The ivory trade and elephant conservation
In response to significant elephant population declines in the 1970s and 1980s because of poaching for ivory, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) banned the international trade in Asian and African elephant species by listing them on Append...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental conservation 2004-12, Vol.31 (4), p.309-321 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 321 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 309 |
container_title | Environmental conservation |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | STILES, DANIEL |
description | In response to significant elephant population declines in the 1970s and 1980s because of poaching for ivory, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) banned the international trade in Asian and African elephant species by listing them on Appendix I in 1973 and 1989, respectively. Many southern African countries disagreed with the African elephant trade ban and have continued to argue against it since the mid-1980s. They maintain that their governments practise sound wildlife management policies and actions and, as a consequence, their national elephant populations have reached unsustainable size. They argue that they should not be penalized because other countries cannot manage their wildlife. Further, they say they need the proceeds from ivory and other by-product sales to finance conservation efforts. In 1997, the CITES Conference of Parties voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to auction off 50 tonnes of government ivory stockpiles to Japanese traders on a one-off experimental basis, which took place in 1999. Ivory trade opponents allege that this sale stimulated ivory demand, resulting in a surge of elephant poaching. Nevertheless, CITES voted again in 2002 to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to auction off another 60 tonnes of ivory after May 2004. Trade opponents have launched an active campaign to prevent the sales, warning that they could provoke a renewed elephant holocaust. This paper reviews available quantitative evidence on ivory trade and elephant killing to evaluate the arguments of the ivory trade proponents and opponents. The evidence supports the view that the trade bans resulted generally in lower levels of ivory market scale and elephant poaching than prevailed prior to 1990. There is little evidence to support claims that the 1999 southern African ivory auctions stimulated ivory demand or elephant poaching. Levels of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trading in a country are more likely to be related to wildlife management practices, law enforcement and corruption than to choice of CITES appendix listings and consequent extent of trade restrictions. Elephant conservation and public welfare can be better served by legal ivory trade than by a trade ban, but until demand for ivory can be restrained and various monitoring and regulation measures are put into place it is premature for CITES to permit ivory sales. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0376892904001614 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743504801</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0376892904001614</cupid><jstor_id>44520788</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44520788</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c579t-d3b53a9a0f87d8a5c33d541518ea608998858a27c1fb59b133bb5eb03fa366373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMouH78AA9CEVQ8VCfN91HEb1HEFbyFaZtq1267Jl3Rf2_LLgqKesrheWYy8w4hGxT2KVB1cAdMSW0SAxyASsoXyIByaWLOtFokgx7HPV8mKyGMAEAKpQdkb_jkovK18e9R6zF3EdZ55Co3ecK6jbKmDs6_Yls29RpZKrAKbn3-rpL7k-Ph0Vl8dXN6fnR4FWdCmTbOWSoYGoRCq1yjyBjLBaeCaocStDFaC42JymiRCpNSxtJUuBRYgUxKptgq2Z31nfjmZepCa8dlyFxVYe2aabCKMwFcA-3MnT_NhHLQWiX_il1eRhoh_he54tCt0Ilb38RRM_V1l4tNgFEhE9N_S2dS5psQvCvsxJdj9O-Wgu2vZn9cravZnjfGkGFVeKyzMnwVSsVFF2Pnbc68UWgb_8k5Fwko3fN4xsvQurdPjv7ZSsWUsPL01g7pxQOcXV_aPks2nxXHqS_zR_e10e_TfgDDJ7sb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>203156292</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The ivory trade and elephant conservation</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>STILES, DANIEL</creator><creatorcontrib>STILES, DANIEL</creatorcontrib><description>In response to significant elephant population declines in the 1970s and 1980s because of poaching for ivory, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) banned the international trade in Asian and African elephant species by listing them on Appendix I in 1973 and 1989, respectively. Many southern African countries disagreed with the African elephant trade ban and have continued to argue against it since the mid-1980s. They maintain that their governments practise sound wildlife management policies and actions and, as a consequence, their national elephant populations have reached unsustainable size. They argue that they should not be penalized because other countries cannot manage their wildlife. Further, they say they need the proceeds from ivory and other by-product sales to finance conservation efforts. In 1997, the CITES Conference of Parties voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to auction off 50 tonnes of government ivory stockpiles to Japanese traders on a one-off experimental basis, which took place in 1999. Ivory trade opponents allege that this sale stimulated ivory demand, resulting in a surge of elephant poaching. Nevertheless, CITES voted again in 2002 to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to auction off another 60 tonnes of ivory after May 2004. Trade opponents have launched an active campaign to prevent the sales, warning that they could provoke a renewed elephant holocaust. This paper reviews available quantitative evidence on ivory trade and elephant killing to evaluate the arguments of the ivory trade proponents and opponents. The evidence supports the view that the trade bans resulted generally in lower levels of ivory market scale and elephant poaching than prevailed prior to 1990. There is little evidence to support claims that the 1999 southern African ivory auctions stimulated ivory demand or elephant poaching. Levels of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trading in a country are more likely to be related to wildlife management practices, law enforcement and corruption than to choice of CITES appendix listings and consequent extent of trade restrictions. Elephant conservation and public welfare can be better served by legal ivory trade than by a trade ban, but until demand for ivory can be restrained and various monitoring and regulation measures are put into place it is premature for CITES to permit ivory sales.