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. Also, synthetic ivory has been developed which can be used as an alternative material for making piano keys.
Elephant ivory
Elephant ivory has been exported from Africa and Asia for millennia with records going back to the 14th century BCE. Transport of the heavy commodity was always difficult, and with the establishment of the early-modern slave trades from East and West Africa, freshly captured slaves were used to carry the heavy tusks to the ports where both the tusks and their carriers were sold.THE IVORY TRADE. pp 7-11. A CONSULTANCY UNDERTAKEN FOR DR. IAIN DOUGLAS-HAMILTON ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MORGE, SWITZERLAND. June 1979 I.S.C. Parker Wildlife Services Ltd P.O. B0X 30678 NAIROBI, Kenya. "Typical are these comments from one Samuel Swan, trader, to his principal — merchant John Tidd in Boston :"May 16, 1809...Since the destruction of the slave trade the Crew (= Kru, a West African people) Country is full of ivory" the gist of this being that now slaves were illegal, ivory was difficult to move." BENNETT, N.R. & BROOKS J.R. 1965 New England merchants in Africa. Boston Univ. Press, Boston. The ivory was used for piano keys, billiard balls and other expressions of exotic wealth. At the peak of the ivory trade, pre-20th century, during the colonization of Africa, around 800 to 1,000 tonnes of ivory were sent to Europe alone every year.
World wars and the subsequent economic depressions caused a lull in this luxury commodity, but increased prosperity in the 1960s and 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 , name seal stamps used like a signature. 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 in mass production. Softer ivory from East Africa and southern Africa was traded for souvenirs, jewelry and trinkets.
While the massive demand for hanko drove the majority of Japan's consumption, ivory has also historically been used in the production of high-status cultural objects, including components for the Japanese tea ceremony (Chanoyu). This includes the custom-made lids (futa) for certain types of ceramic tea caddies (chaki), which remain objects of traditional value. The persistence of ivory use in such high-end cultural practices keeps the issue linked to contemporary conservation debates.
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 1979, the African elephant population was estimated to be around 1.3 million in 37 range states, but by 1989, only 600,000 remained.Kenya Elephant Forum Factsheet 02 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.Profound changes. Biothinkig.com. Retrieved 2011-02-02.
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, an attempt to control and 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 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."A System of Extinction – the African Elephant Disaster" Environmental Investigation Agency 1989 The CITES Secretariat was later admonished by the US 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 NGO with few resources, 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 (including ITV's The Cook Report) 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.
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.Increased Demand for Ivory Threatens Elephant Survival. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-02-02.Lifting the Ivory Ban Called Premature. NPR (31 October 2002). Retrieved 2011-02-02.
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 US. 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.CIA released memoEnforcement of the Ivory Trade Ban – 1 yr Assessment, 18 January 1991"Living Proof", Dave Currey & Helen Moore, A report by Environmental Investigation Agency Sept 1994Return of the Ivory Trade, The Independent, 12 July 2008 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 oppositions 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.