In recent years, under strong interna-tional pressure, Taiwan has enacted some of the strictest controls in the world covering elephant ivory. Meanwhile, however, the international ivory ban is being relaxed, only six years after its declaration, giving the impression that Taiwan has gone to a lot of trouble for nothing. Has the original problem of the elephants changed? Or have people changed their ideas about it?

In June of this year, at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) conference being held in Zimbabwe, after a vote by the 123 members, the African elephant was taken off Appendix I (the most endangered species) and placed in Appendix II (listing less-endangered species). The strict regulations banning international trade in products relating to the African elephant are to be relaxed.

Less than three months after the reclassification, Taiwan cracked its third major case of ivory smuggling this year. The Pingtung office of the Bureau of Investigation uncovered a case of a construction firm owner who spent tens of millions of NT dollars to purchase ivory carvings. (The items were smuggled encased in Buddhist statuary.) Such cases have been frequent in Asia, as have been cases of poaching in nations that are home to elephants. The largest poaching case thus far was discovered at the end of last year in the Congo and Gabon; 200 elephants had been slain.

Two million ivory name chops

Use of ivory is common across human cultures. Even in Europe, not a source area for ivory, ivory carving was already highly developed in ancient Greece and Rome. The ivory trade from Africa to Europe across the Mediterranean was carried on interrupted for centuries.

However, since the signing of CITES this century, Europe has placed increasingly strict controls on trade in animal products. A report by Traffic International (a group that monitors wildlife trade) states that large-scale seizures across the world in recent years have netted 52 metric tons, of which only 18.8 tons was destined for Asia. Yet, despite the fact that Asia is not the world's sole ivory-consuming region, the newly developed Asian states, with growing purchasing power and lacking controls on trade, have nonetheless come to be seen internationally as the new "elephant terminators."

In 1989, in Japan alone two million ivory name chops were produced. Currently Japan allows trade in ivory name chops of up to ten tons. One person at a large name chop firm in Taiwan does not even try to deny that his firm has more than 1000 tusks in stock.

High ivory consumption makes elephant herds hunting prey. As early as 1976, CITES issued a ban on trade in the Asian elephant, of which only 50,000 remained. Though there are still about 600,000 African elephants, it has been impossible to stop poaching and smuggling. In many African countries, elephants are killed for their tusks and then left to rot. In 1989, 103 countries signed an agreement in Lausanne, Switzerland to terminate the existing ivory export quota system.

But with loopholes left amongst the different countries' laws governing ivory trade, poaching and smuggling never disappeared. The ivory trade turned to small-scale trade. For example, Hong Kong residents still can take out five kilos of hand-held luggage tax free, equivalent in weight to about 200 ivory chops. This is frequently used to transport ivory. With the large profits involved in the ivory trade, moreover, many countries proved unwilling to cooperate with the strict international standards. Japan has not compelled its citizens to register their ivory, so there is no way to trace smuggled ivory once it is successfully smuggled in.

In the 1990s, Taiwan has been tagged as the number one ivory smuggling country in Asia. According to Traffic International's records of known cases of ivory smuggling, of shipments of ivory destined for Asian destinations in the last six years, more than 7000 kilos were for Taiwan, more than well-known major ivory consumers like Japan, the PRC, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, or Thailand.Honesty is criminal?

Honesty is criminal?

However, while Taiwan is indeed a consumer of ivory, the fact that its authorities have uncovered the highest amount of smuggling does not necessarily mean it is the largest market or final destination. This is the view of Marcus Phipps, a Canadian who is director of the Taipei office of Traffic Taipei. In fact, Taiwan is the only country to have provided complete data for the past six years. Over the past three years in particular, other countries often are recorded as "data not available."

"It could be said that Taiwan is the most open in its investigation of ivory smuggling," states Phipps. Meanwhile, says an official at the Council of Agriculture (COA)-the body for overseeing wildlife preservation in Taiwan-many countries that have long been members of CITES have not enforced the relevant laws, or have even failed to enact domestic legislation governing trade in wild animals. It is ironic, then, that "Taiwan provides information at every session, yet it becomes the focus of attacks."

