Imbecility triumphs, once again, and a nonsensical policy meets no challengers
The idea that reducing supply of a much coveted commodity—in this case elephant ivory—will dampen demand among the backward humans who seek this product as a status symbol is plain idiotic. If anything it will likely drive prices up. The rational thing to do is to have the stockpiles, representing the death of hundreds if not thousands of elephants, put back into the market WHILE stimagtizing the practice of ivory buying and trading.
This week marks the 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), taking place in Geneva, Switzerland. To coincide with this meeting, the World Wildlife Fund has released a “Wildlife Crime Scorecard” report which lists 23 countries in Asia and Africa that it claims could all do more to enforce trade bans intended to protect tigers, rhinos, and elephants.
But what about WWF’s scorecard? Unlike the governments it assesses, WWF has specifically purported to protect endangered species since its inception in 1961. It has also mostly endorsed the CITES trade ban approach to saving tigers, rhinos, and elephants for more than the last two decades, but the results of this have been unimpressive. Tiger numbers have plummeted, as have rhino numbers in all but a handful of former range states; elephants have fared slightly better since the ivory ban, but poaching is on the rise again. So while WWF can claim some individual successes with certain localized conservation projects, its broader policies on wildlife trade deserve closer scrutiny to see if they make sense.
For example, last month WWF commended the government of Gabon for burning a stockpile of almost 5 tons of confiscated ivory, estimated to represent the equivalent death of 850 elephants. Presumably the architects of this event think they can repeat the performance of the Kenyan government, which famously burned a pile of ivory (and rhino horn) back in 1989.
Kenya’s dramatic gesture had three effects: First, as a media stunt it caught the attention of many people and helped to stigmatize the use of ivory products in the West. Second, this in turn appeared to reduce consumer demand (and therefore prices and the incentive to poach elephants). And third, Kenya was able to leverage this event as a means to raise significant donor funding. (The funding benefits did not endure and other African elephant range states did not benefit in this way; instead many had to bear the cost of forgone ivory sales harvested from sustainably-managed populations.)
That was then, this is now. Ivory demand in East Asian markets has a deeper cultural imprint and was far less impacted by any stigma effect from the 1989 ban. With the rising affluence of East Asian consumers, black market prices and elephant poaching levels are increasing significantly.
Economists may disagree about many things, but one thing we do agree on is that if you reduce the supply of a product without a corresponding reduction in demand, prices will rise. In a 1990 peer-reviewed journal article*, economist Ted Bergstrom explains clearly why: If the goal is to protect threatened species, it does not make sense to destroy confiscated stockpiles, but rather to sell them back into the market to satisfy demand and restrain prices. If trade is already banned and consumers are still buying ivory, there is no reason to believe that reducing the supply will change their preferences. So burning ivory stockpiles at this time does not seem like such a great idea. Although intended to send out a message about the acceptability of buying ivory, this gesture may simply send out a different message to the market: that ivory is an increasingly scarce resource worthy of speculative investment.
WWF’s approach of constricting supplies is not restricted to elephants. It adopts similar policies toward tiger and rhino products. The same principles apply here and the black market values for such products only appear to be rising over time, with disastrous consequences for wild populations.
* Ted Bergstrom. “On the Economics of Crime and Confiscation.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 4.3 (1990): 171-178.
– See more at: http://perc.org/blog/does-burning-ivory-save-elephants#sthash.0uQNX9aD.dpuf
Cui bono?
Giant Ivory Stockpile to Go Up in Flames
TUSKS OF 11K ELEPHANTS WILL BE DESTROYED IN HONG KONG
A photographer takes pictures of illegal ivory after a press conference in Hong Kong earlier this year. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu)
(NEWSER) – Hong Kong plans to burn the tusks of an estimated 11,000 elephants in the world’s biggest burning of an ivory stockpile. The territory’s government says the 28-ton stockpile of contraband ivory is a “management burden” and a “security risk,” reports CNN. Hong Kong had earlier been unwilling to burn the stockpile, deeming the move wasteful and polluting, but it came under renewed pressure after smaller stockpiles were destroyed in China and the US, where six tons of ivory were destroyed with a rock crusher.
One ton of ivory will be kept for educational purposes. Anti-poaching groups say Hong Kong destroying its stockpile will make a huge statement not just because of the quantity, but because of the city’s long history in the ivory trade. “Hong Kong, as a major destination and transit hub for trafficked ivory, will soon join that growing list of leaders that are placing a higher value on a living elephant than pieces of a dead one,” the chief of the African Wildlife Foundation nonprofit tells National Geographic.
