Wildlife smuggling or trafficking involves the illegal
gathering, transportation, and distribution of animals and their
derivatives. This can be done either internationally or domestically.
Estimates of the money generated by wildlife smuggling vary, in part
because of its illegal nature. "Wildlife smuggling is estimated at
$7.8bn to $10bn a year, according to the U.S. State Department. The U.S. State Department also lists wildlife trafficking as the third most valuable illicit commerce in the world."
The illegal nature of such activities makes determining the amount of
money involved incredibly difficult. When considered with illegal timber
and fisheries, wildlife trafficking is a major illegal trade along with
narcotics, human trafficking, and counterfeit products.
Products demanded by the trade include exotic pets, food, traditional medicine,
clothing, and jewelry made from animals' tusks, fins, skins, shells,
horns, and internal organs. Smuggled wildlife is an increasing global
demand; it is estimated that the US, China, and the European Union are the places with the highest demand.
Culture
At the
core of the illegal wildlife trafficking is a strong and rapidly
expanding demand for a variety of products around the world: bushmeat; ingredients for traditional Chinese medicine; exotic pets;
jewelry, trinkets, and accessories such as chess sets; furs for uses
ranging from coats to traditional costumes; and trophies. With the
exception of bushmeat, which is used as a primary source of protein by
some cultures, all of these uses of illegally obtained wildlife are
trophies, driven by a desire to be seen as more affluent, adventurous,
or successful than others.
In many parts of Africa, the main demand for illegal wildlife comes from the consumption of bushmeat. Wild animals are a preferred as a source of protein and primates
are considered a delicacy. It is believed that up to 40,000 monkeys are
killed and eventually consumed each year in Africa alone via smuggling.
Many primates are killed by bushmeat hunters, who supply to markets all
over Africa, Europe, and the United States.
Much of demand for rhinoceros horns, tiger bones, and other
animal products arises out of the practice of traditional Chinese
medicine, which uses these ingredients to treat fevers, gout, and other
illnesses;
maintain good health and longevity; and enhance sexual potency.
Traditional Chinese medicines are taken by hundreds of millions of
people. For example, some practitioners drink an expensive liquid made
from tiger bones to improve their circulation, treat arthritis, and
strengthen the body, in general.
The sale of tiger bones and products made from them is an example of
the confusion that can exist on the topic. The sale of bones was
outlawed in China in 1993; however, a pilot program, established in
2005, allows the use of bones for captive-bred tigers.
This can create a confusion in the minds of buyers as to whether the
bones were legally obtained. Regardless, tiger wine cannot be sold
legally in China, although advertisements for it ran on state television
channel in 2011 and journalist attended an auction where tiger wine was
offered for sale.
Many of the traditional Chinese medicines fail to cure anything,
although the demand for them continues to expand greatly and to the
detriment of wildlife.
Exotic pets
are animals desired by consumers and are rare or simply not easily
available in the owner's region. Television shows and movies can make
certain animals popular. While many of these animals can be obtained
from legal sources, many animals are captured from their native
environments, smuggled across national borders, and wind up in family homes, menageries, or roadside circuses. Reptiles, such as bearded dragons and geckos, and birds, such as scarlet macaws and certain falcons, make up the largest share of animals captured and sold. Exotic mammals including three-toed sloths, sugar gliders, prairie dogs, hedgehogs,
and other animals are kept as pets. "Birds are the most common
contraband; the State Department estimates that two million to five
million wild birds, from hummingbirds to parrots to harpy eagles, are
traded illegally worldwide every year." Tigers
are a popular pet. An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 tigers (2013) are kept
in the United States. The range of numbers is due, in part, to the lack
of required reporting in some areas. For comparison, less than 400 of
these big cats are in U.S. zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos
and Aquariums and 3,200 live in the wild. Tropical fish, nonhuman primates, and other animals are also part of the illicit pet trade.
