Ivory Trade

Discussion on Elephant Management and poaching topics
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Lisbeth »

Image

BY ZHANG HUI - 3 JANUARY 2018 - GLOBAL TIMES

Image
An exhibition of ivory products smuggled from Japan into China seized by customs in Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province.Photo: VCG

Japan’s ivory market caters unabated to Chinese clients due to absence of regulations (Japan/China)

As animal rights activists around the world applaud China’s announcement this past weekend that it would officially ban all ivory products from being sold in the country, another disturbing trend – ivory illegally exported into China from Japan – has raised concerns about the continued demand for this rare product.

A report released in December, 2017 by wildlife conservation organization TRAFFIC revealed that Japan’s absence of any effective regulations against ivory has allowed ivory products to be routinely purchased by Chinese visitors and agents, most whom use the opportunity to illegally export the goods for later resale in China.

Between 2011 and 2016, the export of ivory out of Japan resulted in at least 2.42 tons of illegal ivory being seized by Chinese customs, while seized Japanese ivory commodities into China during that same time represented 95 percent of all illegal exports by weight, according to the report.

“If this situation continues, it will undermine the enforcement of China’s new ivory ban,” Zhou Fei, head of TRAFFIC’s China Office and the Wildlife Trade Programme of the WWF China, told the Global Times.

In China, an illegal ivory products retailer contacted by the Global Times via Chinese social media claimed Japan as the origin of his raw ivory. Despite the new ban prohibiting all commercial ivory processing and trade in China, which took effect Sunday, this retailer openly and brazenly advertised his ivory products on social media with seemingly little concern.

While urging Japan to follow suit to shut down its domestic ivory products market, animal welfare activists believe that only a combined effort from all nations, both developed and undeveloped, will effectively reduce elephant poaching, which claims the lives of at least 30,000 elephants every year.

Japanese markets

Image
A Shijiazhuang customs officer inspects smuggled ivory commodities from Japan. Photo: VCG

TRAFFIC’s researchers conducted covert interviews with ivory vendors in antiques outlets and tourist areas in the Japanese cities of Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto between May and September of 2017.

Many vendors interviewed said that the Chinese are their primary customers and that they are often agents with the intention of procuring ivory products for clients back in the Chinese mainland, according to the report “Ivory Towers: An Assessment of Japan’s Ivory Trade and Domestic Market.”

In describing those Chinese buyers, the Japanese vendors said that they use cellphones to communicate with clients back in China before negotiating a price. Oftentimes the Chinese agents will simply buy up every ivory product in the store.

One Chinese college student surnamed Chen, who has lived in Japan for the past five years, told the Global Times that ivory products, including seals, chopsticks and necklaces, can easily be bought in any Japanese shop selling such products.

Zhou said that there is evidence that the Japanese market contributes to ivory smuggling to China, and the survey found that 73 percent of Japanese vendors interviewed encouraged illegal ivory exports by suggesting methods to hide smaller ivory items in one’s luggage.

One Japanese antiques dealer told TRAFFIC that ivory can be easily smuggled into the Chinese mainland via the Hong Kong border or Shanghai, where customs inspections and law enforcement are supposedly more lax.

Previous cases dealt with by Chinese authorities revealed that criminal syndicates operating between Japan and China are heavily involved in the illegal ivory trade.

The largest seizure of ivory was made in China in 2015, when Beijing Forest Police caught 16 suspects trafficking over 800 kilograms of raw ivory from Japan via Hong Kong and Shenzhen, the Beijing News reported.

Based on media reports of illegal ivory trafficking cases from Japan into China over the past five years, the Global Times found that most ivory products were smuggled via sea or postal parcels.

In one recent case, the Guangzhou Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau in South China’s Guangdong Province intercepted 5 kilograms of raw ivory in a postal package sent from Japan, Nanfang Daily reported on December 24.

“Japan’s domestic ivory market shrunk after the emperor’s appeal on demand reduction a decade ago, but the market turned active again in recent years due to a growing demand from China,” Zhou said.

According to Zhou, Japanese consumers prefer ivory seals, chopsticks and accessories for their kimono (traditional Japanese garment used for ceremonies). But Japan’s ivory market in recent years has also been selling an increasing number of ivory bracelets, necklaces and Buddha or Guan Yin pendants, which are popular in the Chinese market, not the Japanese domestic market.

According to a separate survey conducted by WWF and TRAFFIC in 2017, 19 percent of 2,000 respondents in China said that they “still plan to purchase ivory products” after the ban takes effect.

Rampant e-business

A simple search for ivory products on Yahoo Japan’s shopping page generated over 58,300 results Tuesday, with most being ivory seals or carved works featuring Buddhism symbols.

Those products were priced between 1,000 and 50,000 Japanese yen ($8 to 443). Meanwhile, over 5,000 pieces of ivory commodities were auctioned on Yahoo Japan’s popular auction page.

One Japanese owner of an ivory products shop on Yahoo Japan told the Global Times reporter (posing as a prospective customer) Tuesday that Chinese customers often buy products from him, but it has become difficult to mail them to China following the ban.

The owner suggested Chinese clients simply travel to his store, located in Japan’s Yamanashi Prefecture, 120 kilometers away from Tokyo.

Yahoo Japan’s auction page continues to draw the ire of global animal activists, who believe the site abounds with unscrupulous traders of poached ivory and other illegal endangered wildlife products, Reuters reported in January 2017.

Ivory products are also available on other popular Japanese e-commerce platforms including amazon.co.jp. Chinese media revealed several cases in recent years involving ivory purchased on these Japanese e-commerce sites.

The Global Times found that, even after the new ban, illegal trade still exists between Japan and China, albeit slightly more covertly. Sellers on WeChat now use the keyword “xy” (the primary letters of Xiangya (“ivory”) in Chinese Pinyin, or the words Duanmao (“short hair”), distinguishing it from “long hair” for extinct mammoth ivory, which is legal.

A Chinese ivory products seller surnamed Chen in East China’s Fujian Province claimed that his ivory products were from Africa and Japan. He operates two WeChat accounts and two QQ accounts to conduct his illegal ivory trade, with one account used as a backup if the other is discovered by authorities.

Chen sells ivory Guan Yin (the Chinese goddess of mercy) pendants for 450 yuan each, and told the undercover Global Times reporter that his products can easily be sent to Beijing via express delivery, which is not inspected by postal authorities.

