Image Credit:
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-08-20-to-trade-or-not-to-trade-the-ivory-question/

South Africa doesn’t make its ivory stockpile numbers publicly known, so in May 2019 the EMS Foundation submitted a request under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), no. 2 of 2000. In response, the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) revealed that the national ivory stockpile held by government bodies is nearly 77 tonnes. The majority of this ivory is held by South Africa National Parks (SANParks), with the remainder split between other government bodies that manage ivory. Of the total tonnage, 50 tonnes are comprised of ‘management’ ivory, which includes ivory removed from ‘culled’ elephants, natural mortality or ‘damage causing animals’. A further 15.8 tonnes are confiscations, while 10.9 tonnes fall into the ‘unknown’ category. Private ivory stockpiles also feature a remarkable 8.9 tonnes, 7.3 of which are ‘management’, while 1.6 are of ‘unknown’ origin.

A peculiar
feature of the government-held stockpiles is that they contain 77 870
individual pieces of ivory. Divided by the total 77 tonnes, this equates to an
average weight per piece of 0.988kg. This is difficult to understand, as the average tusk size of an
African elephant is 23kg. The only explanation – other than the possibility
that the numbers are wrong – is that there are an enormous number of partial
tusks and lighter pieces of worked ivory in the stockpile. Given that most
ivory is only carved once it reaches Asian markets, and that raw whole tusks
are the most valuable exported form from Africa, it seems rather inconceivable
that the average ivory piece in our stockpiles is less than a twentieth of the
average whole tusk size. The private stockpile figure is more believable, with
1066 pieces – an average weight per piece of 8.3kg. A more detailed breakdown
of the weight of each category of piece in government stockpiles is therefore
clearly necessary.

At the 18^th
Conference of the Parties (CoP18) of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Geneva, pressure
continued to mount against countries that still retain domestic ivory markets
(mostly in southern Africa). Keeping domestic markets open alongside an
international ivory trade ban undermines the efficacy of the ban. Given that
demand for ivory in elephant range states is limited, it stands to reason that
ivory bought in Africa is making its way across porous international borders.

For the same
reason, large volumes of ivory held in range-state stockpiles is simply a
sitting duck for theft and/or elite capture and laundering into the global
illegal trade. Because this logic is compelling, the Elephant Protection
Initiative (EPI) – Africa-led – aims to put all ivory stockpiles beyond
commercial use. When Kenya
burned a large portion of its ivory stockpile in 2016, free market
‘sustainable use’ proponents spurned pseudo-outrage that such value was being decimated.
But the point is that elephants are ultimately worth more alive than dead, and
ivory belongs to elephants, not to humans. And if the demand for ivory
continues to decimate elephants, the already rapid destruction of the planet will
simply speed up.

So which
countries continue to peddle this view that ivory should be stockpiled and
traded? Southern African nations, of course, who believe that it is their
sovereign right (despite 76% of the continent’s elephant populations being
shared across borders) to trade in ivory to fund conservation. But we still
have no evidence that proceeds from the 2008 one-off sale actually went
into conservation efforts at all. Despite the international consensus against
domestic markets and trade in ivory, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and
Zimbabwe proposed
amendments to Appendix II of CITES (which allows trade in endangered species
under certain conditions). They wanted the current annotation – which strictly
limits any trade in ivory – to Appendix II elephants changed to allow a full
resumption of trade in registered raw ivory. Where would the ivory come from?
Government-owned stocks.

South Africa –
along with its southern African neighbours – continues to believe that its
insistence on ‘sustainable use’ (the commodification of everything to a
sellable asset) is the conservation answer. What it fails to realise is that
trading in ivory, or even simply signalling that it desires to trade in ivory, undermines
the efficacy of ivory demand reduction campaigns in Asia. It sends
confusing signals to consumers.

Some economists have
suggested that stockpiles be held as a threat mechanism – to flood the
market if ivory prices climb too high as a result of speculation (which they
argue is predominantly responsible for price rises). But this assumes that
there will be an international market to receive this flooding. It also assumes
that such flooding will be sufficiently large to result in reduced prices,
leading to reduced poaching. In all likelihood, it will simply generate further
demand. Supply-side interventions in high-demand, non-renewable ‘products’ are
unlikely to produce any conservation benefit.

The world has moved on. It is high time that southern African countries stopped believing that they are exceptional. The elephant poaching tide is moving southward, as recent evidence from Botswana indicates. Governance questions have been raised in Namibia and Zimbabwe. These countries would be well advised to follow the EPI plan to put stockpiles beyond commercial use, shut their domestic markets and stop trying to reopen trade at every possible opportunity.

© Copyright EMS Foundation 2019. All rights reserved.