The U.S. has very strong natural animal and plan laws. Ivory is the
hardest thing to bring in the US.. You cannot buy pearls out of state
and bring them in. Most of the countries that have animal laws use the
template of CITES. If any animal has outside animal parts coming in, the
US will not import it.
Ineffective monitoring of international wildlife trade
The volume of international trade in wildlife commodities is immense and continue to rise. According to an analysis to the 2012 Harmonized System customs statistics,
global import of wildlife products amounted to US$187 billion, of which
fisheries commodities accounted for $113 billion; plants and forestries
for $71 billion; non-fishery animal for $3 billion.
However, the global trade of wildlife commodities is
ineffectively monitored and accounted for due to the constraint of the
current HS Code
System used by the customs worldwide. Majority of international imports
of wildlife are only recorded in general categories such as plant or
animal products with no further taxonomic detail (this is akin to
importing metals without recording their element identity e.g. copper or
iron). It is estimated that near 50% of the global import of plant and
70% of animals product are imported as general categories, with an
exception for fisheries (ca. 5%) thanks to various multilateral fishery
management agreements that requires taxon-specific fish catch reporting.
Furthermore, some frequently traded taxonomic groups including
amphibian and live coral are not accounted for at all due to the absence
of HS code.
Many jurisdictions relies on the declared HS Code of the
consignments for detection and prosecution of illegal wildlife import.
The lack of specificity of HS code precludes effective monitoring and
traceability of global wildlife trade. There is an increasing call for a
reform of the Harmonized System to strengthen monitoring and
enforcement of global wildlife trade.
Impact
Economic
Members of terrorist organizations and criminal organizations
illicitly traffic in hundreds of millions of plants and animals to fund
the purchase of weapons, finance civil conflicts, and launder money
from illicit sources. These often transnational efforts require a funding and a network of poachers, processors, smugglers, sellers, and buyers. Well armed, highly organized poaching activities, such as the murderous 2012 attacks in Chad and the Republic of Congo, have captured headlines. The appeal, in part, is the low risk of detection and punishment compared to drug trafficking. In addition, trafficking can reap significant profits for those leading such efforts.
For example, a single Ploughshare tortoise from Madagascar (there are
only 400 estimated left in the wild) can fetch US $24,000.
Elephant ivory, a commonly trafficked contraband, can sell for
little in the source country and can fetch high prices in destination
countries. Prices depend greatly on the source country and the product.
Ivory prices and demand have skyrocketed, making it a growing,
lucrative market. Globally, illegal ivory trade activity in 2014 is more
than double what it was in 2007. China is the largest importer of illegal ivory; the United States is second."According to reports from wildlife organization Save the Elephants, the price for raw ivory in China was $2,100 per kilogram." Between 2010 and 2012, up to 33,000 elephants were poached and killed on average each year.
Wildlife smuggling presents an economic cost to the countries where it
occurs, including lost tourism and development opportunities.
Health
The
spread of animal-borne disease affects both human health as well as
threatening indigenous wildlife and natural ecosystems. According to the
United States Government Accountability Office,
nearly 75% of emerging diseases that reach humans come from animals.
The link between wildlife trafficking and disease outbreak is
questioned, although outbreaks of certain diseases have suspected links
to smuggled animals.
Diseases believe to have originated and spread by wildlife smuggling
SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)
is caused by a virus and infects both humans and wildlife. Experts
suspect that the SARS virus originated in the China due to contact
between a civets (wildcats common in Chinese trade) and humans.
Avian flu (H5N1) is caused by a highly pathogenic virus. It can infect humans through contact with infected crested hawks and other wild birds, but can be transmitted by contact with poultry as well.
Monkeypox is an infectious disease found in Africa's wildlife that can spread to humans.
Ebola Virus
is a rare infectious disease that is transmitted from wild animals
(chimpanzees, monkeys, gorillas, fruit bats, etc.) to human populations.