“It will be safe, as the authorities do not bother to check each delivery package, and I’ve done this many times,” Chen said.

According to Zhou, ivory products in China have long been viewed as exquisite status symbols, and ivory carvings dating back to ancient times were an integral part of traditional Chinese culture and arts.

“Ivory carvings included in the Intangible Culture Heritage Conservation in 2006 stimulated the demand of ivory in China,” Zhou explained.

Zhou said that the rampant illegal online ivory trade cannot be solved overnight following the ban, but Chinese authorities and wildlife conservation groups have made efforts to cooperate with social media and other online platforms on cracking down illegal trade.

In November of 2017, Chinese internet giants Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent along with eight other internet companies formed an unprecedented alliance to crack down on illegal online trading of any endangered wildlife products.

The alliance vowed to delete sales advertisements, close accounts and report the suspected accounts to the Forest Police for investigation, according to Zhou.

It’s all up to Japan

In the meantime, TRAFFIC is calling for the complete closure of Japan’s domestic ivory market.

“To crack down on elephant poaching requires global collaboration. Chinese tourists may continue to buy ivory products in Japan and other countries if those countries fail to shut down their ivory markets,” Zhou said.

Sadly, the ivory trade issue has become a kind of political game between developed and developing countries. Western countries have often criticized developing countries such as China for encouraging elephant poaching. However, TRAFFIC reports conducted in the US and UK found that illegal ivory trade thrives in those countries as well.

The US recently introduced new rules to ban ivory trade between different states, and the UK is expected to announce next month stricter measures to curtail domestic ivory trade. However, Japan is still home to one of the world’s largest domestic ivory markets, which may render all those efforts inadequate.

Lax law enforcement and gaping loopholes in Japanese regulations of its ivory trade continue to contribute to widespread illegal exports.

Concerns over Japan’s ivory market have led to a joint criticism from four African countries during a meeting of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which is also known as the Washington Convention in November 2017, the Japan Times reported.

To its credit, Japan’s Ministry of Environment launched a campaign in August of 2017 to promote the voluntary registration of privately-held ivory tusks.

But TRAFFIC’s report pointed out that, without mandatory registration and an effective and traceable marking system, the new measure is unlikely to address the problem of illegal ivory exports from Japan.

Read original article: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1083140.shtml


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Flutterby
Posts: 44150
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:28 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Gauteng, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Flutterby »

There's always someone to feed the demand! :evil:


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Lisbeth »

Image


Revealed: Illegal ivory openly traded in Britain on auction and social media sites as pressure grows for total sales ban

BY CAHAL MILMO - 21 JANUARY 2018 - INEWS

Image
In 1979, it was estimated that there were 1.3m elephants in Africa. Today that figure is reduced to about 415,000 – with 110,000 slaughtered since 2006. Researchers have found evidence that large quantities of potentially illegal ivory are nonetheless being traded on internet sites in Britain. (Photo: Getty)

Illegal ivory is being openly traded on internet auction and social media sites in Britain as criminals “launder” poached elephant tusk products by selling online, conservation experts have warned.

Dozens of items carved from elephant tusks are being offered for sale online on a daily basis by sellers based in countries including Britain as organised crime gangs target the remaining markets where ivory can still be sold legally as antique.

Smokescreen

The introduction by China this month of a complete ban on all ivory sales has increased pressure on Britain and other EU countries to bring in their own blanket prohibition to prevent existing legitimate commercial trade being used as a smokescreen for poached ivory. The Government has said it expects to bring forward such a ban later this year.

Researchers have found evidence that in the meantime the illegal trade – part of a global illicit wildlife trade worth up to $26.5bn (£19.6bn) – is flourishing. More than 20,000 elephants a year are still being slaughtered by poachers in Africa. A study by the University of Kent found that barely any ivory or other illegal wildlife products are being sold via the so-called darknet, where there is a flourishing criminal market in drugs and firearms.

Auction Sites

Instead, the researchers found that ivory is being sold openly on conventional auction sites, including eBay. Traders are exploiting complex rules which are meant to restrict the trade in Britain to pre-1947 “antiques” but can act as a cover for the sale of items fashioned from poached elephant tusks.

Despite perfecting a prototype software system which can pinpoint potentially illegal ivory with 93 per cent accuracy, the University of Kent team have been told by law enforcement agencies and wildlife protection groups that they cannot afford to fund its deployment on the frontline.

As a result, campaigners and researchers have warned that sellers of illegal ivory are trading with a worrying degree of impunity on the “surface” web, often by misdescribing recent ivory as antique. In some cases, sellers have been found trying to sell “raw” or whole elephant tusks.

‘Impunity’

Dr David Roberts, a conservation scientist at the University of Kent and co-author of the study into illegally traded wildlife, said: “The surface web is being used by criminals because they have found they can trade there for the most part with impunity. Unlike those selling drugs or guns, they don’t feel they have to move to the darknet. “What is frustrating is that tackling this online trade does not seem to be priority. It falls between boots-on-the-ground enforcement against poaching in Africa and reduction of demand in south east Asia. We have had enforcement agencies and campaign groups say they would like to have our software as an enforcement tool but they don’t have the funding to progress it further.”

[img]https://conservationaction.co.za/wp-con ... 60x474.jpg[/img
The burning of an estimated 105 tonnes of Elephant tusks confiscated ivory from smugglers and poachers at the Nairobi National Park near Nairobi, Kenya (Photo: Reuters)

Rather than blatantly advertising items as “elephant ivory”, online traders use alternative keywords recognised by buyers, at least some of whom are likely to know that they may be purchasing illicit items.

Keywords

Using these keywords the i was able to find four potentially illegal elephant ivory figures for sale on eBay, which has a policy of not allowing the sale of any elephant ivory products. Three of the items, which experts confirmed were genuine ivory, were being offered by UK-based sellers while another was being sold in the United States, which last year brought in its own blanket ban on all ivory sales. The i has agreed not to disclose the search terms used by the ivory sellers.

The trade highlights the difficulty in distinguishing between legal antique ivory and products which are advertised as antique but are in reality recent poached ivory. The only reliable method of telling the age of ivory – carbon dating – costs around £400 per test.

