Ivory traders, c. 1912
The ivory trade is the commercial, often illegal trade in the ivory tusks of the hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal, mammoth, and most commonly, African and Asian elephants.
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.
Vientiane, Laos, is a major venue for Chinese tourists looking to circumvent Chinese restrictions on the sale of ivory. The sale of ivory is done openly, including at San Jiang Market, in the Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone, and in Luang Prabang Province.
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.
Walrus ivory
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.
.jpg)
.svg)