The transmission of the virus usually occurs through consuming the
infected animals, close quarters, or bodily liquid contact.
Diseases linked to animal species that are targets of wildlife smuggling
Herpes B virus
is a virus found among macaque monkeys that can be transmitted by bites
or scratches to humans in extremely rare cases. If not treated soon
after exposure, severe brain damage or death can follow infection.
Salmonella infection can cause diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps. Infections have been linked to contact with turtles, bearded dragons and other reptiles.
Environmental
Wildlife
smuggling directly affects the biodiversity of different ecosystems.
Certain animals are in higher demand by smugglers, leading to a visible
decline of these species in their native habitats. Wildlife smuggling
may also cause the introduction of invasive and harmful species into an
ecosystem, which can endanger indigenous wildlife.
International control measures
Increasingly
interconnected globalization fosters international trade in a wide
diversity of products, extending even to exotic animal products. Traders
and consumers who still participate in the international exotic animal
market ignore the detrimental effects of depleting our environment and
ecosystem and instead give priority to individual consumer benefits,
such as monetary gains or high fashion. Some people and groups have realized these choices cannot be sustained or tolerated.
Many species are not protected until they are endangered, and
this delay in protection results in significant losses of biodiversity
in the ecosystem.
Legislation, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), serves to
regulate human environmental intervention on the international scale to
protect and preserve “species of fish, wildlife, and plants (that) have
been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened
with extinction” and their habitats and to hold those in violation of it
accountable.
As the international community increases efforts in monitoring and
controlling environmental damage, the United Nations aims to create more
protected habitats and ecosystems.
Wildlife trafficking is a rising international crisis that is not
only taking away animal rights but also threatening the world on global
environmental, social, and economic levels.
It’s contributing to an illegal economy and having detrimental effects
on humans’ well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic is suspected to have begun
in an exotic animal “wet market” in Wuhan, China.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) works along with international
treaties like Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES), aiming to combat transnational crimes and make joint efforts
for wildlife protection.
The penalties as a result of breaking these laws are fines as small as
$500 per violation and as large as $25,000 per violation or imprisonment
up to 6 months.
These laws are weakened by these limited penalties and extensive
exceptions. These exceptions include “scientific purposes or to enhance
the propagation or survival of the affected species…, undue economic
hardships…, and Pre-Act endangered species parts exemption; application
and certification; regulation; validity of sales contract;
separability; renewal of exemption; expiration of renewal
certification.”
Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking
The Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT) was established in 2005 by the U.S. State Department as a voluntary coalition of governments and organizations that aims to end the illegal trade of wildlife and wildlife products. CAWT currently includes six governments and thirteen international NGOs.
Their means of action include raising public awareness to curb demand,
strengthening international cross-border law enforcement to limit
supply, and endeavoring to mobilize political support from upper
echelons.
Association of Southeast Asian Nations Wild Enforcement Network
International trade of Australia's wildlife is regulated under Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The same act implements provisions of CITES and the UN Biodiversity
Convention in relation to imports of threatened biodiversity and
wildlife.
Ecuador
Latin America is vulnerable to wildlife smuggling because of its biodiversity. Ecuador
is known for its biodiversity. In northern Ecuador, the Yasuní National
Park and the surrounding Waorani Ethnic Reserve, which cover about
1,770 square miles, are home to around 4,000 species of plants; numerous
animals, including the giant river otter; more than 400 fish species;
and more than 500 species of birds. As a comparison, the United States is home to 900 species of birds. Commonly smuggled birds include the scarlet macaw; this colorful bird, with bright red, brilliant blue, yellow, and white feathers, is in high demand as a pet. Animals stolen in Latin America often end up in Europe, the United States, or Japan. Though there are laws against wildlife smuggling, the lack of resources causes conservation to be low in priority.