In past years, Taiwan has been criticized over rhinoceros horns, tiger parts, and other issues. In the past, the US (invoking the Pelly Amendment) has even imposed trade sanctions because of dissatisfaction with Taiwan's performance on trade in endangered species. Thus, the government has strengthened enforcement and amended the wildlife laws, which has led to a drop in large-scale elephant ivory smuggling. "In recent years it has even been common to confiscate small items carried by tourists," says a COA official.

Just as Taiwan has been busy preventing smuggling, the elephant has brought new problems to the African continent.

In a recent Hollywood film, officials and conservationists trapped poachers by making it more profitable for them to try to rob storage facilities of ivory than by poaching elephants in the wild. The film reflects reality. Since the ban on ivory sales, many African countries have found storing confiscated ivory to be a real headache.

In Zimbabwe, host of the current CITES round, one of the extra-curricular activities for delegates is to be taken on a tour of ivory warehouses. National parks in South Africa have as much as US$2 million worth of ivory in storage. It is estimated that there are more than 500 metric tons of African elephant ivory in storage (equivalent to about 10,000 elephants).

Besides growing stockpiles of confiscated ivory, another factor encouraging relaxation of the international ivory trade ban is the burgeoning of elephant herds in eastern and southern Africa.

Elephant disaster

The African elephant once roamed the entire continent, from the Mediterranean in the north to the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip. Leaving aside the earliest relations between man and elephant, it was beginning in the 16th and 17th centuries, when Europeans first penetrated the continent, that the African elephant began to face mass slaughter. After three centuries of killing, the elephant population was devastated. In Capetown, South Africa, for example, when the government established the national park in 1931, there were only 11 elephants, compared to the historical peak when at least 100,000 elephants roamed the grassy plain.

In the 20th century, African countries have established numerous animal preserves and enacted conservation laws. After World War I, international ivory consumption reached its lowest point, and elephant populations became somewhat stabilized. But the destruction of their habitat and large-scale "recreational" hunting had by then severely scattered and withered the herds.

In the 1970s, as various countries' economies took off, there was a renewed frenzy of ivory purchasing. The African elephant had barely won some breathing space when it faced a new crisis. In 1979, there were still 1.3 million African elephants. By 1987, according to statistics of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and National Resources (IUCN), there were only about 760,000 head, a decline of nearly half.

While overall numbers were falling however, in the limited areas of the preserves, the populations began to grow. The most famous case is that of elephants in South Africa. At the turn of the century there were only four, but by the 1990s there were more than 9000, of which 82% are concentrated in the renowned Kruger National Park. A 1986 report points out that the elephant population in Kruger Park is growing at 5% per year. And in Kenya, in East Africa, the elephant population is growing at 4% per annum.

Because of the need for agricultural land in Africa, preserves cannot be expanded in size. The elephants-each of whom consumes more than 100 kilos of grass per day-have begun to squeeze out other creatures in the protected areas. Thus the South African government has stated that the enormous "towering baobab tree," of which there were thousands in the park, has disappeared because of drought and damage by elephants. Thus, ironically, even as the elephant is a focus of international conservation efforts, research institutions supported by the international community, working with local governments, have begun so-called "resource management"-culling elephant herds.

Beginning in the 1970s, South Africa began killing about 500 elephants per year. Recently Kenya, Namibia, and Botswana have also begun culling. "Population regulation of elephants will become a necessity during the next century," says an article in the Spring 1997 issue of Wildlife Society, published in the US. After protests from animal rights activists, researchers have been searching for a better method of culling than bullets-elephant birth control.

Sales ban kills poaching?

The growth in elephant herds has been a problem for some African countries, and ivory has become a political and economic problem. Because elephants have been forced into relatively dry land unsuited to agriculture, elephants looking for water often trample farmland, sparking battles between man and beast. Many Kenyans complain that they get no compensation when elephants or other protected animals damage their crops. In 30 years, Zimbabwe has culled 40,000 elephants, but the herds have still doubled in size. The Zimbabwean government has declared that, to protect vegetation from destruction, it can only keep about 30,000 elephants, but the population has grown to 66,000. Elephants there have often been known to chase and threaten people, and local residents have little choice but to fight back. Conflicts between man and animal have come to be seen as the most serious problem in elephant conservation.

