, and they usually receive light sentences. If each seizure was linked to multiple others, the potential exists to elevate the charges and severity to that of major transnational crimes. One trafficker implicated by results of the research in three seizures was given a two-year sentence for only one seizure, and is already out of prison. Had the results of this research been known at the time of his prosecution, his sentence would have been far higher.

Another major trafficker was similarly convicted for one seizure (Kenya Jun 2014 2.2t), but this report potentially connects him to many others. His case is now under appeal. There is currently one suspect in custody, awaiting prosecution for a seizure in Entebbe, Uganda, and findings in this report connect that network to at least two other seizures, one of which is linked to a major international incident involving poaching from a military helicopter belonging to a neighbouring country.


Ivory seizures between 2002 and 2016 © Wasser et al. 2018 / Science Advances

Full report: Samuel K. Wasser, Amy Torkelson, Misa Winters, Yves Horeaux, Sean Tucker, Moses Y. Otiende, Frankie A.T. Sitam, John Buckleton and Bruce S. Weir (2018). Combating transnational organized crime by linking multiple large ivory seizures to the same dealer. Scientific Advances. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/9/eaat0625

[Klipspringer]

https://www.kbc.co.ke/kenya-pushing-for ... -kenyatta/



Kenya pushing for closure of ivory trade, says First Lady Margaret Kenyatta
4 hours ago24




First Lady Margaret Kenyatta has reaffirmed Kenya’s push for the closure of all ivory trade markets across the world.

She said Kenya will continue with its campaign against the reopening of markets for animal trophies especially ivory. The campaign is being supported by 31 other African states grouped under the African Elephant Coalition (AEC).

The First Lady spoke at the ivory burning site inside the Nairobi National Park where she presided over the official launch of the CITES CoP18 Awareness Campaign.



CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora while CoP18 is the acronym for the Conference of Parties to the CITES.

The CITES CoP18 global conference is scheduled for next month in Geneva, Switzerland.

“Today we are lobbying and petitioning for the closure of all ivory markets, and boldly advocating for the placement of all elephants onto Appendix 1 of CITES,” said the First Lady, herself a renown supporter of conservation work in her capacity as the patron of the “Hands Off Our Elephants” campaign.

“This is the message that we, as a country, as conservationists, stakeholders and as members of the African Elephant Coalition, jointly pledge ahead of the CITES COP 18 meeting,” she added.

The First Lady said every time a proposal is made to partially reopen ivory trade markets, demand for the animal trophies escalates leading to increased poaching.

“We have also learnt that every time there has been a decision by CITES Parties to reopen ivory trade, the decision has resulted in increased elephant poaching and illicit trafficking of ivory,” the First Lady observed.

She said reopening the ivory trade markets will destroy the conservation gains made over the years.

The First Lady said Kenya is host to the most exotic and diverse wildlife species in the world adding that the country maintains a strong resolve to eradicate illegal wildlife trade by building coalitions and partners to strengthen joint actions to protect wildlife across the world.

The First Lady said Kenya has not only championed and petitioned the rest of the world for the total closure of all markets in animal trophies, but has previously demonstrated its resolve by publicly destroying huge stockpiles of ivory and rhino horns at the same site where today’s function was held.

Kenya has on four occasions since 1989 torched huge stockpiles of ivory and rhino horns, the last such destruction was presided over by President Uhuru Kenyatta in 2016 where 105 tonnes of ivory and one ton of rhino horns were destroyed.

The First Lady said previous actions by Kenya have not only captured global attention but inspired other ivory destruction in other countries and contributed to the listing of the African Elephant in the CITES Appendix 1, that calls for total protection of the species.

She said bold actions are needed at national, continental and international levels to protect the global population of elephants which has been on a decline from 1.2 million to below 400,000.

First Lady Margaret Kenyatta said despite successes achieved in the past few years in reducing poaching and ivory trade, emerging threats and thriving markets continue to erode the gains made in the past.

She said the 22 tonnes of ivory seized globally during the first quarter of this year confirms the existence of transnational trophy trade criminal networks.

“More recently, another large consignment of elephant tusks was impounded in Singapore confirming that the task before us is not over yet,” she said.

The First Lady said Kenya has put in place several mechanisms to mitigate poaching and illegal trade in ivory including stronger aerial surveillance around conservation areas, built a robust law enforcement and deterrent measures at ports and airports.

“We have also embarked on training of specialist prosecutors, magistrates and judges on wildlife trade,” the First Lady said.

She applauded China and several western countries for supporting Kenya’s call to close all ivory trade markets.

She also commended the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife and its partners for their hard-work and commitment as custodians of Kenya’s biodiversity.

At the same event, national carrier Kenya Airways announced the roll out of a global conservation awareness campaign by use of specially branded boarding passes.

Kenya Airways board Chairman Michael Joseph said the campaign will start tomorrow. The specially branded boarding passes will have email and website addresses where customers using the airline and its partners can get all information to support wildlife protection.

Others who spoke at the function were the chairman of the African Elephant Coalition and Ambassador of Eritrea to Kenya Meles Alem Tekea and Tourism and Wildlife CS Najib Balala.

[Lisbeth]

Kenya is getting mature