World's nations agree elephant ivory markets must close
Source: The Guardian
Legal ivory markets across the globe must be urgently closed in order to combat the elephant poaching crisis, according to an agreement struck by 182 nations on Sunday.
The decision is significant in intensifying the pressure on countries that still host such markets, which conservationists say provide cover for criminals to launder illegal ivory.
The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), gathered this week in Johannesburg, agreed for the first time in its history that national ivory markets should be closed rather than regulated. All international trade in ivory is banned but many countries allow antique and other ivory pieces to be bought and sold domestically.
Domestic ivory markets are a highly controversial issue, but the Cites nations agreed unanimously that every country should take all necessary legislative, regulatory and enforcement measures to close their domestic markets for commercial trade in raw and worked ivory as a matter of urgency.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/02/worlds-nations-agree-elephant-ivory-markets-must-close
Damian Carrington, Johannesburg
Sunday 2 October 2016 20.00 BST
ailsagirl
(22,897 posts)turbinetree
(24,703 posts)Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)I hope Monday's meetings don't allow the African nations that want to sell their seized ivory to do so...
China and the US are the largest markets, to my everlasting grief, shame and horror.
flvegan
(64,409 posts)It would be a huge, sad loss for the families of elephant poachers if those animals had the same.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)This could end the so-called "legal" sale of ivory. There will still be demand, and for enough money, there will be supply.
Does this mean I can't sell that piano I inherited from the grandparents?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Does this mean I can't sell that piano I inherited from the grandparents?"
Most likely means you simply need to read the relevant law.
There will still be demand, and for enough money, there will be supply."
Has anyone argued otherwise against this inane comment?