Thus the CITES decision to ban ivory sales has been assailed for taking only the elephant into consideration, while neglecting other species, including people. It is not only divorced from reality, it goes against the interests of local residents, exacerbating the friction between elephants and Africans.

In colonial times ivory was a major source of income for African countries. Today, countries that are host to elephants likewise see ivory as an economic asset. One Zimbabwean economist, Brian Child, estimates that Zimbabwe has lost about US$4 million per year during the period of the ban. Thus Zimbabwe has applied to the World Trade Organization asking for compensation.

When there are no ivory revenues, in many countries the budget for elephant conservation is sharply cut. It costs a minimum of US$200 per square kilometer to properly maintain the environment and protect the animals; today actual expenditure is less than 5% of this amount. The dissolution of the conservation net deepens the crisis. In the Garamba National Park in the Central African Republic, the number of elephants poached has doubled since the ivory ban went into effect.

In order to increase revenues, the government of Zaire has disregarded the decisions of international organizations about elephants and has authorized trading licenses for ivory dealers. While foreign donor organizations asking for donations argue that the ban on international trade in ivory stops poaching, they are wrong, says a report by Traffic. Leaving aside for the moment the economic and legal problems it creates, in purely conservationist terms a ban on ivory sales may actually encourage illegal trading.

Use it or lose it?

In Africa and Asia, it is counterproductive to try to prevent local people from exploiting their natural resources to improve their livelihoods. It does not stop the process of the deterioration of the environment, and it generates local resentment. Thus international conservation groups have been reassessing their actions. "The only way people will treasure and protect their resources, and engage in long-term management of them, is if control of their conservation is placed in the hands of local people and the resources are shown to be of value to the locality." So says Lu Dao-jye, who is currently doing a doctoral dissertation on community conservation. Only by using the assets offered by ivory to promote community-led conservation work can true ecological balance be achieved.

In Africa, for many years the question "Use them or lose them?" has been asked in Africa. Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, and Zimbabwe have formed an organization to lobby to restore trade in ivory-related products. "Elephants need water, but people also need water," said Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe in his opening remarks to the CITES meeting. "Every creature must exist in its own way. For developing countries, natural resources give us hope for future development," he said in encouraging the shifting of the elephant to the less protected level of Appendix II.

The Campfire program being implemented in Zimbabwe has offered confidence to the international community. In the past, the benefits from the sale of elephant products did not accrue to the locality. Today, as Zimbabwe culls from the herds in preserves, more than 20 villages have been given permission to sell elephant meat to increase village incomes. Also, foreign tourists are being allowed to undertake elephant hunts, and fee-earning commercial activities are being undertaken. The fact that both the central government and the localities benefit from the Campfire program offers hope to the economically weak countries of Africa.

Similarly, there is increasing international acceptance of the idea of permitting controlled trade, using the sale of elephant ivory to guarantee revenues, and using the revenues to guarantee the continued existence of the elephant. Not only will this undermine the black market, it can convince various governments to proceed with conservation, said a 1995 Traffic International report entitled "Four Years After the CITES Ban: Illegal Killing of Elephants, the Ivory Trade, and Stockpiles."

Marcus Phipps says: "If you don't give the local people an opportunity to survive, what right do international organizations have to criticize them?" Thus, when Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe (all having relatively large stocks of ivory) proposed downgrading the elephant in the CITES appendices, the majority of countries, for a number of considerations, cast affirmative votes.

Flagship animal

Of course, with the overall numbers of African elephants still in decline, not everyone agreed with the downgrading of this creature's protected status. This is especially so because the elephant, the largest land animal, is immediately impressive and touching to people. It is seen internationally as a "flagship" animal. Large creatures are particularly useful for educational purposes, so that the elephant's fate is even more important as a symbol.