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0376-8929</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-4387</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0376892904001614</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EVCNA4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Animal populations ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; CITES ; CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) ; conservation ; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ; Corruption ; Elephantidae ; Elephants ; Endangered species ; Environmental conservation ; Flora ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; International trade ; Ivory ; ivory trade ; Loxodonta africana ; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking ; Poaching ; Population decline ; Supply ; Trade ; Trade legislation ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife management ; wildlife use</subject><ispartof>Environmental conservation, 2004-12, Vol.31 (4), p.309-321</ispartof><rights>2004 Foundation for Environmental Conservation</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Cambridge University Press, Publishing Division Dec 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c579t-d3b53a9a0f87d8a5c33d541518ea608998858a27c1fb59b133bb5eb03fa366373</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44520788$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0376892904001614/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,803,27924,27925,55628,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16745608$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>STILES, DANIEL</creatorcontrib><title>The ivory trade and elephant conservation</title><title>Environmental conservation</title><addtitle>Envir. Conserv</addtitle><description>In response to significant elephant population declines in the 1970s and 1980s because of poaching for ivory, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) banned the international trade in Asian and African elephant species by listing them on Appendix I in 1973 and 1989, respectively. Many southern African countries disagreed with the African elephant trade ban and have continued to argue against it since the mid-1980s. They maintain that their governments practise sound wildlife management policies and actions and, as a consequence, their national elephant populations have reached unsustainable size. They argue that they should not be penalized because other countries cannot manage their wildlife. Further, they say they need the proceeds from ivory and other by-product sales to finance conservation efforts. In 1997, the CITES Conference of Parties voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to auction off 50 tonnes of government ivory stockpiles to Japanese traders on a one-off experimental basis, which took place in 1999. Ivory trade opponents allege that this sale stimulated ivory demand, resulting in a surge of elephant poaching. Nevertheless, CITES voted again in 2002 to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to auction off another 60 tonnes of ivory after May 2004. Trade opponents have launched an active campaign to prevent the sales, warning that they could provoke a renewed elephant holocaust. This paper reviews available quantitative evidence on ivory trade and elephant killing to evaluate the arguments of the ivory trade proponents and opponents. The evidence supports the view that the trade bans resulted generally in lower levels of ivory market scale and elephant poaching than prevailed prior to 1990. There is little evidence to support claims that the 1999 southern African ivory auctions stimulated ivory demand or elephant poaching. Levels of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trading in a country are more likely to be related to wildlife management practices, law enforcement and corruption than to choice of CITES appendix listings and consequent extent of trade restrictions. Elephant conservation and public welfare can be better served by legal ivory trade than by a trade ban, but until demand for ivory can be restrained and various monitoring and regulation measures are put into place it is premature for CITES to permit ivory sales.</description><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>CITES</subject><subject>CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species)</subject><subject>conservation</subject><subject>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</subject><subject>Corruption</subject><subject>Elephantidae</subject><subject>Elephants</subject><subject>Endangered species</subject><subject>Environmental conservation</subject><subject>Flora</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>International trade</subject><subject>Ivory</subject><subject>ivory trade</subject><subject>Loxodonta africana</subject><subject>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</subject><subject>Poaching</subject><subject>Population decline</subject><subject>Supply</subject><subject>Trade</subject><subject>Trade legislation</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><subject>wildlife use</subject><issn>0376-8929</issn><issn>1469-4387</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMouH78AA9CEVQ8VCfN91HEb1HEFbyFaZtq1267Jl3Rf2_LLgqKesrheWYy8w4hGxT2KVB1cAdMSW0SAxyASsoXyIByaWLOtFokgx7HPV8mKyGMAEAKpQdkb_jkovK18e9R6zF3EdZ55Co3ecK6jbKmDs6_Yls29RpZKrAKbn3-rpL7k-Ph0Vl8dXN6fnR4FWdCmTbOWSoYGoRCq1yjyBjLBaeCaocStDFaC42JymiRCpNSxtJUuBRYgUxKptgq2Z31nfjmZepCa8dlyFxVYe2aabCKMwFcA-3MnT_NhHLQWiX_il1eRhoh_he54tCt0Ilb38RRM_V1l4tNgFEhE9N_S2dS5psQvCvsxJdj9O-Wgu2vZn9cravZnjfGkGFVeKyzMnwVSsVFF2Pnbc68UWgb_8k5Fwko3fN4xsvQurdPjv7ZSsWUsPL01g7pxQOcXV_aPks2nxXHqS_zR_e10e_TfgDDJ7sb</recordid><startdate>20041201</startdate><enddate>20041201</enddate><creator>STILES, DANIEL</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20041201</creationdate><title>The