A singularly distinguished roster of scientists, and others, with an interest in wildlife conservation have signed a petition calling for Theresa May to impose a “total UK ban on ivory sales” (Conservationists and MPs call for a total UK ban on ivory sales, theguardian.com, 22 September), claiming that Andrea Leadsom’s announcement of a ban on post-1947 ivory “falls short of what is needed”. I beg to differ.
The entire community of art historians, curators, connoisseurs and collectors unequivocally supports the preservation of endangered species. But by the same token it can be said with confidence that bona fide, pre-1947 works of art documented by Cites (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) made of or incorporating ivory have no impact whatsoever on the thirst for modern tusks and trinkets: these are two utterly separate issues.
In welcoming the government’s reinforced stance against poaching and trafficking, underlined by its ban on post-1947 ivory of any kind, it is to be hoped that the UK will stand squarely with the EU delegation at the upcoming Cites conference in Johannesburg, and formally acknowledge the distinction between works created over millennia that are part of our shared cultural inheritance, and the meretricious byproducts of illicit trade in illegally slaughtered elephants.
Martin Levy
H Blairman & Sons, London
• Simon Jenkins (A total ban on ivory would be disastrous for elephants. Better to legalise it, theguardian.com, 23 September) talks about rich westerners telling poor Africans what to do with their elephants. Yet wasn’t it rich Victorian colonial westerners who commercialised an industrial ivory trade in the first place?
Today the vast majority of African nations favour banning ivory markets, knowing that history has shown, time and again, that an uncorrupted, legal ivory trade is one of conservation’s great canards?
Between 1975 and 1989, legalised trade halved African elephant numbers and enriched traders, not rural communities. In 2008, another attempt at legalised trade was implemented through a series of “one-off” ivory sales to China and Japan. The result? Elephant poaching went from low levels to 33,000 deaths a year between 2010 and 2012. Criminal syndicates made a windfall; local farmers did not.
The notion that poor rural farmers are the beneficiaries of any legalised trade is ludicrous. While wildlife stands to lose habitat as Africa’s population grows, uncontrollable commercial trade in ivory and other products is not the answer. We do need unambiguous laws and better law enforcement. But most crucially, we need to stigmatise the use of wildlife products in countries where consumer demand is high. History has shown this can be done: one need only look to how ivory is quickly falling out of favour in China for proof.
Peter Knights
CEO, WildAid
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
.jpg?w=600)