EBay has been one of the leading advocates of a complete ban on commercial ivory sales in the EU and has trained staff in how to pinpoint items. The company said it last year removed more than 25,000 listings for illegal wildlife goods after working with conservation body the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

In a statement, eBay said: “We work with conservation groups including IFAW and go beyond legal requirements to restrict the sale of ivory products on our marketplace. The eBay Trust and Safety Team scour the site each day to take action on any items of concern, for example when an item is listed maliciously.”

Poachers and Traffickers

Conservationists warn that Britain and EU countries find themselves as potential conduits for illegal ivory because they are currently the largest exporters of legal ivory products. A total of 2,242 elephant tusks and more than 44,000 ivory products were legally exported from the EU in the decade to 2015 and Britain, which granted licences for 36,000 items between 2010 and 2015, is by far the largest supplier.

Will Travers, co-founder of the Born Free wildlife charity, said: “The presence of this large legal trade in ivory products to, within and from the EU stimulates global demand and provides poachers and traffickers with a mechanism by which illegal ivory from recently-killed elephants can be laundered into the trade.”

Britain is due to host an international conference in October on measures to curb the illegal wildlife trade.

Why is Britain the world’s biggest exporter of legal ivory?

Britain’s colonial history helps to put it in an unique – and increasingly unenviable – position as the world’s largest exporter of legal ivory.

Hundreds of thousands of items brought into Britain during the days of empire, and then throughout the post-war period due to close links with former colonies in Africa and Asia, mean the UK is awash with ivory often described by sellers as “antique”.
The London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) revealed last year that Britain issued export licences for more than 36,000 legal ivory items between 2010 and 2015. The figure is more than three times that of next largest exporter, the United States (9,824).

Britain was also by the far largest exporter to the China and Hong Kong with 13,056 items destined to the two countries, which until they announced their own bans on all ivory trade were also among the biggest destinations for illegal poached ivory. The bans in the Far East (China introduced its prohibition this month and Hong Kong, home to the world’s largest ivory retail market, is due to follow by 2022) leave Britain and other European countries in the position of being the only remaining sizable traders to still allow a commercial ivory trade.

Mary Rice, EIA executive director, said: “As well as fuelling demand for ivory, the UK’s legal trade provides opportunities for the laundering of illegal ivory, both within the country and internationally.” Britain is expected to announce its own ban on commercial ivory trade, subject to a small number of exceptions, later this year.

Read original article: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/revealed-il ... sales-ban/


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Hong Kong’s hippo teeth trade bigger, more harmful than realized

Post by Lisbeth »

Outrage as 12,500 hippo teeth go on sale for ‘ivory’ markets (Tanzania)

Image

BY STUART WINTER - 26 JANUARY 2018 -

Bidders are lining up to buy from the 3.5 tonne stockpile when it goes under the hammer this Monday in a sale announced by the Tanzanian authorities.

Yet while officials in the capital, Dar es Salaam, say the auction will be supervised by the country’s ministry of finance planning, wildlife protection groups are warning it could put the iconic “water horse” under serious threat.

Hippos are already classified as Vulnerable on the Red List of threatened species, with numbers ranging between 115,000-130,000 across 29 African states.

This represents little more than a quarter of Africa’s 400,000 elephant population, creatures whose horrific poaching for the Far East ivory markets has seen them become totems for global wildlife protection.

Image
The impending auction of 12,500 hippo teeth has been condemned

Hippos are already threatened because of habitat loss and for their meat, and by putting a price on their tusk-like teeth, there are fears they will be targeted by poachers with guns and traps looking for easy money.

Will Travers OBE, president and co-founder of the Born Free Foundation, warned: “As the world moves towards tackling elephant poaching and the illegal global ivory trade by closing domestic ivory markets, we must keep our eye on the ball and ensure that other ivory-bearing species such as hippo are afforded effective protection.

“We urge Michael Gove to introduce a total ban on all ivory sales and to prohibit the import and export of ivory for sale to and from the UK.

“We further urge the UK Government and the international community to support measures to conserve all ivory-bearing species that are increasingly impacted by the wildlife trade, without delay.

“Saving elephants but losing hippos is not an option – not on our watch.”

The International Union for Conservation of Nature says the primary threats to hippos are “habitat loss or degradation and illegal and unregulated hunting for meat and ivory (found in the canine teeth).”

Demands for hippo teeth increased rapidly when the international ban on elephant ivory came into effect in 1989.

Like elephants’ tusks, hippo teeth are hard wearing and can be worked into curios and ornaments, but they command lower prices because they can be sold legally in many countries.

Illicit hippo teeth are also far easier to smuggle and a recent academic paper highlighted the disparities in declared volumes arriving in Hong Kong than shipped out from Uganda and Tanzania.

Researchers warned that more than 14 tonnes of hippo teeth was unaccounted for between Uganda and Hong Kong, equivalent to 2,700 individual hippos or two per cent of the global population.

Since 1975, more than 770 tonnes of hippo teeth have been sold, according to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the bulk from Tanzania and Uganda.

James Wakibara, acting director general of the Tanzania Wildlife Authority (TAWA), said the auction will be held in collaboration with the country’s natural resources and tourism ministry and supervised by the finance planning ministry.

Read original article: https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/9 ... -es-Salaam


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Lisbeth »

Australia crushes ivory in symbolic protest

2018-03-07 10:31 - Fiona Gordon

"The only value ivory has is on a living elephant," said Karen Pomeranz as she handed in six 20-year-old napkin rings to be crushed.

"I was never comfortable owning ivory items. I’m glad they’re gone."

She was one of many who added their ivory possessions to 100kg of illegal ivory donated by the government to be crushed in Melbourne, Australia, on World Wildlife Day last Saturday, 3 March. Items donated included bangles, earrings, necklaces, rings, little carvings and ornaments, chess pieces, some ivory handled cutlery and several bangles suspected to be rhinoceros horn.

In support of the crush, Federal MP Jason Wood called for a ban on the ivory trade. Australia’s market, he said, was "unregulated, with no requirements of evidence of a product's origin, import history or age."

"I believe that, as a nation, we need to completely close Australia's market for ivory and rhino horn. That's why I'm calling for an Australian trade ban which prohibits the domestic commercial trading of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn."

The former Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Rt. Hon Helen Clark, said destroying ivory and rhinoceros horn products sent "a powerful signal that trade in these items is abhorrent and must stop if elephant and rhino species are to survive. The illicit trade is fuelling corruption and conflict, wrecking lives and deepening poverty and inequality."

