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.
Share on social media:
You may also like:
Top-Viewed Posts Last 30 Days
- POLL: Should foxes be culled to protect domestic pets? [3657 Views]
- 10 amazing birds that have gone extinct [1200 Views]
- POLL: Should the trade in both raw and antique ivory be banned? [1192 Views]
- POLL: Should India’s export of tiger skin, parts and bones be stopped? [1089 Views]
- POLL: Is big game hunting important for African economies? [1039 Views]
- Gray Squirrels versus Red Squirrels – The Facts [970 Views]
- POLL: Should the use of exotic animal skins for fashion be banned? [960 Views]
- POLL: Should wildlife crime be enforced by tougher legislation? [782 Views]
- POLL: Should the Eurasian Lynx be rewilded? [772 Views]
- POLL: Should the grey squirrel be culled to protect red squirrels? [752 Views]
Top-Viewed Posts Last 12 Months
- White Killer Whale Adult Spotted for First Time in Wild [42029 Views]
- POLL: Should there be a worldwide ban on fur farms? [16755 Views]
- POLL: Should the annual Canadian seal hunt be banned? [13871 Views]
- POLL: Should fur farming be banned in the European Union? [13820 Views]
- POLL: Should Congress disband Wildlife “Killing” Services? [11114 Views]
- Gray Squirrels versus Red Squirrels – The Facts [10940 Views]
- POLL: Should driven grouse-shooting be banned? [8598 Views]
- POLL: Should grouse shooting on highland estates be banned? [8303 Views]
- POLL: Should black bears be killed for Royal Guards’ fur caps? [8039 Views]
- POLL: Should China’s dog meat festival be banned? [7392 Views]