Ivory is a hard, white material from the tusks (traditionally elephants') and teeth of animals, that consists mainly of dentine,
one of the physical structures of teeth and tusks. The chemical
structure of the teeth and tusks of mammals is the same, regardless of
the species of origin. The trade in certain teeth and tusks other than
elephant is well established and widespread; therefore, "ivory" can
correctly be used to describe any mammalian teeth or tusks of commercial
interest which are large enough to be carved or scrimshawed.
Ivory has been valued since ancient times in art or manufacturing for making a range of items from ivory carvings to false teeth, piano keys, fans, dominoes and joint tubes. Elephant ivory is the most important source, but ivory from mammoth, walrus, hippopotamus, sperm whale, killer whale, narwhal and warthog are used as well. Elk also have two ivory teeth, which are believed to be the remnants of tusks from their ancestors.
Both the Greek and Roman
civilizations practiced ivory carving to make large quantities of high
value works of art, precious religious objects, and decorative boxes for
costly objects. Ivory was often used to form the white of the eyes of
statues.
There is some evidence of either whale or walrus ivory used by the ancient Irish. Solinus,
a Roman writer in the 3rd century claimed that the Celtic peoples in
Ireland would decorate their sword-hilts with the 'teeth of beasts that
swim in the sea'. Adomnan of Iona wrote a story about St Columba
giving a sword decorated with carved ivory as a gift that a penitent
would bring to his master so he could redeem himself from slavery.
The Syrian and North African elephant populations were reduced to extinction, probably due to the demand for ivory in the Classical world.
The Chinese have long valued ivory for both art and utilitarian
objects. Early reference to the Chinese export of ivory is recorded
after the Chinese explorerZhang Qian
ventured to the west to form alliances to enable the eventual free
movement of Chinese goods to the west; as early as the first century BC,
ivory was moved along the Northern Silk Road for consumption by western nations. Southeast Asian kingdoms included tusks of the Indian elephant in their
annual tribute caravans to China. Chinese craftsmen carved ivory to
make everything from images of deities to the pipe stems and end pieces
of opium pipes.
The Buddhist cultures of Southeast Asia, including Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia,
traditionally harvested ivory from their domesticated elephants. Ivory
was prized for containers due to its ability to keep an airtight seal.
It was also commonly carved into elaborate seals utilized by officials
to "sign" documents and decrees by stamping them with their unique
official seal.
In Southeast Asian countries, where Muslim Malay peoples live, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, ivory was the material of choice for making the handles of kris daggers.
In the Philippines, ivory was also used to craft the faces and hands of Catholic icons and images of saints prevalent in the Santero culture.
Tooth and tusk ivory can be carved into a vast variety of shapes and objects. Examples of modern carved ivory objects are okimono, netsukes, jewelry, flatware handles, furniture inlays, and piano keys. Additionally, warthog tusks, and teeth from sperm whales, orcas and hippos can also be scrimshawed or superficially carved, thus retaining their morphologically recognizable shapes.
Ivory usage in the last thirty years has moved towards mass
production of souvenirs and jewelry. In Japan, the increase in wealth
sparked consumption of solid ivory hanko – name seals – which before this time had been made of wood. These hanko
can be carved out in a matter of seconds using machinery and were
partly responsible for massive African elephant decline in the 1980s,
when the African elephant population went from 1.3 million to around
600,000 in ten years.
Prior to the introduction of plastics,
ivory had many ornamental and practical uses, mainly because of the
white color it presents when processed. It was formerly used to make
cutlery handles, billiard balls, piano keys, Scottish bagpipes, buttons and a wide range of ornamental items.
Synthetic substitutes for ivory in the use of most of these items
have been developed since 1800: the billiard industry challenged
inventors to come up with an alternative material that could be manufactured;[16]:17 the piano industry abandoned ivory as a key covering material in the 1970s.