The event follows China’s closure of its ivory trade and Hong Kong’s decision to follow suit. Between 2010 and 2016, Australian authorities seized around 430 items suspected to contain elephant and rhinoceros parts. However no prosecutions or fines under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act relating to these confiscations have been reported.

Among high profile Australian and international celebrities showing support for the event and for calls to end the ivory and rhino horn trade were fashion designer Collette Dinnigan, ethical philosopher Peter Singer, the president of the Born Free Foundation, Will Travers and celebrated Australian actor Asher Keddie.

"Obeying the old rules is no longer good enough for elephants and rhinos," said Singer. "The animals need more from us to ensure their survival. [We need to] think of them as individuals with lives of their own to live and choose not to buy their body parts."

Lending his support to the crush, Travers said he had "stood beside the bodies of poached elephants and rhinos. Masses of stinking, rotting flesh staining the wild African earth. Wasted lives."

"No one needs ivory or rhino horn, whether they are in Australia or any other country – only those who want to make a killing. Lives or elephants and rhinos are priceless. Their death robs us all. End it now."

Donalea Patman, founder of For the Love of Wildlife and host of Melbourne Crush, said she hoped the event would persuade the Australian government to ban the domestic trade of ivory and rhinoceros horn.

"The trade is banned internationally but if we’re to really stop poachers and traffickers we need to prohibit commercial trading inside Australia," she said.

(Source: Conservation Action Trust)


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Lisbeth »

Sale of ivory to be banned in the UK as part of government plan to help protect elephants

BY BENJAMIN KENTISH - 2 APRIL 2018 - THE INDEPENDENT

Image
© Don Pinnock

The trade of items made from ivory will be banned in the UK in a bid to help protect elephants, ministers have announced.

The ban, which the government said will be the toughest in Europe and one of the toughest in the world, will cover items of any age, not just those containing new ivory.

Under plans announced by the environment secretary, Michael Gove, anyone who continues to illegally trade ivory will face an unlimited fine or a jail sentence of up to five years.

The ivory trade is a major cause of declining numbers of wild elephants, as poachers continue to hunt endangered species for their valuable tusks.

The number of wild elephants has dropped by almost a third in the last decade alone and around 20,000 are still being slaughtered for their tusks each year.

The international trade in illegal ivory is estimated to be worth £17bn each year.

It is unclear when the UK ban will come into effect but government sources said the legislation will be placed before parliament as soon as possible.

The move follows a wide consultation on making the trade in ivory illegal, with 88 per cent of respondents saying they supported a ban.

Announcing the policy, Mr Gove said: “Ivory should never be seen as a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol, so we will introduce one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales to protect elephants for future generations.

“The ban on ivory sales we will bring into law will reaffirm the UK’s global leadership on this critical issue, demonstrating our belief that the abhorrent ivory trade should become a thing of the past.”

Several types of ivory item will be exempted from the ban, including those that were made before 1947 and contain less than 10 per cent of the substance.

Musical instruments that were made before 1975 and contain less than 20 per cent ivory will also be allowed to be traded, as will antique items that are especially rare. Museums will be allowed to buy and sell ivory items.

The ban is the latest in a string of environmentally friendly policies announced by Mr Gove’s department.

It has banned plastic microbeads and pesticides harmful to bees, announced plans to introduce a bottle deposit scheme and a new “Northern Forest”, made CCTV compulsory in slaughterhouses, made plans to reintroduce beavers in some areas and pledged to abolish all plastic waste by 2040.

The Conservatives hope a focus on environmental policies will help win back the support of younger voters.

Other countries have already banned the trade in ivory, but many allow older items to be bought and sold.

In the US, for example, ivory items that are more than 100 years old can still be traded, as can those that contain up to 50 per cent of the substance.

Trade in raw ivory is already illegal in the UK but buying and selling items made from the substance is largely unrestricted providing they were made before 3 March 1947. Any made after this date require a certificate before they can be traded.

UK government ministers recently called for all EU member states to ban the commercial trade in raw ivory within the EU. The bloc is currently consulting on what further action it could take to reduce the trade.

The announcement of a UK-wide ban was welcomed by animal rights campaigners, but some warned that more action is needed.

Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF, said: “Around 55 African elephants are killed for their ivory a day, their tusks turned into carvings and trinkets. This ban makes the UK a global leader in tackling this bloody trade and it’s something WWF has been fighting hard for.

“But if we want to stop the poaching of this majestic animal, we need global action. We hope the UK will continue to press countries where the biggest ivory markets are, most of which are in Asia, to shut down their trade too.”

Matthew Hatchwell, director of conservation at the Zoological Society of London, said: “Legal domestic ivory markets are intrinsically linked to the illegal ivory trade that is driving the current poaching crisis. With almost 20,000 elephants poached in the last year, it is vital that countries take significant steps such as those outlined by the UK government today to close their markets and help make the trade in ivory a thing of the past.

“No one in the UK today would dream of wearing a tiger-skin coat. Thanks to this move, in a few years’ time we believe the same will be true for the trade in ivory.”

Read original article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 85511.html


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Lisbeth »

UK, Vietnam to ban their domestic ivory trade

2018-04-04 10:29 - Gabi Zietsman

This week Vietnam and the UK have both announced that they will be imposing stricter ivory trade bans on Tuesday.

Taiwan will commence a total ban on the ivory trade in 2020 and ivory owners will only be allowed to keep their products if they have documentation that proves it has been legally acquired, reports Focus Taiwan. The country so far has allowed local art dealers and seal makers a transitional period where supervised trading can occur.

With the drop in ivory demand and an increase in conservation awareness in the country, the government has decided to implement a full ban on the trade.

UK ban 'toughest in the world'

The UK's ban will be one the of the toughest in the world, including banning the trade of ivory of any age. The ban is still to be signed into law, but has the support of more than 70 000 people who were consulted on the proposed ban.

Previously, ivory that's proven to be produced before 1947 were exempt from the ban, but now any trading, besides limited exceptions, can come with either five years in jail or an unlimited fine, making the ban tougher than that of China and the US.

The limited exceptions will include:

- Items made up of less than 10% ivory and produced before 1947;
- Musical instruments made up of less than 20% ivory and made before 1975;
- Rare or important items that are at least 100 years old will be allowed only after being assessed by approved experts, as well as
- portrait miniatures painted on thin ivory bases;
- Commercial trade between accredited museums.