Besides those countries which are actually home to elephants, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, and the US also have elephant conservation groups. In the UK, the group "Elefriends" has gotten signatures from 1.5 million people. "Elefriend zones" have been organized in many countries to block imports of ivory products. The IUCN created an "African Elephant Emergency Fund" to subsidize urgent elephant conservation activities.

Thus, both supporters and opponents of the proposal to lift the ban on trade in products related to the African elephant have been very active. And it is hard to ignore the views of those opposed. One critic says that the "old Zimbabwe complaint"-"We have so many elephants here, they destroy our country, so the ivory ban needs to be removed"-is specious: "There is no connection whatsoever between a (claimed) overpopulation in one country, that may be solved by culling, and the removal of the international ban, which will once more start poaching of elephants throughout Africa."

As one might expect, as soon as the lifting of the ban began to be mooted, there were cases of ivory traders hiring local residents to help them poach, expecting to be able to legally sell their take once the ban is lifted. One Japanese person, writing on the Internet, pointed out that since the ban was imposed, ivory has lost value. If trade is legalized, the price will go up again. Some Japanese business people have already imported ivory at the current price, gambling that they will make windfall profits later.

Many conservationsists think people have a duty, on humanitarian grounds, to leave the elephants alone. A group called Born Free has been seeking signatures on the Internet, asking people to write to African governments stating that they will refuse to visit any countries that sell ivory. Because the economic and political situations in the countries of western and central Africa are worse than in eastern and southern Africa, many countries are worried that after the ban is lifted there the impact on the elephant will be much more severe, so these concerned countries also cast negative votes at the CITES meeting.

In terms of distribution, it is not easy to do surveys for the "forest elephant" of the forests of Central and West Africa. It is even more difficult to prevent poaching. Most observers are very pessimistic about preserving the forest elephant herds. In fact, the calls for lifting the ban have even touched the Indian elephant. Staff at the India office of Traffic have discovered a recent increase in the number of Indian elephants killed by hunters. For the Asian elephant, among whom only the males grow the valuable large tusks, this creates an imbalance in the number of males and females, making propagation of the herds much more difficult.

You can't wear it in public

Faced with different situations in various countries, although CITES has approved taking the African elephant off Appendix One, still only one type of cross-national trade is permitted: Trade of nearly 60 tons of elephant ivory between Japan, the largest consumer country, and the three countries which most strongly called for a lifting of the ban. (Japan gets the ivory in exchange for "donations" to the source countries.)

Moreover, the CITES meeting passed a number of provisos. For example, no international ivory trade of any kind will be permitted for the first 18 months from the day the downgrading takes effect. Also, Japan, the designated importer, may only use the ivory for domestic sale; export is prohibited. If the agreement is not respected, and there is an increase in poaching or trade in illegal products, then CITES may at any time ban all ivory trade. "Traders have a heavy responsibility," declares Marcus Phipps. CITES hopes to create a model for managed trade, and its success will determine whether or not the relaxation of the trade ban will continue.

Though in the short run most countries will not be able to resume international trade, people who participated in the recent CITES session got the feeling that "the next session may discuss a complete opening up of ivory trade." Thus, Taiwan's strict controls are being seen by those in the business as cutting their lifeline unnecessarily. Liu Liang-kuo, who runs the Brothers' Chops name chop store in Taipei, says that the harm is already done. Even if trade is restored, the master carvers have already moved on to other jobs. Some even regard Taiwan as being a "lesson in what not to do."

Has Taiwan really made a mistake? Elephant ivory is a major raw material for sculpture and carving, so many countries, aiming to protect their ivory markets, did not ban domestic storage or sale of ivory. "CITES never interfered with domestic trade in any country," says Marcus Phipps. Putting the elephant in Appendix I aimed to block smuggling, not to completely halt domestic trading.

What's interesting is that many people, including those in international conservation groups, assume that Taiwan has banned domestic trade in ivory. But, clarifies a COA official, "We have never banned domestic buying and selling." So why this impression? Because the government did act to dampen demand for ivory here.