Ivory can be taken from dead animals – however, most ivory came
from elephants that were killed for their tusks. For example, in 1930 to
acquire 40 tons of ivory required the killing of approximately 700
elephants.[17]
Other animals which are now endangered were also preyed upon, for
example, hippos, which have very hard white ivory prized for making
artificial teeth.[18]
In the first half of the 20th century, Kenyan elephant herds were
devastated because of demand for ivory, to be used for piano keys.[19]
During the Art Deco era from 1912 to 1940, dozens (if not hundreds) of European artists used ivory in the production of chryselephantine statues. Two of the most frequent users of ivory in their sculptured artworks were Ferdinand Preiss and Claire Colinet.[20]
Owing to the rapid decline in the populations of the animals that
produce it, the importation and sale of ivory in many countries is
banned or severely restricted. In the ten years preceding a decision in
1989 by CITES
to ban international trade in African elephant ivory, the population of
African elephants declined from 1.3 million to around 600,000. It was
found by investigators from the Environmental Investigation Agency
(EIA) that CITES sales of stockpiles from Singapore and Burundi (270
tonnes and 89.5 tonnes respectively) had created a system that increased
the value of ivory on the international market, thus rewarding
international smugglers and giving them the ability to control the trade
and continue smuggling new ivory.[14][15]
Since the ivory ban, some Southern African
countries have claimed their elephant populations are stable or
increasing, and argued that ivory sales would support their conservation
efforts. Other African countries oppose this position, stating that
renewed ivory trading puts their own elephant populations under greater
threat from poachers reacting to demand. CITES allowed the sale of 49 tonnes of ivory from Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana in 1997 to Japan.[21][22]
In 2007, under pressure from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, eBay
banned all international sales of elephant-ivory products. The decision
came after several mass slaughters of African elephants, most notably
the 2006 Zakouma elephant slaughter in Chad.
The IFAW found that up to 90% of the elephant-ivory transactions on
eBay violated their own wildlife policies and could potentially be
illegal. In October 2008, eBay expanded the ban, disallowing any sales
of ivory on eBay.
A more recent sale in 2008 of 108 tonnes from the three countries and South Africa took place to Japan and China.[23][24] The inclusion of China as an "approved" importing country created enormous controversy, despite being supported by CITES, the World Wide Fund for Nature and Traffic.[25]
They argued that China had controls in place and the sale might depress
prices. However, the price of ivory in China has skyrocketed.[26]
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,[27] and monopoly given to traders who bought stockpiles from Burundi and Singapore in the 1980s.
A 2019 peer-reviewed study reported that the rate of African
elephant poaching was in decline, with the annual poaching mortality
rate peaking at over 10% in 2011 and falling to below 4% by 2017.[28]
The study found that the "annual poaching rates in 53 sites strongly
correlate with proxies of ivory demand in the main Chinese markets,
whereas between-country and between-site variation is strongly
associated with indicators of corruption and poverty."[28]
Based on these findings, the study authors recommended action to both
reduce demand for ivory in China and other main markets and to decrease
corruption and poverty in Africa.[28]
In 2006, 19 African countries signed the "Accra Declaration"
calling for a total ivory trade ban, and 20 range states attended a
meeting in Kenya calling for a 20-year moratorium in 2007.[29]
Controversy and conservation issues
The use and trade of elephant ivory
have become controversial because they have contributed to seriously
declining elephant populations in many countries. It is estimated that
consumption in Great Britain alone in 1831 amounted to the deaths of
nearly 4,000 elephants. In 1975, the Asian elephant was placed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which prevents international trade between member states of species that are threatened by trade. The African elephant
was placed on Appendix I in January 1990. Since then, some southern
African countries have had their populations of elephants "downlisted"
to Appendix II, allowing the domestic trade of non-ivory items; there
have also been two "one off" sales of ivory stockpiles.[14][30][31][32][33]
In June 2015, more than a ton of confiscated ivory was crushed in New York's Times Square by the Wildlife Conservation Society to send a message that the illegal trade
will not be tolerated. The ivory, confiscated in New York and
Philadelphia, was sent up a conveyor belt into a rock crusher. The
Wildlife Conservation Society has pointed out that the global ivory
trade leads to the slaughter of up to 35,000 elephants a year in Africa.
