This week, representatives from countries around the world are gathered in Geneva to discuss the wildlife trade. The agenda ranges from rhinos to totoabas, but one of the hottest topics is ivory: Some 30,000 elephants are slaughtered for their tusks each year.
One thing that came up at the 66th meeting of the Standing Committee for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was whether to continue discussions about legalizing the ivory trade.
The United States, the European Union, Kenya, Uganda, and most other countries all argued that given the current poaching crisis it would be unproductive and dangerous to proceed with discussions about legalizing the ivory trade.
South Africa wanted to further ivory trade discussions. That’s because it believes that legalizing the trade will drive down prices by increasing the supply of ivory. Lower prices mean less incentive to poach. Many economists, however, reject this supply-and demand model as too simplistic.
A majority of Standing Committee members ultimately voted in support of a proposal to suspend discussions that could establish a mechanism to decide whether to legalize the trade. The discussion may be picked up again in September when all members of CITES meet in Johannesburg.
On Tuesday, South Africa also stood nearly alone in its opposition to ar resolution that lauded CITES for supporting the destruction of government stockpiles of ivory seized from poachers and traffickers. CITES and most countries believe that destroying illegal ivory is the best way to deter people from buying ivory products.
Public ivory destructions, usually by crushing or burning, have become an increasingly common way for governments to deal with their stockpiles of illegal ivory seized from traffickers. This is because it’s effective in preventing illegal ivory from re-entering the market—government stockpiles have been known to leak—and helps sends the message that ivory markets should be shut down.
But Thea Carroll, South Africa’s representative at the meeting, said, “South Africa is concerned about the negative consequences of destroying stockpiles.”
South Africa’s view is that destroying ivory increases its scarcity and therefore drives up prices. When ivory gets more valuable, poaching intensifies. Once again, many economists reject that reasoning.
Only Zimbabwe and Botswana spoke up in support of Carroll’s opposition to ivory stockpile destructions.
The three countries made a profit from their stockpiles in 2008 when CITES approved a one-time ivory sale to China and Japan. That move is widely believed to have spurred the current elephant poaching crisis, in which some 30,000 are killed each year.
Since 2011, there have been 11 ivory destruction events in 10 countries: Kenya, Gabon, the Philippines, India, United States, China (including Hong Kong), France, Chad, Belgium, and Portugal. Sri Lanka is planning an ivory crush for later this month, and the governments of Malawi, New Zealand, and Vietnam have voiced interest in destroying theirs, according to CITES.
CITES says that the trend can be attributed in part to its having encouraged stockpile destructions at its 2014 Standing Committee meeting.
But South Africa asserted on Tuesday that CITES acted out of turn by encouraging governments to destroy their ivory.
Several NGOs at the meeting also spoke out against South Africa’s position.
South Africa’s objection to destroying stockpiles “implies that the country endorses future trading of ivory,” said Will Travers, chairperson of the Species Survival Network, which coordinates with NGOs to secure CITES protections for plants and animals that are bought and sold around the world.
The European Union, speaking for the majority, said that any discussion of a legal trade in ivory should be taken off the table for at least the next four years. “We should concentrate instead on poaching and the war on poaching,” Zoltán Czirak, the EU representative, told the committee.
This article was first published by National Geographic on 13 Jan 2015.
We invite you to share your opinion whether the ivory trade in South Africa should be legalized? Please vote and leave your comments at the bottom of this page:
Thank you for voting.
You may also like:
Share on social media
Top-Viewed Posts Last 30 Days
- POLL: Should the MOTV trophy hunting channel be closed down? [1544 Views]
- POLL: Should captivity for all killer whales be banned? [1175 Views]
- POLL: Should the trophy hunting of lions be banned? [1169 Views]
- POLL: Should trophy hunting be banned? [1137 Views]
- POLL: Should Asia’s elephant tourism be banned? [1086 Views]
- POLL: Should there be a tough crack down on the killing of raptors? [908 Views]
- POLL: Should the pangolin slaughter in Africa be banned? [881 Views]
- POLL: Should the keeping of dolphins in captivity be banned? [843 Views]
- Selfie-Seeking Men Kidnap, Injure Endangered Florida Deer [692 Views]
- POLL: Should Praying Mantises be used for pest control? [684 Views]
Top-Viewed Posts Last 12 Months
- POLL: Should there be a worldwide ban on fur farms? [16921 Views]
- POLL: Should Congress disband Wildlife “Killing” Services? [11091 Views]
- Gray Squirrels versus Red Squirrels – The Facts [9443 Views]
- POLL: Should the killing of giraffes be outlawed? [4733 Views]
- POLL: Should the sale of elephant ivory be legalized? [4083 Views]
- POLL: Should foxes be culled to protect domestic pets? [3790 Views]
- POLL: Should the coyote continue to be exterminated? [3463 Views]
- POLL: Should the cruel sport of bullfighting be banned? [2856 Views]
- POLL: Should Canada ban the hunting of seals? [2632 Views]
- POLL: Should the Tories be allowed to bring back fox hunting? [2568 Views]