TRAFFIC Responds to Blood Ivory: Ivory Worship

Following publication of the Blood Ivory/Ivory Worship story by Bryan Christy in National Geographic last October, Steven Broad of TRAFFIC wrote the following letter. Owing to space constraints in the magazine, it was impossible to publish Mr. Broad’s letter and Mr. Christy’s response in full. In the interests of furthering the discussion about the illegal elephant ivory trade, we’re posting the correspondence here.

Dear Sir,

“Blood Ivory” by Bryan Christy (National Geographic Magazine, October 2012) amplifies two major conclusions of the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS): the illicit ivory trade is escalating and that China is the main driver. But the article gives the false impression that this ivory trade monitoring tool, operated by TRAFFIC on behalf of Parties to CITES, is a problem, rather than a solution. Indeed, for more than 20 years ETIS has helped illuminate the murky world of illegal ivory trafficking. Even the key statement in the opening paragraph—seizures of illegal ivory are at their highest level in years—is made possible thanks to the long-term, evidence-based analysis of ETIS.

Regrettably, the writer fundamentally misunderstands the design and analytical methods of ETIS. With seizure data, “what you see is what you get”, he seems to argue, not appreciating that the rigorous analysis to adjust for inherent bias allows us to “see through the raw data” and produce a robust contemporary portrait of the illegal trade. Further the writer implies that if a country does not provide ivory data, they duck notice or, alternatively, if they make lots of little seizures, they also get a reprieve. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In 2002, ETIS first identified China as the main driver of the illegal ivory trade—at a time when the world’s focus was still on Japan, and the number of ivory seizures involving China within the database stood at just 17 records. The article focuses on the Philippines, Thailand and China, all countries first indentified as significant players in the global ivory trade thanks to analysis from ETIS. Thailand, for example, has consistently rated as one of the top offenders where illegal ivory trade is permitted to flourish. Inexplicably, the article considers TRAFFIC’s advice to Thailand to take law enforcement action against the country’s retail ivory market as simply a move to “game ETIS” rather than deliver a blow to illegal trade in ivory.

ETIS indications of a declining illegal ivory trade trend following a legal ivory sale under CITES between three African countries and Japan in 1999 was backed up by analysis of thousands of seizure records. The article disputes these statistical findings, instead choosing to believe unspecified reports by unnamed NGOs, which claimed ivory trade had risen immediately following the sale, despite scant evidence to back up these claims.

And finally, to correct an error in your article, TRAFFIC’s Tom Milliken did not “remain” in the room when NGOs were expelled from the CITES Standing Committee meeting in August 2011.

TRAFFIC, like the writer of this article, remains deeply concerned at the current rising levels of illegal ivory trade and the associated poaching of elephants. It is a situation that demands global action, but action that should be guided by analysis of the many years of ivory trade monitoring data accumulated within ETIS.

Yours Faithfully,

Steven Broad

Executive Director, TRAFFIC International


Bryan Christy’s response:

The ETIS program run by TRAFFIC is one important tool for understanding the illegal ivory trade. However, it is not “a solution,” and overreliance on its results, especially in the case of the Japan Experiment and the question whether ivory sales cause ivory trafficking, has proved disastrous for elephants, as we detail in our story. Even China said illegal trade went up after the Japan sale, a point rejected by ETIS. [In March of this year TRAFFIC issued its latest ETIS report, concluding that illicit ivory trade for the period 1997 to 2007 did not decline, but rather “the salient pattern is really one showing relative stability.”]

As for whether ETIS Director Tom Milliken “remained” in the room when other NGOs were expelled from an important CITES ivory discussion in 2011, Mr. Milliken did initially leave the room with other NGOs, but he was then asked to return “to deliver his latest ETIS results” while other NGOs waited outside.



Oliver Payne is articles editor at National Geographic.
  • Malcolm Ryen

    Well this in the link below is a map that WWF has elaborated I imagine using Traffic and Etis data since Traffic is an extension of WWF


    The map shows China is yellow and not red, something is wrong.. The transit countries come out to be red, because that is where the ivory is caught, but the real destinations, where they seize very little, they come out almost clean..

    So I think this is an example on how these data need to be considered as numbers only, if they are not properly put in to the contest, numbers alone do not give the real picture..

    Tanzania is loosing 10,000 elephants a year and it is also yellow!! It is considered that in 2011 Africa lost 25-30,000 elephants by Traffic and Tanzania contributed more then 30% and it’s yellow??
    We, Tanzania, have lost around 50% of our elephants, approximately 50,000 in only 6 years and we are yellow?? Well then to become red what else do you have to do?

    But at the end of the day, when one see this map, thinks that Laos is much worse then China and Zambia much worse then Tanzania, so we need to review and re-elaborate the information available if we want to give a realistic picture of the situation

  • Malcolm Ryen

    I would also like to comment on two issues:
    1) In 1997 the NGO i was working at the time put 5 GPS radio-collars on 5 elephants in Tarangire N.P. Poaching had not been an issue in the past 7-8 year in the park. Within 6 months, the 2 elephants collared in the southern part of the park, where no tourist ever go, were poached. It is not a big sample obviously to connect the 1997 one off sale to Japan to increase in poaching, though it is undoubted that poaching started again from 1997 and soared to incredible proportion from 2006-7 onward once China was allowed as a buyer. Around 2005-6 it was big in the southern part of Selous G.R. and by 2008-9 it arrived up in the north, where the photographic area is. With an incredible peak in 2009, just before Tanzania was requesting in 2010 to sell its stock pile of ivory, that luckily was rejected by the international community for one vote, but not thanks to Cites itself that through its report from the panel of expert, incredibly, considering what was written in the report itself, concluded that Tanzania should have been allowed to sell. Carcasses were all over the photographic area, you would hear guns shot near tourist camps with the results that in 2013 elephants have become a lucky sightings.. From 2006 to 2013 we have lost 40 to 50,000 elephants in the Selous alone, around 70% of the population.
    2) I understand the need to use official data, though they are not always real, often inflated or manipulated in order to fit the general purpose of a country. The 2009 official data for the counts of elephants in Selous were rejected by the international community (but published by WWF), but only because they were so evidently inflated (population growth of 25% and carcass ration increased 3 times…). How many previous official data should have also been rejected?
    Unfortunately there is a lot of politics and money involved and the reality is too often concealed using the right numbers..

About the Blog

Researchers, conservationists, and others share stories, insights and ideas about Our Changing Planet, Wildlife & Wild Spaces, and The Human Journey. More than 50,000 comments have been added to 10,000 posts. Explore the list alongside to dive deeper into some of the most popular categories of the National Geographic Society’s conversation platform Voices.

Opinions are those of the blogger and/or the blogger’s organization, and not necessarily those of the National Geographic Society. Posters of blogs and comments are required to observe National Geographic’s community rules and other terms of service.

Voices director: David Braun (dbraun@ngs.org)

Social Media