In June 2018, Conservative MEPs’ Deputy Leader Jacqueline Foster MEP
urged the EU to follow the UK's lead and introduce a tougher ivory ban
across Europe.[34]
China was the biggest market for poached ivory but announced they
would phase out the legal domestic manufacture and sale of ivory
products in May 2015. In September of the same year, China and the U.S.
announced they would "enact a nearly complete ban on the import and
export of ivory."[35] The Chinese market has a high degree of influence on the elephant population.[36][37]
Alternative sources
Trade in the ivory from the tusks of dead woolly mammoths frozen in the tundra
has occurred for 300 years and continues to be legal. Mammoth ivory is
used today to make handcrafted knives and similar implements. Mammoth
ivory is rare and costly because mammoths have been extinct for
millennia, and scientists are hesitant to sell museum-worthy specimens
in pieces.[38] Some estimates suggest that 10 million mammoths are still buried in Siberia.[39]
Ivory has been traded for hundreds of years by people in Africa
and Asia, resulting in restrictions and bans. Ivory was formerly used
to make piano keys and other decorative items because of the white color
it presents when processed but the piano industry abandoned ivory as a
key covering material in the 1980s in favor of other materials such as plastic.
Elephant ivory
Ivory trade in Ghana, 1690
Elephant ivory has been exported from Africa and Asia for centuries with records going back to the 14th century BCE. Throughout the colonization 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.
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 colonization 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, jewelry and trinkets.
By the 1970s, 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 1942, the African elephant population has estimated to be around 1.3 million in 37 range states, but by 1989, only 600,000 remained.
Although many ivory traders 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. Activists such as Jim Nyamu have described current ivory prices for poached ivory and the dangers such activists face from organized poaching.
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).
Although poaching remains a concern in areas of Africa, it is not
the only threat for the elephants who roam its wilderness. Fences in
farmlands are becoming increasingly more common; this disrupts the
elephants' migration patterns and can cause herds to separate.
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. Ivory 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. Most[citation needed]
encounters between CITES officials and local bands of poachers erupted
in violent struggle, killing men and women on each side. 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
had none. The stockpiles were recognized 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 underfunded 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.
Despite these public revelations by the EIA, and 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, indicating the importance of the "lethal
use" principle of wildlife to WWF and CITES; even then, the group
attempted to water down decisions at the October 1989 meeting of CITES.
Men with ivory tusks from the African elephant, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tanzania, attempting to break down the ivory syndicates that it
recognized 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 entrepôts
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 tried to
appease these southern African states.
However, the so-called Somalia-Proposal, presented by the governmental
delegation of the Republic of Somalia, of which nature protection
specialist Prof. Julian Bauer was an official member, then broke the
stalemate and the elephant moratorium with its ban of elephant ivory
trade was adopted by the CITES delegates.
Finally at that 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,
seen by some governments and the WWF as a pattern for future
conservation. Conservationists and biologists hailed Zimbabwe's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) 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. Zimbabwe may have made the career of some
biologists, but it was not honest with its claims. The government argued
the ivory trade would fund conservation efforts, but revenues were
instead returned to the central treasury.
Its elephant census was accused of double counting elephants crossing
its border with Botswana by building artificial waterholes. 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.
More sinister was the alleged murder of a string of whistle-blowers,
including a Capt. Nleya, who claimed the ZNA was involved in rhinoceros
and elephant poaching in Mozambique. Nleya was found hanged at his army
barracks near Hwange National Park. The death was reported as suicide
by the army, but declared a murder by a magistrate. Nleya's widow was
reportedly later threatened by anonymous telephone calls.