Television repeatedly showed a government-produced ad depicting a couple about to married entering the name chop shop, where they are reminded not to buy ivory chops. Also, whereas in most countries, small items need not ordinarily be registered, in Taiwan, sales of even something as small as an ivory name chop must be registered.

Meanwhile, though trade in long-held (and thus never registered) ivory possessions has always been legal, it's hard for people to prove that ivory items in their homes have all been there for quite some time. So many people concluded that "all unregistered ivory in Taiwan must be illegal." The only choice was to put such objects away, because, as a Miss Li (who owns an ivory-beaded necklace) declared, "if you bring them out they will be confiscated."

In addition, the COA issued frequent warnings that even legal elephant ivory or ivory-based goods may not be bought and sold, nor publicly displayed, "without the approval of local authorities." As a result, an ivory cultural artifacts wholesale market was torn down, prompting a protest by the collectors' association.

Many business people with stores of ivory have felt aggrieved by all this. Liu Liang-kuo says that the profit on an ivory name chop is three to four times that of one made from a steer horn. Three or four years ago, he could sell more than 10 ivory chops per day. Today he can sell only one or two per week. And often there are customers who ask him why he even sells ivory chops. According to Traffic Taipei, Taiwan consumes about 5-6% of its ivory stocks per year, so it will take two decades to exhaust current stocks. Young carvers fear that things could get even worse: They are afraid that by the time they retire it will be impossible to unload their stocks at all.

However, though legal trade has been curbed, Taiwan's strict laws have still not achieved the goal of bringing all trade under an open, transparent trade system. "Everyone is deceiving everyone else," says Hung Te-jen, a physician who is also president of the Society of Art Collectors. Many people are afraid their ivory will be confiscated, so they don't register it, but a lot of trading goes on in private.

"Although Taiwan may have the strictest regulations, some see it as just window dressing," says Vincent Chen, program officer for Traffic Taipei. Laws passed under international pressure are seen as temporary responses to external stimuli, but Taiwan in fact does not well understand the real situation and the elephant ivory market. Given the possible legalization of the ivory trade, the COA has already commissioned Traffic Taipei to amend existing ivory control regulations so that they will be more in line with reality and more practicable.

Ivory is not the only killer

Taiwan's experience with ivory controls shows that people in Taiwan lack their own understanding of national and world resources. It shows that an environmental policy made hastily in response to political pressure is bound to have problems. Similarly, the countries of Africa, which gained their independence one after another in the 1960s, at the same time as they are dependent on the outside world economically and culturally, can only follow along with the thinking of the economically developed countries.

Today, advanced-country thinking is behind the new model being promoted for opening up the ivory trade. It is said that environmentalists in rich countries have no right to deprive Africans of their chance to have progress. Based on this justification, there is approval for local government-supported eco-tourism, appropriate levels of hunting, and sales of ivory. It seems that under the current global economic structure, weak nations have no way to maintain an alternative value system. Yet, does something like eco-tourism take into account the impact on local cultures? For example, the nomads of Africa do not welcome outsiders who interfere with their movements in protected areas.

Though some might say that disadvantaged groups have little choice but to utilize their resources, one African emphasizes that Africa and its unique resources should not be an object of preservation only if they can be justified on economic grounds. If the African elephant disappears, this would be a loss for all human beings, but especially for the children and grandchildren of the people of Africa. They also have the right to have these resources right there in front of them, to honor the miracle of life, to honor their Africa, and to retain something uniquely African that all people will admire.

In an essay written on the Internet, one African wrote painfully about how today tens of millions of people in Africa think it is impossible for people and elephants to peacefully co-exist. But in Africa today, it is hard to find any harmonious relations between man and nature. Today farmers use intensive methods to raise more cattle faster, further straining declining land and water resources. Unable to use the land efficiently, man is rapidly altering the condition of the African environment. This is destroying ecological diversity and causing desertification, and is the ultimate source of the crisis between Africans and their elephants.

Besides the rapid growth in the population of Africa, with its concomitant tree-cutting and agricultural activities, the clearing being done by economic entities from Europe and America, the leading forces in CITES, are even more critical in the elephant's path to eradication.

