This article examines some of the arguments for and against destroying ivory as part of the wider global strategy to save African elephants.



When Kenya became the first country to destroy ivory stockpiles by burning them in 1989, it was a hugely symbolic act that inspired the global ban in ivory trade the following year. This demonstration of commitment by an African nation played a key role in galvanising largely successful efforts to control elephant poaching over the next decade.



Now that elephants are once again threatened, William’s initiative – if carried out – could help focus the world’s attention on the problem in a similar way. The sight of arguably the world’s most famous family destroying its ivory collection would have a tremendous impact.



Two arguments have been made against the idea. The first objection is that it would be wrong to destroy works of art that are of beauty and cultural value. However, in emergency situations, it is often necessary to destroy things of value in order to achieve a more important objective: the surgeon amputates a diseased limb to save the patient; fire fighters cut down trees to contain a forest fire; nature reserve managers cull a species that is threatening the integrity of the ecosystem. Make no mistake: this is also an emergency. Within a few years, African elephants may well be all but extinct in the wild if no effective action is taken. So this first argument against destroying ivory only holds water if you believe that ivory artworks are more important than elephants. But by destroying works of art you are not destroying the culture that made them, nor the living cultural tradition that they inspire. If the African elephant becomes extinct it will be gone forever: the ecological, cultural, economic – and moral – loss to humanity would be incalculable.



The second argument is that destroying ivory would not help to save the elephants. This argument has to be taken seriously. The fact is that the complexity of the problem makes it hard to know whether any one action taken to resolve it will have the desired effect or not. Development agencies working to save human populations threatened by war and famine describe these situations as “complex emergencies”. They are complex because war, crime, hunger, disease and many other factors interact with each other in often unpredictable ways. This means that agencies have to take difficult decisions in conditions that are highly uncertain. They cannot always be sure, for example, that aid sent in to feed the hungry will not end up being used to buy arms.



The situation of animals threatened by wildlife crime in Africa today is also a complex emergency. The only difference is that the principal victims are not humans but animals. (Although there are also human victims, just as the environment is also a victim in human complex emergencies.) So there is a legitimate concern that destroying ivory will not have the desired effect, but rather serve to increase its value to criminals and thereby make poaching even more lucrative. It is true that our knowledge of what is driving the increased demand for ivory, especially from China, is insufficient. But the recent studies suggest that this fear is unfounded. The demand comes mainly from the “tuhao”, the wealthy middle class who are buying ivory as a long-term investment, just as they are also buying up huge quantities of gold.



Two young girls display placards against the ivory trade in front of a Chinese Art and Craft shop - a Chinese state owned business - displaying ivory items in Hong Kong. Photograph: Phillippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images Photograph: Phillippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images

Investors in China and elsewhere have to be persuaded that buying ivory is, firstly, morally wrong and, secondly, a bad investment. Prince William’s proposal would contribute to both of these aims. According to best-selling Kenyan author and environmentalist Kuki Gallman:

If to make ivory undesirable by putting a stigma on possessing and exhibiting ivory objects - however refined and precious they may be - is the ultimate aim, so as to stop the market that drives the killing, I cannot think of more powerful a gesture than destroying the royal ivory collection.

In the medium term the aim should be to shut down the ivory market completely, so that it becomes impossible to buy or sell ivory legally anywhere in the world. To deter would-be investors, it is essential to send a clear signal that the ban on ivory trade is forever; which is why it is so important that countries like Tanzania and Botswana that have announced temporary bans on ivory trade extend them and make them permanent. This measure would not deter organise criminals of course, but it would discourage otherwise law-abiding citizens from investing their savings in ivory and result in a huge decrease in global demand.



So bring on the bonfire of royal ivory in front of Buckingham Palace. Better still, why not give other UK institutions and ordinary citizens the chance to demonstrate their support by adding their own ivory to the pyre?