ivory trade and elephant conservation</title><author>STILES, DANIEL</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c579t-d3b53a9a0f87d8a5c33d541518ea608998858a27c1fb59b133bb5eb03fa366373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>CITES</topic><topic>CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species)</topic><topic>conservation</topic><topic>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</topic><topic>Corruption</topic><topic>Elephantidae</topic><topic>Elephants</topic><topic>Endangered species</topic><topic>Environmental conservation</topic><topic>Flora</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>International trade</topic><topic>Ivory</topic><topic>ivory trade</topic><topic>Loxodonta africana</topic><topic>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</topic><topic>Poaching</topic><topic>Population decline</topic><topic>Supply</topic><topic>Trade</topic><topic>Trade legislation</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><topic>wildlife use</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>STILES, DANIEL</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Environmental conservation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>STILES, DANIEL</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The ivory trade and elephant conservation</atitle><jtitle>Environmental conservation</jtitle><addtitle>Envir. Conserv</addtitle><date>2004-12-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>309</spage><epage>321</epage><pages>309-321</pages><issn>0376-8929</issn><eissn>1469-4387</eissn><coden>EVCNA4</coden><abstract>In response to significant elephant population declines in the 1970s and 1980s because of poaching for ivory, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) banned the international trade in Asian and African elephant species by listing them on Appendix I in 1973 and 1989, respectively. Many southern African countries disagreed with the African elephant trade ban and have continued to argue against it since the mid-1980s. They maintain that their governments practise sound wildlife management policies and actions and, as a consequence, their national elephant populations have reached unsustainable size. They argue that they should not be penalized because other countries cannot manage their wildlife. Further, they say they need the proceeds from ivory and other by-product sales to finance conservation efforts. In 1997, the CITES Conference of Parties voted to allow Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to auction off 50 tonnes of government ivory stockpiles to Japanese traders on a one-off experimental basis, which took place in 1999. Ivory trade opponents allege that this sale stimulated ivory demand, resulting in a surge of elephant poaching. Nevertheless, CITES voted again in 2002 to allow Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to auction off another 60 tonnes of ivory after May 2004. Trade opponents have launched an active campaign to prevent the sales, warning that they could provoke a renewed elephant holocaust. This paper reviews available quantitative evidence on ivory trade and elephant killing to evaluate the arguments of the ivory trade proponents and opponents. The evidence supports the view that the trade bans resulted generally in lower levels of ivory market scale and elephant poaching than prevailed prior to 1990. There is little evidence to support claims that the 1999 southern African ivory auctions stimulated ivory demand or elephant poaching. Levels of elephant poaching and illegal ivory trading in a country are more likely to be related to wildlife management practices, law enforcement and corruption than to choice of CITES appendix listings and consequent extent of trade restrictions. Elephant conservation and public welfare can be better served by legal ivory trade than by a trade ban, but until demand for ivory can be restrained and various monitoring and regulation measures are put into place it is premature for CITES to permit ivory sales.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0376892904001614</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0376-8929 |
ispartof | Environmental conservation, 2004-12, Vol.31 (4), p.309-321 |
issn | 0376-8929 1469-4387 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743504801 |
source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Animal populations Animal, plant and microbial ecology Applied ecology Biological and medical sciences CITES CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) conservation Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife Corruption Elephantidae Elephants Endangered species Environmental conservation Flora Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology International trade Ivory ivory trade Loxodonta africana Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking Poaching Population decline Supply Trade Trade legislation Wildlife conservation Wildlife management wildlife use |
title | The ivory trade and elephant conservation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T01%3A02%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20ivory%20trade%20and%20elephant%20conservation&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20conservation&rft.au=STILES,%20DANIEL&rft.date=2004-12-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=309&rft.epage=321&rft.pages=309-321&rft.issn=0376-8929&rft.eissn=1469-4387&rft.coden=EVCNA4&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0376892904001614&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E44520788%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=203156292&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0376892904001614&rft_jstor_id=44520788&rfr_iscdi=true |