A Taiwan couple who recently traveled in Malawi, accompanied by friends, toured a tea plantation there that is one-fourth as large of all of Taiwan. In the past, Africa was home to gazelles, elephants, and rhinoceroses, who provided local people with protein. Today, imported cattle, sheep, and horses occupy the land.

Conservation? Or cattle?

These problems already existed even before the ivory ban was imposed six years ago. But the international community has put the focus on ivory and poaching, and aimed at disadvantaged groups. They have done nothing to change land-use patterns in Africa. Elephants can only procreate and survive inside fenced-in protected zones, ultimately coming to be seen as "pests." The result of this so-called conservation of elephants is birth control and culling. Is this what elephant conservation has come to?

It isn't practical to hope that elephant herds in Africa can return to historical levels, says the report "Four Years After the CITES Ban." Lost nature cannot be restored. But maybe we can do more than just view the images in documentaries showing awesome elephants washing themselves in rivers on the rich African plain. Maybe, paraphrasing the report's conclusion, the situation of the African elephant can cause us to think on the question of what the relationship between man and other life forms should be.

p.88

(above) The storage facility for confiscated elephant ivory belonging to Zimbabwe's national park service was visited by delegates to the CITES meeting held in that country. The ivory trade ban has created a problem of excessive ivory stores for several countries in South and East Africa. (photo courtesy of Vincent Chen)

(right) After the disasters of the last three centuries, elephants have found some peace in protected areas, and herds have grown. But outside of these areas, is there anyplace in Africa you can find an elephant? The photo is from a national park in Malawi.

p.90

"Please do not buy ivory!" declares a poster at Kaohsiung's Hsiaokang Airport. If international ivory trade is permitted again, will consumers buy or not? (photo by Vincent Chang)

p.91

Another case of ivory smuggling was uncovered at Keelung Harbor in September. Having seen how hard it is to stamp out illegal ivory trading, conservationists are worried that partial legalization of the ivory trade will become a cover for more smuggling. (photo courtesy of Su Chuan-huai)

p.92

(face page) When people take over primeval forest, animals lose their habitats, planting the seeds of friction between man and elephants.

p.93

(below) When CITES members voted on June 19 to lower the protected status of the African elephant, delighted delegates from many African countries applauded. (photo courtesy of Vincent Chen)

p.94

African countries wish to develop their resources to feed their people. International conservation groups, on the other hand, hope localities can be allowed to manage their own resources to achieve sustainable use. The combination of these two forces has allowed the lowering of the elephant's protected status to finally be achieved!

p.95

South African national parks complain: There are too many elephants! The baobab tree has been severely reduced in numbers due to damage inflicted by elephants.

p.97

South Africa's Kruger National Park has become a model nature preserve known worldwide. Yet, the very success of its efforts to protect the elephant means that now they must implement elephant "family planning"-birth control.

"Please do not buy ivory!" declares a poster at Kaohsiung's Hsiaokang Airport. If international ivory trade is permitted again, will consumers buy or not? （photo by Vincent Chang）

Another case of ivory smuggling was uncovered at Keelung Harbor in September. Having seen how hard it is to stamp out illegal ivory trading, conservationists are worried that partial legalization of the ivory trade will become a cover for more smuggling. （photo courtesy of Su Chuan-huai）

（face page） When people take over primeval forest, animals lose their habitats, planting the seeds of friction between man and elephants.

（below） When CITES members voted on June 19 to lower the protected status of the African elephant, delighted delegates from many African countries applauded. （photo courtesy of Vincent Chen）

African countries wish to develop their resources to feed their people. International conservation groups, on the other hand, hope localities can be allowed to manage their own resources to achieve sustainable use. The combination of these two forces has allowed the lowering of the elephant's protected status to finally be achieved!

South African national parks complain: There are too many elephants! The baobab tree has been severely reduced in numbers due to damage inflicted by elephants.

South Africa's Kruger National Park has become a model nature preserve known worldwide. Yet, the very success of its efforts to protect the elephant means that now they must implement elephant "family planning"--birth control.