The South and South East Asian Ivory Markets by Martin. E, and Stiles, D. Published by Save the Elephants. Nairobi/London. 88pp. ISBN 9966-9683-2-6
Reviewed by Robin Sharp CB

You can tell that a CITES Conference of the Parties is in the offing when alarming or alarmist reports about the plight of the elephant start thudding through your letter-box. Over the last two decades the spotlight focused exclusively on the African elephant, because up to the time of the 1989 ban a regulated international trade in its ivory was permitted. Arguing the pros and cons of imposing the ban and, later, whether it should be moderated produced much heat and little light. It did nothing to promote understanding of the crucial role which sustainable use played and plays in conservation by providing incentives for the people who share land with threatened wildlife. Moreover it totally overlooked the fact that a similar ban on trade in Asian elephant ivory, in place since 1974, has by no means secured the numbers and distribution of that species, as a new report shows.

Not content with counting 111,000 individual ivory items on sale in African ivory markets for their 2000 report, The Ivory Markets of Africa, Martin and Stiles have performed the same service for Asian markets to produce a new volume, The South and South East Asian Ivory Markets (Save the Elephants. Nairobi/London. 88pp. Unpriced. ISBN 9966-9683-2-6). This time they found over 105,000 artefacts in 521 shops in the eight countries surveyed. Their investigations covered Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, Singapore, Cambodia, Nepal, Laos and Sri Lanka. India was omitted because very little ivory is displayed for sale in Indian shops.

It is most welcome to find an analytical spotlight turned onto the Asian situation. While uncertainties cloud precise elephant numbers in both continents, a reasonable estimate indicates around 10 times more African than Asian elephants. Moreover, the latter is the more vulnerable of the two species, with substantial declines recently reported in Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. This is in spite of the fact that all international trade in Asian elephant ivory has been illegal under CITES since 1974. Domestic trade in new wild ivory is forbidden in all countries except Myanmar, while Thailand allows sale of ivory from the cropped tips of domesticated elephant tusks.

Thailand was by far the biggest market with over 80% of the total number of items seen on sale in Asia in three main centres, with tourists from Europe and Asia being the main customers. Myanmar with 6% of the total came in as a surprising second, evidently not being as far off the tourist map as admirers of An Sang Suu Kyi might have hoped. The great majority of items were jewellery or trinkets, easy to conceal and seen as desirable for opportunistic purchase by tourists, in contrast to the skilful carvings sought by connoisseurs in earlier generations. However there were still a few high quality worked pieces to be seen in Bangkok and Singapore, the most expensive one costing US$116,000. Prices, at an average US$250 per kg, were about five times higher than those found by the same investigators in Africa. Although most carvers and retailers questioned in the countries surveyed were pessimistic about the future of their business, workshops in China were supplying both the quality market in Singapore and the mass market elsewhere. Where there was evidence from previous visits to the same shops, turnover seemed quite slow with about a third of the stock moving each year.

Where is the raw ivory for these markets coming from? According to Martin and Stiles, Thailand is receiving it illegally from Myanmar and various West and Central African countries, the latter source being substantiated by regular seizures. Surprisingly in view of the size of its ivory market, Thailand's own wild elephant population, estimated at around 1,600, is not considered to have declined. The authors observe 'imports of [illegal] African tusks have reduced the poaching pressures on Thailand's wild elephants'. Vietnam is taking ivory from Laos and Cambodia while Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Sri Lanka supply their markets from their own wild elephant populations. Both in Myanmar and Thailand tips from the tusks of domesticated elephants provide additional supplies for the markets.

Neither the mere fact of a significant illegal trade in ivory in Asia nor even the estimate that elephant populations have declined from some 17,440 to 10,550 since the 1980's in seven of the countries studied prove that poaching Asian elephants for ivory is the main cause of this decline. However the probability is such that an innocent conservationist would want to call for strict regulation on a precautionary basis. The problem is that, as explained, such regulation already exists. The usual suspects of corruption, lack of enforcement resources and absence of political will are cited, no doubt correctly. Moreover where is the monitoring of elephant numbers, poaching and other causes of mortality that could constitute the basis for a small sustainable use programme to provide incentives for genuine conservation?

Interestingly the authors found no support for the notion promulgated during recent CITES debates on the re-opening of a small legal trade in African ivory that such trade could encourage Asian markets. They could have developed further their observation that illegal imports of African ivory into Thailand had eased poaching pressures on wild Thai elephants. Why not allow an increased legal trade from Southern African countries with healthy and indeed unmanageably large elephant numbers to further this admirable end? I would certainly categorise this report as alarming rather than alarmist, because while shattering the myth that all is well with the Asian elephant it demonstrates an almost complete lack of rational policy to reverse the situation.

Robin Sharp CB is Chair of the European SUSG

Read more book reviews