The dispute over the ivory trade involves opposing sets of
perceived national interests. The debate is further complicated by the
many academic and policy disciplines at play, including biology, census
techniques, economics, international trade dynamics, conflict
resolution, and 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 bear 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 emphasized 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 the international ivory trade. Led by Zimbabwe's President Robert 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.
On November 16 2017, it was announced that US President Donald Trump had lifted a ban on ivory imports from Zimbabwe implemented by Barack Obama.
African voices
Ivory trade in East Africa during the 1880s and 1890s
The debate surrounding ivory trade has often been depicted as Africa versus the West.[citation needed]
The novel Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad,
describes the brutal ivory trade as a wild, senseless wielding of power
in support of the resource-hungry economic policies of European
imperialists, describing the situation in Congo between 1890 and 1910 as
"the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human
conscience."
However, 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.
Forty-nine 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 organization 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 seizing 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 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
containerized 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.
In 2014, Uganda said that it was investigating the theft of about
3,000 pounds of ivory from the vaults of its state-run wildlife
protection agency. Poaching is very much acute in central Africa, and is
said to have lost at least 60 percent of its elephants in the past
decade.
The rise of Asia, modern European trade and the modern poaching crisis
Esmond
Martin has said, "When the exchange restrictions imposed upon Japan
after the Second World War were lifted during the late 1960s, it began
importing huge amounts of raw ivory." Martin said that Chinese carvers
mainly sold ivory products to neighbors in the 1990s and not to internal
buyers in China: "These were supplying shops selling trinkets to
tourists and businessmen from Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore,
Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia, where the anti-ivory culture
wasn’t so strong, They were also exporting worked ivory wholesale to
neighbouring countries. The Chinese were buying some ivory products for
themselves, but only a small proportion."
Born Free Foundation CEO Will Travers said that, "Even if we
managed to close down all the unregulated markets around the world,
there would still be a demand for illegal ivory coming from countries
such as China and Japan."
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's State Council has announced that China is banning all ivory
trade and processing activities by the end of 2017. The commercial
processing and sale of ivory will stop by 31 March 2017.
The announcement was welcomed by conservation group WWF, who called it a
"historic announcement... signalling an end to the world's primary
legal ivory market and a major boost to international efforts to tackle
the elephant poaching crisis."
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. Illegal ivory continues to flow into Japan's ivory market,
but since 2012, the demand for ivory has decreased as a result of new
consumer awareness through education about the connection between buying
ivory and the killing of elephants.
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, which
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. A study funded by Save the Elephants showed than the price of ivory tripled in China during four years following 2011 when stockpile destruction of ivory became more popular. The same study concluded that this led to increased poaching.
A 2019 peer-reviewed study reported that the rate of African
elephant poaching was in decline, with the annual poaching mortality
rate peaking at over 10% in 2011 and falling to below 4% by 2017.
The study found that the "annual poaching rates in 53 sites strongly
correlate with proxies of ivory demand in the main Chinese markets,
whereas between-country and between-site variation is strongly
associated with indicators of corruption and poverty."
Based on these findings, the study authors recommended action to both
reduce demand for ivory in China and other main markets and to decrease
corruption and poverty in Africa.
In 2012, The New York Times reported on a large upsurge in ivory poaching, with about 70% flowing to China.
At the 2014 Tokyo Conference on Combating Wildlife crime, United
Nations University and ESRI presented the first case of evidence-based
policy-making maps on enforcement and compliance of CITES convention
where illegal ivory seizures were mapped out along with poaching
incidences.
The ivory trade has steadily been a reoccurring problem that
dwindled down the population of the African elephants and the white
rhino. In 2013, a single seizure in Guangzhou uncovered 1,913 tusks, the
product of nearly 1,000 dead animals.