"The ban on ivory sales we will bring into law will reaffirm the UK’s global leadership on this critical issue, demonstrating our belief that the abhorrent ivory trade should become a thing of the past," says Michael Gove, the UK's environment secretary.

The US federal ban exempts all items older than 100 years as well as items with up to 50% ivory content. The Chinese ban exempts ivory 'relics', without setting a date before which these must have been produced.

CEO of Trusk Trust also weighed in on the ban. "The narrowly defined exemptions are pragmatic. The ban will ensure there is no value for modern-day ivory and the tusks of recently poached elephants cannot enter the UK market."

WWF's CEO Tanya Steele also hopes the UK will lead the global fight. "But if we want to stop the poaching of this majestic animal, we need global action. We hope the UK will continue to press countries where the biggest ivory markets are, most of which are in Asia, to shut down their trade too."

Ivory trade in South Africa

South Africa has ivory stockpiles and the government has been a strong proponent of selling their stockpiles to Asia in big one-off sales, despite the ban on international trade. Domestic trade in ivory is allowed with permits and regulated by the Department of Environmental Affairs.

The country has also been identified as 'secondary concern' for the illegal trade in ivory by CITES' national ivory action plans, although CITES remains lenient on South Africa.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Lisbeth »

Image

The Real Ivory Game

BY KARL AMMANN - 17 APRIL 2018 - DAILY MAVERICK

Image
Ivory for sale in a shop in Vientiane, Laos.

China’s new domestic ban on the ivory trade presents all the makings of an excellent global public-relations exercise. But it is a meaningless move in a country where enforcement against wildlife crimes is often just another exercise in window-dressing and lip service.

One morning in December, I woke up to a news item on television featuring another Donald Trump Twitter statement — this time saying that China had been caught red-handed sidestepping the United Nations embargo on North Korea with ship-to-ship transfers of oil products on the high seas. It felt like déjà vu — certainly in the context of the rules and regulations associated with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), also a UN body meant to control illegal international trade.

Image
A smuggler pushes his wares around an illegal border crossing.

Of course, the pattern of non-compliance to the convention is not restricted to China, but involves a wide range of parties.

At the end of 2017, China declared that it had closed down the domestic legal trade in ivory. Conservation-establishment players did victory laps, lauding the move as a major step in curtailing elephant poaching. The news website China.org featured an article entitled: “More efforts are needed to stamp out the ivory trade”, announcing that China had now done its bit and that it was up to the international community to follow suit.

Whenever I am at home and receive my daily Google updates on wildlife-trade issues, there are now enough of these announcements out there to give me the feeling that maybe something is indeed changing. That the world is finally taking the ivory issue seriously, a view reinforced by NGO-generated press releases that deal with enforcement issues and tales of success.

Then it is off on one of my usual gigs, packing the obligatory bag to do some filming and investigative work in regions like West Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia — which generally results in a serious reality check.

Reality bites particularly hard in the context of China; that country’s funnel effect in sucking up the planet’s biodiversity; as well as the control measures supposedly in place to curb the fallout. The Asian juggernaut clearly leads the demand for products coming from high-profile, protected species, but also from the more low-key victims: seahorses, starfish, sea cucumbers, turtles, abalone and so on.

To report on trends intended to counteract this global momentum, most items in the news feature what are obviously opportunistic, rather than systematically effective, enforcement activities against the illegal trade. On my trips, I regularly visit border enclaves controlled by Chinese nationals — in places like Laos and Myanmar — and habitually witness a complete lack of control. I see tons of illegal wildlife products for sale. The key clientèle are Han Chinese, who eventually take most items back into China.

Image
A Chinese-owned shop in Laos advertising ivory products.

After checking into a flight from Hanoi, Vietnam, to Guangzhou, China, we actually filmed a couple in the departure hall — the wife retrieving from her purse a collection of ivory items to admire and try on. She had clearly just purchased them.

Image
A Chinese traveller admires her new illegal jewellery with obvious delight before embarking on a flight to Guangzhou, China.

We followed her through customs in Guangzhou. No sign of any control. No sign of any sniffer dogs like those that have now appeared at several airports in Africa — Nairobi, Entebbe and then some.

There appears to be no law in China restricting the ownership of illegal wildlife products. As long as a buyer or seller is not caught in the act of a commercial transaction, there seems to be zero problem in openly displaying these items as status symbols, the likes of which now drive most of this market.

Image
Legal ivory for sale in China. Its authentication certificate 
is on display.

I hear tales from local operatives I have worked with regularly, in tourist spots like Luang Prabang in Laos and Mong Lah in Myanmar, stating that Chinese nationals are either buying up or leasing shop premises that flaunt ivory, rhino horn and tiger-bone jewellery and other wildlife products as display highlights.

These shops also display the usual WeChat link — the Chinese alternative to WhatsApp — and the offer of free internet access, so that the folks back home can also be shown bargain items and place additional orders via their phones.

Ever since China announced about 18 months ago that it would eventually close its legal domestic ivory trade, there has been a constant stream of news items that this would be a game-changer.

It is a fantastic public-relations bandwagon — with a litany of NGOs and even filmmakers taking credit for this development.

At no point have I seen any writer comparing this development with so-called accolades like China outlawing the domestic trade in rhino horn in 1993. Since that watershed moment, poaching pressure on rhinos has increased exponentially, and more money than ever before is being poured into trying to protect Africa’s last rhinos. What does this say about the domestic legislation, devoid of the necessary enforcement to make the difference?

According to Esmond Bradley Martin — the renowned rhino horn-trade researcher and then-UN rhino ambassador who was murdered in Nairobi in February — various authorities in China had held some 10 tons of stocks in 1993, with no indication of what would be happening to these stocks after the ban. Why would things be different when it comes to ivory and the remaining “legal” stock?

During the run-up to the end-of-December deadline in 2017, local contacts in the border regions spoke of traders arriving with their stocks of raw material and workshop equipment, presumably having been told by Chinese policymakers that they should not count on any compensation when their China-based shops would have to shut doors.

As long as existing stocks of supposedly legal items are not destroyed — or bought up and locked away — they have and will end up in what is now officially the black market.

