The ivory trade ban: NGOs and international conservation

2013 ◽  
pp. 135-173
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 230-230
Author(s):  
Carol M. Stockton
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 2767-2775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Achyut Aryal ◽  
Craig G. Morley ◽  
Ian G. McLean
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. e00486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuehong Zhou ◽  
Qiang Wang ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Yu Jin ◽  
Zhen Wang ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 40-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret E. Sims ◽  
Barry W. Baker ◽  
Robert M. Hoesch

Bone carvings (and other ivory substitutes) are common in the modern-day lucrative international ivory trade.  Souvenirs for unknowing travelers and market shoppers can be made of non-biological material (plastic "ivory" beads) or skillfully crafted natural objects made to resemble something other than their true origin.  Many of these items are received at the U. S. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory (NFWFL) for species identification as part of law enforcement investigations.  Morphologists at the Lab often receive uniquely carved ivory items that have been imported with little or no documentation.  In recent years, analysts examined several purported ivory tusks suspected to be walrus, a protected marine mammal.  After examination, the Lab determined their origin as carved leg bones of cattle using principles and methods of zooarchaeology and ancient DNA analysis.  The naturally long and straight ungulate metapodials had been cut, carved, filled, stained, and polished to closely resemble unmodified ivory tusks.  Morphological species identification of these bones proved to be a challenge since diagnostic characters of the bones had been altered and country of origin was unknown. Genetic analysis showed that the bones originated from cattle.  While bone is commonly used as a substitute for ivory, this style of artifact was not previously documented in the wildlife trade prior to our analysis.  Archaeological ethnobiologists commonly encounter bone tools and other forms of material culture from prehistoric and historic contexts; in this case bone tools come from a modern context, thus the application of methods common in zooarchaeology are situated in wildlife forensics.  In addition, results reported here pertain to cross-cultural ivory trade and conservation science.


2019 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 1389-1402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Gamso

Abstract China has been a major market for elephant ivory for centuries. However, the Chinese government recently enacted bans on imports and exports of ivory (2015) and on the domestic ivory trade (2017). These bans appear to have come in response to intensive influence campaigns and public shaming from domestic and foreign activists, who cited declining elephant populations and highlighted China's role. However, this shaming-narrative is at odds with conventional wisdom regarding Chinese policy-making: China typically resists international pressures and its authoritarian government is thought to be largely insulated from domestic efforts by civil society groups. This article reconciles Beijing's ivory policy with these conventional beliefs about policy-making in China. I argue that the Chinese government saw unique benefits to banning the ivory trade, under growing international scrutiny, as doing so enhanced Chinese soft power while having very little impact on its sovereignty or development. Non-government organizations (NGOs) operating both inside and outside of China played a role as well: NGOs in China helped to shift Chinese public opinion towards favouring the bans, while those operating abroad led public relations efforts to publicize Chinese demand for ivory to foreign audiences. Efforts by the latter group of NGOs intensified pressure on the Chinese government to rein in the ivory market, while increasing the soft power benefits that banning ivory would bring to Beijing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document