In 2014, the Ugandan authorities had 1,355 kilograms (2,987 lb) of
ivory stored in a safe and guarded by police and the army, stolen. At a
value of over $1.1 million, it is definitely a cause for concern. This
loss was discovered during an audit of the Uganda Wildlife Authority,
which has led to an investigation of the ones who should have been
safeguarded that amount of ivory. As a result, five of the Wildlife
Authority staffers have been suspended so far.
Major centers of ivory trafficking in Vietnam include Mong Cai, Hai Phong and Da Nang. One of the major traffickers of illegal ivory from Togo is a Vietnamese, Dao Van Bien. A 22-month sentence was imposed.
In terms of retail trade of elephant ivory, Hong Kong is the largest
market in the world, and has been criticised for fueling the slaughter
of elephants to meet the demand of customers principally from mainland
China. A 101 East
report named Hong Kong as "one of the biggest ivory laundering centres
in the world [where] legitimate operations are used to mask a far more
sinister, more lucrative business".
95 kilograms (209 lb) of elephant ivory was confiscated at Charles de
Gaulle Airport in Paris from two Vietnamese who were arrested by French
customs.
The Philippines is a major center of the ivory trade with the Philippines priest Monsignor Cristobal Garcia implicated by National Geographic in a scandal over his involvement in the trade.
African elephants ivory has entered Thailand's Asian elephant ivory market.
Massive amounts of ivory are still being imported by Japan.
In 2018, a study by Avaaz sponsored by Oxford University
indicated that legal antique ivory trading in the European Union
continues to fuel the poaching of elephants. It is believed that a
legal loophole that allows for the trading of old ivory masks the sale
of items made of ivory from more recently killed elephants.
As a source of terrorism funding
Claims of a link between terrorism
and the ivory trade have been made by a number of public officials and
media outlets. NGO reports cited an anonymous source within the militant
organization Al-Shabaab
who claimed that the group engaged in the trafficking of ivory. The
claim that Al-Shabaab received up to 40% of its funding from the sale of
elephant ivory gained further attention following the 2013 Westgate shopping mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya.
However, a report published jointly by Interpol and the United Nations Environment Programme described these claims as unreliable. According to the report, Al-Shabaab's primary income was from informal taxation and the trade in charcoal, a significant source of deforestation.
It is possible that some Somali poachers paid taxes to Al-Shabaab while
smuggling ivory through their territory, representing only a small
portion of the group's total income.
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.
London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade
The London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade
was held on 12 and 13 February 2014. The purpose of this conference was
to recognize "the significant scale and detrimental economic, social
and environmental consequences of the illegal trade in wildlife, make
the following political commitment and call upon the international
community to act together to bring this to an end."
One of the main concerns of the conference was specifically on
reevaluating the measures already in place to protect African elephants
and the illegal trade of their ivory. While 46 countries signed this
agreement, it was reported in 2015 by The Guardian that the elephant
poaching crisis was still unimproved. One such article reported "William Hague
said the deal would “mark the turning point in the fight to save
endangered species and to end the illegal wildlife trade”. But wildlife
experts and the UK government said on Monday it was too early to judge
the effectiveness of the accord."
On 6 October 2017, the UK government announced plans to ban the sales and exportation of ivory in areas of the United Kingdom.
2018 UK Ivory Act
On 20 December 2018, the UK Ivory Act 2018, received Royal Assent after being passed by the British parliament. The Act extends the elephant ivory ban to include hippos, walruses, and narwhals. The ban, which will go into effect in late 2019,
has been described one of the "world's toughest" ivory bans and
effectively bans the buying and selling of all available form of ivory
in the UK.
Trade in walrus ivory has taken place for hundreds of years in large
regions of the northern hemisphere, involving such groups as the Norse,
Russians, other Europeans, the Inuit, 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 moved from Greenland to
international markets.
In the 1600s, 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
Engraved mammoth tusk
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 Siberia became part of Russia.
In the early 19th century mammoth ivory was used, as substantial
source, for such products as piano keys, billiard balls, and ornamental
boxes.
