From SCI…
As Kenya prepares to destroy its entire wildlife products stockpile–an estimated 100 or more tons of elephant ivory, rhino horn and parts from other species–at the end of April, some are welcoming this move as a bold display of defiance against trafficking of wildlife products. Billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and other ill-informed individuals are expected to attend and cheer as flames transform ivory into ashes. But beyond a grand gesture, what are the deeper implications of ivory stockpile destruction? The potential negative consequences of such stockpile destruction events deserve closer scrutiny.
Kenya was the first nation to publicly destroy ivory, back in 1989, in the lead-up to the global ban on commercial ivory trade. Since then several other nations have followed suit, and Kenya itself has followed up with additional ivory burns. Since 2011, at least 15 nations, including the United States, have held public events to eliminate ivory stockpiles–destroying an estimated 65 tons or more of ivory. Each has been touted as a public show of disdain for illegal ivory trafficking, a statement to ivory traders that the world will no longer tolerate the slaughter of elephants for their ivory. Defenders of stockpile destruction say that it takes ivory “beyond economic use.”
Yet how many of these events have been accompanied by a transparent and independent audit to verify that the amount claimed to have been destroyed was actually destroyed? Is it unreasonable to imagine a scenario in which criminal networks in countries that consistently rank among the world’s most corrupt nations could conspire to make a grand display of “destroying” 20 tons of ivory, but then burn only a token few pieces of ivory atop 10 tons of scrap wood? Such a move would then take 10 tons or more of ivory off the record books and free it up for sale on the black market. Without credible independent verification, who is to say whether the ivory has actually been destroyed versus having been shifted into the hands of corrupt officials to be sold for their own personal enrichment? Officials from the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) can inspect official ivory stockpiles at any time. If those stockpiles no longer “officially” exist, then there’s no longer anything to inspect.
The fundamental principle of supply and demand also poses a formidable challenge to the assertion that taking ivory “beyond economic use” somehow reduces demand for ivory. Ivory consumers are certain to perceive the loss of tons of ivory as a signal that their favored commodity is in increasingly short supply, thus driving up demand. Read more
