Destruction of ivory
The conservationists, governments, and non-governmental organizations that endorse the strategy argue that it fosters public support for the protection of elephants and that it sends a message to poachers their work is futile.
[4] In 1986, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) introduced a control system based on permits, registration, stockpiles, and monitoring.
As uncovered by the Environmental Investigation Agency, the "control system" turned out to be easy to manipulate, ultimately increasing the value of ivory and empowering smugglers.
[7] The majority of ivory in the 21st century has gone to growing Asian markets, including and especially China, where the material has been viewed as a status symbol sometimes known as "white gold".
[14] Kenyan officials knew the value of the elephant to safari tourism, and wanted to persuade CITES to include the animal on its global endangered species list at its October 1989 meeting.
[7] When Leakey took the position, the organization had 12 tons of confiscated illegal ivory in its possession, which he was urged to sell in order to fund conservation efforts.
[15] Ivory does not easily burn, but the choice to use fire rather than other means to destroy it was intentional as Leakey wanted the event to produce powerful images for the global media.
To make the destruction spectacular, Leakey worked with a Hollywood special effects professional to devise an innovative pyrotechnics technique using jet fuel and flammable glue.
[18] It also proved influential among conservationists, encouraging others to dispose of their stockpiles in a similar manner and leading, in part, to the international ban on the ivory trade passed at CITES.
[20][21][22][23] On 30 April 2016, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta set alight the largest ever pile of ivory for destruction in the Nairobi National Park.
"[16] Research performed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2008, found burning to be an inefficient and highly challenging way to destroy ivory when compared to crushing.
"[50] The question of the effectiveness of the destruction – even the possibility that some of the partially combusted ivory may find its way back to the black market – is a touchy subject.
Richard Leakey, who was responsible for the first major ivory destruction in Kenya in 1989, argues that these acts are primarily about sending a message to foster a public that sees the value in wildlife itself, not its byproducts, and thereby influencing the demand side of the market.
According to Hongxiang Huang in a report by NPR, the decline was not likely due to conservation reasons, but because "[o]ne thing that proud Chinese people don't want to be, these days, is behind the times.
[8][31][32] French Minister of Ecology Philippe Martin called the destruction of ivory "indispensable in the fight against trafficking of threatened species" and said that it sends "a firm message".
[37] In Botswana, which is home to almost half of the elephants in Africa, officials are opposed to destroying ivory stockpiles as of 2016[update], and President Ian Khama publicly boycotted the 2016 Kenyan burn.
[28][52][53] Several journalists and conservationists have challenged the logic of the strategy, arguing that destroying the ivory makes it scarcer, which should drive up black market prices and lead to an increase in poaching, rather than a decrease.
[55] An example several commentators point to is a 2014 study funded by Save the Elephants that found that the price of ivory tripled in China during four years following 2011.
[57][58] More recently, however, Save the Elephants reported the cost of ivory in China has fallen by nearly half, following an announcement by the Chinese government that it would phase out its domestic trade.
Destroying ivory in those countries is thus often a controversial decision for internal stakeholders as well as external commentators, as the funds gained by selling the material could be used to improve the quality of life for human citizens.
"[60][61] Economic research published in 2016 analyzed the efficacy of a one-time legal sale of ivory stockpiles to China and Japan, allowed by CITES in 2008.
The idea was to try to flood the market, sinking prices and profitability, but the result was "catastrophic" according to one researcher, who attributes to it a significant, long-term increase in poaching due to factors like a reduction of the social stigma of ivory and providing a mechanism to obscure smuggling activities.
[57][58] Christopher Alden, who supported but did not take part in this analysis, specifically criticized requests from countries like Zimbabwe and Namibia to allow limited sales, due to the likelihood of them having a similar counterproductive outcome.
When Hong Kong announced the destruction of its stockpile, it noted "the management burden and the security risk" inherent in the possession of large quantities of valuable material.
[19] Stockpiles of ivory have often been connected to theft and corruption, with multiple countries, including Zambia, Mozambique, Botswana, and the Philippines, suffering "losses" of several tons.
