153
FIG. 1 (left): Horizontal
trumpet (detail of fi nial).
Bafo, Cameroon.
19th century.
Ivory. L: 24 cm.
Ex Josef Mueller.
Fundación la Fontana,
inv. FI.2006.01.11.
© Archivos Fundación la Fontana.
Below, left to right
FIG. 2: Whistle. Pende,
DR Congo. 19th century.
Ivory. L: 10.5 cm.
Fundación la Fontana,
inv. FI.2013.01.01.
© Archivos Fundación la Fontana.
FIG. 3: Group of Hungana
pendants from DR Congo
in the storage of the Musée
Royal de l’Afrique Centrale
in Tervuren, Belgium.
FIG. 4: Worn pendant.
Hungana, DR Congo.
FIG. 5: Bracelet (detail).
Mossi, Burkina Faso.
FIG. 6: Ornament. Dinka,
Sudan.
Figs. 4–6: Private collection.
Figs. 3–6: Photos by A. Arthur.
lating appetites and demand, and it inevitably
ultimately fails. Only a targeted ban on the
modern ivory trade coupled with an implacable
fi ght against poachers and contraband
runners can ensure the protection of endangered
species. Again, the objection might be
raised that it is easier to ban everything and
that the politics of protection require measures
that are sadly lacking in Africa. Yet in
April 2016, Kenya destroyed its entire stock
of ivory—105 tons of it—and there is apparently
only 600 tons left in all the other African
nations combined. This was a providential
godsend that literally went up in smoke.
Sold under appropriately strict conditions, it
could have been used as an effective countermeasure
against illegal and deadly traffi cking.
Some propose legalizing and regulating the
ivory trade, but given the pachyderms’ slow
rate of growth, this is not a realistic option.
The measures needed to deal with the current
problem must be taken more rapidly.
ivory in the European Union had been strictly
regulated since January 18, 1990, the date the
African elephant appeared on the CITES Appendix
I roster, which lists the most endangered
animal and vegetal species. In Europe, trade
was already limited to objects made before
1947 and considered antique or to raw ivory
that entered the European Union before 1990.
Statistics on poaching show that these legislative
efforts fail to address the true causes and
are completely ineffective. The reason for this
is obvious: The market for antiques is completely
unconnected to the phenomenon of elephant
and rhinoceros poaching. The true cause
is discussed less than it should be: nowadays
Asia, and particularly China, are the destinations
and markets for most contraband ivory
and horn, and they are used there both for the
manufacture of modern “artistic” creations as
well as for traditional medicine. This is a clearly
identifi able market and its supply networks
are what need to be addressed. Some awareness
of this is apparently taking hold in China since
Beijing just announced in December of 2016
that the sale and transformation of ivory into
new objects would be entirely banned in China
by the end of 2017.
Supporters of a total ban will probably object
that without blanket worldwide interdiction
in the ivory trade without regard for its
state as raw material or manufactured items,
whatever their age, contraband trade and illicit
networks will continue to exist in order to
feed parallel markets. These arguments fail to
recall that this extreme position of total prohibition
has historically resulted only in stimu-
For the antique trade, there is now relief and
some uncertainties have been cleared up, but
the “simple declarations” will undoubtedly
lead to administrative diffi culties. Nonetheless,
the worst appears to have been nullifi ed.
The position taken by the Minister of Ecology
in April of 2016, when he announced in tandem
with the great ceremony of ivory destruction
in Nairobi that France would soon ban
“any and all trade in ivory on its territory”
thanks to a measure that was to have come
into force on August 16, 2016, has thankfully
been modifi ed and amended by the legislation
of May 4, 2017.