At the end of November, we visited a then-legally licensed shop in Guangzhou. In the window, indeed, a for-sale sign indicating a change of tack.

Image
A for-sale sign in the window of an ivory store in 
Guangzhou, China.

They also operated a workshop, the shopkeeper confirmed, and the store items would be moved back to the workshop once they had closed down. We could not get any answers about what would happen to all the remaining licensed stock, but when we casually checked out the phone number on WeChat, we found that the merchandise was still freely available via the store’s web-based platform.

The trade in cyberspace is clearly the big new loophole to domestically promote and sell ivory products in China.

An internet based-search for ivory in China.Such new retail platforms as well as traders in neighbouring countries, plus Chinese-controlled enclaves in these countries, have very quickly caught on to these fantastic new opportunities: marketing their wares to a rising number of increasingly affluent Chinese tourists, assuming zero risk when taking the products back to the “Middle Kingdom”.

In Laos alone, we sourced a list of 42 Chinese nationals trading via the internet into China.

In 2016, a Save the Elephants survey in China indicated that the price for raw ivory had dropped by 60% — implying that this was a consequence of the domestic market’s imminent closure.

CITES Secretary-General John Scanlon immediately joined the cause, declaring that “the bottom had dropped out of the ivory market”.

Based on personal, anecdotal data stretching over a decade, our own research revealed that average prices in neighbouring countries had come down from $1,200 to $800 per kilo.

The drop in the per-kilo price of rhino horn was even more pronounced, although this could not possibly have had anything to do with an imminent closure of the domestic market (it closed in 1993).

However, when valuing the cost of worked trinkets like ivory bangles or necklaces, the prices remained at a level of $2-$4 per gram. In the case of rhino horn, a gram of horn artefact would set you back more than $100.

Lower raw prices for ivory retail products would mean a higher profit margin for the traders and/ or middlemen, as well as the retailers. This trend seems to have lured more traders, some with retail stores — many of which are going into e-commerce.

While in Guangzhou on our most recent trip, we tested the online market.

Our local operatives from Hong Kong soon found out that online searches required special terminology to get a good selection: for ivory it was “JELLY” or “white plastic”. WeChat users had special terms and emojis for pretty much all these illegal wildlife products — using proper names could result in keyword filters blocking the message.

Image
These are the search results for “JELLY” on Taobao, 
the Chinese internet-shopping platform.

Offered among the same suppliers’ hundreds, even thousands, of ivory items, were carved pangolin scales, rhino-horn medallions, so-called karma (beaded) bracelets, hornbill and turtle jewellery, tiger-bone items and, nowadays, a lot of elephant-skin jewellery.

Prior to a payment and shipping for the tiger-bone items via the WeChat Wallet, the supplier in question sent customer references to assure us that he could be trusted with such transactions.

The items indeed arrived in a very timely fashion. The package was delivered to the concierge at our hotel in Guangzhou and we picked it up without any kind of problem. The samples have, in the meantime, gone to a Swiss lab for testing to see if they are real or fake.

Image
You’ve got mail — the author opens the tiger items ordered from the 
internet after they arrived at his hotel.

They could even be from lion, seeing this species is at the centre of another big new scam — thanks, in no small part, to South Africa’s decision to export 800 lion skeletons a year. These end up being sold as sought-after tiger-bone products. We have key dealers confirming as much on hidden camera, insisting that nobody can tell the difference.

One trader informed our intermediary: all items offered on his platform as legal mammoth ivory were, in fact, from elephant.

Now that melting permafrost is delivering large numbers of mammoth tusks into the hands of traders, there are also bogus mammoth-ivory outlets popping up. Legally and illegally exporting tons of the stuff out of Siberia into China each year, the local traders then pass it off as elephant products — thereby creating a growing loophole to launder elephant ivory.

Image
Mammoth ivory can be bought at Guangzhou airport, China.

After you have passed through customs and immigration control, you can even waltz into such an outlet at the departure area of Guangzhou airport, supposedly offering a wide range of mammoth-ivory products.

I have admired some fantastic art pieces carved out of elephant and mammoth ivory over the years.

Looking at big pieces, even a layman can tell the difference by identifying the “Schreger lines” or cross-hatchings, which are not present in elephant ivory.

I have also read the tales of a handful of old-fashioned expert carvers — considered part of China’s cultural heritage — now having to work with the mammoth tusks because the end-products, unlike elephant ivory, can still be sold legally.

Image
Computerized Ivory Carving set up

Combined with more and more machine carving of evermore mass-produced ivory trinkets, from bangles to chopsticks, it is the story you do not generally read in the international press’s feel-good reports — a “massing up” of the market is clearly taking place to cater to these new demographics with cheaper and cheaper products.

In the old days, one used to encounter elaborate carvings sold for tens of thousands of dollars. I am convinced that these top-end ivory items have not driven the market for many years. With increasing wealth in Chinese society, a bigger population sector can afford lower-level ivory status products. Status is what drives the markets.

Observing young people trying on a range of bracelets in a shop in Mong Lah, sending home images and offering to bring some of these supposedly bargain deals back with them, became the norm.

During the most recent trip we interviewed a Chinese wildlife-trade expert on why the new ban regulations should be considered the end of elephant poaching.

The answer we got from Wei Jei, who briefs and trains forestry officials in China? Things might, indeed, get worse.

At least the legal ivory trade offered some sort of safety valve, which has now lapsed. As we see with the rhino-horn trade, there is also a real chance that the “reverse-stigma syndrome” will come into play: this means that showing off illegal items carries more status and is sexier. Establishing oneself as being above the law is part of this equation.

All indications are that the demand is increasing.

Completed to establish a baseline for further evaluating the new regulations’ impact, a TRAFFIC survey seems to bear out these trends.

The wildlife-monitoring network conducted the survey — “Demand under the ban: China ivory consumption research 2017” — in 15 cities throughout the Middle Kingdom.

Three findings stuck out:

“Forty-three percent claimed that they intend to purchase ivory in the future, but the percentage dropped to 18% after hearing of the ban.
“Fifty-one percent of millennials have heard of the ban and, when prompted, 21% intended to buy ivory post-ban.
“Those who travel overseas have bought significantly more ivory in the past than those who never travel.” In the context of the regional travel, the evidence of totally new demand-and-supply characteristics have been documented.
Today China presides over a human population of 1.4 billion people. If even 18% of them are ready to buy more ivory despite the ban, we are potentially looking at 250 million illegal ivory consumers, at the very least.

