Mammoth tusks being snapped up in China

Steve Connor

The Independent

LONDON: Thousands of prehistoric mammoth tusks are being dug out of the melting permafrost of the Arctic. They are then shipped to China for the ivory-carving industry, causing some scientists to question whether this perfectly legal trade should be banned.

Evidence has also emerged that some Chinese ivory traders are passing off illegal elephant tusks as mammoth ivory to evade export controls.

One palaeontologist has suggested that the mammoth should be listed under the convention on international trade in endangered species (Cites) – even though the species is already extinct – to help save the African elephant. The growth of the trade in mammoth ivory has been nothing short of explosive in recent years. Tusks imported into Hong Kong alone have risen more than threefold, from nine tons a year in the early 2000s to an average of 31 tons a year from 2007 to 2013.

Wholesale prices for premium grade mammoth ivory, known as “ice”, have soared from about $350 (R4 534) per kilogram in 2010 to about $1 900/kg in 2014.

About 80 percent of the mammoth ivory is sold in Beijing and Shanghai; the emerging Chinese middle class is eager to buy ivory jewellery, ornaments and polished tusks. Some ivory experts have welcomed the trade in mammoth ivory, arguing that it takes the pressure off a living endangered species. However, others believe that it only encourages elephant poaching in Africa.

“There’s an argument to be had that the trade in mammoth ivory should be banned,” said Professor Adrian Lister, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London. “If we want to shut the door on the poaching of elephants, it may be necessary to shut down the trade in mammoth tusks, as it keeps up the demand for ivory.

“There is clear evidence that elephant ivory is being laundered as mammoth ivory, which is why we should think about banning the lot. This is why I’ve suggested, rather provocatively, that the mammoth should be listed under Cites, to stop the international trade in its ivory.”

A report last year commissioned by the Save the Elephants charity found that some ivory traders in China are using the legal sale of mammoth ivory as a cover for selling elephant ivory.

Some ivory traders were caught staining elephant ivory to make it look like mammoth ivory.

Although it is possible to distinguish one from the other by eye, this can only be done if the ivory is cut in clean cross-section. DNA tests and radiocarbon testing are too expensive and time-consuming to be undertaken routinely, the report says.

The melting permafrost of Alaska, Canada and especially Siberia, combined with the high prices mammoth ivory now commands in China, is fuelling an “ivory rush” in the Arctic region. In Alaska and Canada’s neighbouring Yukon, gold miners dig out the tusks of mammoth carcasses frozen underground for thousands of years, while in Russia most of the collecting is carried out by desperate indigenous Siberians.

More than half of the world’s exports of mammoth tusks are from Russia to Hong Kong, where 93.5 percent of mammoth ivory comes from Siberia. Export rules in Russia on mammoth ivory state that partial tusks are legal while whole tusks need a special permit.

This has led to the practice of cutting whole mammoth tusks into smaller pieces to evade export restrictions, according to Dick Mol, an amateur palaeontologist based in the Netherlands who is a recognised authority on mammoths.

Mol was once in favour of a ban on mammoth ivory, partly because of the fear that many priceless prehistoric objects were being destroyed. However, he has now changed his mind having seen how some collectors, especially in Alaska, go out of their way to consult academics about their new finds, to the benefit of scientific research.

“I had the idea years ago of writing to Cites to put the mammoth on its lists, but it said no, it’s already extinct,” he said. “Elephants are already protected under Cites, but it seems it is not helping them too much. If we banned mammoth ivory, the co-operation with the collectors would end.”

Lucy Vigne, an ivory researcher based in Nairobi, Kenya, and who co-authored the “Save the Elephants” report, said that the jury was out on whether the trade in mammoth ivory was a help or a hindrance in the attempts to stop elephant poaching.

“There is no scientific evidence yet published on whether the mammoth ivory trade has a negative effect on elephants or a positive effect,” she said. “This ought to be looked into in greater depth before a ban is suggested. Some buy mammoth ivory as it is legal, but it can act as a cover for elephant ivory and vice versa – except for full tusks.”

Esmond Martin, an independent researcher who co-authored the same report on the Chinese ivory trade, said that banning mammoth ivory would not solve the elephant crisis.

“I’d be very wary of bringing in legislation,” he said. “Consumers who are prevented from buying mammoth ivory may end up buying elephant ivory.”