 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I. Identification
Ivory is the smooth, solid, usually white material that
makes up the tusks of elephants.It is durable if it is not exposed to high
temperature or humidity, ivory may be carved and shaped with cutting tools
that help to give diffrent shapes. It is one of the oldest carving materials,
and carved ivory objects have been found about 20,000 years ago. Because
ivory is more fibrous than bone, it can be easily modified. There are two
types of ivory: The first, is the hard ivory which comes from elephants
in West Africa. The other Ivory is from East African elephants which is
generally softer, more densely white, and more easily carved. Tusks of
the African elephant, or as it was called Loxodonta africana, average 2
m (6.6 ft) in length and weigh about 23 kg (51 lb). Tusks from the smaller
Asian elephant, Elephas maximus, are 1.5 m (5 ft) in length and weigh around
16 kg (35 lb).
Ancient mammoth and elephant ivory found in frozen river-beds and along the Arctic Ocean was once used in great quantity. Parcels of Siberian mammoth ivory weighing from 10 to 20 tons were common in the ivory markets of the 1890s. Today some ivory are brought from Alaska. Ancient Egyptian ivory carvers often used the extremely hard ivory, which must first be steeped in acid to remove its outer casing of enamel. Dentists in ancient Rome used hippopotamus ivory to make dentures. Various substitutes for ivory are in common use. The most important is vegetable ivory, made from the fruit of the South American ivory nut palm, Phytelephas macrocarpa. In present-day Japan, vegetable ivory is often carved and modified in oreder to look similar to the mellow old ivory.
When it became obvious that elephant herds were endangered by poaching in East Africa, 105 nations agreed to ban the shipment and sale of elephant skin, hair, and ivory; and neither Asian nor African elephant tusks--the source of most commercial ivory--have been traded openly since 1989. Although the ban curbed poaching for a few years, the illegal ivory trade have obviously increased in the mid-1990s, and many African countries were seeking better methods of controlling the killing of elephants for their tusks.
In countries like Zimbabwe, for example, there are 70,000
elephants roaming and causing the death of hundreds of people for many
years especially between 1991 to 1996. A lot of money would be generated
if the ivory trade were allowed then, but all those elephants were protected.
Zimbabwean authorities, including environmentalists, have
persistently argued that if trade in elephant ivory is unbanned, earnings
could be used in many useful ways, especially in improving the living standards
of the poor population. There are a lot of issues that have to be taken
into consideration; such as, the loss of food and productivity, the loss
of education for children, and the great damage caused by the existence
of those animals.
So from this we conclude that there are two side for this issue. The first side is claiming that getting the ivory from those animals and being able to trade with it, will generate enough profit that will be used in developing the poor rural communities of their countries. The second side is worried about the wildlife and the environment in general. They say that the greatest threats to elephants is habitat loss. Making them less valuable may discourage some poaching, but by encouraging habitat destruction, this devaluation has surely harmed elephant populations. But the problem is that Countries like Zimbabwe with its CAMPFIRE program are realizing that the best way to protect habitat comes when people are alloed to benefit from the wildlife that surrounds them. In this case, devaluing elephants only means less effort will be put into providing space for them. Arguing that elephant in there countries were too many for environment balance, the three countries want to be allowed to export ivory to Japan and also reopen international trade in hunting trophies.
The problem in all of this, that it seems that poaching is increasing
in some areas especially India, where an alarming proportion of Asian elephants
have been killed. No one really can determine if poaching is really increasing
because as specialists suggest poaching has to increase 10 times before
it becomes significant. Second of all, reports about poaching are sometimes
being denied by the government agency responsible, or when official figures
for poaching seem to be lower than those collected by NGOs as happened
in Kenya recently. So its difficult for CITES to discover any change in
poaching rates because nothing is certain.
Another problem may arise especially because Japanese
authorities can not always stop organized criminals from smuggling and
trading in illegal ivory if some legal trade is allowed. So ivory trade
can not be really controlled. Nevertheless, efforts are being made to strengthen
legislation and organizational weaknesses identified by CITES Experts.
Zambia Zambia Poaching and Trade.
Elephant Elephant and ivory.
April 6, 1999
II. Legal
ClustersSCOPE: Multilateral.
III. Geographic
Clustersb. Geographic Site: South Africa.
c. Geographic Impact: Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia.
IV. Trade
Clustersb. Indirectly Related to Product: Yes.
c. Not Related to Product: No.
d. Related to Process:
Yes. Species Loss Land. The elephants are being killed for there ivory.
V. Environment
ClustersType: Mammals.
Diversity: The second type is the Asian elephant: Elephas maximus.
VI. Other
FactorsWilliamson, p. , Introduction to Medieval ivory Carvings. (c) 1996 Grolier Inc. (1982).
Electronic Mail&Guardian."its
either elephant or people"( -- PANA/Misanet April 22, 1997).
http://www.mg.co.za/mg/news/97apr2/22apr-zimelephants.html.
GEG_Newsletter@cseindia.org,
1997 World Wide Fund For Nature (wwf) report anju@cseindia.org.
(March 31,1999).
"Ivory impasse" New Scientist. Newswire (February 13,1999), Pg.
5.