I do not even dare to calculate the total consumption, and what that would mean for the number of dead elephants this demand would exact — multiplied by the fact that, once you have purchased the item and wear it to a party, there seems to be nothing illegal about it.

I also question the value of these surveys when the average city dweller — seeing the survey was conducted in urban centres — would by now have some inkling of why these questions are being asked and what answers they should give as supposedly law-abiding citizens. As such, I found it amazing that 18% would declare that they did not care about the law.

That China has a better-engineered control system for internet access than any other nation is well known. There are accounts that up to two-million people in China are paid salaries to control the web. If there was real interest in controlling the illegal trade, it could be done much more effectively than what we have documented.

In 2004, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed a web survey of illegal wildlife products offered online, concluding that they had found 1,390 ivory items on major Chinese web-trading platforms.

The report goes on to state:

“A year-long random check of the four major e-commerce websites for CITES I-listed species was conducted. Although all of the monitored websites have imposed a ban on ivory and [have a]‘no endangered species and their products’ policy, a total of 1,937 wildlife products from over 30 species were found on these websites.”

At present, there are websites with similar numbers offered by one dealer alone. Dozens of them are operating.

Take the Alibaba group, China’s leading online marketplace and parent company of key trading-platform Taobao.

Here we have the 2014 case of global luxury group Kering taking Alibaba to court in New York for copyright infringement and selling counterfeit products, including their Gucci bags.

There was an out-of-court settlement, plus a nicely timed feature in China Daily outlining why Alibaba leads the online fight against fakes.

The text tells of some 100 employees shopping on their own platform, buying 100,000 products on offer, spending around 100 million Yuan a year.

These products are then analysed in an Alibaba-owned warehouse and tested.

In cases of infractions, their analytics team then decides which cases to hand to law enforcement. In 2016, it was 1,184 cases, resulting in the arrest of 880 suspects and supposedly the closure of 1,419 counterfeit manufacturing outfits.

Would it be so far-fetched for non-governmental organisations such as IFAW, WWF, the Wildlife Conservation Society or WildAid, already spending millions in China on consumer demand-reduction campaigns, to file a similar legal case?

As long as these web platforms and the dealers who use them constantly create new products for new demographics, demand-reduction spend on awareness campaigns must surely be greatly compromised.

While one side is legal and the other is not, would that not also allow NGO damage claims from these website operators for their inaction when it comes to encouraging more consumers and demand? It would certainly add to the risk/ reward scenario where it involves the traders and companies who own these platforms.

Image
Mass-produced fake ivory for sale in China.

I doubt that the relevant authorities will be prepared to further clamp down on rogue traders/ platforms of their own accord. In my experience, the average Chinese citizen as well as official seems to think that he or she has a cultural right to these products. As long as window-dressing and lip service do the trick, that is the strategy they will pursue.

The Kering approach and general naming-and-shaming might have the best chance to result in some real change.

As it stands, the closure of China’s domestic ivory markets and the worldwide applause that it drew will last the country’s image for a few years before some new, time-consuming, large-scale survey data will result in a fresh outcry and calls for enforcement action.

Image
Global coverage lauding China’s domestic ban on ivory.

The time has come to stop celebrating and establish what is really happening on the ground, with sales over the counter and through cyberspace. That, in turn, requires investigative work by local operatives.

When I recently questioned a major US broadsheet correspondent about their largely unqualified story trumpeting the domestic-trade decision, suggesting that they conduct some of this undercover work online, I was told that while investigative journalism was part of their agenda, the undercover aspect would be against their editorial policy.

I am glad I am not an elephant.

Read original article: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... uCQnMiFPIU


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67241
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Lisbeth »

How to break the impasse between opposing camps in ivory trade debate

BY STAFF - 21 MAY 2018 - MENA FM

Image

Elephants are in an extremely precarious state in both Africa and Asia. Demand for ivory from Africa has caused significant declines in wild populations. This is now accompanied by new demand for elephant skins from Asia.

Resuming trade in elephant parts continues to be one proposal for improving conservation outcomes. But the contention that legal trade will curb poaching is not substantiated by available data. In the modern human economic era, there are few examples of wild animals larger than cattle being sustainably harvested.

Both those who propose a resumption in ivory trade, and those, like us, who oppose it, want to ensure elephants survive. We also want to foster equitable development in elephant range states. This is a necessary condition for achieving any conservation objective.

But we are not convinced that sufficient evidence exists to support the use of market mechanisms as a principal conservation tool. Instead, the emphasis should shift towards policy measures supported by existing evidence to break the impasse.

Several of our biggest concerns about resuming trade are the following: ivory markets are concentrated and controlled by organised criminal syndicates that can manipulate the price. They are not competitive.

Similarly, ivory products are highly differentiated and constantly evolving. The fact is that price dynamics are not likely to follow the theoretical predictions of simplistic economic models. This reality has not been adequately addressed by proponents of market based policy instruments.

Sociopolitical realities of source and demand countries may also not be favourable to market approaches. The sorry history of commercial whaling provides key insights that are often ignored in discussions of elephants, tigers, vicuña and bears. Commercial harvesting all too easily degenerates into a commons tragedy. Elephants are not exempt.

Debates on the ivory trade ban too often focus on differences in people’s core values rather than on how to achieve shared objectives. This merely perpetuates the impasse, as it has in other conservation debates over implementing tough policies. We believe there are ways to break this cycle.

Opposing Camps

In recent pieces in the journal Science and in The Conversation, authors strongly propose bringing back regulated ivory sales.

Opponents of this approach – like us – are designated as ‘prohibitionists’. But pejorative labelling doesn’t produce hard evidence to suggest that regulated ivory sales have improved livelihoods or the status of elephants.

South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe favour the reintroduction of a legalised ivory trade. The argument is typically that countries with well-managed populations should not be punished by others’ failure.

But a study just published in the conservation journal Oryx, shows that 77% of South Africa’s 78 discrete reserves that host elephants have populations of fewer than 100 elephants. This implies that they are not genetically viable. Habitat fragmentation is the primary problem, not ivory trade prohibition.

Meanwhile, poverty and marginalisation remain strong features for people living in the vicinity of most – if not all – conservation areas.

