So Many Questions

Debate raged at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species conference in Johannesburg this week on how to control elephant poaching. Chris Barron asked global communications co-ordinator for Traffic, Richard Thomas . . .

Are we any closer to a poaching solution? Yes, in that now through a CITES process we’ve got something called a national ivory action plan where CITES has instructed countries to draw up plans as to how they are going to address illegal ivory flows. That includes sorting out the poaching that is supplying the material.

The big question remains the link between allowing trade in ivory and poaching. There are equally compelling arguments on both sides, aren’t there? It’s a very, very hotly contested issue. But the debate about whether trade should be allowed is not going to solve the poaching crisis. That needs to happen through this national ivory action plan process which includes measures to address the poaching.

You’re saying that whether the ivory trade is banned or not won’t affect poaching? That’s not the key thing that needs addressing at this stage. It’s hotly debated whether the one-off sale in 2008 resulted in increased poaching or not. The two monitoring systems under CITES which look at the illegal killing of elephants and global ivory flows did not find a causal link. Poaching was rising when the sale took place, and after it took place it carried on increasing at the same rate.

If there is no link then what’s the point of banning sales? Some see the fact that ivory is allowed into the marketplace as fuelling demand. And to supply that demand, because there is not enough ivory from legal sources, people are going to buy ivory from poached sources. The critical thing is to stem that demand.

How? On that many experts are divided.

Is this to do with flawed research and monitoring? It’s to do with the market dynamics not being fully understood. One of the really interesting things about the one-off sale to China in 2008 is that before it took place there were very strict measures in place to ensure it was regulated and that the supply of legally sourced ivory into the market was controlled.

But they didn’t function as anticipated, and we got effects such as the ivory that was bought was sold on at much higher prices than it had been bought at. And, of course, if you do that then the illegally sourced ivory is going to be cheaper.

So the argument that allowing legal trade will undermine the black market does not hold any water? Exactly. In some ways you could argue that the sale was an experiment, and certainly lessons have been learned from it.

The main lesson being that legal sales don’t stop the black market? The way it was handled it is fair to say it didn’t. I don’t think the functioning of the market and what drove it was understood before the sale or after it or even now. There is not enough known about the way the market works and how it will react.

Would you say it’s impossible to control the trade chain tightly enough to stop poached ivory entering the legal market? Well, this is one of the issues. There would appear to have been adequate controls in place before the sale took place but they certainly weren’t managed as they should have been.

Which allowed poached ivory to enter the market? Yes. And it was undercutting the legal source. As will happen if there is increasing demand. Because Asia has developed and people have a lot more disposable income, and ivory being one of the commodities that people have long desired to own, they’re now able to afford it.

Is the argument that allowing trade removes the stigma around ivory and encourages more people to buy it relevant to what’s going on in Asia? People did get mixed signals from the fact that there was now ivory available from a legal source. That may well have confused people.

Would that have significantly increased demand? Potentially. On the other side of the coin you’ve got these ivory destruction events that have been taking place in a number of countries including China.

And in Kenya where public burnings are supposed to send out a message and reduce demand? It’s difficult to know what impact those actions have on consumers. Does it send out the signal that ivory is getting scarcer and put the price up and make it an even more valuable commodity for people to want to own?

Poaching has continued to rise there, hasn’t it? Yes, the poaching epicentre was the central African region. But as elephants have got scarcer there it’s moved east. Tanzania has been particularly badly hit. And of course in southern African countries there’s a healthy elephant population.

Does that support the argument of South Africa’s government which refuses to destroy its stockpiles? I don’t know whether it would support it but you’ve got this dilemma in that every year countries like South Africa and Botswana accumulate tons of ivory from natural mortalities which is being stockpiled. There’s plenty of cases where ivory from supposedly secure stockpiles has turned up in the illegal ivory trade.