5 October 2013 | NewScientist | 27

Comment on these stories at newscientist.com/opinion

What is the purpose of the ivory crush? Increasing demand for ivory is driving uncontrolled elephant poaching. We intend to crush about 25 years’ worth of ivory, confiscated by our law enforcement agents. By destroying it in this public way, we’re sending a clear message to criminals who engage in trafficking and poaching that the US government takes the issue of illegal ivory trade very seriously.

How significant a threat does this illegal trade pose for elephants? There are several reasons why elephants are having problems. Bushmeat was the driving force behind poaching in central Africa for a couple of decades. Then increasing demand from rising economies in Asia began driving this recent increase in poaching for ivory. Now, the ivory trade is by far the number one problem. Bushmeat is number two, followed by habitat loss due to conflict between human and elephant interests.

Why not flood the market with legalised ivory to satiate demand? We feel that is absolutely not the way to go. To

A crush on ivory

begin with, demand is frequently stimulated by availability. Also, in principle a legal trade makes sense, but in reality it creates a smokescreen for laundering illegal ivory. When people see a logo or statement that it was legally acquired, they don’t dig very deeply for the details used to determine that. Finally, a simpler reason is that the demand is so high right now that there are not enough elephants left in the world to produce enough legally acquired ivory to satisfy the market.

What is the value of those 6 tonnes? That depends on the type of ivory. We’re mainly talking about African elephant ivory because Asian elephant ivory is very rare. African savannah elephants produce somewhat softer, yellow ivory. African forest elephants’ ivory is pink, harder, straighter, and much more highly prized for carving and aesthetic beauty. The type, quality, thickness and length all play into determining its value. That said, reports indicate that ivory runs between $1000 to $2000 per kilogram.

Other countries have destroyed their ivory stockpiles. Did they inspire action by the US? Some countries with large amounts of ivory frankly have a problem storing it, because it can be stolen and it takes up a lot of space. But mostly, destroying it is more about making a statement, and in that sense our motivations are very similar. Last year, Gabon burned and crushed a bunch of ivory, and Kenya has done it on two occasions. We’re taking a slightly higher tech approach but with the same end in mind.

How will the ivory be crushed, and what will happen to it afterward? We’re using a stone crusher to reduce it to shards less than a quarter of an inch in size, which will render it commercially useless. Then, it will go back to storage as we’re still deciding what to do with it. It could be interesting to get suggestions from the public. Perhaps it might make a good aggregate for concrete, bricks or statues that could be embossed with a conservation message. Interview by Rachel Nuwer

Biologist Richard Ruggiero explains how plans to destroy 6 tonnes of illegal ivory will deter poachers and traffickers

USF

WS

PrOfileRichard Ruggiero is chief of the Africa branch at the US Fish and Wildlife Service and has worked with elephants and ivory for more than 30 years. He is an advocate for the illegal-ivory crush, scheduled for 8 October

One minuTe inTervieWpossible modifications.The Dutch ruling is likely to

be appealed to the European Court of Justice. That won’t just mean correcting some lawyer’s poor grasp of biology. The Dutch court’s full decision shows the underlying issue has not been resolved. Fouchier’s paper could permit production of H5N1 “as a weapon”, it says, while researchers cannot self-regulate: the stakes are too high, and the conflicts are obvious.

Indeed: some researchers can go too far. Such research is already subject to stringent safety rules. Countries could improve that, and do more precautionary risk-benefit assessments.

But governments must concede that bioterrorism has happened rarely, if ever – while the threat of natural pathogens is real. We need this research. Can we not address these risks without handing control of its publication to non-scientists whose instincts are to suppress everything?

That same EU law bans the export of precursors for chemical weapons. Even so, the UK exported 4150 kilograms of precursor for the nerve gas sarin to Syria after 2004. The UK says it wasn’t used for sarin. We shall see: chemical weapons treaty inspectors are heading for Syria.

There is also a treaty banning biological weapons. It was supposed to have verification and inspectors too, but that was torpedoed by US ideologues in 2001. Could that idea not be resurrected to impede work on bioweapons without killing research?

The Dutch court was trying to keep the world safe. But it inadvertently put us at greater risk, by hampering the one real defence we have against diseases and bioweapons: research. That research is itself sometimes scary, and we need to control it. But we also need to do it. n

Debora MacKenzie is European correspondent for New Scientist