Poverty Traps

There are few examples of communities escaping the poverty trap in a durable way through the exploitation of wildlife resources. The wildlife trade is no exception.

Efforts to legalise ivory trade haven’t translated into improved conditions for people living close to elephants. No published evidence shows that funds raised from sales in the four countries that sold ivory on a one-off basis – since the 1989 international ban – have translated into improved food security, education, well-being or equity.

And it’s clear that no amount of ivory trade revenue is likely to solve the difficulty of ensuring that benefits are distributed equitably.

Livelihoods can be improved without trading in threatened species. Some of these are set out in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and include:

· Reforming agricultural and trade policies;

· Tapping into indigenous knowledge systems for solutions;

· Educating girls, and involving women in decision-making;

· Improving habitat connectivity as fragmentation exacerbates negative human-elephant interactions and escalates remediation expense;

· Encouraging projects that help increase people’s tolerance of wildlife. This can be done by mitigating damage to human food crops – by, for example, using beehive fences to deter elephants – while boosting income; and

· Wildlife-watching tourism rather than consumptive activities like hunting elephants.

Recently Proposed Alternatives

Some conservationists have recently proposed an alternative to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). CITES is a rules-based consortium of countries that classify how vulnerable each listed species is to continued trade.

Trade permission is restricted on that basis. Their proposed alternative is to use the Paris climate change negotiations as a model.

But we don’t think it’s appropriate for reducing the illegal trade in ivory. One reason is that it might actually weaken the international capacity for collective action. The Paris Agreement gave way to a system of voluntary commitments. A similar devolution of commitment in the wildlife trade sphere could spell extinction for many species.

There may be other ways out of the impasse. One is to accept that the two sides may never reach total consensus.

Environmental justice mechanisms suggest that while some parties may lose in negotiations, they will be more satisfied if they have had the opportunity to engage, state their case and have a voice. If evidence for – and consensus around – a ban on ivory trade continues to mount, all camps should still work together to creatively address the concerns of all elephant range states.

One model that demonstrates the value of collaboration is the Vicuña Convention. First signed in 1969, it centred on restoring populations of a high-alpine South American camelid, the vicuña. The convention shows that disparate economic, cultural and social interests across multiple regions can be reconciled, and brought to the same table, in the spirit of achieving a legitimate negotiated outcome.

The convention – and the special provisions it generated under CITES – also illustrate that the non-lethal use of wildlife is far more likely to attain a long-lasting, international consensus. This is true even though it hasn’t worked perfectly. Poaching has still increased in recent years and populations are smaller than they should be.

A Way Forward

Conservationists of differing persuasions agree that the greatest threats to elephants are habitat destruction and fragmentation, increased negative human-elephant interactions and demand for ivory.

Our view is that the conversation should move towards how demand can be reduced effectively. And to address the broader suite of threats, we would argue that diversifying discussions about improving livelihoods – by exploring alternatives to wildlife trade – would be the most prudent way forward.

Valued contributions to this article were also made by: Robert Hepworth, Senior Adviser to the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation (UK), Alejandro Nadal, Professor of Economics at El Colegio de Mexico (Mexico), Andrew Dobson, Professor of Conservation Biology at Princeton University (NJ), and Samuel K. Wasser, Professor of Conservation Biology at University of Washington (WA).

Read original article: http://menafn.com/1096889823/How-to-bre ... ade-debate


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75838
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trade

Post by Richprins »

If Farming Vicuna Saves Them From Extinction Then Shouldn't We Farm Elephants And Tigers Too?

Tim Worstall , Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

This little story about a property purchase in Argentina set me thinking:

The 330 square miles (85,000 hectares) of high altitude grassland and mountain peaks are valuable to Loro Piana because they are home to 6,000 vicuna, whose “golden fleeces” provide the super-soft wool that the company uses to produce its coats, sweaters, coats and scarves.

The company has bought a 60pc share of Sanin SA, an Argentinean firm that has the right to shear the wild vicunas for their precious wool, the rarest natural fibre in the world.

Six thousand vicunas may seem a lot, but the animals can only be shorn every two years, and yield just 150 grams of fine wool each.

So, a firm making very expensive clothes out of vicuna wool buys the rights to some vicuna in order to get supplies. This has an interesting effect:

Five years ago Loro Piana bought an eight square mile (2,000 hectare) reserve in Peru, which is now home to 2,000 vicuna after the population doubled in four years.

The doe-eyed vicuna, described as the Bambi of the camelid family, is a close relative of the llama and alpaca and lives at altitudes of up to 18,000ft (5,500 metres).

Once regarded as sacred by the Incas, the vicuna was slaughtered by Spanish conquistadors for its wool and by the 1970s was on the brink of extinction.

So, exploiting as a wild animal leads to near extinction: farming the animals leads to fourfold rises in population in only a few years.

So, clearly, if we desire to be saving species we need to be farming them. At which point the obvious thing about elephants and rhinos and tigers is that if we want to be saving them from extinction we need to be farming them. However, for it to be profitable to farm them it's necessary for us to be able to sell some product from them to make such farming profitable. With elephants, the tusks and hides, rhinos the horn and tigers, well, there's all sorts of parts of a tiger that go into Chinese medicines and the skins are also sought after.

Our problem here is that trade in all of those things is illegal: highly so. So we cannot save them from extinction because we cannot farm them because we're not allowed to sell anything: the reasoning for this ban on sales being to save them from extinction. There is, as you can see, a certain error in one or another end of this logic. I would insist that it's in the ban on sales.

After all, it's entirely legal to breed and slaughter cows and sheep for their hides and other products: and there's many more sheep and cows around now than there would be if humans didn't farm them. And those vicuna herds would be a quarter the size if they weren't being farmed. It isn't a great leap of logic to think that there would be more elephants, rhinos and tigers around if people were indeed allowed to farm them.

In fact, we have one more proof: people do indeed farm tigers. Not for their products but just because a reasonably large number of people think it's really cool to have a tiger around the place. It's said that there are 25,000 tigers in private ownership in the US: rather more than there are in the wild in fact. See, farming animals does produce more of them. So if we wish to protect a species we should be working out how to provide the incentives to farm said species. Which means being able to sell the produce: selling ivory and tiger bones would do more to preserve those species than anything else we could do.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... f9cc616c16


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
Post Reply

Return to “Elephant Management and Poaching”