Speaking of elephants and political boundaries, it turns out that ivory contains DNA, and elephant DNA varies with respect to location, as explained in this 2007 NewScientist report:
A DNA test that reveals where ivory has come from has been used to pinpoint the geographic origins of hundreds of tusks seized from poachers, providing law enforcement agencies with valuable clues.
The test was developed in 2004 through a comparison of elephant DNA from different regions. Theoretically, it can pinpoint the origin of a particular sample to between 500 and 1000 kilometres.
Now, the DNA test has survived its first genuine challenge. It revealed that a huge sample of 532 tusks – seized in Singapore in 2002 but originally shipped from Malawi – came mainly from Zambia, not from multiple locations as originally suspected.
The recent ivory crush thus represents a loss of evidence for tracing exactly where the ivory is poached – i.e., where the elephants are killed. A recent NewScientist report (27 June 2015) details the potential loss:
Their analysis reveals that since 2006, almost all the seized ivory has come from just two places: Tanzania – which has lost 60 per cent of its elephants over the past five years – and an area of western Africa spanning parts of Gabon, the Republic of the Congo and Cameroon (Science, doi.org/5h6).
“We were very surprised to find that the ivory came from just two locations in Africa,” Wasser said. “It means we can target these areas for law enforcement.”
The DNA information has already been useful in targeting poachers and smugglers, and to unravel trafficking networks, says William Clark of Interpol. “Every tusk should be sampled.”
Another way to locate corruption in Africa.
What is the purpose of the crush action? The Ninety Six Elephants site explains:
In the fall of 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pulverized six tons of ivory, rendering trinkets it had confiscated into shards no bigger than a dime. A few months later, China did the same. And these nations are not alone—countries like Kenya, Gabon, and the Philippines have all crushed or burned from their stockpiles. A number of others have scheduled such an action for the near future.
What’s the point of all the crushing and burning? These events send a clear message to traffickers around the world that the trade in ivory won’t be tolerated.
Curious about the possibility of the economic consequences of crushing the ivory in the presence of a black market, to wit, reducing supply => increases prices => increases motivation to kill more elephants, I tracked down the Wildlife Conservation Society’s response on HuffPo:
Much of the commentary around these destructions has been favorable, but some people have suggested that ridding ourselves of ivory might be harmful for elephant conservation by reducing the supply and thus stimulating prices (a key driver of elephant poaching).
A recent misleading headline commenting on Malawi’s destruction of ivory stockpiles (since postponed) read: “One of the Poorest Countries in the World Is About to Burn $7.6M Worth of Ivory.” This misunderstanding is widespread, with some commentators erroneously suggesting that countries are foolish to burn such valuable national assets. Such criticism ignores two facts about confiscated ivory.
First, because it is prohibited under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to sell seized ivory, it should not be compared to other confiscated consumer goods or to legal ivory from legitimate channels
This strikes me as a non sequitur. On the other hand, the crushing of the ivory really has an effect if it was previously available to the trade. As it was stockpiled, one may presume it was unavailable; however, coming to a binary conclusion is probably improper as the existence of stockpiled ivory may influence the activities of traffickers – i.e., attempts to obtain that ivory, through licit (change the laws) or illicit means may affect the price of available black market ivory. The money saved by no longer having to safeguard the illegal ivory may well outweigh the cost in dead elephants, since the latter may be quite low, depending on how the now-lost ivory had been valued by the black market, factoring in the possibility of acquiring it.
Second, in assigning commercial value to poached and trafficked ivory, we may forget to calculate the social and ecological worth of living elephants for Africa.
The primary benefit in eliminating confiscated ivory is to prevent this material from re-entering the illegal trade and further stimulating trafficking, which has been a significant problem across Africa and Asia. If not destroyed, stockpiles must be secured in perpetuity. This is very expensive, logistically challenging, and often dangerous to those guarding them.
Destroying this ivory sends a strong signal that governments will not tolerate trafficking and associated poaching. The awareness-raising value of stockpile destructions can be even more effective if the government destroying the ivory uses the occasion to announce new effective trafficking deterrents, including actions to fully prosecute criminals (particularly kingpins and major traffickers), significant fines, long jail sentences, and asset seizures.
I fear that, absent studies proving otherwise, I find this assertion that “strong messages” are being sent to be a bunch of hooey. The black market is already illicit; there’s little reason to believe anyone is paying any attention when the real focus is the greed for the ivory.
